|
wateroverfire posted:I'm asking a question because I don't know, dude. Pretty much. There's 7000+ new apps a day some of which with millions in budget to buy users. Half of "making it" in games is marketing and I just don't have enough time at night to do everything I'd need to do to be successful enough to quit my job. That's just on the mobile side. PC is becoming more and more saturated with games (which is a totally good and cool thing for consumers) and just being on Steam no longer guarantees you've made it. My goals in game dev are to make fun games. I'm not trying to support a family off of it because it's completely unrealistic to expect my salary to be replaced consistently for the rest of my life. No one (if any) makes that kind of money in games.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
There was a time when my wife actually found fulfillment scrubbing toilets, even though that is used as the gold standard for terrible work. The context was, it was just extra work for extra money. I made enough to pay all the bills, so it was like she already had a mincome. The place she worked at was a retirement home that was a short bike commute from where we lived, so no stress of traffic and parking. With only a couple exceptions, the residents were kind and thankful for the housekeeping work she did. Even though she didn't have to, she left the house 5 days a week to get on her knees and scrub toilets, and more often than not came home happy. In the end, she quit because management decided to be assholes. It started off with them bugging her to wear "work shoes" with 3 inch heels, then doing extra non-housekeeping work, then firing others and dumping the extra work on her. But since she didn't really need the job, she ultimately didn't have to put up with that crap and quit. ---- murphyslaw posted:This probably belongs in the game dev chat, but to offer a few points to wateroverfire: And from my perspective of some one who is working towards something similar (make and sell art); The inconsistency of income with this sort of work can't be stressed enough. When it comes to things that customers have to connect with on a personal level, as opposed to stuff that fills some basic need, people can be very finicky. One year you may produce something incredibly popular, and the next be criticized for being behind the times. You may put a lot of effort into something that could be called technically good but too niche for broad appeal. And at the other extreme, it may to so broad that it doesn't stand out enough to get many sales. The ramen eating indie programming is the modern "starving artist". It is cliche for good reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm asking a question because I don't know, dude. If you're asking that question in earnest you're shockingly naive. I think you're being disingenuous. The quality of your work is only one factor in success, and often it's not remotely the most important one. The world isn't Just, capitalism doesn't necessarily reward quality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
The very idea of what is "good" is a shifty subject to pin down if we're solely using profit as a measure. A game like FarmVille is, gameplay-wise, dull and monotonous, but the fact that it is specifically designed to prey upon basic human compulsions has made Zynga a frankly incredible amount of money. Is FarmVille "good"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm asking a question because I don't know, dude. It comes off as though you're using loaded questions to argue for something rather than just openly stating your position. Apparently you think that if you phrase your argument in the form of a question then that frees you from the obligation to defend or justify your ideas. In this case I don't think you're edited for dyslexia Helsing fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Vermain posted:The very idea of what is "good" is a shifty subject to pin down if we're solely using profit as a measure. A game like FarmVille is, gameplay-wise, dull and monotonous, but the fact that it is specifically designed to prey upon basic human compulsions has made Zynga a frankly incredible amount of money. Is FarmVille "good"? Well it makes money of course it's good. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Vermain posted:The very idea of what is "good" is a shifty subject to pin down if we're solely using profit as a measure. A game like FarmVille is, gameplay-wise, dull and monotonous, but the fact that it is specifically designed to prey upon basic human compulsions has made Zynga a frankly incredible amount of money. Is FarmVille "good"? E: zeitgueist answers with under 10 words what i answer in 200. i should go to bed You might have answered your own question. Farmville (and its clones) is extremely effective in enabling compulsive playing because of its use of skinnerbox/operant conditioning methods to incentivize game play (small rewards/positive feedback for every action, like a rat getting a small pellet of food every time it operates a lever in a correct fashion). People are better at recognizing and rejecting that sort of gameplay these days, but it's still quite a successful model in social network games and MMOs, from what I can see. It is certainly "good" from a market perspective the same way that heroin is "good", in that once people become hooked, they tend to keep playing (and paying for) it, so the commodity is successful and thus "good" in that sense. But from the perspective of the player, as you say, the gameplay is about as fun as watching paint dry. Many players probably recognize this on an intellectual level, but their lizard brains tell them it's "fun" because of the marginal rewards they get for each action they make, so they keep playing. But you can't pay your bills with the happy fun feelings of a gamer, so innovation comes slowly. Not that skinnerbox games are inherently bad, or that the presence of skinnerbox mechanics makes a game bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure some people legitimately enjoy games like FarmVille, though, it's just that few people do in SA's primary demographic of technologically-adept young males.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I'm pretty sure some people legitimately enjoy games like FarmVille, though, it's just that few people do in SA's primary demographic of technologically-adept young males. Also, World of Warcraft is equally monotonous and engineered to "addict" people, and it's quite popular among SA's demographic. I'd say it's a pretty good game, too, even if it isn't 100% my cup of tea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I'm pretty sure some people legitimately enjoy games like FarmVille, though, it's just that few people do in SA's primary demographic of technologically-adept young males. For sure; like I said, they're not bad. It's just that people who have played them (to excess?) get burned out on them pretty hard. As a genre it's pretty good for stress relief or just giving yourself something to fiddle with for 3 minutes, leave, and come back to in a few hours. See: incremental clicker games like cookie clicker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Also, World of Warcraft is equally monotonous and engineered to "addict" people, and it's quite popular among SA's demographic. I'd say it's a pretty good game, too, even if it isn't 100% my cup of tea. To be fair, a lot of freemium games (especially on mobile platforms) really are exceptionally scummy. King hasn't been shy about admitting that they effectively design monetization systems that they can attach games to, for example. I think games like FarmVille end up taking more poo poo than World of Warcraft or whatever because their designs just seem a lot more cynical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
I see this discussion breaking down into two parts 1) Do humans get satisfaction from contributing and participating in society 2) To what extent does paid work overlap with #1 I take for granted that the answer to 1 is a yes and I think most people are on board with that. So the question moves to 2. I think the answer to 2 is "usually", for two reasons. First, paid work just usually overlaps with things that are obviously useful for some reason. Being a trash man may not be enjoyable per se, but the necessity of it, and hence the contribution/participation aspect is fairly obvious. Although most jobs are surprisingly obscure (ask someone what they do and it's not going to be doctor/teacher/fireman), most jobs are plausibly contributing to some societal end goal. That said I do think in the modern world the connection between work and contribution/participation has broken down somewhat as a result of specialization and technology in general - some people are several steps removed from the production of a tangible good. But not completely by any means (and counter-intuitively it's low status jobs like janitors and cashiers which often still have obvious tangible outcomes). Second, receiving pay is itself a sign of worth in a market economy. The simple fact is that if someone is paying you to do something it means someone wants what you do. This is obvious, but I think it still inevitably taps into our psyche at a fairly low level. This doesn't mean we have to have a market economy to have this sense of satisfaction (it would come from elsewhere in alternatives), but so long as we do there will always be a certain importance attached to wage beyond the finances alone. EDIT: I think the third element here is to what extent people will self-direct themselves towards satisfying/productive activities absent societal pressures like pay. I think the answer, unfortunately, is that they commonly won't. Though to what extent I'm not sure. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It comes off as though you're using loaded questions to argue for something rather than just openly stating your position. Apparently you think that if you phrase your argument in the form of a question then that frees you from the obligation to defend or justify your ideas. In this case I don't think you're I'm really not trying to argue a position here. Dude was like "I WISH I had the option to do what I love, a thing which has SUCH value to society, but alas..." so I wanted to know why he thought he couldn't. I could have asked that in a nicer way, for sure, and sorry poemdexter if I offended you. But dude that is a lot of self pity to pack into one paragraph. poemdexter posted:I work a depressing 9 to 5 as a programmer and I'll never be able to get out of it because it pays the bills. It doesn't matter how much I switch jobs, I will always hate it because it serves no purpose but to make the company more money. I make video games in my spare time and have had several opportunities to show my games out in public and the smiles my games create makes me happier than I've ever been. I'd say it's twice as hard to make a game in my spare time than it is to go to work everyday. I'll never make enough money making games to support my family which means I'm stuck in a 9 to 5 rut for the rest of my life. I wish I had the option to do what I love and can see the very obvious net benefit to society it has but no, if it's not making someone else rich, it's not considered work. Paradoxish posted:No offense, but your question comes off as naive in almost any context. Products fail to be commercially successful all the time for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the product itself. Games have the added hurdle of requiring months (often years) of unpaid development just to create, all with the constantly looming risk that you're burning your savings and/or working yourself to death for nothing. And then, if you are successful enough to make a living, odds are you'll be making less money than you would be with a stable, boring development job. Sure, entrepreneurship is risky, but you seem to be expressing the attitude that you've failed before you begin so you might as well resign yourself to drudgery and that imo is more naive than asking someone "why not" when they say they can't do what they love.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I think the third element here is to what extent people will self-direct themselves towards satisfying/productive activities absent societal pressures like pay. I think the answer, unfortunately, is that they commonly won't. Though to what extent I'm not sure. They'd probably self-direct towards activities that are satisfying for them absent pay, but not necessarily toward activities that create value for society. Right now "can I get paid" is the imperfect signal that keeps people producing things that are needed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Sure, entrepreneurship is risky, but you seem to be expressing the attitude that you've failed before you begin so you might as well resign yourself to drudgery and that imo is more naive than asking someone "why not" when they say they can't do what they love. Entrepreneurship is typically ruinous if you're not well off to start with. If you have a family, it's flat out irresponsible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Entrepreneurship is typically ruinous if you're not well off to start with. If you have a family, it's flat out irresponsible. Entrepreneurship encompasses a mind boggling range of projects with very different requirements of capital, time input, expertise, etc. How can you confidently assert that as a generality it's irresponsible if you have a family? edit: Relevant to this thread, and going directly to something you said, Helsing. Implicit in having more autonomy in your job, more control over your schedule, etc, is taking on more responsibility for your results. Taking on more risk. Some people will find that rewarding but as Talmonis is demonstrating here, some people won't. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Entrepreneurship encompasses a mind boggling range of projects with very different requirements of capital, time input, expertise, etc. How can you confidently assert that as a generality it's irresponsible if you have a family? Because the subject was "replacing your job with entrepreneurship". Pissing around on Etsy in your free time isn't likely to pay the bills on its own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Because the subject was "replacing your job with entrepreneurship". Pissing around on Etsy in your free time isn't likely to pay the bills on its own. Don't make your project pissing around on Etsy in your free time if that won't pay your bills. Or if you want to make your living selling stuff on Etsy adjust your expenses and expectations to that, if you can.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
If only there were some kind of systems available by which people with good ideas could somehow secure financial backing to put them into action. Why, it would be so revolutionary, I'm sure you could make multiple television shows about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If only there were some kind of systems available by which people with good ideas could somehow secure financial backing to put them into action. Why, it would be so revolutionary, I'm sure you could make multiple television shows about it. Being a dancing monkey for a group of billionares to judge with an audience of millions isn't exactly a positive thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Being a dancing monkey for a group of billionares to judge with an audience of millions isn't exactly a positive thing. Yeah, I was being a little facetious there. You do realize there are venture capitalists that don't have TV shows, yes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, I was being a little facetious there. You do realize there are venture capitalists that don't have TV shows, yes? The number of entrepreneurs that actually receive venture capital or that ever had even the slimmest chance in hell of receiving it is vanishingly small. Like, so small that VC isn't something we should even be talking about in the context of small business because it's almost completely irrelevant. Edit- I'll try to find some actual statistics, but I'm relatively sure that we're talking about a fraction of a fraction of a percent of new businesses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, I was being a little facetious there. You do realize there are venture capitalists that don't have TV shows, yes? Venture capitalism is the antithesis of "work". The work is typically already done and the product already polished (not to mention a solid business plan...better know how to navigate the world of finance and business before you even bother Mr./Ms. Artist!) before they'll even consider touching it. Angel Investors and Crowdfunding are much more likely to help get an idea off the ground.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The number of entrepreneurs that actually receive venture capital or that ever had even the slimmest chance in hell of receiving it is vanishingly small. Like, so small that VC isn't something we should even be talking about in the context of small business because it's almost completely irrelevant. Yeah, most businesses are going to be too small to be interesting to venture capitalists or won't have the growth plan to give them a good exit. Crowd funding is a thing, though. Or planning your business around the resources you personally have to work with, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Yeah, most businesses are going to be too small to be interesting to venture capitalists or won't have the growth plan to give them a good exit. Crowd funding is a thing, though. Or planning your business around the resources you personally have to work with, etc. Crowdfunding's golden age has pretty much come and gone. It's still an important tool, but you probably won't be funding any large project that way unless you've already invested a pretty significant amount of time and work into it. And being able to work with your own personal resources is exactly the kind of problem that we're discussing here. Most people don't even have enough savings to cover six months of expenses, and realistically even that's not enough if your intention is to quit work and try to start a business full time. Look, no one is saying that it can't be done. It obviously can be, because people start small businesses every day. The point is that there are a huge number of obstacles that have very little do with one's own skills or the merit of the business, and the amount of risk involved makes it outright foolish and irresponsible for most people to try in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Many posters in this thread seems to be "one dimensional men" (to use Marcuse's term), in that consumption of leisure is idolized in lieu of productive work. Why? How is humanity any better off by lazy, now unemployed Westerners watching television or creating lovely apps instead of finding solutions to global warming, combating resource depletion, fixing demographic crises, developing new sources of energy, fighting religious and national extremism, etc. Humanity has, and will always have unlimited problems to deal with. It's unclear why we should all succumb to the capitalist paradigm and only live to produce, or alternatively, to consume. Go out and live!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Look, no one is saying that it can't be done. It obviously can be, because people start small businesses every day. The point is that there are a huge number of obstacles that have very little do with one's own skills or the merit of the business, and the amount of risk involved makes it outright foolish and irresponsible for most people to try in the first place. But if it's even technically possible then it's your own fault for not doing it and society owes you nothing, leech *farts*
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:04
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
I think assuming that most people would just sit around idle if they had the resources to do what inspired them is a pretty loathsome position to take. It's an opinion that one would hold if they thought they were some how better than the majority of society. People sit around depressed because they don't have the means to do anything else, much of the time. As an aside, can someone explain to me the value that people in the financial industry, who are often paid exorbitant wages, add to society? If the value of a job to society is indicated by how much people are willing to pay for that job to be done, then I'd like to know what the value is of financial work aside from making/moving money. I would much prefer a technology based gift economy. We're already post-scarcity, and we have the technology to automate most menial work but it isn't done because there is not yet a financial incentive to do so. Perhaps we should take finances out of it then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
Yeah thinking that the majority of people would sit around doing nothing given the chance is pretty misanthropic. Though no doubt the people who believe that would consider themselves "realists". The most charitable explanation for that belief I can think of is that maybe they're observing people who get a week off to recuperate from a lovely job spending it not doing much and making an unwarranted extrapolation from that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Idle hands are the devil's something or other. But does this have to be an all or nothing question? Maybe the social contract would be you have to do something productive but you can pick what it is... also you only have to work 10 hours a week instead of 40+. I think I could get used to that arrangement. To expand on this, some of the most unhappy people I know are often idle and use alcohol or drugs to get a high. Some of the most happy people I know spend hours researching or creating things of their own choosing. So if you classify work as the 2nd category, then yes, work has value. nelson fucked around with this message at 10:37 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Crowdfunding's golden age has pretty much come and gone. It's still an important tool, but you probably won't be funding any large project that way unless you've already invested a pretty significant amount of time and work into it. And being able to work with your own personal resources is exactly the kind of problem that we're discussing here. Most people don't even have enough savings to cover six months of expenses, and realistically even that's not enough if your intention is to quit work and try to start a business full time. If a person doesn't have a well thought out project then sure, it would be foolish or irresponsible to jump into it. But the "huge number of [unspecified] obstacles" are resolvable, mostly, once you start looking for concrete solutions to concrete problems. You might in the end decide it's not worth it or that it seems like more work relative to taking a boring job working for someone else, and often that's true, but it's not a faceless and unaddressable risk you're taking on by trying. Torka posted:The most charitable explanation for that belief I can think of is that maybe they're observing people who get a week off to recuperate from a lovely job spending it not doing much and making an unwarranted extrapolation from that. I think the question is whether, in aggregate, people will engage in the activities society needs them to and in the right quantity. If they don't then no matter how personally fulfilling and productive their pursuits are modern society falls apart. Unless robots are doing everything that matters, and then it doesn't really matter what people do until the robots figure that out and liberate themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Look, no one is saying that it can't be done. It obviously can be, because people start small businesses every day. You admit that it can be done. If a person can do it, then by the Law of Composition everyone can do it, so why aren't you? Since it's elementary that everyone can quit their jobs at once and start a successful business, then if they don't they deserve their poo poo jobs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Arri posted:As an aside, can someone explain to me the value that people in the financial industry, who are often paid exorbitant wages, add to society? If the value of a job to society is indicated by how much people are willing to pay for that job to be done, then I'd like to know what the value is of financial work aside from making/moving money. It's entirely possible for a job to be locally beneficial but globally detrimental.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I think the question is whether, in aggregate, people will engage in the activities society needs them to and in the right quantity. If they don't then no matter how personally fulfilling and productive their pursuits are modern society falls apart. Unless robots are doing everything that matters, and then it doesn't really matter what people do until the robots figure that out and liberate themselves. Which is why certain measures would have to be taken until we reach true post scarcity society. We get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If a person doesn't have a well thought out project then sure, it would be foolish or irresponsible to jump into it. But the "huge number of [unspecified] obstacles" are resolvable, mostly, once you start looking for concrete solutions to concrete problems. You might in the end decide it's not worth it or that it seems like more work relative to taking a boring job working for someone else, and often that's true, but it's not a faceless and unaddressable risk you're taking on by trying. No, you're pretty clearly intentionally misrepresenting what's being said here. There are no unspecified obstacles, I laid out the major obstacles very clearly in the post that you quoted: time and money. Many projects, no matter how well planned, are going to require a significant up front investment of both, and that's going to be unrealistic for many people. That's especially true in cases where a successful outcome is far from certain. Entrepreneurship almost universally favors people who are already well enough off to sustain themselves without employment for extended periods of time, and those who won't be financially ruined if their business fails. quote:I think the question is whether, in aggregate, people will engage in the activities society needs them to and in the right quantity. If they don't then no matter how personally fulfilling and productive their pursuits are modern society falls apart. Unless robots are doing everything that matters, and then it doesn't really matter what people do until the robots figure that out and liberate themselves. This is also why no one in this thread has come even close to seriously suggesting that we should immediately abolish all work or whatever it is you're trying to get at here. Most of the big issues being talked about come down to the fact that the labor market is fundamentally broken due to serious power imbalances and a cultural failure to acknowledge that most jobs hold little if any personal value beyond financial gain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Why would you think this? The money people are willing to pay for a job to be done indicates what value it has for them, either personally or for their business. If I hire an assassin for fifty grand, it isn't because society thinks killing people is worth that much. Umm but you're a member of society. So your demand for hitmen does represent demand for hits from your society. Not everyone likes snickers candybars but if society produces and consumes X number of them then that indicates demand, even if you or even most people don't like them. And whether something is beneficial is unrelated to demand. See candy bars. Though it's true that price (wage in the labor market) doesn't indicate demand by itself because supply is also a major factor. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Why would you think this? The money people are willing to pay for a job to be done indicates what value it has for them, either personally or for their business. If I hire an assassin for fifty grand, it isn't because society thinks killing people is worth that much. I don't believe that sentence you bolded, but a lot of capitalists/neoliberals seem to believe it and they are the demographic that also typically believes that a having a job is morally superior to no job.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I think the question is whether, in aggregate, people will engage in the activities society needs them to and in the right quantity. If they don't then no matter how personally fulfilling and productive their pursuits are modern society falls apart. Unless robots are doing everything that matters, and then it doesn't really matter what people do until the robots figure that out and liberate themselves. I'll go with the robot solution myself. Let's say robots and technology can cover 99% of the basic needs. For the sake of argument let's say you'd still need humans to make plans and tell the robots what to do but after that the robots go ahead and do it. The remaining creative work will still require humans but none of it is required for day to day survival (scientific research, entertainment, etc...). What would society look like? Would people volunteer for the few things that needed to be done or the many things that people want done but don't necessarily need? I can envision such a world where social status was the main determiner of "wealth". Today people volunteer for public service even at high, opportunity if not nominal, costs to themselves. Entertainers are happiest when audiences enjoy and appreciate their works. The money helps too, and no one will say it doesn't, but a lot of that is the social status it provides rather than the mansions or the private jets themselves as exemplified by the Joe Walsh lyric "I have a mansion, forget the price. Ain't never been there, they tell me it's nice."
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
nelson posted:I'll go with the robot solution myself. Let's say robots and technology can cover 99% of the basic needs. For the sake of argument let's say you'd still need humans to make plans and tell the robots what to do but after that the robots go ahead and do it. The remaining creative work will still require humans but none of it is required for day to day survival (scientific research, entertainment, etc...). What would society look like? Would people volunteer for the few things that needed to be done or the many things that people want done but don't necessarily need? You make an important point by suggesting that the status void currently occupied by pay will get filled in by something else. When I read threads like this I get the suspicion that some people are looking to liberate humans from external preassures and responsibilities, and assuming that they'll assume some higher state if this happens. Not quite. If we remove the pressure to work and produce new forms of status and accompanying pressure will inevitably arise to fill that void. On top of that for the majority of people some sort of "work" currently occupies a huge portion of their time, purpose and mental energy. I think it's really naive to imagine a world where we've eliminated this, and not recognize it as a major risk. We can't just assume that everyone is going to find their way into some fulfilling hobby to occupy their time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm really not trying to argue a position here. Dude was like "I WISH I had the option to do what I love, a thing which has SUCH value to society, but alas..." so I wanted to know why he thought he couldn't. I could have asked that in a nicer way, for sure, and sorry poemdexter if I offended you. Your questions are seemingly predicated on certain assumptions about people, the economy, etc. If you were forthright about those assumptions then this discussion would probably be more fruitful for all involved. quote:Sure, entrepreneurship is risky, but you seem to be expressing the attitude that you've failed before you begin so you might as well resign yourself to drudgery and that imo is more naive than asking someone "why not" when they say they can't do what they love. I'm curious as to how you see this relating to the overall discussion. Is the possibility of becoming an entrepreneur an adequate counter balance to the dissatisfaction many people report feeling with their jobs? Should we be OK with the current economy as long as wage workers have the potential to go into business for themselves? asdf32 posted:You make an important point by suggesting that the status void currently occupied by pay will get filled in by something else. When I read threads like this I get the suspicion that some people are looking to liberate humans from external preassures and responsibilities, and assuming that they'll assume some higher state if this happens. This is totally accurate but not necessarily as significant as it first appears. Think about the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago. It removed the pressures associated with a hunter-gatherer society but it also created a new set of pressures and problems. That does not mean that we shouldn't see it as an overall material improvement in our well being as a species. The fact we probably won't ever build the Kingdom of Heaven here on Earth shouldn't stop us from thinking about the concrete steps we could take to make ourselves better off. quote:On top of that for the majority of people some sort of "work" currently occupies a huge portion of their time, purpose and mental energy. I think it's really naive to imagine a world where we've eliminated this, and not recognize it as a major risk. We can't just assume that everyone is going to find their way into some fulfilling hobby to occupy their time. I agree that it is worth discussing what kinds of meaningful and identity-forming activities might replace work in a society where work was either greatly reduced or eliminated altogether. That's something people have been talking about for a long time, and part of the value of a thread like this is that it hopefully stimulates that kind of discussion. But it also seems as though "what are people going to do when society is %100 automated?" is probably a less relevant question than "can we make work more pleasant for the growing number of people who find it nearly intolerable?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 01:44
|
|