Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Philosophy of Work [pdf]

ucl.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 85 posts

Re: The Philosophy of Work [pdf]

#51

Post by WHA8m »

burntoutfire wrote: post #31
justalanm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, can I print money to get food? So, not free, it's just an illusion, at least for 99% of the people.

There's free food in garbage bins, if you don't want to work for it. There are people who exclusively feed from large stores' garbage, it's totally doable. Although perhaps some people would consider going to the store and getting the food from the trash "work", and will settle for nothing less than a daily instacart delivery.

You can do it and it is illegal in some countries. In Germany for example.

EDIT: Ok, so I fired the comment and thought about it more afterwards. What I said is true in most cases. If a store wants to take you to court, they definitely can. Question is, would they? In most cities (Germany), they lock the containers to prevent 'stealing' in the first place. What really puts me off - and aligns with the original discussion - is, that this system is definitely not set up for people to not work. Even so, that they say, eating other peoples trash is not okay. You HAVE to work.

Re: The Philosophy of Work [pdf]

#52

Post by beaconstudios »

burntoutfire wrote: post #21
rileyjshaw wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The managers tell us that the swimmers, crawlers, walkers, and fliers spent their lives working in order to eat. These managers are broadcasting their news too soon. The varied beings haven’t all been exterminated yet. You, reader, have only to mingle with them, or just watch them from a distance, to see that their waking lives are filled with dances, games, and feasts. Even the hunt, the stalking and feinting and l…

> The only beings who work are inmates like us. What about ants?

Ants are basically a hivemind right? Their individuality is subsumed to the colony. I don't know if ants even play, which I think is the basic requirement for individuality.

Re: The Philosophy of Work [pdf]

#53

Post by jstx1 »

joshgrib wrote: post #46
burntoutfire wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Work already is not mandatory. Anyone is free to figure out other ways to get food and shelter.

I think this is overlooking the main argument - having someone waste time by getting their own food/shelter isn't really any better than having them waste time doing a job to get money for food/shelter. We would likely be better off not wasting people's time and just giving them food/shelter so they are free to figure out how to best use that time

> having someone waste time by getting their own food/shelter isn't really any better than having them waste time doing a job to get money for food/shelter

The latter isn't waste on the whole - somebody is getting a service in return. Then there's a separate question of what the worker is getting (for work that is meaningful to them and for work that isn't); that's one of the topics of the original post.

Re: The Philosophy of Work [pdf]

#54

Post by giantg2 »

mlatu wrote: post #41
SuoDuanDao wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Currently we organise our Lords through capitalism. And that's how I want it. I may have a low chance of winning but nobody argues against my right to throw my hat in the ring if I want to rise above my station. Nobody but the anticapitalists that is.

That's what they want you to believe, but your hat needs to be at least THIS big in order to not just evaporate when it lands in the ring. Good luck playing against the house. I'd much rather demolish this casino and put up a soupkitchen instead. I'd rather have everyone fed, clothed, housed and medically taken care of than having a low chance of "winning". What do you win anyways? Can you hug your profits? Can they…

"I'd rather have everyone fed, clothed, housed and medically taken care of than having a low chance of "winning"."

I think this is creating a false dichotomy by implying that it's a foregone conclusion that a soup kitchen style of government would be able to support everyone.

"How can I enjoy a steak without thinking about whether or not this animal had a good life? It died so i may eat it, but why did it live in the first place? Just to be eaten?"

First, buy local from small producers. You can see how the animals live.

Are we not born to toil and die? Why should we be born? It seems we serve some minor purpose at best, under the control of some government, and then die thinking that we left some grand legacy simply for having children to continue on.

Re: The Philosophy of Work [pdf]

#55

Post by WHA8m »

janeroe wrote: post #23
justalanm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abolish "mandatory" work. Now you can keep working if you want to. It was easy.

Ironically, there's no mandatory work anywhere but in Communist paradises where by criminal code "parasitism" (not being enrolled to one of the organizations / skipping workdays without a valid reason) is prosecuted.

I wonder what made you write that reply. Nobody was talking about communism. No one said we should abolish what we have completely.

Edit: I see I'm getting down-voted. Same thread, different comment I say a bit more about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29934623

Re: The Philosophy of Work [pdf]

#56

Post by WHA8m »

throwawaythrow1 wrote: post #12
robobro wrote: post #11

Abolish work.

And replace it with? Perhaps we can create a system whereby one exchanges skills for products and services? But then how do we scale such a system... money might work, unless you're advocating for communism

No one said anything about replacing something. Fortunately our systems (assuming we're talking about the west) can evolve and change within, without throwing it off the boat. You can introduce public health care without abolishing capitalism. Same goes for paid maternity leave, supporting unions, etc. In my understanding we're having a political discussion here, not a theoretical one.

Re: The Philosophy of Work [pdf]

#57

Post by mlatu »

Infernal wrote: post #44
mlatu wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what they want you to believe, but your hat needs to be at least THIS big in order to not just evaporate when it lands in the ring. Good luck playing against the house. I'd much rather demolish this casino and put up a soupkitchen instead. I'd rather have everyone fed, clothed, housed and medically taken care of than having a low chance of "winning". What do you win anyways? Can you hug your profits? Can they…

> I'd rather have everyone fed, clothed, housed and medically taken care of than having a low chance of "winning" Where do you believe the food, clothing, housing, and medical care/technology will come from in this hypothetical?

Where do you believe the food, clothing, housing, and medical care/technology is coming from in the current world?

Same people, except in my hypothetical the workforce would be a tad bigger: Bezos, Musk and Gates, like the Kennedies, Rothschilds and Murdochs would (like everyone else on the planet) put in their own ~4 hours of daily work (4 out of 7 days should be plenty) towards feeding/clothing/housing/caring-for the People.

Who needs military if the whole world was one? All those poor souls "defending" your freedom? Would work the fields or whatever. Who needs newspapers that only print what their owner wants to be printed? Who needs X privately owned space programs if the whole world would profit the most from a single public one?

Yes, competition can drive innovation but we have arrived at a time where we innovate solely to: - dazzle others we call users into spending more of their precious time and money on our shit-websites... - improve surveilance tech - improve weaponry - improve schemes to extract value from our workforce

And competition by cooperation is by far better anyways than competition led by self-interest: If your idea is better than whatever is being already produced, since everyone is a worker and cooperating, there would be little to no friction to improve stuff. Actually, improvements would be shared freely rather than kept as a secret.

Money and Power are keeping us so busy we barely look up to see if what we are doing is hurting the planet... and thus have to go. And designs/blueprints/recipees and other similar (not art) intelectual property should be in some sort of commons.

I dont know about art, it's important, but how to reimburse for it? idk. but you cant ask for money in return, since it was already deprecated... so i guess it also goes into the commons, and rightfully so: we produce for everyone to enjoy.

Re: The Philosophy of Work [pdf]

#58

Post by neilwilson »

jokoon wrote: post #42
neilwilson wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Food and shelter are abundant." Only because somebody made them by working Monday to Friday. That somebody could make less by working Monday to Tuesday. Food and shelter would be less abundant and the person currently working a full week to produce the surplus would instead have the rest of the week to themselves. The productivity, and the free time, would accrue to those expending the effort of production - as mora…

Few people work to provide food and shelter, that's what I meant. We do have a magic porridge pot surplus. Just look around you.

"Few people work to provide food and shelter, that's what I meant."

And they could work less by not producing a surplus. Which is what I meant.

The can produce enough for themselves and their machine suppliers by Tuesday afternoon. And that's all the people they need to look after.

As usual with anarchic ideas you are assuming altruism on the part of others.

The surplus doesn't need to be produced. The people producing it currently could just work less, which would be fair since that means productivity improvements accrue to them - not you.

Re: The Philosophy of Work [pdf]

#59

Post by mlatu »

giantg2 wrote: post #54
mlatu wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what they want you to believe, but your hat needs to be at least THIS big in order to not just evaporate when it lands in the ring. Good luck playing against the house. I'd much rather demolish this casino and put up a soupkitchen instead. I'd rather have everyone fed, clothed, housed and medically taken care of than having a low chance of "winning". What do you win anyways? Can you hug your profits? Can they…

"I'd rather have everyone fed, clothed, housed and medically taken care of than having a low chance of "winning"." I think this is creating a false dichotomy by implying that it's a foregone conclusion that a soup kitchen style of government would be able to support everyone. "How can I enjoy a steak without thinking about whether or not this animal had a good life? It died so i may eat it, but why did it live in the…

> I think this is creating a false dichotomy by implying that it's a foregone conclusion that a soup kitchen style of government would be able to support everyone.

uh, soup kitchen style of government?

how about no government at all?

just to clarify: for me communism is the antiauthoritarian leftism that is in the bottom left of the political compass.

top left?: stalinism&maoism,

top right?: nazigermany,

quarter-to-the-bottom&full-right?: USofA

exaggerated? perhaps.

> First, buy local from small producers. You can see how the animals live.

good point, if you live in an area with local, small producers.

I cannot speak for my miserable parents, but I definetly did not have children for them to just toil and die. I just want everyone to have a good time.

Distancing ourselfs from eachother by using money to measure the value of every interaction is definetly not The Way for everyone to have a good one.

Re: The Philosophy of Work [pdf]

#60

Post by neilwilson »

joshgrib wrote: post #43
neilwilson wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Food and shelter are abundant." Only because somebody made them by working Monday to Friday. That somebody could make less by working Monday to Tuesday. Food and shelter would be less abundant and the person currently working a full week to produce the surplus would instead have the rest of the week to themselves. The productivity, and the free time, would accrue to those expending the effort of production - as mora…

I think you're sneaking in some assumptions here that people just develop these skills within themselves and have the same opportunity to do so as anyone else. If you start the clock with them already having those skills and other people not then it makes sense, but they ultimately owe all of that back to the society that gave them those skills. However you end up is a combination of genes and environment - neither o…

"but they ultimately owe all of that back to the society that gave them those skills."

They owe it to the retired, who are the ones who gave them their skills and passed on the capital legacy they maintained. And we have a process that handles that. It's called a "pension system".

The "owe it back to society" bit is already captured by the pension system. You don't get to spend it again.

Post reply on HN