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

Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

zpub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 126 posts

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#11

Post by kamaal »

Swizec wrote: post #10
parasight wrote: post #7

It is rather strange. More and more things of everyday life are automated and computerized. Nevertheless, I have the impression to have less and less time to do all the things I want/need to do.

I have noticed the same. Then I remembered the internet makes my day feel like running with a parachute. Sure, I could just get up and go make lunch when I'm hungry. But I could also just refresh HN first. I think it takes a second, it actually takes 10 minutes. Especially if I reply to something. Sure I could just get home from exercise and start working. But I can also check out imgur and twitter first. I feel liek…

>>I have all this leisure time that I am being leisurely, but it doesn't feel leisurely.

This happens to me too.

I wonder its because we are using the same tools for work and leisure. I would describe leisure as going out and playing a sport, or playing a musical instrument, or .

I am now thinking we are confused between leisure and procrastination.

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#12

Post by circlefavshape »

kamaal wrote: post #6
arethuza wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I recall of the Party in 1984 (at least the Inner Party) they had no illusions about them holding power to benefit anyone else: "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. Al…

The problem with 'holding power' is you also need submission from the masses or at least need to keep them in order. There is never ever going to be a period of time in the human history, there was none in the past, nor will there be in the future where we shall attain peaceful uniform equality among humans. The very concept is against our very internal wiring. Equality means, every one gets the same regardless of th…

"There is never ever going to be a period of time in the human history, there was none in the past, nor will there be in the future where we shall attain peaceful uniform equality among humans"

This is simply not true. Hunter-gatherer societies are typically egalitarian, and our species has subsisted by hunting and gathering for the vast majority of its existence.

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#13

Post by gyepi »

kamaal wrote: post #6
arethuza wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I recall of the Party in 1984 (at least the Inner Party) they had no illusions about them holding power to benefit anyone else: "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. Al…

The problem with 'holding power' is you also need submission from the masses or at least need to keep them in order. There is never ever going to be a period of time in the human history, there was none in the past, nor will there be in the future where we shall attain peaceful uniform equality among humans. The very concept is against our very internal wiring. Equality means, every one gets the same regardless of th…

There is never ever going to be a period of time in the human history, there was none in the past, nor will there be in the future where we shall attain peaceful uniform equality among humans. The very concept is against our very internal wiring. Equality means, every one gets the same regardless of their efforts in getting it. This is a very strange concept, and the human understanding of motivation rejects it.

My crystal ball is probably murkier than yours but I would disagree with the assertion that that humans will never achieve equality as you define it. All our current systems of economics and power are predicated on the belief that "resources" are limited and must therefore be allocated (owned, shared, distributed, exchanged) on the basis of scarcity. In such a system, the question of distribution becomes critical; the models been some combinations of "according to effort" or "according to need". However in a "post-scarcity" environment (free or cheap energy, for example) in which the belief is no longer true, other models of distribution become possible. It's far fetched, but I wouldn't bet against it. Just think of the various social, political, economic and technological changes over the past few hundred years.

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#14

Post by Swizec »

kamaal wrote: post #11
Swizec wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have noticed the same. Then I remembered the internet makes my day feel like running with a parachute. Sure, I could just get up and go make lunch when I'm hungry. But I could also just refresh HN first. I think it takes a second, it actually takes 10 minutes. Especially if I reply to something. Sure I could just get home from exercise and start working. But I can also check out imgur and twitter first. I feel liek…

>>I have all this leisure time that I am being leisurely, but it doesn't feel leisurely. This happens to me too. I wonder its because we are using the same tools for work and leisure. I would describe leisure as going out and playing a sport, or playing a musical instrument, or . I am now thinking we are confused between leisure and procrastination.

> I am now thinking we are confused between leisure and procrastination.

It's even simpler than that. We're addicted to the instant gratification of easily digestible information packets. Humans like to be informed and we innately think this is valuable, even when it isn't.

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#15

Post by kamaal »

gyepi wrote: post #13
kamaal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with 'holding power' is you also need submission from the masses or at least need to keep them in order. There is never ever going to be a period of time in the human history, there was none in the past, nor will there be in the future where we shall attain peaceful uniform equality among humans. The very concept is against our very internal wiring. Equality means, every one gets the same regardless of th…

There is never ever going to be a period of time in the human history, there was none in the past, nor will there be in the future where we shall attain peaceful uniform equality among humans. The very concept is against our very internal wiring. Equality means, every one gets the same regardless of their efforts in getting it. This is a very strange concept, and the human understanding of motivation rejects it. My c…

>>However in a "post-scarcity" environment

Scarcity of which commodity? The western civilization is already at a point where food and clothes aren't even a problem. Yet the debates about rich and poor are common.

Problem isn't the lack of things. The problem is the people thinking that rewards must go in proportion to efforts. That will never change.

Tomorrow if every one were to get free food, clothes and a home to leave. There will still be arguments of inequality as to why its unfair the rich can drive a Ferrari while the poor can't.

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#17

Post by arethuza »

kamaal wrote: post #6
arethuza wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I recall of the Party in 1984 (at least the Inner Party) they had no illusions about them holding power to benefit anyone else: "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. Al…

The problem with 'holding power' is you also need submission from the masses or at least need to keep them in order. There is never ever going to be a period of time in the human history, there was none in the past, nor will there be in the future where we shall attain peaceful uniform equality among humans. The very concept is against our very internal wiring. Equality means, every one gets the same regardless of th…

Personally, I rather like this take on equality:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#18

Post by singularity2001 »

keithpeter wrote: post #8
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #5

> If so, I shall not have lived in vain. Notwithstanding that small matter of formally defining the logical foundations of all mathematics.

Well, having a good bash at that particular problem. Not sure if Russell and Whitehead actually succeeded . " Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. " I've always liked that quote.

third, telling computers what to do, which is partly unpleasant but highly paid.

Re: Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness (1932)

#20

Post by eniacpx »

Swizec wrote: post #14
kamaal wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I have all this leisure time that I am being leisurely, but it doesn't feel leisurely. This happens to me too. I wonder its because we are using the same tools for work and leisure. I would describe leisure as going out and playing a sport, or playing a musical instrument, or . I am now thinking we are confused between leisure and procrastination.

> I am now thinking we are confused between leisure and procrastination. It's even simpler than that. We're addicted to the instant gratification of easily digestible information packets. Humans like to be informed and we innately think this is valuable, even when it isn't.

Your last sentence is on the money, and the reason people "enjoy" using Facebook.
Post reply on HN