I'm reading the novel Jurassic Park by the late Michael Crichton. In it the gigantic T. Rex is a problem no doubt but its the much smaller Velociraptors that are the real killers; heck, even the Procompsognathids manage to put a child in hospital.
— TheMadFool

Rhetoric only hurts if the audience takes the bait. Work is necessary to survive. But the assumption is that this is good in the first place. You immediately end the conversation to question this necessity of life or life itself by saying it’s juvenile. Bypass all thinking and just tar and feather. — schopenhauer1

I was once in the past a boy, once a girl, once a tree
Once too a bird, and once a silent fish in the sea — Empedocles (Metempsychosis)

Empedocles, when he was a tree, just sat there, rooted to the spot, and did absolutely no work at all. Technology and its progenitor, science, to the rescue I presume.Artificial photosynthesis - just sit there under the yellow glow of our sun and breathe. Everything will be fine.

Trying to explain things is basically the best way to understand them I would say. Even if you make a hash of it you can at least build on your next attempt.

I really don't see how talking about the physics definition of 'work' fits into this specific topic? — I like sushi

Physics offers a different perspective to the issue of work. It's likely that I'm not completely on the mark but whenever we fail to understand something well we immediately, instinctively, look at the time. It's 5:30 AM where I'm at, the year is 2021 (I think).

You immediately end the conversation to question this necessity of life or life itself by saying it’s juvenile. — schopenhauer1

Call me slow but just realised this is framed as an extension from antinatalism. I am not saying antinatalism is 'juvenile' (as an intellectual position). I think it has numerous holes in that I argued with the same sake who posted in these forums about it. It was a good discussion and we both agreed to disagree. I have called it ridiculous and another things I'm sure to try and get to the bottom of what the other person meant.

My point was simply that in youth we are not made to hold many responsibilities. In youth we generally have it easy because we don't see the work involved to allow us to live in such a way. Clearly some people are burdened with more responsibility than others - parent shoulder the burden of providing necessities due to human's extended infantile and juvenile states compared to other species.

This thread looked like something else. This thread I thought was focused mainly on ways to reduce working hours.

You mentioned Marx so I thought it worth pointing out that if we're reducing hours then surely we're reducing pay if we're talking about the very same job - unless the person could do the same amount of work in 3 hrs that they could in 5 hrs?

If you are saying it is 'necessary' to earn a wage then this isn't exactly true. You don't have to it is just that you have to learn how not to earn a salary and live by other means - becoming completely self-sufficient. But you would still be 'working' just not earning a wage. It would be difficult to fit this into most societies so you'd have to give up the benefits of a 'wage living society' in favour of another (or convince everyone else your way is better).

Often enough people either don't realise what freedom they have by disbelief or fear. I know I fear the realisation of the degree of my freedom very often as I know with freedom comes responsibility. I can try and inform people but generally there are types of people at points in their life that simply won't listen (due to disbelief/fear). We all suffer from a lack of conviction, but there is something to gain in caution too ... there doesn't appear to be a one-size-fits-all solution but there can be improvements made to try and communicate and understand and this will, so it seems to me, at least lessen the number of phantoms that can stand in the way of us becoming whatever it is we're to become. Of course the fatalists will mock such an attitude but they only do so because they don't believe they can do otherwise :)

Do you see a differentiation with a plutocrat that that invented a new product... — schopenhauer1

The short answer to a very good question is: No.

Take Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak deserve credit for bringing together several already-existing components (the mouse, the graphical interface, the electronic bits and pieces, the all-in-one-box) as a new product. My first computer was a Macintosh, which I loved and adored. Bill Gates is another example of a gigantic fortune from invention. I always preferred Microsoft Word and Excel to all others.

They deserve great credit, but they do not deserve unlimited financial reward. Why not?

First, creativity, invention, and innovation depend on the creative, intellectual, and physical labor of many predecessors without which there would be nothing new. The Macintosh Computer rested on a century's worth of technological development. Science and industry are inherently social activities which gradually accumulate potential for new technology.

Second, if there is to be a fortune made from new technology (like personal computers) the inventor depends on the socially accumulated wealth of bankers and investors who are willing to gamble on making a product a reality, and perhaps a success, in exchange for a payoff. Without financial investors, there would be no iPhones, no music streaming, no Teslas, no airplanes, no televisions, no LED lights, no railroads, no nothing.

Everything that is made today depends on social accumulation of knowledge and wealth. Specific individuals (like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk) capitalize on what others have built previously--and 99% of the accumulation was produced by working people.

...and ones that just found themselves as heads of industry by luck? The ones that invented something, will say they are getting their just reward and providing jobs for the little people to [sell, train, support, install, account for the money of, transport, warehouse, market, website maintain, develop further product development], of the product they started. — schopenhauer1

They would say that. They might also say (but will not) that their fortune depends on all the jobs "the little people" did -- "sell, train, support, install, account for the money of, transport, warehouse, market, website maintain, develop further product development]". Without all the workers' efforts, there would be no fortune, no reward.

Look, this isn't personal. I am not bitter (despite my avatar). I don't dislike Steve Jobs or Elon Musk or any other multi-billionaire. I don't know them, don't have to deal with them. I willingly contributed to the fortunes of Steve Jobs and the stockholders of Apple™. We have all made contributions to the great fortunes of the very few. We live within a capitalist society. Accumulation of wealth is THE NAME OF THE GAME. I neither tried nor succeeded at that game. I don't admire the winners of this game.

But if you ask, "Is this a good system?" I am emotionally and rationally compelled to answer, "Absolutely not!" and argue for a system which distributes reward for both fizzy creativity and mud-slogging work fairly. A fair and equitable distribution of rewards for work is possible, and it doesn't look like our capitalist system.

First, creativity, invention, and innovation depend on the creative, intellectual, and physical labor of many predecessors without which there would be nothing new. The Macintosh Computer rested on a century's worth of technological development. Science and industry are inherently social activities which gradually accumulate potential for new technology. — Bitter Crank

Then they would just say that this accumulation would not occur without the incentive to make money from it. We can scowl at it, but it's true. There are basically two kind of inventor types. There is the removed scientist. Think of Einstein. Then there is the opportunist. Think of people like Ford or Edison. The Fords and Edisons need their workers.. And the Bezos and the Musks and the like.

Second, if there is to be a fortune made from new technology (like personal computers) the inventor depends on the socially accumulated wealth of bankers and investors who are willing to gamble on making a product a reality, and perhaps a success, in exchange for a payoff. Without financial investors, there would be no iPhones, no music streaming, no Teslas, no airplanes, no televisions, no LED lights, no railroads, no nothing. — Bitter Crank

Sure, but the bankers do have a leg up here on the inventor in that they will loan them the capital to build their empire and make them and the inventor filthy rich if it works. Bankers want this. I've never heard of an exploited banker.

Everything that is made today depends on social accumulation of knowledge and wealth. Specific individuals (like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk) capitalize on what others have built previously--and 99% of the accumulation was produced by working people. — Bitter Crank

The inventor entrepreneur will just say that if the "working people" can invent something, they would. But they didn't and can't, so they must get their income from the elect.

They would say that. They might also say (but will not) that their fortune depends on all the jobs "the little people" did -- "sell, train, support, install, account for the money of, transport, warehouse, market, website maintain, develop further product development]". Without all the workers' efforts, there would be no fortune, no reward. — Bitter Crank

Of course they will thank the little people. They give them benefits and vacations (or not if they are working under a less charitable Lord of the Manor). They should be thankful, right?!

But if you ask, "Is this a good system?" I am emotionally and rationally compelled to answer, "Absolutely not!" and argue for a system which distributes reward for both fizzy creativity and mud-slogging work fairly. A fair and equitable distribution of rewards for work is possible, and it doesn't look like our capitalist system. — Bitter Crank

But the Lords will say that the incentive for creativity is lost. Most are the Edison types and not the Einstein, just do it cause they are curious.

they would just say that this... — schopenhauer1

The inventor entrepreneur will just say... — schopenhauer1

they will thank the little people... — schopenhauer1

But the Lords will say that... — schopenhauer1

The bourgeoisie have all sorts of justifications to cover their operations. They will keep repeating their self-justifications until the world is an unlivable hothouse and we are all dead. If we expect to leave a world fit to live in (say in 80 years or so) we had best reject their lies, deceits, misrepresentations, and self-serving fictions.

The bourgeoisie have all sorts of justifications to cover their operations. They will keep repeating their self-justifications until the world is an unlivable hothouse and we are all dead. — Bitter Crank

But air conditioning, medicine, heating, cars, radio, satellites, all the technology.. They will just say that you're gonna take it an like it and work at least 40 hours for it until you "retire" like the famous Bitter Crank. They will say, "See that wasn't that bad.. Your service to keeping our franchises going. You have the technology.. We invented it, paid off the engineers and programmers and scientists and doctors to make our initial ideas grow.. And you buy it, you use it, you pay for it, and you can't live without it."

I can't quite tell whether you are caricaturing the ruling class, or giving them your obeisance on bended knees. If you are on your knees, get the fuck up this instant!

Their great conceit is that they, and they alone, have actually "invented it, paid off the engineers and programmers and scientists and doctors to make our initial ideas grow". They think these myths justify their existence. But you know better! You know that the contributions of the rich (who as a group are not particularly inventive, creative, or innovative -- with a few excepted) are slight compared to the genius and work of all the technical workers (inventors, engineers, programmers, scientists, doctors, professors, administrators, ET AL) who actually bring ideas to fruition (regardless of where they come from).

The economy of a successful country requires the efforts of almost everyone. The queen of a beehive, ant hill, or termite mound is but one role of many essential workers. Does the hive die if the queen dies? No. The workers have the ability to create new queens.

In the same way, the rich "kings and queens" of a country can drop dead without the economy screeching to a halt, because the economy has so many essential operators. 128 million workers -- including everyone keep the train on the track and it's wheels turning.

It has ever been thus.

I am not sure why one would protest "work". I understand the concept of not enjoying one's work, however the idea of not being required to work in some form seems poorly considered. No system is flawless, however antinatalism seems to be an utterly bankrupt concept, although perhaps I misunderstand how you consider it applicable in this circumstance.

I do not dislike work per se, there are other things I would rather be doing however. Therefore, moving forward from that point, I have reduced my required income level to allow for a single income household, and am working to further reduce my required income so that I am able to move to a 32 hour work week. This allows me to do things that I want to do with my wife while maintaining the lifestyle we enjoy. I can always pick up a few extra shifts if I want to, but it is very nice to not need to.

becoming completely self-sufficient. — I like sushi

Nice idea, but not actually possible, unless one operates as a parasite. It takes a little flexibility of the term "self-sufficient", but if one considers the ability to sponge off the work and assets of others as self sufficient, then it is possible to be so. Otherwise, nope. Minimally reliant is the best one can hope for.

I haven't known many people who are willing to work hard to get what they want; not physically and not mentally. I have known a great many that want to win the lottery, would like a giant inheritance, etc. but work for it? Damned few. I would suggest that the system we are in is less flawed than we like to think. The players are flawed perhaps more than the system.

I guess you take what I meant as living in a city and begging or something?

It is actually possible to live off the land - our ancestors were this kind of 'parasite'. Of course I wasn't suggesting it would be easy or that everyone has the knowhow how to become more self-sufficient.

I have spotted that a great number of people won't take such a freedom as it requires a lot of hard work and a complete change in lifestyle. It can be done it is just that neither of us are sufficiently willing to do it.

What you say here makes sense yet it seems in opposition to your remark:

I haven't known many people who are willing to work hard to get what they want; not physically and not mentally. I have known a great many that want to win the lottery, would like a giant inheritance, etc. but work for it? Damned few. I would suggest that the system we are in is less flawed than we like to think. The players are flawed perhaps more than the system. — Book273

become more self-sufficient — I like sushi

Becoming more self sufficient is totally doable. Completely self sufficient is next to impossible. By example: I have built an off grid cabin. Solar panel electricity production, battery storage. Wood stove for heat and cooking. I have come home, at -35 Celsius in howling snow storm when the power grid has been off for hours all over the territory, to find my wife and son watching a dvd, the cabin warm and cozy, with a hot stew on the stove and fresh bread nearly done. They were unaware that the storm had knocked out power to 35,000 people. That is one level of self-sufficient, but I am unable to make the solar panels, or storage batteries. While I could weld the stove together, I cannot make the plate steel needed. I can make bio-diesel to run my truck, but I cannot make the tires. That was the point I was trying to make.

Next year I am taking my house off grid. Total solar array, battery storage. I have installed the new electrical wiring and reduced the electrical demands already. My old electric stove is gone, a new propane one is now in the kitchen. I can remove the electric hot water tank and install a propane one next year, further reducing my electrical demands. I will also be replacing one of my internal combustion vehicles with a 100% electric vehicle (yes, the solar array can handle the charging of the Electric Vehicle as well). I can't make propane, and while I could make and manage methane, chances are I will stay with propane (unless everything really collapses and propane is no longer available). So I am doing what I can to become more self-sufficient and reduce my monetary needs. It takes careful consideration, skill, and money (less the more skill and thought go into the projects). I have a well, so don't need city water. We have a garden, and 16 chickens, and a wood stove. However, I will never be as self-sufficient as I would like. Could I not use a powered vehicle and take a pedal bike to work? Sure, but since it's 34 km one way, I won't. Also it's winter 4 months a year, so that won't work then either.

I absolutely support the idea of more self-sufficiency, and thoughtful, deliberate lives. Usually that involves more work, not less, and as one is working for themselves, the work is not paid in the traditional way.

If you want to play guitar all day rather than build something "productive" — schopenhauer1

Where would you get the guitar from. Who would repair it for you if the need would arise. Who would power your electricity (assuming it would be needed) and why would they do so. Where would you play it, on the street? In a house? Who would teach you how to build one and where would you get the materials from or otherwise why would they build one for you? Why would they not just take it later? How will you defend it? With your guitar? A weapon? Who would make it for you or provide you for one or the knowledge of how to create one and learn to use it properly? Why would they do so for you when they could do so for someone else who maybe has something to offer even if that something is but a simple thanks.

Who told you what a guitar is? How did you hear it? From another person? Or through a technological medium? Who created that medium and who maintains it? Why would they do so for free when they can instead hold your favorite forms of entertainment hostage until you pony up something of use for their time.

Maybe I want your guitar and I happen to be larger than you. Who's going to stop me from taking it? The police? Why would they risk their lives for random ass greedy you when they could just sit at home and play their own guitar that perhaps they built and learned how to play through actually giving a damn and at least attempting to improve the world around them.

It just goes on and on. Eventually you reach a piper that has to be paid, even after swindling, dodging, or doing worse to those before.

It just goes on and on. Eventually you reach a piper that has to be paid, even after swindling, dodging, or doing worse to those before. — Outlander

That was my whole point. People don’t inherently ALWAYS want to do “productive” jobs somehow “inherently”. More like “hobby-like” things. A lot of grunt work, retail work, admin work, back breaking work, dirty work, boring work, etc would be abandoned for leisurely work. So no, communist utopias of people just working without the rat race aspect also seems inaccurate. Work as it is in the current age is intractable. The workweek as it is remains.

My solution is not as radical or controversial as people make it. Boycott new workers who have to work, it’s more important not to force more workers than to gain some kind of utility from the shitty system. Or just keep throwing more grist for the mill and replicating the same way of life to yet another hapless person. One that also navigates the system. Don’t perpetuate the system, not gonna change in any grand way. We can’t even do a 32 hour work week across the board let alone develop a system where work isn’t necessary. All we can do is make work look like a virtue so some people can buy into it, while still making it cushy enough not to resist and create more workers.

Rebellion through boycott. Don’t give the system more workers. Don’t give yet another worker the system to deal with. All we can do is make hard work look like enough of a virtue and then sand off the edges so there is not too much complaint with it. If existence gives you lemons, stop thinking you should make a lemon aid stand and just don’t expose people the lemons to begin with. It’s a different take than we are supposed to buy into. If that is the reality we don’t have to make new people “just deal with it”. We can simply stop exposing more people to it. The Stoics, and military drill Sargent types, and self-helps, and social pressure virtues are supposed to persuade you that the system is good enough and you simply have to comply and the pay off is the leisure time built in or maybe some enjoyment from the work itself. Family, work, leisure, wealth.All the slogans pushed in middle class virtue.

Heres a workers unite utopia- everyone working to make sure the next generation is doesn’t have to deal with any of this. We are all smiling knowing that we are the last that has to experience the bullshit. We all come together to commiserate our being a part of this intractable problem but know it at least won’t be perpetuated so there’s some solace. But then someone has to procreate..and another and another..nope never mind. More work for more workers!

Why not step your game and remove workers from the system? Why go through attrition by not making more workers (antinatalism) when one could simple remove (murder) already existing workers? Would that not in truth save these poor unfortunates from further toil and suffering. even more so because they have been deluded into believing they are happy with their toil, those poor unfortunate bastards! Poison the water as rebellion!

Again, not seeing the value of Antinatalism. Seems on par with murder for the betterment of humanity. Maybe a case can be made for it, but really, it's a tough sell eh.

Why not step your game and remove workers from the system? Why go through attrition by not making more workers (antinatalism) when one could simple remove (murder) already existing workers? Would that not in truth save these poor unfortunates from further toil and suffering. even more so because they have been deluded into believing they are happy with their toil, those poor unfortunate bastards! Poison the water as rebellion! — Book273

Straw man. One is harming no actual person and quite the opposite, preventing a lifetime of accumulated harms. The other is definitely harming someone. ANs usually aren’t crass utilitarians. There’s usually a deontological basis of not using people.

it’s more important not to force more workers than to gain some kind of utility from the shitty system — schopenhauer1

So, did a magical pelican fly into your window one day and teach you how to read, speak, and use logic? I'll admit as an individual you make a good argument as far as your case but, many people enjoy what society has brought them to achieve. Literally every word or thought you express is a result of this "system" you speak of. Though for myself it's a fair case, wouldn't you agree to at least assign value or purpose to your own thoughts or actions? See. Painted into a corner. Yes or no the answer is yes. So chill out man.

All we can do is make work look like a virtue so some people can buy into it — schopenhauer1

How do you eat lol. Seriously. Who guards your crops and provides a sense of security so random passers by don't just pick what they can carry in the dead of night and leave you starving and empty during harvest time? These are important questions people ask themselves. And have answered. Like it or not the person who can at least plant a crop they have to eat to live, gets to stay compared to someone who just eats it and tries to convince they're of equal value to the other guy.

Like it or not the person who can at least plant a crop they have to eat to live, gets to stay compared to someone who just eats it and tries to convince they're of equal value to the other guy. — Outlander

And yet creating more people and calling them shitty for not killing themselves or otherwise following the proper course is moral? Ya know my knee jerk reaction to that argument is a four letter word followed by off.

No I'll admit there's a thousand things wrong with the current capitalist system, most of which have at least some form of remedy or at least attention paid to but, this premise of greater effort =/= greater gain is kinda.. I dunno man without getting into too grizzly detail, simply put it didn't sit well with most folks.

No I'll admit there's a thousand things wrong with the current capitalist system, most of which have at least some form or remedy or at least attention to but, this premise of greater effort =/= greater gain is kinda.. I dunno man without getting into too grizzly detail, simply put it didn't sit well with folks. — Outlander

I’m not disagreening that this is perhaps the only way it can ever be. Rather, if that is the case, I don’t make the very political decision for someone else that they should too be experiencing and going through this process in the first place. Don’t use people as yet another worker. You boycott the system and you don’t use people who can’t avoid it. Win/win.

this premise of greater effort =/= greater gain is kinda.. I dunno man without getting into too grizzly detail, simply put it didn't sit well with folks. — Outlander

Not sure what sits poorly about it really. When I was self employed I worked hard. My customers were happy to pay the bill, even when it was for something that they were capable of doing but just didn't want to do. I made good money. I knew other self-employed guys that did not want to do what I did, they chose the easy work and they made less money. They did not gripe about it, as they did not want the jobs I took. There was also less competition as I wasn't bidding against them nor they against me. Customers were happy as well as the contractors. The employees that did not want to work at the level required for my company worked for the other guys'. Again, everyone wins.

Perhaps you could explain the problem to me.

This one's for you! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOI8RuhW7q0

I can't quite tell whether you are caricaturing the ruling class, or giving them your obeisance on bended knees. If you are on your knees, get the fuck up this instant! — Bitter Crank

Haha.. No, I am just giving you their arguments so you can knock em down. I agree largely with you. I just want to make sure the other side is presented at least.

The economy of a successful country requires the efforts of almost everyone. The queen of a beehive, ant hill, or termite mound is but one role of many essential workers. Does the hive die if the queen dies? No. The workers have the ability to create new queens.

In the same way, the rich "kings and queens" of a country can drop dead without the economy screeching to a halt, because the economy has so many essential operators. 128 million workers -- including everyone keep the train on the track and it's wheels turning. — Bitter Crank

Here's a question.. Would you think that if workers got more benefits and holidays, the more existential situation surrounding work is resolved? What to you looks like "resolved"? I ask this because my answer is simply to not HAVE more workers in the first place, as the problem is intractable. A "worker's paradise" seems like a contradiction in terms. It's like "prison paradise" or something.

my answer is simply to not HAVE more workers in the first place, as the problem is intractable. A "worker's paradise" seems like a contradiction in terms. It's like "prison paradise" or something. — schopenhauer1

From an anti-natalist position, the problem is utterly intractable. From the pro-natalist POV, 'The Problem' isn't exactly a piece of cake to solve, either. The (presumed) leisure of the ancient hunter-gatherer hasn't been available for roughly 12,000 years. Extracting from the earth the requirements of a reasonably satisfactory settled civilization involves a lot of laborious tasks.

We certainly can reduce our energy and material requirements, and we jolly well had better do so, if we expect to have a future--which is a key plank in the pro-natal platform. A rational use of resources (e.g., public transit instead of 1 billion automobiles, gas powered or electric; apartments instead of single-person houses, less clothing, furnishings, and so forth) would reduce the collective work load, and is entirely doable, even without eliminating capitalism.

No matter how optimistic one is, paradise on earth is not an option; we might be able to avoid hell.

Would you think that if workers got more benefits and holidays, the more existential situation surrounding work is resolved? — schopenhauer1

American workers work more hours and receive far shorter holidays than European workers, along with fewer benefits. So, the "existential situation" variable as it is for individuals, would not be "resolved" but it would be a real improvement for most workers.

Think about this:

American workers work more hours and receive far shorter holidays than European workers — Bitter Crank

Maybe that's the secret behind America's colossal economy! Keep at it Americans, keep at it.

Consumption drives 70% of American GDP. It's Americans as fat, lazy consumers that produces our colossal economy, not slim, hard-working, industrious workers. Plus, having 325,000,000 people helps; plus, a huge defense establishment spending mega bucks; plus a big country with plenty of good land, oil, coal, iron, copper, water, et al.

It might all come crashing down. Frank Zappa asks:

What will you do if we let you go home
And the plastic's all melted
And so is the chrome?

What will you do when the label comes off
And the plastic's all melted
And the chrome is too soft?

What will you do if the people you knew
Were the plastic that melted
And the chromium too?

Consumption drives 70% of American GDP. — Bitter Crank

How does the US economy hold itself up? Lemme guess. It has a solid production base which drives up the value of the dollar. These dollars then make Americans über-consumers. The 30%, in a way, props up the 70%. An odd looking pyramid, upside down actually. Won't it topple? Is it a question of when and not if? Just exploring the topic. I hope it makes sense at some level.