Your criticism seems now to be that the good is not perfect. Well, so what? I don't claim that capitalism is a perfect system or that it can't devolve into baser systems. I simply think it's better than all other alternatives thus far on offer.

Would we ever break this cycle and be able to maximize leisure if we were afforded this opportunity? — schopenhauer1

The education system would have to be dismantled and remade first. It's what sets us up to be unhappy workaholics.

I think the point of the article was not really to go back to the Bushmen's hunting-gathering life but how to overcome workaholism- the pervasive habit to "go to work". It is acknowledging that there are other modes of life that require less formal work and have been practiced in our early history. How do people get beyond this habitual thinking that may be simply cultural baggage rather than a rooted fact of life.

Much of the work that people do in industrialized societies is unnecessary work. A good share of the work that needs to be done is being performed by machines (automation, robots, computer analysis of data, etc.)

If society was organized to produce necessities and not profits or luxuries such as 20,000 sq. ft. mansions for 2 or 3 people to live in, we would not have to work 40 hour weeks. Maybe 15 to 20 hours a week would be sufficient (but not all jobs work this way; strawberries have to be picked when they are ripe whether it takes sun up to sun down or not. Complicated surgery may take many hours. A broken pipe under the street has to be fix IMMEDIATELY, even if it takes all day and all night.

I think the point of the article was not really to go back to the Bushmen's hunting-gathering life but how to overcome workaholism- the pervasive habit to "go to work". It is acknowledging that there are other modes of life that require less formal work and have been practiced in our early history. How do people get beyond this habitual thinking that may be simply cultural baggage rather than a rooted fact of life. — schopenhauer1

The "go to work" mentality does result in added stressors, but it also results in the very things we often take for granted, like medical care, roads, parks, and all sorts of other basic infrastructure. If we all limited our work to 15 hours a week, or even if we stopped incentivizing those folks who are incentivized by the acquisition of worldly goods, we would all have less. What we would have less of would not be limited to purely luxury items, but of many of the basic necessities and conveniences of modern life.

Like it or not, those folks out there killing themselves for riches are contributing to the public good through taxes at far greater rates than those who have taken a more relaxed approach to life. Your roads, your schools, you medical care, and much else is funded by those who lives you criticize.

And that was my point is pointing out the abject poverty that the bushmen live in, which is the result, in part, of their lack of work, and really, it's based upon a social structure that outlived its usefulness thousands of years ago.

Your attempt to assert that I am equivocal on the use of terms like "monopoly," "corporation," and so on isn't warranted because these terms can be used in a non-legal sense. — Thorongil

You are equivocal and vague in your usage of the terms, except perhaps by "corporation," you mean bogeyman.

Think about it. If some crazy guy wants X, then I'd be a fool not to provide it, because I'd be dropping the opportunity to make money. That's why consumerism naturally and inevitably leads to leftism (transexual bathrooms, transexual surgeries, etc. etc.). — Agustino

Capitalism does lead to an increase in human rights, which is something the left does not generally want to accept. In fact, they incorrectly argue the opposite.

Your preoccupation with the gender dysphoric and to those with sexual appetites and norms varying from your own is odd and diverts otherwise meaningful conversations.

And for what it's worth, I absolutely don't see myself as a consumer. — Agustino

That you don't see yourself as a consumer doesn't mean you're not. It just means you're dysphoric.

Capitalism does lead to an increase in human rights, which is something the left does not generally want to accept. In fact, they incorrectly argue the opposite. — Hanover

I don't see a link with human rights here at all.

Your preoccupation with the gender dysphoric and to those with sexual appetites and norms varying from your own is odd and diverts otherwise meaningful conversations. — Hanover

If capitalism leads to the production and sale of "goods" which are harmful, then I absolutely don't think that's good and admirable. Do you?

It just means you're dysphoric. — Hanover

It seems you're quite passionate about using this queer word, now could you actually get to the point where you explain what does not seeing myself as a consumer have to do with being dysphoric, which I'm probably not.

And that was my point is pointing out the abject poverty that the bushmen live in, which is the result, in part, of their lack of work, and really, it's based upon a social structure that outlived its usefulness thousands of years ago. — Hanover

You hold so many assumptions of what useful is though. Of course, if you grow up with the "stuff" of the modern economy you are not going back. The Bushmen, however, grew up that way and when exposed to other ways, MOSTLY DON'T LIKE IT. See here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24821867 . You are talking to an antinatalist though. The easy way to solve the problem of work is to not create more workers. I do not live so that we have public goods so that I can have pleasurable experiences. You do not live for public goods so that you can have pleasurable experiences. He does not live for public goods to have pleasurable experiences. Those are all assumptions of what SHOULD happen for other people.

I will say, going to the bathroom in camping fashion for a whole lifetime seems dismal to me. Also, this probably contributes to gastrointestinal diseases. But again, if you GROW UP with the lifestyle and when exposed to others STILL want to live in the communal/DIY setting of the Bushmen, that may say something.

Tribe of "Bushmen" are in this movie. I think the English language would be more interesting if clucks and clicks were added as in the African speech. :D

I was waiting for that movie to be referenced.

You are equivocal and vague in your usage of the terms, except perhaps by "corporation," you mean bogeyman. — Hanover

Nah, I'm not.

(Y) From what I understand, even at the time the movie was made (1980), the San people were already being forced to live in settlements. So the tribal scenes are re-inactments in a way. This documentary about a African healer and the remaining San tribe is interesting:

About the difference in amount of work between this tribe and our civilization, two main differences come to mind. The role of money and the relationship with the earth.

Even when a tribe has a barter system or even a kind of money, it is used radically differently. It is as a placeholder for the materials of life, which are sacred. They are sacred in themselves because they were alive, or at least came from Mother Earth. And they are sacred because they sustain life among the tribe. There is a cohesion within the tribe which is almost an extended family. It has the quarrels and clashes of a family, but there is an deep connection. If one member of the tribe is in need, someone will pick them up. Even if they store up some extra food and possessions, it is in no way comparable to our system of inequality. Money not as food, clothing, shelter, art, medicine. Our way is money as leverage, as power. Someone could have 10 million dollars, and think that they need more to really do what they want, to really dominate the market, dominate everything.

Domination is the goal of our culture, written or unwritten. And to dominate others and gain status and goods, the most "successful" are generally those who dominate the living earth the most and turn it into "stuff", into consumables. And the primary product is food. Unlimited food to feed our population. The ever growing population needs ever growing food production. There is a close relationship to this. Notice how tribal cultures always seem to do two things very well? To not let their population grow out of control and to respect the earth, taking only what is needed. The two things are so close as to be one thing. And this is their law of life which has helped them thrive for hundreds of thousands, even millions of years.

Ok, cool. But what does this have to do with us? (One may ask). We are modern and civilized. The more humans on the planet, the less likely we are to becoming extinct, right? It shows that we are on the most successful path, the way of dominance. Right? We are a computerized and digital people. The only digits that a tribal person understands are on their hand. So what could these holdovers from prehistory possibly have to teach us? Not many things, really. Perhaps only one thing: How to avoid becoming extinct.