The assumption is we should throw more people into the world so they can be happy producing things. Kill me now please. — schopenhauer1

You could always retreat into the woods/mountains as a hermit and forget about us silly humans.

You could always retreat into the woods/mountains as a hermit and forget about us silly humans. — NKBJ

To quote myself:
Your options are... be beholden to the forces of this behemoth technological economic giant and get by with the six or so "goods" to overlook the cirucular productive forces that we are forced into, or do the following- kill yourself, become a part of the underclass (homeless), become some sort of monk/hermit. These last three are not great choices, and the main de facto choice of just complying with the circular productive forces with six or so goods, is the default. These are just not great choices to be forced into. Keep the productive circular thing going with six goods to tide you over, experience contingent harm, and deal with problems and overcome them. By the time you realize that you don't want to be a part of ANY of these choices, IT'S TOO LATE.

Doing social work keeps me sane and happy, personally.
But to each his own--enjoy wallowing in your self-made hell :)

But to each his own--enjoy wallowing in your self-made hell :) — NKBJ

Another fallacy...if the system is flawed, it must be something wrong with YOU. It is a nice bit of social engineering to get people to blame themselves. Better shape up or shut up buttercup and all that. Knee jerk cliches. Widgets have to be made. The donuts do too. Better change your complaints so that you can comply with making widgets and donuts.. and all the secondary, tertiary, and quaternary aspects of the economic circularity of absurdity.

Another fallacy...if the system is flawed, it must be something wrong with YOU. — schopenhauer1

I'm actually only partly implying that. Yes, the system is flawed and broken and a gloomy pit of despair, yaddayaddayadda. BUT you also have choices about how to deal with life's lemons. Be a gloomy grouchy McSadPants, or try and make the best of it.

BUT you also have choices about how to deal with life's lemons. Be a gloomy grouchy McSadPants, or try and make the best of it. — NKBJ

Yes it is a truism that we have choices. But as others have brought up, the system itself cannot be chosen. One cannot change the givens of existential and historical realities. One just deals with them, by yes, making choices within that framework. The ultimate arbiter of work is being born in the first place. Apparently people need to be born so they can work, and have choices about where to work :roll: (even if that was a perfect reality of really being able to choose where to work).

Apparently people need to be born so they can work, and have choices about where to work :roll: (even if that was a perfect reality of really being able to choose where to work). — schopenhauer1

In my opinion, work or "labor" can be a good thing, once removed from the typical humdrum of the ever-hungry capitalist machine.

Par exemple, most people have "creative" hobbies in which they labor to produce something for their personal or shared/social enjoyment.

In my opinion, work or "labor" can be a good thing, once removed from the typical humdrum of the ever-hungry capitalist machine.

Par exemple, most people have "creative" hobbies in which they labor to produce something for their personal or shared/social enjoyment. — NKBJ

I find this argument of "creative" inherent capacities to be a slippery slope to justify the very "ever-hungry" (x economic system). The realities were because we were born we have to survive which means we need to utilize/consume some sort of resources for survival. The historical circumstances of civilization for the last 5,000 years has made it such that certain economic systems dominate, in the last 300 years or so, economies that can accommodate the harnessing of scientists and engineers to create more products wherewith other people can work (usually at more boring activities) to maintain these products and services in order to distribute through consumable exchanges at geographically convenient or logistically convenient settings. We are now in a holding pattern where society is structured that our creative "capacities" are to be harnessed in this techno-economic manner.

We know these are the material givens of reality/economics. So we bring more people into this so they can make "choices" within this system. I just don't see it as good to bring people into. In fact, no economic system would be good to bring more people into. To justify that it is good to bring people into some sort of work-reality (any X economic system) because people have "inherent creative capacities" that can be harnessed by this system, is just justification to forcing more people to be born in order to work in the absurd circularity of the economic system.. Sprinkle this with some sort of hedonic justification of the 6 or so pleasures of the world (physical/aesthetic pleasure, relationships, yadayada...) :vomit: :vomit: and you have justification to use people FOR THEIR OWN GOOD DAMNIT!!.

Sprinkle this with some sort of hedonic justification of the 6 or so pleasures of the world (physical/aesthetic pleasure, relationships, yadayada...):vomit: :vomit: . — schopenhauer1

:lol:

The realities were because we were born we have to survive which means we need to utilize/consume some sort of resources for survival. — schopenhauer1

Well, the truth is that those pleasures you so eloquently disdain arise out of a biology that pushes us to utilize/consume just in order to procreate. Why? No meaningful reason. There's no point to our existence from the perspective of the universe.

But there's a point to my existence because I, as a conscious creature, am the meaning-maker and I say there is one. Instead of feeling robbed of.... of what? Non-existence? The chance not to...think? Be? Feel?

Once you've stared down the empty and treacherous throat of existential crisis, you need to pull yourself back and decide: "you took the sourest lemon that life has to offer and turned it into something resembling lemonade."

But there's a point to my existence because I, as a conscious creature, am the meaning-maker and I say there is one. Instead of feeling robbed of.... of what? Non-existence? The chance not to...think? Be? Feel? — NKBJ

That perspective is off.. If you never existed, there is no mattering in the first place. There is no you to be deprived of anything in the first place. You are not in a room saying, "Let me in!".

Once you've stared down the empty and treacherous throat of existential crisis, you need to pull yourself back and decide: "you took the sourest lemon that life has to offer and turned it into something resembling lemonade." — NKBJ

Just keep producing stuff or die, including more lemonade.

That perspective is off.. If you never existed, there is no mattering in the first place. There is no you to be deprived of anything in the first place. You are not in a room saying, "Let me in!". — schopenhauer1

Right! So what's the point in that?

Just keep producing stuff or die, including more lemonade. — schopenhauer1

I produce knowledge :wink: :victory:

Right! So what's the point in that? — NKBJ

It's a nonsensical question. The point in never existing (which can never happen to the ones who already exist) or for potential new people?

I produce knowledge :wink: :victory: — NKBJ

The assumption is that production is good and needs to occur, and people need to fulfill that by being born to do that. But of course this is begging the question why this needs to occur.

The assumption is that production is good and needs to occur, and people need to fulfill that by being born to do that. — schopenhauer1

That's not my assumption. My assumption is that since people are going to be born whether you like it or not, we have an obligation to make those lives as good and meaningful as possible.

good and meaningful as possible — NKBJ

I present to you my thread on this subject:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6202/work-should-be-based-on-quantity-of-boredom-involved

What do you value about your life, might I ask?

NKBJ, in my humble opinion, and this is external to our debate here, and I don't want to influence anyone else with this opinion, not even you, but only to explain to you my future course of (rather benign) actions, and why I chose that course: you are stupid. You are basically so stupid that you don't understand the power of argument.

My opinion of you here is not an ad hominem argument; this is not an argument; it is simply an opinion I formed about you, and that's where the buck stops.

Consequently I don't want to deal with you. Ever. Please note that I am stopping as of now to read your posts. If you respond to this post of mine, or any other, or if you write me a private note, I won't read it.

Please don't misunderstand that I do this to make others to follow my example. No, it's just simply between you and me.

In NKBJ’s defense, she might be arguing that people ought to take a stake (and often do) in the community regardless of how the system treats them personally.

As for the 70% agreeing with Medicare-for-all, the approval drops to a minority when followed up with the caveat that they would lose their employer-based insurance.

As for the 70% agreeing with Medicare-for-all, the approval drops to a minority when followed up with the caveat that they would lose their employer-based insurance. — Noah Te Stroete

Easy problem to confront given that the average person holds ~11 different jobs by the time they are 50, meaning that - assuming each employer actually provides health insurance - a person loses their employer-based insurance 11 times. People lose their employer-based insurance whenever they change jobs or if they are let go/fired.

I’m just pointing out that the actual approval of Medicare-for-all is much lower (a minority of around 30%) when it is actually understood what that entails.

In NKBJ’s defense, she might be arguing that people ought to take a stake (and often do) in the community regardless of how the system treats them personally. — Noah Te Stroete

She did not say this, and she denied the validity of valid arguments. I am sorry, I don't have the patience to continue doing a quixotic battle against windmills.

She had no defence. She said things that in my humble opinion were plain stupid.

I’m just pointing out that the actual approval of Medicare-for-all is much lower (a minority of around 30%) when it is actually understood what that entails. — Noah Te Stroete

Sure, but as I point out clarification and framing can shift this approval. So as I said, the way to confront this issue for voters is to say, well actually you and other people can lose your employee-based insurance if you change jobs, if you are let go from a job or fired, and the only way to secure permanent healthcare regardless of your employment situation is through Medicare for All.

She had no defence. She said things that in my humble opinion were plain stupid. — god must be atheist

Perhaps I read that into what she said. It would have been a halfway decent premise for her to build on.

Sure, but as I point out clarification and framing can shift this approval. — Maw

Yeah, people can be manipulated quite easily by authority figures. If they hear a leader with a strong personality frame something a certain way...

Yeah, people can be manipulated quite easily by authority figures. If they hear a leader with a strong personality frame something a certain way... — Noah Te Stroete

It has nothing to do with manipulation. If the public approval for Medicare goes down because of a specific concern viz., that people will lose their employee-based health coverage, then it can be addressed by the fact that people routinely lose their employee-based coverage quite often and that Medicare For All is the only way to ensure permanent coverage. It's a straightforward, and accurate response.

I’m not saying that I don’t agree with Medicare-for-all. I think I do. I’m just saying that the powers that be will frame it anyway they can to keep the status quo.

I must have you confused with someone else. For some reason I thought you were a Trump supporter... I was confused why a Trump supporter would argue for Medicare-for-all LOL

For some reason I thought you were a Trump supporter — Noah Te Stroete

my response

I have a pop-up blocker on my browser. Sorry

LOL just saw it

One of the worst assumptions of all economics is that people should like producing things, and that production is good in and of itself. The assumption is we should throw more people into the world so they can be happy producing things. Kill me now please. :vomit: — schopenhauer1

I've not suggested the purpose of our creation is to maximize production or that there is an inherent good in maximizing one's financial success. That's just a straw man that you've concocted.