3 ms·

It's not necessarily a fetish for manufacturing as much as it is an aversion towards the service economy which we didn't need so much in the past but now have t

by clarry 13y ago

It's not necessarily a fetish for manufacturing as much as it is an aversion towards the service economy which we didn't need so much in the past but now have to work in because we don't have much choice. It's either that or unemployment. If you feel we have the means to produce all the tangible things we need, but don't feel the need for all these services... it feels very artificial and forced. EDIT: To elaborate on my point, the article mentions the desire for meaningful work. I would guess in the past most physical objects are created to serve a very concrete, real human need. But many services seem to be about coming up with ways to convince people to part with their money, often just creating and then "servicing random desires." So such work might not feel very meaningful at all. Hence, having to work such a job in order to get money for the things we actually need (and are already capable of producing for everyone) feels very artificial. Of course this is not strictly a property of services. Today we also produce lots of gadgets and widgets and nonsense that aren't in any way relevant to our needs.

wdewind 13y ago
> Of course this is not strictly a property of services. Today we also produce lots of gadgets and widgets and nonsense that aren't in any way relevant to our needs. This is like the article that bitches about engineers making Snapchat instead of working on Healthcare.gov There is a massive implication in what you are saying and in that article that stuff like Snapchat is trivial and useless. People forget that being a human being is an emotional experience, and that while we require food, shelter etc., to live, in order to truly live we require much more. Snapchat, gadgets and widgets and nonsense? These are all crucial parts of human emotional existence.
- clarry 13y ago
  Were our ancestors' lives miserable because they didn't have Snapchat and gadgets? Now I have to admit to owning some gadgets myself, but few of these would I consider crucial to my existence, emotional or not. Very very few of them have any impact on my daily life. And if I could choose to have fewer gadgets but more free time (with less spent on doing things I consider meaningless), I would do so. It would be nicer still if the people around me could make the same choice. I would argue that our emotional existence could improve if it wasn't a necessity to sell it to each other. It's a cultural and social thing, something you can do in your free time.
  - wdewind 13y ago
    > Were our ancestors' lives miserable because they didn't have Snapchat and gadgets? Yes they were (as well as for many other reasons). Imagine a cancer patient hooked up to all the crucial life saving equipment that the engineers who did not choose "frivolity" in their careers built. What is that patient doing? They are on their iPhones, on twitter, on Snapchat etc. And these products are really really making a difference in their lives. In being able to not feel so isolated. Until you've seen something like this happen, it's very easy to dismiss these products as stupid cat picture networks. But sometimes cat picture networks really make people feel better, and that's kind of what it's all about. I just think people frequently criticize others' non-infrastructure work as "frivolous," forgetting that the point of infrastructure is to support a life that is fun and feels good.
  - SamReidHughes 13y ago
    Dude, two hundred years ago if somebody moved across the ocean, they were effectively dead to their family.

by clarry 13y ago

wdewind 13y ago

> Of course this is not strictly a property of services. Today we also produce lots of gadgets and widgets and nonsense that aren't in any way relevant to our needs. This is like the article that bitches about engineers making Snapchat instead of working on Healthcare.gov There is a massive implication in what you are saying and in that article that stuff like Snapchat is trivial and useless. People forget that being a human being is an emotional experience, and that while we require food, shelter etc., to live, in order to truly live we require much more. Snapchat, gadgets and widgets and nonsense? These are all crucial parts of human emotional existence.

clarry 13y ago
Were our ancestors' lives miserable because they didn't have Snapchat and gadgets? Now I have to admit to owning some gadgets myself, but few of these would I consider crucial to my existence, emotional or not. Very very few of them have any impact on my daily life. And if I could choose to have fewer gadgets but more free time (with less spent on doing things I consider meaningless), I would do so. It would be nicer still if the people around me could make the same choice. I would argue that our emotional existence could improve if it wasn't a necessity to sell it to each other. It's a cultural and social thing, something you can do in your free time.
- wdewind 13y ago
  > Were our ancestors' lives miserable because they didn't have Snapchat and gadgets? Yes they were (as well as for many other reasons). Imagine a cancer patient hooked up to all the crucial life saving equipment that the engineers who did not choose "frivolity" in their careers built. What is that patient doing? They are on their iPhones, on twitter, on Snapchat etc. And these products are really really making a difference in their lives. In being able to not feel so isolated. Until you've seen something like this happen, it's very easy to dismiss these products as stupid cat picture networks. But sometimes cat picture networks really make people feel better, and that's kind of what it's all about. I just think people frequently criticize others' non-infrastructure work as "frivolous," forgetting that the point of infrastructure is to support a life that is fun and feels good.
- SamReidHughes 13y ago
  Dude, two hundred years ago if somebody moved across the ocean, they were effectively dead to their family.