4 ms·

“There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles.” Sometimes I wonder how much INTENTIONAL engineerin

“There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles.” Sometimes I wonder how much INTENTIONAL engineering people's discontent for good or ill happens across the spectrum of human activity. One thing is for sure, people don't talk about it much. I can think of many examples.

HPsquared 10mo ago
Nobody would work if housing and food were super cheap, for instance.
- nkrisc 10mo ago
  There’s an equilibrium. If no one worked, housing and food would not be super cheap.
- kingkawn 10mo ago
  Or people would do things they were genuinely interested in rather than from desperation
- I-M-S 10mo ago
  Saving the economy by turning water into a luxury item. The op-eds basically write themselves.
  - robocat 10mo ago
    Your cynicism is too close to the truth. Liquid Death, CocaCola branded water, and household water filtration are unbelievable luxuries. Manufactured status for the masses. And my examines are truly luxuries: they are unnecessary for drinking water in developed countries. Pools and green lawns have higher status when water is more expensive/scarcer. I don't hang out with extremely high-status people, or the extremely wealthy, but I'm sure both of those groups have some surprisingly luxury water. Luxury is a human concept that is completely disconnected from the underlying product. Provenance, Branding, Myth, Environmental, Science all matter for status.
- toomuchtodo 10mo ago
  There are overwhelming examples of people who continue to work when all of their basic needs are met. Some work because they love to, some work because they have to; we, collectively, should be trying as hard as possible to make work optional (automation, etc), because the point of life is to live, not to work. Some combination of Abundance [1], Solarpunk [2], etc. The entire planet will eventually be in population decline [3] (with most of the world already below fertility replacement rate), so optimizing for endless growth is unnecessary. So keep spinning up flywheels towards these ends if we want to optimize for the human experience, art, creativity, and innovation (to distribute opportunity to parity with talent). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_(Klein_and_Thompson_book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_(Klein_and_Thompson_... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/12/supply-boom-in-cheaper-renewables-will-seal-end-of-fossil-fuel-era-says-iea https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/12/supply-b... [3] https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf (think in systems)
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 10mo ago
    > the point of life is to live, not to work I'd love to learn how you came to this definitive conclusion. At no point in human history have humans not worked (I'm sure there are some limited exceptions, none of which have been sustainable). Perhaps you meant to say the point of life is to survive, but you have to work to make that happen.
    - toomuchtodo 10mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Top_Five_Regrets_of_the_Dying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Top_Five_Regrets_of_the_Dy... https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson “Art is the proper task of life” -- Nietzsche "Art is to console those who are broken by life." -- Vincent van Gogh Broadly speaking, creation is the meaning of life, not work, although some creation could be considered work. Survival is table stakes to achieve self actualization and a chance at finding meaning and contributing to the commons during a lifetime.
    - 10mo ago
- greekrich92 10mo ago
  If people were broadly socialized for collaboration and collective good, people could and would achieve as much with many fewer hours of work, and with the many more hours available for personal creative pursuit and play. There is no innate human nature that prevents this, only a prevailing social order which reinforces individualism and competition at the expense of the many.
kbelder 10mo ago
The Fremen.

HPsquared 10mo ago

Nobody would work if housing and food were super cheap, for instance.

nkrisc 10mo ago
There’s an equilibrium. If no one worked, housing and food would not be super cheap.
kingkawn 10mo ago
Or people would do things they were genuinely interested in rather than from desperation
I-M-S 10mo ago
Saving the economy by turning water into a luxury item. The op-eds basically write themselves.
- robocat 10mo ago
  Your cynicism is too close to the truth. Liquid Death, CocaCola branded water, and household water filtration are unbelievable luxuries. Manufactured status for the masses. And my examines are truly luxuries: they are unnecessary for drinking water in developed countries. Pools and green lawns have higher status when water is more expensive/scarcer. I don't hang out with extremely high-status people, or the extremely wealthy, but I'm sure both of those groups have some surprisingly luxury water. Luxury is a human concept that is completely disconnected from the underlying product. Provenance, Branding, Myth, Environmental, Science all matter for status.
toomuchtodo 10mo ago
There are overwhelming examples of people who continue to work when all of their basic needs are met. Some work because they love to, some work because they have to; we, collectively, should be trying as hard as possible to make work optional (automation, etc), because the point of life is to live, not to work. Some combination of Abundance [1], Solarpunk [2], etc. The entire planet will eventually be in population decline [3] (with most of the world already below fertility replacement rate), so optimizing for endless growth is unnecessary. So keep spinning up flywheels towards these ends if we want to optimize for the human experience, art, creativity, and innovation (to distribute opportunity to parity with talent). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_(Klein_and_Thompson_book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_(Klein_and_Thompson_... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/12/supply-boom-in-cheaper-renewables-will-seal-end-of-fossil-fuel-era-says-iea https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/12/supply-b... [3] https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf (think in systems)
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 10mo ago
  > the point of life is to live, not to work I'd love to learn how you came to this definitive conclusion. At no point in human history have humans not worked (I'm sure there are some limited exceptions, none of which have been sustainable). Perhaps you meant to say the point of life is to survive, but you have to work to make that happen.
  - toomuchtodo 10mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Top_Five_Regrets_of_the_Dying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Top_Five_Regrets_of_the_Dy... https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson “Art is the proper task of life” -- Nietzsche "Art is to console those who are broken by life." -- Vincent van Gogh Broadly speaking, creation is the meaning of life, not work, although some creation could be considered work. Survival is table stakes to achieve self actualization and a chance at finding meaning and contributing to the commons during a lifetime.
  - 10mo ago
greekrich92 10mo ago
If people were broadly socialized for collaboration and collective good, people could and would achieve as much with many fewer hours of work, and with the many more hours available for personal creative pursuit and play. There is no innate human nature that prevents this, only a prevailing social order which reinforces individualism and competition at the expense of the many.

kbelder 10mo ago

The Fremen.