> I would argue, though, that there's no value in this war of attrition. We have enough resources to give everyone a good life and autonomy over their work, and

> I would argue, though, that there's no value in this war of attrition. We have enough resources to give everyone a good life and autonomy over their work, and it's only getting better. Why do we set up these health-destroying tournaments of fools in the first place? Didn't the tournament of fools get us to the place where we can feed everyone? > If we need to pick leaders, it will happen naturally. If we don't, then why not have a looser arrangement where everyone has some autonomy? I am reminded of the tyranny of structureless. > some are very good people, if neurologically indistinguishable from murderers, because morality won't show up on an MRI This is implying a large amount of certainty about neuroscience knowledge that we simply do not have. > We have this fucked-up culture of "powering through" that malaise. When it's a hard biological issue (i.e. an infection or cancer or mental illness) it refuses to play by our rules. It's not going to go away by "downshifting" at work or when we get that reward for being the last one standing. It's imminently dangerous. But, in our culture of "power through it and get the prize", most people don't get the help they need until it's too late. I can agree here: our culture does a terrible job of helping people become emotionally adjusted individuals. I do really hate the phrase "hard biological issue" when used to describe mental illness though. It seems so defeatist, like telling someone they will never be a pro athlete or something. Even if it is true, my reaction will be the same: to continue trying.