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

Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 278 posts

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#261

Post by wiz21c »

aslfksdfl wrote: post #81
wiz21c wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing positive about undirected free time over a long period. I could easily fill that time with dozens of ideas. But you see, I'm lucky enough to be a "creative" person. That is, I'm in love with the things I invent. The more I invent, the more passionnated I am. I can sustain an incredible level of activity just to achieve goals I create myself. But these goals are mostly non economic. So being able to…

>I'm lucky enough to be a "creative" person This is the kind of insanity Russel's original essay alludes to. If we weren't taught to fill every hour with "productive" work, then anyone could foster their creativity with idle pursuits that aren't limited by their ability to produce value. People feel like they're not creative because they feel the constant need to produce something of value and are afraid to experimen…

You're right. And unfortunately, as you said, things are not as clear cut even for me. For example, it took me long (and the good will of my beloved) to accept that I should work less and have more time for me, that it'd be much better for my health. Sometimes too I feel guilty of not contributing to society by "traditional" means, etc. So you're right, the inescapable necessity of work is still in our culture :-/

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#262

Post by andrekandre »

alephu5 wrote: post #188
BurningFrog wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a different perspective. I see work as the way we contribute to society, how we help others with things that are important for them . In return, other people work on things that benefit me . This is how we can live in wealth and peace unimaginable to most of history. This is a fantastic historic achievement, and I want to keep it going. I do agree that we are much more than just workers, of course. But that fe…

I'm in my late 20s and used to believe something like this, but I've become quite cynical. I think that modern work is just about capturing wealth and passing it onto the wealthy, so they can have more control over their time and can enjoy the fruits of our labours. I think people conflate the above with "wanting to contribute to society and benefit others" because you're not usually willing to pay for things that do…

> I think that modern work is just about capturing wealth and passing it onto the wealthy, so they can have more control over their time and can enjoy the fruits of our labours.

wether or not that is a concious goal. it defintiely seems the result that is happening in our current culture

sometimes i think of it like a horse and a jockey, somehow the horse was acclimated to allowing someone to ride on its back, tell it where to go, and how fast to run... in return the horse gets a stable, some food and a trough... but even if the horse is compensated for its "work" its still a releationsnip of "rider" and "rode on"

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#263

Post by neilwilson »

Xophmeister wrote: post #24

Why did Keynes believe that, say, a doubling of efficiency (through technology) would half work time for everyone? Sure it’s a solution to the equation, but so is what actually happened[1]: half the workforce gets laid off. This halves the costs, which facilitates price reduction and thus a competitive edge. Did Keynes believe that benevolence would win over profit? Don’t get me wrong, I wish it had, but that seems a…

Regrettably he believed far too much in fungibility as well.

As technology increases you need fewer people with higher skills to produce everything, but there is no reason why they should spend all their time producing a surplus to supply everybody else. They would rather stop and have Thursday and Friday off.

We all work in solidarity with those we need to work. Because it is more difficult to share out the unemployment than it first appeared.

The solution is to retire people earlier and have a public job option so younger people can always contribute their labour hours for others. Retiring people at 50 makes sense in a Covid world.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#264

Post by brokenmachine »

goldenkey wrote: post #257
brokenmachine wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better economy... Please define "better".

Money is worse when its velocity is low. This is associated with hoarding of cash. The world could have 10000T in cash but if no exchange happens, everyone is poor.

Endless consumption is a delusion, regardless of how much "better" the economy appears.

Idleness doesn't necessitate consumption, and it's interesting that that conclusion was jumped to.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#265

Post by jxramos »

perl4ever wrote: post #62
jxramos wrote: post #42

All this thought about the economy and working and idleness doesn't take things far enough. What we really need to abolish is human metabolism. The fact that we need to eat and hustle to grow and acquire calories and nutrients is the real oppressor. We need to scientifically find out how to stop metabolism so we all don't need to work and will never starve. Attack the root of the problem. Next in line is mortality.

I'm not sure if you're serious or presenting what you think is an absurdity, but I instantly knew human photosynthesis must be an existing science fiction trope, even though I don't actually know a title offhand. Frankly, I expect this sort of thing before fusion power that is "too cheap to meter". See: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/151099/story-inclu...

The problem is we're just too energy intensive. There's an interesting exchange about average daily calorie needs (2k Cal) and how much sunlight collection you'd need to satisfy that energy need. Cool stuff. Bottom line, our bodies don't present enough surface area to get the job done. http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2018/02/ask-physicist-...

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#266

Post by andrekandre »

throwaway45349 wrote: post #107
rainonmoon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this is a familiar Peterson talking point, society has in many ways sublimated our nature for the broader collective good. Addressing the problems of capitalism would be another step in that progress.

Nah, I disagree. Capitalism is the most natural system because it accepts what we are - selfish beings in a competitive environment. If we didn't specialize and trade skills/products/services, we'd still be a hunter-gatherer species. The system is what kept us going, not what holds us back. It only looks like oppression in 2020 because of how easy the rest of life is.

> Capitalism is the most natural system because it accepts what we are - selfish beings

that does not follow: just because something is natural doesnt make it good or desireable

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#267

Post by andrekandre »

ooobit2 wrote: post #248
Joker_vD wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism cannot be the most natural system simply because it's only barely 300 years old. Before that, there was a whole slew of different ways to organize production and distribution. Primitive tribal communes, large tribal unions, agricultural slavery, feudalisms of varying shapes... and that's only in Europe.

Regardless of the obvious political quackery downvoting my original comment, this is what I was pointing out: we're not as self-prioritizing as we are convenience-prioritizing . Capitalism isn't the only solution, just like how any given criticism of the current implementation of capitalism isn't only indicative of a problem intrinsic to capitalism. The problem is we don't have effective checks and balances to over-c…

> Whomever owns the means of production has literally zero constraints on maximizing their convenience. The expense ends up drastically inconveniencing, to the point of being a barrier to access, everyone who doesn't own the means of production.

maybe cooperatives are a potential solution to that issue?

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#268

Post by kiliantics »

seigando wrote: post #247
kiliantics wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's hear some. I believe there is little an individual can do, apart from participating in collective efforts that are fighting this effectively (of which very few are allowed to exist for long)

Collective efforts exist due to the contributions of individuals. One person making a principled stand on how to live their life makes a difference. There are examples all over this thread, and even if you don't think something will last, it doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to support it in the moment. The obvious response to your request is "do nothing". And don't let anyone sway you otherwise.

I asked for examples, I don't know what you're referring to in the rest of the thread. Sure collective efforts work because of individual contributions. But I believe you can only change things collectively and asked you for an example where a single person was able to make lasting change.

I just think the individualism narrative has become dangerous, because it leads to people's refusal to participate in collective action. Or it leads people to believe they are not the "right individual", that they don't have what it takes to be the person to make change, and therefore they end up doing nothing. I don't think the collective approach leads people to "do nothing" but quite the opposite! There is no one who is "unfit" to contribute to collective action. The more people involved, the more powerful it is.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#269

Post by marvin »

Joker_vD wrote: post #225
pessimizer wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zeroth, the more unemployed, the more downward salary pressure on the employed. edit: the reasonable expectation is that half of the workers are fired and the remaining workers' salaries are cut. The Luddites were a result of noticing technological improvements lowered wages and employment at the same time.

It's kinda weird how the labour is almost always in oversupply.

Won't be if basic income becomes available :)

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#270

Post by marvin »

markc wrote: post #156
UncleOxidant wrote: post #16

FIRE (Financial Independence/Retire Early) is now a popular goal among the young. If you retire early, however, you're going to have to figure out what to do with all the leisure time. It would perhaps be better to have people working fewer hours, but over more years - a longterm 3-day workweek would allow for plenty of leisure as well as work.

>you're going to have to figure out what to do with all the leisure time Not an issue for me, nor anyone else I know who has retired early. Maybe the same sort of energy that supports early retirement also leads to a fully engaged post-retirement life. As long as you love to learn or create (or both) you will have a shortage of free time, even in retirement. Off the top of my head, I spend time on: foreign language,…

This is very nice to hear. Thanks for sharing.
Post reply on HN