4 ms·

I hear this sentiment all the time--about what's really important and what our priorities should be, etc. But, there is something disingenuous about it. We hav

I hear this sentiment all the time--about what's really important and what our priorities should be, etc. But, there is something disingenuous about it. We have engineered a society wherein our very survival depends upon these "games" to which Mr. Buchheit has alluded. And, in his case he has the luxury of considering his economic endeavors to be games. It's certainly not his fault. I'm saying that we choose the society we want, and we have collectively decided that we will continue to allocate the world's resources--and, hence, our very subsistence--according to our successful participation in these "games". Well, enough (not really), but then, is it genuine to remind people that eating isn't as important as relationships? If we really believe that our economy diminishes our most important human needs and priorities, then shouldn't we instead be advocating for a new economy?

jamesrcole 11y ago
>we choose the society we want That's not really true. I don't think there's any meaningful sense in which anybody chose this society. We don't have that level of control.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  Then we should dispense with the admonitions about reducing our focus on "the game", work, etc. in order to focus on "what's truly important in life". Eating is important.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    That's why more and more people are pushing towards things like basic income and achieving self-sustaining technology levels. Because when basic sustenance is free to everyone and required maintenance work is minimized, one is free to focus on "truly important things in life" and do meaningful work, instead of engaging in bullshit jobs and "games" to earn the bread for oneself and their family.
    - unclebucknasty 11y ago
      I agree with your comments, including your assertion that basic income is an implementation of this sentiment. But, we aren't nearly there yet, even while we as a society nearly unanimously espouse that people are more important than work, etc. This is part of what I find to be disingenuous. And, many of those who argue against a BI would also agree with the notion that friends and family are more important than work. In any case, the current state of affairs is that we must eat to work (and feed those we love). In this context, admonishing people to prioritize people over work is disingenuous nearly cruel.
- noir-york 11y ago
  Oh yes we do! Every time we vote. Every society makes choices about what it values most. Values prized in Anglo-Saxon economy is freedom and individualism. Asians see it differently. Nordic and Mediterranean societies value social welfare. Take universal health care; what some see as 'communism' is to others the perfectly obvious logic that every human being deserves health care by virtue of being a human being, and not based on the size of their wallet.
  - jamesrcole 11y ago
    I think that's a ridiculous simplification.
    - noir-york 11y ago
      > I don't think there's any meaningful sense in which anybody chose this society. I just showed you how: the vote. Just because its simple does not make it ridiculous.
      - jamesrcole 11y ago
        Voting is the collective result of individual's votes. There's no sense in which it reflects an individual's choice. Nor is it like there's a singular "we" that has made a choice.
        unclebucknasty 11y ago
        We collectively like to say that what's really important is not work or "the game", but relationships, friends, family, etc. It's repeated so often that it's cliche, and if a person were to say that work was more important than family, we'd nearly unanimously frown upon it. And, we collectively vote and make other choices about our society. Broken as our democracy is, there is a significant portion of the electorate that expresses a will that seems incompatible with our supposed human priorities. BTW, we also decide, individually, what we will allow. The cost of our choices may be "high" (e.g. Snowden), but we choose nonetheless.
      - 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

jamesrcole 11y ago

>we choose the society we want That's not really true. I don't think there's any meaningful sense in which anybody chose this society. We don't have that level of control.

unclebucknasty 11y ago
Then we should dispense with the admonitions about reducing our focus on "the game", work, etc. in order to focus on "what's truly important in life". Eating is important.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  That's why more and more people are pushing towards things like basic income and achieving self-sustaining technology levels. Because when basic sustenance is free to everyone and required maintenance work is minimized, one is free to focus on "truly important things in life" and do meaningful work, instead of engaging in bullshit jobs and "games" to earn the bread for oneself and their family.
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    I agree with your comments, including your assertion that basic income is an implementation of this sentiment. But, we aren't nearly there yet, even while we as a society nearly unanimously espouse that people are more important than work, etc. This is part of what I find to be disingenuous. And, many of those who argue against a BI would also agree with the notion that friends and family are more important than work. In any case, the current state of affairs is that we must eat to work (and feed those we love). In this context, admonishing people to prioritize people over work is disingenuous nearly cruel.
noir-york 11y ago
Oh yes we do! Every time we vote. Every society makes choices about what it values most. Values prized in Anglo-Saxon economy is freedom and individualism. Asians see it differently. Nordic and Mediterranean societies value social welfare. Take universal health care; what some see as 'communism' is to others the perfectly obvious logic that every human being deserves health care by virtue of being a human being, and not based on the size of their wallet.
- jamesrcole 11y ago
  I think that's a ridiculous simplification.
  - noir-york 11y ago
    > I don't think there's any meaningful sense in which anybody chose this society. I just showed you how: the vote. Just because its simple does not make it ridiculous.
    - jamesrcole 11y ago
      Voting is the collective result of individual's votes. There's no sense in which it reflects an individual's choice. Nor is it like there's a singular "we" that has made a choice.
      - unclebucknasty 11y ago
        We collectively like to say that what's really important is not work or "the game", but relationships, friends, family, etc. It's repeated so often that it's cliche, and if a person were to say that work was more important than family, we'd nearly unanimously frown upon it. And, we collectively vote and make other choices about our society. Broken as our democracy is, there is a significant portion of the electorate that expresses a will that seems incompatible with our supposed human priorities. BTW, we also decide, individually, what we will allow. The cost of our choices may be "high" (e.g. Snowden), but we choose nonetheless.
    - 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]