Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by jondubois » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 4:25 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #126

jondubois wrote: post #32

Interesting article. It poses a huge dilemma. As more jobs become redundant, how should 'useless people' be compensated relative to 'useful people' without whom the economy could not operate? To complicate matters, many of the 'useless people' could be highly skilled and could theoretically launch their own businesses and start competing against established businesses and take away some market share... But if the mar…

I'm not sure if this rises to the level of a "huge dilemma" when we don't even compensate the "useful people" enough to live. As more jobs become redundant, the standards of the wealthy will become more extravagant, and require more bodies to fulfill. The difference in the income of owners will continue to drift farther from the income of workers. Middle class people don't even have servants anymore, so we've got a l…

Try starting a business without any personal connections and watch it fail over and over again while customers keep telling you how much they like your product but you just can't compete with corporations financially. If corporations were on a level playing field with everyone else and they did not have a financial advantage in terms of having front row access to cheap money printed by the Fed, or their business didn't revolve around constantly trying to destroy small business competitors, I would have agreed that it would not be such a huge dilemma.

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

#272

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

kiliantics wrote: post #268

seigando wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#273

Post by seigando » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

kiliantics wrote: post #153

seigando wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individuals can make personal, effective efforts on this front.

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)

For some reason my reply isn't posting to yours below, but you seem to have interpreted my comment to be saying things I neither said nor believe. Good luck with everything.

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

#274

Post by seigando » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 8:26 PM UTC

kiliantics wrote: post #268

seigando wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Single people make lasting change by sticking to their principles.

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

#275

Post by mettamage » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 11:20 PM UTC

6510 wrote: post #252

mettamage wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree but I find it the most practical place. If I can’t exercise my mind, then there’s nothing for me at work other than obtaining an income (no SF salary here so no financial independence possible).

I do the same only I exercise the body at work.

Nice one!

Fair enough, I thought about doing that too. I chose for the mind, but IMO the body is a good option as well, especially because if you choose the right profession (i.e. light to medium exercise), it probably means you'll live longer.

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

#276

Post by heavyset_go » Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 2:06 AM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #110

vslira wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, what's funny is that we'll never be sure if that's the case[0]. What guarantee is there that the median socialist voter wouldn't vote for more work for everyone because they want fancier tvs, or more dazzling musical spectacles, or fancier video games, bigger homes, etc? What if society doesn't democratically vote for idleness and quality of life / tranquility? [0] I mean unless there's a real and successfu…

Well there are worker co-ops. Lots of farming is as co-operatives. Sunkist is a cooperative, for instance. https://growers.sunkist.com/

It's a cooperative for owners, not workers. A lot of cooperatives in the US exist for owners.

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

#277

Post by steakknife » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 2:41 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #79

perfunctory wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The number of people who I've talked to who legitimately don't know what to do without work during the pandemic is staggering. The pleasures of urban populations have become mainly passive: seeing cinemas, watching football matches, listening to the radio, and so on. This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work; if they had more leisure, they would again enjoy pleasures in whic…

Why do you associate those things specifically with urban life? Cinemas, televised sports, and listening to music are pretty broadly-enjoyed things. I don’t think they’re particularly “passive” either, but they’re certainly not uniquely urban. When I think of unique opportunities in urban environments, I’m thinking more along the lines of nightlife, live sports, music, and theatre, boutique shopping, art galleries, e…

Because at the time Russell wrote that (1932), the Suburbs didn't exist yet. If you didn't live in the city, you were agrarian; think sharecroppers living with dirt floors (the dust bowl/Grapes of Wrath were the 1930's). Most "modern" leisure activities were only enjoyed by urbanites.

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

#278

Post by steakknife » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 2:48 PM UTC

perfunctory wrote: post #215

logarhythmic wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think so?

I dunno. Here is just one random stat that came to mind. Boston marathon participation throughout the years 1897 - 18 1930 - 218 1970 - 1174 2000 - 17813 2019 - 30234 https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/results/participat... Still, would be interesting to see some comprehensive study on active leisure.

Meh. I would bet that has way more to do with the cost of travelling to Boston for the average person around the world and the growth in prestige of that particular event.

Also, athleisure is "active" in the literal sense, but is it contributing anything back to society? I guess one could argue it collectively reduces the cost of our growing passiveness. But I would argue, as someone who loves exercising, that exercise is just a video game that makes you feel progressively better the longer you play it instead of worse. It doesn't serve a broader purpose beyond a certain point of basic health, unless you are so good that other people derive satisfaction from your accomplishments (pro athlete) or you are doing it to form social connections (golf, intramural sports leagues, etc.) or like break a world record or something.