This was pretty much what set me on the path to radicalisation.
The system felt so unfair and then to learn that there were people who could do exactly this just because they were born into a family with large capital it was infuriating.
One doesn't even get to focus on paying just for oneself.
One has to pay for Zuck/Bezos/Musk/Cook/Trump first.
Was talking to a friend about AI and job loss and eventually he says something about "those people in the past talking about reducing the population" unfortunately being possibly necessary... I think he was referring to some things written on the Georgia guidestones, but Jesus fucking Christ...
Essentially "How many people are allowed to live is entirely dependent on how much labor Mr.Money needs."
🤮 🤮 🤮 🤮
innovating or adjusting our resource needs to be less destructive??
(·•᷄_•᷅ )
arguing to reduce the population so the privileged can have even more privilege?
( ˶ˆᗜˆ˵ )
Has there ever been a time in human history where we were just allowed to exist for our passions and not work for survival? Our economic system definitely has its flaws, but this meme paints with too broad strokes.
Yeah, childhood.
If we're talking specifically about art, historically, there was the patronage system where wealthy people would pay artists that they liked to largely just spend their days painting whatever they liked. It wasn't something every artist could take advantage of (Van Gogh died a poor pauper because his paintings basically didn't sell at all until after his death, for example), but it did exist.
Also, genuine question if anybody knows, what about the philosophers of old? Did they get paid as teachers of their school of theory or something?
It's not like there was ever a time when people simply didn't work at all, but there is a large portion of the population today who don't feel like their work is anything other than busywork with no reason to it, and that makes them miserable even doing something that they love. There are people out there who love picking up garbage for a living because they know that they're doing something that makes a difference.
We've basically conquered scarcity at this point in history. There's really no reason people shouldn't have all their basically necessities provided today, but bcz of greedy assholes, they're always in search of more money, so we don't get that.
There's still a lot of actually important work that needs doing, like solving world hunger, poverty, and homelessness (which unfortunately most countries aren't paying people to do, except for a few), but for the most part this quote is spot on:
I don't think regulators are a good example for something we have too many people doing, but otherwise, this is great
think about whatever it was they were thinking about before someone came along and told them they had to earn a living.
This right here moved me. Not just because it's so spot on, but because I don't even remember what I was thinking about back then.
I reverse engineered this, by thinking about what I would do if I was in the Pokemon world, since whatever economic system Pokemon has means that 10 year olds can support themselves with hobby income while traveling the world, and basically every adult makes their living through their special interest. So now I'm working towards becoming a wetland ecologist, and it's led to uncovering tons of nostalgic memories from field trips and stuff in elementary school
As a kid, a friend asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I said I wanted to be an inventor, like Gyro Gearloose.
He said: That's not a job.
"inventor" is definitely a job, if you're already rich 🙁
Greedy assholes definitely ruin a lot for all of us.
The Renaissance was a time of a vast labor shortage. This allowed workers to demand higher wages, and it also allowed leisure time to study new things and make new art.
This is true also when you have strong unions to bargain for good benefits. Still, you need to do some work, as opposed to the message of the meme "you have to pay for being alive".
Unions are a band aid solution to capital exploitation.
it's still in their best interest to oppose automation so members can continue to work pointless jobs for a wage.
Fight Club told that when man were hunter/gatherers we spend twenty hours a week working so it must be true.
You know there are still hunter-gatherer societies. You don't have to take Palahniuk's word for it.
I'm a freegan so I'm basically an urban hunter/gatherer.
Part of the reason why the transition to agriculture was so difficult, is because that is true. Agriculture is a lot of work, and requires a lot more labor time than the hunter-gatherer mode of production.
Of course in the long run, agricultural societies end up overcoming hunter-gatherer ones, because they're able to support a much larger population.
If they’re able to support a larger population shouldn’t it average out to less work?
No, because agriculture isn't about minimising labor, it's about maximising the productivity of a given field. While you can sustain more people from a smaller territory, the process necessitates a division of labor where some have to make and fix the tools or tend to the livestock while others cook, till the land or collect and sow the seeds, etc.
It had very little to do with getting an easier life and more with preventing famine by way of ensuring a surplus in foodstuffs.
If the metric is labor time per food produced, agriculture is much more efficient than hunting and gathering. But it requires a ton of startup labor, and waiting months, so it isn't as immediate.
I suppose, but since there's a much more limited supply of gatherable food, there's an upper limit on the time you can spend, and the size of community it can support.
Agriculture doesn't have that upper limit (well, arable land limit but that's still much more), plus it takes a ton of work to sow crops, irrigate water, and wait months for harvest. Much harder than just picking berries for an hour or two a day, which is why the transition to agriculture took so long even after it was discovered.
Harari claims something similar in his book Sapiens, so it might not be so far fetched. However, even then people would have to pay for being alive with their work, even if it's less.
butt in gommunism, you think you'll be a poet, but you'll work in a mine.
in capitalism I wanted to be an astronaut, but now I have a substance abuse problem and write spaghetti code for a corporate machine that would not give a shit if I dropped dead tomorrow.
you "only" need to pay for being alive instead of going around hunting all days fighting boars and shits
