Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (2010) • Hacker News Board

Re: Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (2010)

#131

Post by metabagel » Sun, Aug 01, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #99

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be being unrealistic about the role of spontaneous personal choice in this. To a surprising extent, people find things pleasurable because they're told to find them pleasurable. No one sane would inhale burning carcinogenic leaves to damage their own health, but people do - because they're encouraged to. People buy new phones because they're somehow "cool". No one is really sure why, but it's something that h…

> No one sane would inhale burning carcinogenic leaves to damage their own health, but people do - because they're encouraged to. This is a ridiculous take. You think indigenous communities in pre-Colombian America were using tobacco because of media influence? It’s a pleasurable and highly addictive drug.

The difference being that indigenous communities weren’t aware that they were inhaling a carcinogen.

Re: Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (2010)

#132

Post by crazygringo » Sun, Aug 01, 2021, 7:12 PM UTC

captainmuon wrote: post #13

ilamont wrote: post #5

Western economies, particularly that of the United States, have been built in a very calculated manner on gratification, addiction, and unnecessary spending. Calculated, like in planned-economy, directive-from-the-top? I disagree. A lot of the "fluff," as the author describes it, is excess capital finding its way to things people find pleasurable, whether it be dope, travel, beauty, or rock and roll. Purveyors of suc…

Counterpoint: What do you think "fashion" is? I used to think there were some very cool, fashion-adept people, who have the ability to predict what will considered modern next year. The reality is, the clothing industry decides what to produce at least 6-12 months in advance. It's not like they produce everything and public opinion decides in the end what is "cool". Granted, the industry tries to predict what will be…

> It's not like they produce everything and public opinion decides in the end what is "cool".

To the contrary, public opinion does decide. Brands are trying to guess what will sell and be in fashion, and produce that. But they get it wrong all the time, as sales plummet for a particular season collection because consumers don't like it but really like another designer who guessed better.

The fashion industry isn't monolithic. There isn't one person deciding what gets produced. Ultimately it is all consumer-led as brands compete to try to produce what people will buy -- and they know fashion-conscious people don't want to buy what was for sale the previous year. But individual brands get tastes wrong all the time -- even well-known brands have seasons where they just totally mess up.

Re: Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (2010)

#133

Post by DangitBobby » Sun, Aug 01, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

RandomLensman wrote: post #93

DangitBobby wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author seems to indicate that what makes something "unnecessary" in this context is when it very temporarily scratches an itch but does nothing to meaningfully improve your quality of life in the longterm. What would really improve your life is less money, fewer purchases, and more free time.

Again, why is short-term pleasure wrong? My life would not be improved by less money, by the way. More free time, yes, fewer purchases, not necessarily.

Short term pleasure is not wrong. The entire premise boils down to the belief that the 40 hour work-week means you are sacrificing long-term and short-term pleasure for superficial short-term pleasure, and that the inherent dissatisfaction arising from the arrangement is the only thing supporting the economy and resulting lifestyles as they exist, perpetuating dissatisfaction, for, practically, the sake of dissatisfaction.

> My life would not be improved by less money, by the way. More free time, yes, fewer purchases, not necessarily.

If the entire economy were not designed to suck money out of your pockets (and thus time out of your life), you might feel differently.

Re: Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (2010)

#134

Post by i_d_rather_read » Sun, Aug 01, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

grumblenum wrote: post #69

goodpoint wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're not forced to do anything You are forced to choose between working to pay rent and health insurance or go hungry, homeless and ill or in prison. In various developed societies there is free healthcare, social safety nets, or some forms of UBI or other help. > but you're seduced out of your mind, I guess it's fair Fair? Consumerism is threatening all ife on the planet. Humanity can do so much better.

A Malthusian crisis has been “imminent” since the 19th century. I think that you should try writing down what facts you think support the a priori assumption that our sinful ways are leading us to a future, sudden disaster. I don’t think you will find much evidence that isn’t traceable to popular opinion. Sorry, fam, it’s just Puritanism for the modern age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism has been widely criticized for its incorrect predictions and ties into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Re: Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (2010)

#135

Post by namdnay » Sun, Aug 01, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

anemoiac wrote: post #120

namdnay wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are forced to choose between working to pay rent and health insurance or go hungry, homeless and ill. Oh lord, being “forced” to provide work in order to receive the work of others I think the US has serious progress to make on safety nets, but this type of statement doesn’t really help move the discussion forwards

> Oh lord, being “forced” to provide work in order to receive the work of others I didn't write the comment you responded to, but I don't think its author was advocating for the mythical "free lunch." I read their comment as a statement decrying the seemingly artificial constraints built into modern (American, I presume) society that force workers to make an essentially binary choice between a stable, secure life and…

But how is that binary choice artificial? You’d have exactly the same choice 10000 years ago. Either go and hunt and forage for food, or starve

Re: Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (2010)

#136

Post by heavyset_go » Sun, Aug 01, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

namdnay wrote: post #63

goodpoint wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're not forced to do anything You are forced to choose between working to pay rent and health insurance or go hungry, homeless and ill or in prison. In various developed societies there is free healthcare, social safety nets, or some forms of UBI or other help. > but you're seduced out of your mind, I guess it's fair Fair? Consumerism is threatening all ife on the planet. Humanity can do so much better.

> You are forced to choose between working to pay rent and health insurance or go hungry, homeless and ill. Oh lord, being “forced” to provide work in order to receive the work of others I think the US has serious progress to make on safety nets, but this type of statement doesn’t really help move the discussion forwards

It's not the work that's the problem, it's that most people are forced to work in an arrangement that's stacked against them.

> I think the US has serious progress to make on safety nets, but this type of statement doesn’t really help move the discussion forwards

This type of statement is nothing new. The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass had this to say on the subject[1]:

> [E]xperience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other

According to Wikipedia[1]:

> Douglass went on to speak about these conditions as arising from the unequal bargaining power between the ownership/capitalist class and the non-ownership/laborer class within a compulsory monetary market: "No more crafty and effective devise for defrauding the southern laborers could be adopted than the one that substitutes orders upon shopkeepers for currency in payment of wages. It has the merit of a show of honesty, while it puts the laborer completely at the mercy of the land-owner and the shopkeeper"

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#History

Re: Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (2010)

#137

Post by DangitBobby » Sun, Aug 01, 2021, 7:36 PM UTC

weregiraffe wrote: post #127

DangitBobby wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author seems to indicate that what makes something "unnecessary" in this context is when it very temporarily scratches an itch but does nothing to meaningfully improve your quality of life in the longterm. What would really improve your life is less money, fewer purchases, and more free time.

>meaningfully improve your quality of life in the longterm In the longterm quality of life decreases until life is over. Quality of life after death is 0.

You'll have to explain what that has to do with the discussion about having a fulfilling life. It sounds like you're saying there's no point in improving your life because you die eventually anyway.

Re: Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (2010)

#138

Post by onlyrealcuzzo » Sun, Aug 01, 2021, 7:36 PM UTC

ilamont wrote: post #5

Western economies, particularly that of the United States, have been built in a very calculated manner on gratification, addiction, and unnecessary spending. Calculated, like in planned-economy, directive-from-the-top? I disagree. A lot of the "fluff," as the author describes it, is excess capital finding its way to things people find pleasurable, whether it be dope, travel, beauty, or rock and roll. Purveyors of suc…

Debt is >60% of the economy, and it's price fixed. It's interesting that people seem to think fixing the price of bananas has more consequence than fixing the price of debt.

Re: Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (2010)

#139

Post by deltron3030 » Sun, Aug 01, 2021, 7:38 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #41

deltron3030 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The reality is, the clothing industry decides what to produce at least 6-12 months in advance. It's more the mainstream you're referring to, late adopters basically. of course they can produce in advance as the styles are already validated on urban streets and within subcultures who really set the trends. There are inventors, early adopters and late adopters, quite similar to SaaS.

That's the party line, but it's just some sub-cultures, teens and troubled personalities that "express themselves" through fashion (the most shallow thing you can do, a juvenile thing in any case), the "early adopters", and then a huge industry copying them at various levels and with various delays. On top of that, there are also top-level mandates "this year let's push yellow strayjackets" or whatever. This results…

Fashion is basically part of a real world interface for the social groups you interact with, a way to tweak the first impression. It's only junk for you as an outsider not understanding the social groups of insiders dressing a certain way.

It's valuable and sells because social ladders are everywhere, we're all apes to a degree. It's not a suprise that the epic centers are urban melting pots with a higher population density and more "troubled people".

Re: Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (2010)

#140

Post by handrous » Sun, Aug 01, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

throwawayboise wrote: post #110

WalterBright wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been wearing the exact same jeans cut for 30 years now. When they get holes, I just push a button on Amazon for more. My dress shirts are 20-30 years old. They're not out of style. Of course, I've never been cool, so there's that.

> My dress shirts are 20-30 years old. They're not out of style. They are, you just don't care. Which is OK.

Eh, you can pick plain white or blue button-up shirts with one of a few normal collar types and you won't be trendy but you also won't be "out of style". There are also some approaches to fashion the point of which is (at least in part) that they change only very slowly ("prep", for instance, which is practically defined by that quality—certain very casual styles like country/cowboy might also qualify, they have trends but you can definitely avoid them and achieve a look that's as close to timeless as it gets, on human-lifespan timescales).

Suits are slowly evolving fewer buttons but you're probably still OK with a 3-button in most contexts, and a 2 or 3-roll-2 is probably future-safe for 15 years at least. Suits may well be almost gone by the time they're out of fashion, really, and will only remain in contexts that don't really evolve (the 3-button is firmly OK in a legal, funeral, or wedding context, for instance, and likely to remain so pretty much indefinitely, provided, in the latter case, it's not an extremely formal wedding and/or you're not in the wedding party itself)