↪Frank Apisa Considering the amount of goods the USA imports from other countries, I'd say it's a relevant question. — Tzeentch

I don't, but perhaps you are correct.

I could suggest:

Why not try answering my question, but preferencing your response with something like, "Assuming that by 'we' you mean _____" and "Assuming that by 'everyone' you mean_____?"

But whether I mean just Americans when I use "we" and just Americans when I use "everyone"...

...or if I mean "all humans on the planet" when I use "we" and "every human on the planet" when I use everyone...

...what real difference would it make to my question?

On a global scale we humans collectively now have the capability to produce MORE THAN ENOUGH for everyone on the planet to have plenty (more than just enough to stay alive)...without everyone working anywhere near as hard as many of us (all we humans) are now working.

Right on, Leo.

Things have got to change.

We have got to be working much, much less...and enjoying leisure time a lot more. ESPECIALLY here in America...where we are driven by the work ethic more than almost anywhere else.

I just hope we pull it off peacefully...rather than be pushed into a destructive revolution of some kind. I want to see some politicians actually speaking up the problem.

None around at the moment that I can see.

No problemo! I just went back and read my response. I came on a bit strong in that reply. I musta been having a bad day yesterday. Lots of my replies were a bit over-the- top.

My bad.

Tzeentch
584
↪Frank Apisa Um, sure. But what does that have to do with anything? — Tzeentch

I've been at this a long time, Tz. Started in Abuzz, the New York Times/Boston Globe forum...the best I've ever been in.,

One thing I've learned over the years is...when you are in a discussion with someone who asks what you mean by words like "we" and "everyone"...best to just change the subject.

If you want to just fuck around...no problem. There are times when I want to do that...and I do. You have every right to do it if you choose.

But right now, if YOU do...go do it with someone else.

If you actually want to discuss, though, I am more than happy to accommodate.

Tzeentch
582
EVERYONE should have sufficient...EVERYONE should have plenty. What do we not have enough of?
— Frank Apisa

It depends on what you mean with "we" and "everyone".

And the way things are now...YES...people ARE forced to work.
— Frank Apisa

No, they're not. People just feel that way because they really like the benefits that working (or more specifically, money) brings. — Tzeentch

So...have you seen any good movies lately.

Or read any good books.

EVERYONE should have sufficient...EVERYONE should have plenty. What do we not have enough of?

And the way things are now...YES...people ARE forced to work.

The concept of "earning a living" stopped making sense a long time ago. — Anthony

It has indeed, Anthony.

The Protestant Work Ethic has us in its vices...and will not give up its grip even a bit.

For many...even considering making life more pleasurable...with less toil and more leisure...is uncomfortable.

We gotta get over that.

Shouldn't people decide for themselves what is enough, though? — Tzeentch

Absolutely. But I argue that one of the choices should be, "Not work as much as we are almost forced to work now."

I suspect a lot of people will choose that option. And we will still have plenty if we plan correctly.

It's an interesting idea, but I think certain consequences need to be considered.

It makes large groups of people completely dependent on their government, and this would have a great impact on the amount of power that government has over those people. What happens when a government starts to leverage that power? What happens to these people when circumstances change and the money to finance them is no longer available?

Being complete dead-weight to a society makes those people extremely vulnerable. — Tzeentch

What you are saying is: There are philosophical implications that must be considered.

I agree.

There is plenty for everyone...DOES WORK.

It requires some adjustment in thinking.

This is a PHILOSOPHY forum.

Let's discuss the philosophical implications.

Yup.

We come a long way, technologically.

We should not have to work anywhere near as hard as we used to have to work.

But back in the 1950's...the norm was for only one person (usually the father was the provider) in the family to work...and that person earned enough for shelter, medical needs, education, transportation, food, clothing and all other needs...plus small vacations and even some savings for later years.

Today...after the introduction of billions of slave machines...both parents work...sometimes with more than one job...and basic needs are barely met.

During my lifetime, normal work went from 45 hours during 5 1/2 days a week...to 40 hours 5 days a week. That was back in the 1950's.

We should be working 2 days a week...10 hours now.

This all sucks.

Too bad that. More free time makes more sense.
But...if you think having life be easier and more pleasure for those who would prefer it...is something to scorn...show it as much contempt as you want.

Artemis
1.7k
↪Frank Apisa

All work and no play makes Frank a dull boy....

Buuuuuuut,

All play and no $$$ makes Frank a homeless, hungry, cold boy with a cardboard sign at the intersection.

Besides, I like to work. I think Marx was right, that having a job where you feel ownership and pride and satisfaction is an essential part of being a fulfilled human being. — Artemis

Read what I wrote above. Why are we so wedded to the idea that people must work...in order to have the stuff they need for a reasonable life?

Me...I'm like you. I like to work. I'm 83...and I don't have to work, but I do. Not a lot...just two days a week...and the money I make pays for a few things. (Since I work at a golf course, it also provides the free golf I crave as a perk.)

We've got more than enough for everyone, Artemis.

Why not just distribute it better...and without the requirement to work. Leave the work to those who want to work. They do a better job of it. And they will be paid better for their work...so that they can have more than just adequate.

Tzeentch
579
Because being without a job and having bills to pay is a scary thing. — Tzeentch

Why not just come to the realization that we have MORE THAN ENOUGH for everyone...and just find a more efficient system to distribute the bounty...one that doesn't involve being forced to work.

The people who want to work will be able to work...and the people who do not want to work (who are mostly very inefficient and harm productivity by being forced to work)...can do whatever they would rather be doing.

What would be the alternative, I wonder... "My death did not work out the way I planned." (-: — god must be atheist

I like that. Gonna borrow it, if you give permission...or steal it if you don't! (Smiles)

Without marriage, if either of you dies... they may be more involved than you'd like, and possibly in ways that you'd not imagined they could. — creativesoul

Thank you, CS. Actually, we have pretty much determined that one of us WILL die. (In fact, we are certain that we will BOTH die at some point.)

Neither of us has an inordinate amount of material wealth and we both have wills. We each also have living wills and written end of life instructions.

It'll work out.

Just a casual warning that advice from non-professionals, no matter how well-meaning or well-intended...is more likely to lead in a negative direction than a positive one...if RELIEF is the objective.

Work with professionals. Non-professionals are more likely to suggest ways for things to get worse...than better.

That's, for the most part, just silly little 6th grade reading level propaganda devoid of anything akin to logic, proper uses (and abuses) of facts, and so on, regardless of any serious "left" or "right" paradigm

Whatever archaic philosophical axioms that nonsense is predicated on to begin with (generally probably an outdated philosophical tidbit from Bentham or Mill, or some other philosophical or psychological axiom such as 'behaviorism' which is known to be considered nonsense, and arguably even was during the archaic era when it was supposedly popular or trendy, such as more serious philosophy of the law and its various rational and intentional axioms, as per Oliver Wendell Holmes, and others (coupled with a bare basic ignorance of the simple cause and effect which such an archaic philosophy and the proposals predicated on the archaic logic and nonsensical and impractical approximations and averagings thereof were apt to ignore entirely due to want of any intellectual reasoning that approximating or attempting to measure or estimate would require the use of mental and mathematical faculties lacking, or be entirely stupid and/or ignorant of to begin with, in both theories and in practice...

...falsely conflated either dishonestly or through sheer ignorance, lack of education, or stupidity with other domains of knowledge and abstractions), kind of akin to those idiots who conflate a scientific "theory" with a "conspiracy theory", due to the simple mutual inclusions of the word "theory", for example.

Most if not all, mass media, BBC, "liberal", "conservative", or otherwise, would be mostly obsolete if most people read, wrote, or had basic reading comprehension above the bare minimum 6th grade reading level which most of it is marketed to and for, such as having actually ever read and fully comprehended a treatise on Aristotelian logic and how it is and/or should actually be used in theory or practice.

(Hint, merely pointing out a textbook "fallacy" in another's argument isn't actually necessarily a good debate tactic, since the use of fallacies isn't necessarily or automatically "bad", it simply has the potential to be wrong in varying degrees (as opposed to pure mathematical abstractions). — IvoryBlackBishop

Yes!

Yeah, like GMBA, I was VERY promiscuous as a young man. Had a ball. Loved the life style...and would not change any of the memories.

But now I've been with Nancy for 38 years. We met on a blind date set up by a friend. Haven't been apart since...and I would not change any of the memories I have of this monogamous relationship.

ASIDE: We've been together, as I mentioned, for 38 years...and have never married. We've both just felt that no governmental agency or church need be involved in our relationship.

For me, "debate" (especially in an Internet forum) is just fun...a pleasant, engaging pastime that stimulates the brain much as a brisk walk stimulates the body.

My position on it would be more like, "Just enjoy it, don't over-think it"...than the considerations you offer in your OP.

Unfortunately, to those on the RIGHT from almost any country...

...reporting the truth is leaning to the left.

Ya know what...it is, because the last thing in the world the right wants...is to hear the truth. They want news artificially slanted toward the right.

So...if you guys get control in England or Canada or the United States...do your best to dismantle the media. Then you can get Rupert Murdoch to do the broadcasting of right-wing fiction...and you will feel better. Your country, and its ethics, will go down the drain, but don't let that bother you.

Not sure I understand your question, Tim. Can you flesh it out a bit, please.

What really has to be known is...

...what people in this discussion mean by "atheist" when discussing the issue.

If they simply mean "someone lacking a 'belief' that any gods exist'" (a nonsensical meaning of the word in my estimation)...then...so what. If they are using that meaning...there may be a GOD, a God, several gods, or no gods. Intelligent design could be a function of any of those things...plus others.

If, by atheist" they mean someone who 'believes' there are no gods or someone who 'believes' it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is one...a serious, almost irreconcilable issue arises: What is the "intelligence" causing the "design."

If you had specified, "This thing that we humans call 'the universe'...I might have agreed with part of your argument. But to suppose that what we humans conceive of as "the universe (everything that is)"...is actually "everything that is"...is preposterous.

On a relative scale, we humans know very little more about "everything that is" than an ant foraging in our backyards.

"Everything that is"...may always have been...always existed. (That seems to me to be the more reasonable guess.) And this thing we humans call "the universe" may be a very, very, very small part of "everything that is."

Just sayin'!

I'm 83. The last thing in the world I want is to live forever. Perhaps that is a thing one loses when one ages...but the only time I remember wanting to live forever was when I was still a practicing Catholic. I suspect, though, that even back then the desire was motivated by indoctrination. My religion almost dictated that I WANTED to live forever...that it was the motivation for the religion.

Don't get me wrong. I am in exceptional shape and I have no desire to die. I live a very content and happy life...and look forward to the rewards of each day I live. But FOREVER?

Nah.

Your (apparent) desire to live forever may change as you get older.

Religious discussion is misplaced on a philosophy forum... — Banno

C'mon!

Discussing whether pistachios taste better than pecans is appropriate in a philosophy forum.

Surely discussing religions is.

Yeah, the 60's have some horrible memories for those who were around, Gill. Lots of truly bad stuff went down. But it was a transformative time...and America did a lot of growing up during those days.

I spent the last days of the 1950's stationed England...and saw music from America imported into that country. I had no idea that in just a few years, things would be turned around completely with the British Invasion.

Honestly, in my 83 years...I feel that the America of today...the America under Trump...is by far the darkest point in our history. Granted, Civil War days (before my time :wink:) were probably worse, but for the time in which I've been alive...this sucks the most. I have trouble processing the fact that so many Americans feel comfortable with what is happening and defend the damage being done to institutions and norms of our society right now.

Interesting fact that I just realized recently: Almost one-third of all the presidents who have ever served in the office...have served during my lifetime! Strange feeling, that.

Your last thought first. Since I was serving in SAC during the 1950's, I WAS around during the 1960's. The 60's were a blast...and my personal opinion is that we'd all be better off if some of the 60's attitude would prevail right now.

As for "gaming the system"...well, that is what I want to happen. I want the "gamers" to have enough so they can live a decent life without screwing up the productivity of our world. The kind who would "game the system" are not the kind of people we should want working. Not only are the UNPRODUCTIVE, most are COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. We end up with less because they are forced to work...than if we had forced them NOT to work.

Said another way: I do not want unproductive people taking jobs away from more productive people...or from MUCH more productive machines, simply because we demand that people work for a living.

Complicated...and I may do a thread on it at some point.

Thanks for serving, J. I never saw LeMay either...and he was around during my time. (I served in England.) I still remember the picture of him under the wing of a bomber being fueled, his famous cigar jutting out from his mouth. The conversation of the two cartoon airmen went:

Airman one, "Doesn't he know how dangerous that is. The plane might explode."

Second one, "It wouldn't dare!"

Yup, Tim, Earth as Utopia IS a long way off. In fact, Earth as a scorched Earth is probably more likely; Earth as a gigantic, intolerable chasm between Very, Very Well-off and Not Nearly Enough is more likely.

The fact is, though, that humans react as we near that extreme in predictable ways. The human of France during the late 18th Century...reacted in that "predictable" way; the humans of early 20th Century Russia did also.

I'd love to think we will come to terms with that inevitability BEFORE we arrive there...and deal it in a less violent way.

Perhaps we can't. I'll continue to hope we can...and will.

We'll see.

In any case, thank you for your remarks on what I had to say.

I honestly don't know. I would have to exist to make the choice whether or not I want to exist. I also don't see how living forever would solve anything. — runbounder

I just wanted to agree with that last point...and add: I also don't see how "living forever" has the attraction it has for those who suppose it will happen."

The notion of eternal life is the second biggest turnoff of religion; the notion that the "eternal life" will be lived in the presence of a god is the biggest.

Think of the most know-it-all person you've ever encountered and multiply it by a thousand...and then imagine being confined to a room with that person for a full day. Then think about what the word "eternity" means.

Apparently you are one of those people who cannot acknowledge being wrong...so instead you distort.

No problem. It is one of the things I supposed about you that I see is correct.

I'm still having fun with you and your echo, so do continue.

I am not a genius at all. But my reading comprehension and writing skills are way above average.

Is a meaningful existence possible? — Runbounder

Mine is...so obviously it is at least "possible."

Perhaps you are defining "meaningful" too harshly.

If one defines a "meaningful" life as a satisfying one...

...BINGO.

As I see it, "The Good Life" mostly centers around self-contentment.

That is obtained in many ways...some of which have been mentioned in the preceding comments.

I suspect most people are more self-centered than is commonly accepted...leading lives built around what "makes their day"...or "getting their kicks."

People like Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer merely had a different idea of what that meant...from people like Mick Jagger or Ted Bundy.

In the end...the good life involves some form of self-gratification.

Thank you, Christian.

I agree that fighting during the Civil War (an oxymoron if ever there was one) must have been hell. Fighting in any war is. Too bad Homo Sapiens has not gotten past that moment in its evolution yet.

I have written op ed pieces for decades now...and I have advocated for a form of Universal Basic Income since before most people even heard of it. I think some variant of the theme will be essential to humanity getting past this time where the full time toil of humans is not necessary to meet their needs.

I think that at some point, Libertarians will come around to realize the need for major adjustment to the concept of "earning a living."

Stay well!

DingoJones
1.5k
↪180 Proof

Its amazing how low his reading comprehension is. You answered his question in the first line of your response, but it just doesnt sink in. — DingoJones

He did NOT answer my question in the first line of his response...

...and my reading comprehension and writing skills are way above average. Obviously a great deal higher than yours, as you displayed with this latest post of yours.

700
Here is my question again:

Apparently you call yourself an atheist.
— Frank Apisa
No. I prefer Freethinker ... or atheologist.

My guess is that YOU "believe" there are no gods...
You guess wrong, Frankie, because either you've not read what I've written on this thread or you can't understand what I've written or both.

... or you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Not even wrong. Again.

Are you saying I am wrong about that?
As wrong, Frankie, as claiming you're (also) not a 'weak atheist'. :razz: — 180 Proof

I am not "wrong", young man, that I am not an atheist...whether of the weak-headed type or the rock-headed variety.

My guess about you apparently was wrong as regard to what you call yourself...but what can I say about a person who insists I am an atheist...and who also insists he is not!

I've noticed your questions to others and I am curious.

I am a vet...served in SAC during the 1950's. We were major league bad-asses...the most bad-ass military force ever on planet Earth at that time.

I worked 5 years for the government...at the Social Security Administration. I enjoyed my job...and I performed my duties as efficiently, courteously, and effectively as possible. (I am pretty good at being efficient, courteous, and effective.)

I think Trump has done more damage to our Republic in the last three years than all our foreign enemies combined have over the 250+ years of our existence. I consider him an existential threat to our survival...and, unfortunately, I think he will be re-elected.

I think "globalism" is the only decent way for intelligent beings to go. Parochialism sucks like a black hole.

I think the notion of "earning one's living" is a concept of the past...and simply cannot survive this advanced evolution of the Industrial Age. It must go the way of the dinosaur...and quickly, or we are in very big trouble.

Any thoughts on any of this?

All those words in answer to my question...and with no answer.

Here is my question again:

Apparently you call yourself an atheist. My guess is that YOU "believe" there are no gods...or you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Are you saying I am wrong about that?

I've dismissed all that attempt at distraction above...and will wait for you to give that question some thought, if your anger allows you to be capable of thought.

No problem, Wallows. I have the same disdain for the "America is the Greatest" crowd as you.

As many have noted, the more "patriotism" is pushed...the more likely it is to be bullshit.

We do have more than our fair share of phony patriots here in America. And they do seem to be more interested in America dominating the world...rather than being a part of a move toward making the world a better place in which to live.

You seem to be making the assumption that ALL Americans feel the way you are describing.

Yes, there are Ugly Americans (we have one as our president right now) but there are probably as many Americans who want to stop this "we are the greatest" bullshit as there are who want to perpetuate it.

America is still the most diverse country ever to exist on planet Earth...and we have a right to be proud of the amalgam that is our nation.

You ought use a few more "many Americans" or "some Americans" in your screeds, Wallows.