Just look at the American EPA statistics on the generation of solid wastes from the 1960 to now.Product: Generates quantitative and qualitative value — kudos
Not in the sense of mass production. No.Simple, the ideal is that people should not be used for labor, not that labor is the purpose of human life. — schopenhauer1
But there are carpenters, bakers, and chocolate makers who truly enjoy their labor. — L'éléphant
There have been experiments done (these are true experiments) on UBI, universal basic income, to get low income people to be more productive to get to better paying jobs (or jobs they enjoy, which means they would keep the job). The idea was, for a fixed monthly supplemental funds, the people could use their time training for skills (any skills). The UBI mistakenly postulated that low income is the reason why they remain poor. The monthly funds actually made them less likely to pursue further action.In Graeber's seminal book on this, the key problems seem to be the waste, boredom and alienation. I would think there are bullshit jobs that are fun. — Tom Storm
Not in the sense of mass production. No.
But there are carpenters, bakers, and chocolate makers who truly enjoy their labor. — L'éléphant
So, how are people going to earn money?Notice I didn’t attempt to say that, simply that people shouldn’t be used for their labor, whether it’s enjoyable or not. — schopenhauer1
So, how are people going to earn money?
— L'éléphant
Shit, sucks doesnt it? — schopenhauer1
What do you think is the structure of real labour? — kudos
But isn't that tyranny as well? When you say that people shouldn't be used for their labor period?
now — L'éléphant
My advice- get out of the “production is the point of life” mentality. Of course this leads to Pessimism and AN, but I’ll meet you there with open arms when you get there :wink:
What then is real labour when the economy is more about selling future debt? Well financial engineering and debt marketing are well paid occupations. And real work so far as the global debt industry is concerned.
Not sure if this covers your concept of abstract jobs. But who exactly employed this spreadsheet content person and for what ostensible purpose? Did it help sell loans? Directly or indirectly?
You can't escape the role economy plays in being and becoming by turning becoming into a finite separateness from being. This is the mistake of reductive existential ethos, for which I have low esteem. — kudos
Seems like closeted do-gooding to me. Why do you care about natalist solutions? Why not be a part of the problem instead? One must come to terms with the real lack of meaningful difference in order to ascribe to either. It’s a classic strategy: vacillate endlessly between complete cynicism and complete do-gooding in an effort to negate any real choice. It always ends up with a lazy survivalism as a cheap imitation of neutrality. This just-so-conveniently places the individual in a suspended irresponsibility. — kudos
Meaningful labor is not ALL that life offers, and I can imagine a scenario where someone doesn't find any "labor" (at least in the survival sense) meaningful. And that itself pushes back against this essentialist notion of "homo economicus".
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.