Live data from Hacker News

A nation of slaves

antipope.org

81–90 of 258 posts

Re: A nation of slaves

#81
There is a big fallacy in the article:

Namely, that the amount of work that can be done has an upper bound.

In fact, the amount of work that can be be done is infinite and with higher productivity other things are done (= can be done economically) than before, for example:

Cleaning the streets, painting your house white, keeping your nearby river clean, build tanks & guns, maintaining bureaucracy, helping people you don't know (welfare state).

These things are all non-essential (yeah yeah I know but still ...), yet are only done now because only recently we achieved the productivity / wealth of being able to do it.

If we stop doing these things we will feel wealthier because individually, we'll have more resources to fulfill our needs. We would maybe still help our neighbours or paint our house white or buy guns but we would (or not) do it because we decided it ourselves.

I suppose in the future there will be other things we'll do that now seem insane: maybe even the poorest might have a swimming pool, or we commute a few thousand kilometers to work, or we each carry a wearable computer around without needing it for work (can you imagine???).

But there will be work, it is as certain as death and taxes.

Re: A nation of slaves

#82

One of the biggest views I see in my parents and grandparents: work provides purpose and dignity, and without work, you have no purpose, and therefore, you are a failure. This is really hard to respond to, especially with people who have spent 50 years working with this mindset, because they feel "invalidated" or "worthless" if their life's worth isn't measured by their work output. I don't think that's necessarily a…

I don't know if it's on purpose or not, but when you mention your parents, are you referring to both ?

My parents both worked, but not the same amount and not at the same periods. The parents of my wife are splitted: one is still working (for pleasure, really) at 64+ and the other never took a long lasting full time job.

There might be a question of what we mean by "work", but traditionally the task of sustaining a home and growing kids is not categorized as "work". Defining the purpose of someone through the amount of work goes straight into this issue, and it's my main problem with the idea.

Re: A nation of slaves

#83

This is a stressful topic that gets overwhelming quickly. Things are shifting but it's a slow shift and one that is going to be extremely painful before it gets better. Some interesting work going on with worker coops, parecon, post-scarcity economics, etc... As one of the linked comments noted "Looks like we've built higher-phase communism accidentally. Ooops." The Keynes article he briefly touches on is fantastic h…

While having a beer last week with some friends, the topic turned to the old question "What would you do if you suddenly had $20 million dollars handed to you?". This is an old question of course, on HN it would be called F U money, but it had been asked that day by a customer of my friend Kevin. Kevin makes jewelry tools. His immediate response was "I could buy more tools and machines!", which was my basic response…

I see life as a trifecta. The first point, is things we do as a hobby, the second, things we do for leisure, and the third, things we do to sustain ourselves.

If one task can fulfill all three points, you have it made.

Re: A nation of slaves

#84
This article is predicated on the idea that, because we're more efficient today than 1930, we should be able to work less and live the same lifestyle.

Well, in fact, we can. But you can't ignore those last three words: you have to live the same lifestyle as a typical 1930s person.

* No internet.

* No TV.

* No air conditioning.

* No cell phone.

* No car.

* Bunk beds for your kids.

* One bathroom for the whole house.

* No flying, anywhere, ever.

* No fancy restaurants.

* No organic groceries.

The reason we're still working 1930 hours in 2014 is that we prefer it -- that is, we prefer the rich lifestyle those hours provide us.

Re: A nation of slaves

#85
post #17

An unconditional basic income[1] would speed up a paradigm shift from the current "work or starve" society. Maybe our grandchildren will look back to this time and make funny jokes about digging and filling holes... [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Basic income mean huge changes: For example, salary may still be partially driven by necessary education / experience, but physical, tiresome or stressfull works would requireask for way higher salaries (because you get up at 4AM to collect garbage when you have no other choice, or when you think it really is worth it, and those jobs would still be necessary) The same way, some companies will have huge problems filli…

From your examples I'd say that change would be even greater:

Why does the garbage have to be collected at 4 AM? Why do people need to fill the mart at night? Do you really need a waiter?

We'd have to reconsider the price our convenience imposes on other people.

Re: A nation of slaves

#86
post #67

One of the biggest views I see in my parents and grandparents: work provides purpose and dignity, and without work, you have no purpose, and therefore, you are a failure. This is really hard to respond to, especially with people who have spent 50 years working with this mindset, because they feel "invalidated" or "worthless" if their life's worth isn't measured by their work output. I don't think that's necessarily a…

The problem I have with your viewpoint is that it's contrary to what we've seen empirically. Sub-cultures where people don't work, but have their basic needs met aren't exactly flourishing. Work doesn't just give people purpose and dignity, it creates essential social structure without which communities dissolve. I think it's quite possible that we could organize communities around something other than work. Colleges…

I think it's because such subcultures are self-selecting - why would a Wall Street banker (of which most seem to be terribly motivated) become part of such a group?

There are a number of experiments (eg. across Africa) where a BI-like model made relatively desolate towns flourish.

Basic Income needn't provide luxuries- as long as it eliminates the threat of physical harm out of the job market (thus allowing everyone to walk away from any given job at a given rate), it works as designed IMHO.

To add drive to people who aren't self-motivated, there's still societal status and its symbols, some of which will naturally cost more than BI can afford - otherwise they won't be status symbols for long.

Re: A nation of slaves

#87
If you're feeling unbiased enough to try and ignore what certain words mean to use today, you may want to ready Oscar Wilde's take on these things from a 19th century point of view.

If the words "Socialist" or "Marxist" mean something much more livid to you than " Romanticism" or "Postmodernism," you are not allowed to read the linked article^

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-m...

^I was considering banning Americans from reading this article. I'm allowing it for now, but please behave.

Re: A nation of slaves

#88
post #67

One of the biggest views I see in my parents and grandparents: work provides purpose and dignity, and without work, you have no purpose, and therefore, you are a failure. This is really hard to respond to, especially with people who have spent 50 years working with this mindset, because they feel "invalidated" or "worthless" if their life's worth isn't measured by their work output. I don't think that's necessarily a…

The problem I have with your viewpoint is that it's contrary to what we've seen empirically. Sub-cultures where people don't work, but have their basic needs met aren't exactly flourishing. Work doesn't just give people purpose and dignity, it creates essential social structure without which communities dissolve. I think it's quite possible that we could organize communities around something other than work. Colleges…

Just to hold you to task, here: what exactly constitutes "flourishing"?

I'd bet you mean something other than mindless growth and expansion--just want to make sure.

Re: A nation of slaves

#89
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I have with your viewpoint is that it's contrary to what we've seen empirically. Sub-cultures where people don't work, but have their basic needs met aren't exactly flourishing. Work doesn't just give people purpose and dignity, it creates essential social structure without which communities dissolve. I think it's quite possible that we could organize communities around something other than work. Colleges…

Don't work? Or can't work?

[deleted]

Re: A nation of slaves

#90
post #28

One of the biggest views I see in my parents and grandparents: work provides purpose and dignity, and without work, you have no purpose, and therefore, you are a failure. This is really hard to respond to, especially with people who have spent 50 years working with this mindset, because they feel "invalidated" or "worthless" if their life's worth isn't measured by their work output. I don't think that's necessarily a…

work provides purpose and dignity, and without work, you have no purpose, and therefore, you are a failure Regardless of age, I guess most people feel this way (not just the previous generations - even the people in their 20's and 30's today). What is the alternative to this? If not work - what is important? what makes one person a success and another a failure, and what gives purpose and dignity to life, in your opi…

"What is the alternative to this? If not work - what is important? what makes one person a success and another a failure, and what gives purpose and dignity to life, in your opinion?"

First, there is the definition of success. For any given species or individual of that species, simple survival is the first level of success. This includes basic shelter, food and water sources, and protection from dangers.

Beyond that, once our more immediate needs are met, I think the next level of success is breeding. At one point, during my "Descartesian reset", I determined that throughout most of history, the primary purpose people had was to reproduce as a way to ensure their own well being in old age, but also as a sort of abstract, indirect immortality through their offspring. There is a reasons there are many cultures who still largely center around first-born.

For many of the proletariat, the safety and security of offspring was ensured through numbers (high mortality rates in the past) and through work servitude that was seen not just as an exchange of labor and time for money, but as an exchange of labor and time as an investment in their offspring, with money only being a tool to that end.

I think that, with the advancement of the arts and technology though, this otherwise ancient traditional model has been largely upended. Kings built castles, and Pharaoh's built pyramids, and other builders build structures that would last well past their deaths as their version of immortality, but normal people always were mostly just reproducing their dna. I think this is also why there is still so much reverence for glory and honor, particularly in battle, in that, if dying in a sufficiently glorious way, you are more likely to be remembered longer.

Past that, at some point I sat down and made a list. Essentially it boiled down to things that have a lasting impact for the greatest number of people beyond my death. Things like art, architecture, scientific discovery, writing, actions taken, etc. I don't remember the entire list, but it was fairly expansive.

The thing to keep in mind about all of these is the indirectness of their totality, that it to say a piece of art in itself may not actually be that big of a deal in the long term, but lets say that piece of art inspired another persons mind to do something great that they might not have had the inspiration to do otherwise.

tldr; Essentially, I think it all boils down to humanity's ancient tradition of trying to cheat death, and the way we do that has been changing. To me, as an atheist, the afterlife isn't a place where I exist, per se, but is more like the butterfly effect of my consciousness upon the universe it experienced before it's having been extinguished.

Of course, I'm hoping I can get my hands on a telomere regeneration mod to buy enough time to transplant my consciousness into a hopefully by then sufficient computer and kick off the singularity, but I digress.

To answer your original question, it isn't the work in itself that gives purpose. It's that a purpose is found and then striven for through whichever means are available, which for most people is usually indentured wage slavery. Ergo, when an older generation sees not working as a lack of purpose, do not mistake it that they think the work gives purpose, but that the work supports an already existing purpose. (which for most of them was child-rearing)

Post reply on HN