6 ms·

This sounds like a first-world problem. How about we abolish hunger / fix our food distribution systems or ensure access to safe drinking water? Then we can dou

by glup 11y ago

This sounds like a first-world problem. How about we abolish hunger / fix our food distribution systems or ensure access to safe drinking water? Then we can double-back and end forced labor (the actual demand set forth in the article—somewhat weaker than the sensationalist title).

devloper 11y ago
How about we abolish hunger / fix our food distribution systems or ensure access to safe drinking water? That will only amplify the subj problem since so many useless people are employed by charities instead of being on welfare.
maccard 11y ago
The world isn't so black and white. We don't have to have everyone working on solving clean drinking water and nobody working to improve the quality of life for people in western countries. Consider the implications of most western people having more free time. If we had an extra billion people on the planet who didn't work full time but decided to dedicate some of their free time to trying o solve some of the issues you're advocating we spend our time on, that would be a net win wouldn't it?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  the problem is, most people on this planet (over 90% that's for sure) with current mentality wouldn't work for some mythical greater good when given more free time. they would be sitting in front of TV more, been drinking more etc. gotta love these theories for 12 year olds which work with these theoretical people units of some star trek era. Real people with hate, greed, massive egos, slacking around, not giving a franction of a fk what will happen to this world after them, and so on. mkay, so maybe not all deserve so much free time, because it would be spent entirely selfishly. who will decide who gets more and who less? heck, give me more free time, and I'll travel more, have more adventures in life. some greater general good ain't the priority here, more focused on closest people around me. what about coming up with some way to reward more challenging work more, reward more people who bring benefits seemed most worthy to community? and make this reward interchangeable so they can use their rewards to fulfill their needs and wishes? sounds slightly familiar... so please, if you come up with some shiny & chrome new theory how to solve everything and even more, just sit down a bit before, and think how can you change THIS world with REAL achievable steps into whatever fantasy world you dreamed today. as for me, this place is mkay. not perfect, but that was never the plan
  - mattmanser 11y ago
    The trouble with this sort of attitude is, ok, you've saved a million more people from dying a few years early. But for what? You're against people behaving 'selfishly' and improving the quality of their own life, you just want to increase the quantity of everyone else's life. What's so wrong with people living their own lives? When did the world suddenly become about extending everyone's lifespan? Why is quantity so much better than a personal definition of quality? If people get the most enjoyment out of watching TV or drinking, why are you allowed to judge them inferior?
  - Jedd 11y ago
    You're being down-voted rapidly, but your thinking (while a bit hairy in places) is doubtless representative of the popular initial and pre-contemplative reaction to such ideas. > the problem is, most people on this planet (over 90% that's for sure) with current mentality wouldn't work for some mythical greater good when given more free time. Facts not in evidence. Ie. can you substantiate your claim? What meaning does your 'work' have there, given the very careful definition of 'work' in the OP. > they would be sitting in front of TV more, been drinking more etc. Arguably absent new TV shows coming online, and rapid reduction of beer availability, they may get a few friends together and start generating entertainment, or brew their own beer, etc. > gotta love these theories for 12 year olds which work with these theoretical people units of some star trek era. Real people with hate, greed, massive egos, slacking around, not giving a franction of a fk what will happen to this world after them, and so on. This assertion reveals more about you than about the author of the original article. > mkay, so maybe not all deserve so much free time, because it would be spent entirely selfishly. who will decide who gets more and who less? Are you suggesting that you're happy with the way that it's currently decided? > heck, give me more free time, and I'll travel more, have more adventures in life. some greater general good ain't the priority here, more focused on closest people around me. An interesting claim. Have you had periods of your life, between jobs, after school / college, etc - where you were working less than at other times? I'm curious why you think that given more free time, you'd focus it on the people closest to you. I thought the evidence suggested that volunteerism rates go up, social circles expand, and so on. This actually makes more sense to me -- if I had less free time, then I'd, as you say, focus more on the people closest to me, at the expense of people I knew less well. > what about coming up with some way to reward more challenging work more, reward more people who bring benefits seemed most worthy to community? and make this reward interchangeable so they can use their rewards to fulfill their needs and wishes? sounds slightly familiar... Again I'm moved to ask if you're happy with the way that various societies currently identify and evaluate challenging work, or the 'most worthy to community' and then reward it. Are you proposing that the current system(s) are satisfactory for everyone, and/or that they're satisfactory for you, and/or should they be satisfactory for everyone (else)? The current system has led us to a point where there is a massive imbalance of wealth and resources - and with no sign that it'll be re-balanced any time soon. There's no evidence it's fair, and no reason to believe it's stable or a long-term tenable trend.

by glup 11y ago

devloper 11y ago

How about we abolish hunger / fix our food distribution systems or ensure access to safe drinking water? That will only amplify the subj problem since so many useless people are employed by charities instead of being on welfare.

maccard 11y ago

The world isn't so black and white. We don't have to have everyone working on solving clean drinking water and nobody working to improve the quality of life for people in western countries. Consider the implications of most western people having more free time. If we had an extra billion people on the planet who didn't work full time but decided to dedicate some of their free time to trying o solve some of the issues you're advocating we spend our time on, that would be a net win wouldn't it?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
saiya-jin 11y ago
the problem is, most people on this planet (over 90% that's for sure) with current mentality wouldn't work for some mythical greater good when given more free time. they would be sitting in front of TV more, been drinking more etc. gotta love these theories for 12 year olds which work with these theoretical people units of some star trek era. Real people with hate, greed, massive egos, slacking around, not giving a franction of a fk what will happen to this world after them, and so on. mkay, so maybe not all deserve so much free time, because it would be spent entirely selfishly. who will decide who gets more and who less? heck, give me more free time, and I'll travel more, have more adventures in life. some greater general good ain't the priority here, more focused on closest people around me. what about coming up with some way to reward more challenging work more, reward more people who bring benefits seemed most worthy to community? and make this reward interchangeable so they can use their rewards to fulfill their needs and wishes? sounds slightly familiar... so please, if you come up with some shiny & chrome new theory how to solve everything and even more, just sit down a bit before, and think how can you change THIS world with REAL achievable steps into whatever fantasy world you dreamed today. as for me, this place is mkay. not perfect, but that was never the plan
- mattmanser 11y ago
  The trouble with this sort of attitude is, ok, you've saved a million more people from dying a few years early. But for what? You're against people behaving 'selfishly' and improving the quality of their own life, you just want to increase the quantity of everyone else's life. What's so wrong with people living their own lives? When did the world suddenly become about extending everyone's lifespan? Why is quantity so much better than a personal definition of quality? If people get the most enjoyment out of watching TV or drinking, why are you allowed to judge them inferior?
- Jedd 11y ago
  You're being down-voted rapidly, but your thinking (while a bit hairy in places) is doubtless representative of the popular initial and pre-contemplative reaction to such ideas. > the problem is, most people on this planet (over 90% that's for sure) with current mentality wouldn't work for some mythical greater good when given more free time. Facts not in evidence. Ie. can you substantiate your claim? What meaning does your 'work' have there, given the very careful definition of 'work' in the OP. > they would be sitting in front of TV more, been drinking more etc. Arguably absent new TV shows coming online, and rapid reduction of beer availability, they may get a few friends together and start generating entertainment, or brew their own beer, etc. > gotta love these theories for 12 year olds which work with these theoretical people units of some star trek era. Real people with hate, greed, massive egos, slacking around, not giving a franction of a fk what will happen to this world after them, and so on. This assertion reveals more about you than about the author of the original article. > mkay, so maybe not all deserve so much free time, because it would be spent entirely selfishly. who will decide who gets more and who less? Are you suggesting that you're happy with the way that it's currently decided? > heck, give me more free time, and I'll travel more, have more adventures in life. some greater general good ain't the priority here, more focused on closest people around me. An interesting claim. Have you had periods of your life, between jobs, after school / college, etc - where you were working less than at other times? I'm curious why you think that given more free time, you'd focus it on the people closest to you. I thought the evidence suggested that volunteerism rates go up, social circles expand, and so on. This actually makes more sense to me -- if I had less free time, then I'd, as you say, focus more on the people closest to me, at the expense of people I knew less well. > what about coming up with some way to reward more challenging work more, reward more people who bring benefits seemed most worthy to community? and make this reward interchangeable so they can use their rewards to fulfill their needs and wishes? sounds slightly familiar... Again I'm moved to ask if you're happy with the way that various societies currently identify and evaluate challenging work, or the 'most worthy to community' and then reward it. Are you proposing that the current system(s) are satisfactory for everyone, and/or that they're satisfactory for you, and/or should they be satisfactory for everyone (else)? The current system has led us to a point where there is a massive imbalance of wealth and resources - and with no sign that it'll be re-balanced any time soon. There's no evidence it's fair, and no reason to believe it's stable or a long-term tenable trend.