Why Do We Even Work?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

“Hey guys, I’ve discovered how to utilize electricity and provide us with light in a simple and effective manner. Let’s get together and figure out how to mass product this shit for everyone.”

Identify people and resources you’d need to product said light bulb, including everything you would need to mine the metal, process the metal, make the machines, ensure enough people to feed those people producing the light bulb. [/quote]

Can you give an example of this, in the history of humankind, ever working for large populations?

Are there ANY animals, in large populations, that this works for?[/quote]

Native American tribes before Europeans came and corrupted them.

The examples of it working today, such as rural Chinese villages, works similar to this; however, Government control still impacts them as they have to play within their rules or face violence.

So, unfortunately, such a environment, in it’s truest sense, could not exist in the structure that exists today.

EDIT: Meerkats exhibit similar behavior, as do wolves, etc. Any pack animal you can think of really.

62

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

as do wolves, etc. Any pack animal you can think of really.[/quote]

The strongest wolves eat first and the weakest get scraps…Same with Nile Croc gangs.

63

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

as do wolves, etc. Any pack animal you can think of really.[/quote]

The strongest wolves eat first and the weakest get scraps…Same with Nile Croc gangs. [/quote]

Most definitely, but the general scientific convention are animals are not self aware and do no experience morality, therefore, simply rely upon instinct. Instinct would then require you to do everything you can for your survival first. Hell, they’ll even eat before their young will in some animal communities. But the general idea is all of them play their part so the group can survive.

Humans, on the other hand, are self aware, experience morality, etc. At heart, humans are animals too, but we have a higher intelligence level which leads to the ability to rise above such animalisic behavior.

64

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

as do wolves, etc. Any pack animal you can think of really.[/quote]

The strongest wolves eat first and the weakest get scraps…Same with Nile Croc gangs. [/quote]

It will always be that way as well.

And the Native Americans were just as good at enslaving their enemies, before they were “corrupted” by the Europeans.

65

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

as do wolves, etc. Any pack animal you can think of really.[/quote]

The strongest wolves eat first and the weakest get scraps…Same with Nile Croc gangs. [/quote]

Most definitely, but the general scientific convention are animals are not self aware and do no experience morality, therefore, simply rely upon instinct. Instinct would then require you to do everything you can for your survival first. Hell, they’ll even eat before their young will in some animal communities. But the general idea is all of them play their part so the group can survive.

Humans, on the other hand, are self aware, experience morality, etc. At heart, humans are animals too, but we have a higher intelligence level which leads to the ability to rise above such animalisic behavior. [/quote]

Just to clarify your position, your opinion is that our self awareness/morality should allow us to get past our base instincts and instead act communially. Is that a fair assessment?

I’ll agree it sounds great, in theory.

66

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

as do wolves, etc. Any pack animal you can think of really.[/quote]

The strongest wolves eat first and the weakest get scraps…Same with Nile Croc gangs. [/quote]

It will always be that way as well.

And the Native Americans were just as good at enslaving their enemies, before they were “corrupted” by the Europeans.[/quote]

This happens in so called “communial” countries too. Case and point Soviet Russia/China.

67

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

“Hey guys, I’ve discovered how to utilize electricity and provide us with light in a simple and effective manner. Let’s get together and figure out how to mass product this shit for everyone.”

Identify people and resources you’d need to product said light bulb, including everything you would need to mine the metal, process the metal, make the machines, ensure enough people to feed those people producing the light bulb. [/quote]

Can you give an example of this, in the history of humankind, ever working for large populations?

Are there ANY animals, in large populations, that this works for?[/quote]

Native American tribes before Europeans came and corrupted them.

The examples of it working today, such as rural Chinese villages, works similar to this; however, Government control still impacts them as they have to play within their rules or face violence.

So, unfortunately, such a environment, in it’s truest sense, could not exist in the structure that exists today.

EDIT: Meerkats exhibit similar behavior, as do wolves, etc. Any pack animal you can think of really.[/quote]

I don’t think there were any native tribes with large populations.

How large are wolf packs? Why isn’t there one united wolf clan? Same for Meerkats.

68

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

as do wolves, etc. Any pack animal you can think of really.[/quote]

The strongest wolves eat first and the weakest get scraps…Same with Nile Croc gangs. [/quote]

Most definitely, but the general scientific convention are animals are not self aware and do no experience morality, therefore, simply rely upon instinct. Instinct would then require you to do everything you can for your survival first. Hell, they’ll even eat before their young will in some animal communities. But the general idea is all of them play their part so the group can survive.

Humans, on the other hand, are self aware, experience morality, etc. At heart, humans are animals too, but we have a higher intelligence level which leads to the ability to rise above such animalisic behavior. [/quote]

Just to clarify your position, your opinion is that our self awareness/morality should allow us to get past our base instincts and instead act communially. Is that a fair assessment?

I’ll agree it sounds great, in theory. [/quote]

Sure, that’s a fair assessment. Further, I believe the way society is set up today disincentives such behavior.

69

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

as do wolves, etc. Any pack animal you can think of really.[/quote]

The strongest wolves eat first and the weakest get scraps…Same with Nile Croc gangs. [/quote]

It will always be that way as well.

And the Native Americans were just as good at enslaving their enemies, before they were “corrupted” by the Europeans.[/quote]

This happens in so called “communial” countries too. Case and point Soviet Russia/China. [/quote]

Absolutely. I’d even be willing to take the stance that we, as humans, are not yet capable of living such a society.

I would also argue the way society is set up today inhibits any chance of that ever happening and this is on purpose.

EDIT: And I wouldn’t call China and Soviet Russia a true communial culture. Having to do things under the threat of violence or ignorance is not a strong basis for a true communial living arrangement.

70

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

“Hey guys, I’ve discovered how to utilize electricity and provide us with light in a simple and effective manner. Let’s get together and figure out how to mass product this shit for everyone.”

Identify people and resources you’d need to product said light bulb, including everything you would need to mine the metal, process the metal, make the machines, ensure enough people to feed those people producing the light bulb. [/quote]

Can you give an example of this, in the history of humankind, ever working for large populations?

Are there ANY animals, in large populations, that this works for?[/quote]

Native American tribes before Europeans came and corrupted them.

The examples of it working today, such as rural Chinese villages, works similar to this; however, Government control still impacts them as they have to play within their rules or face violence.

So, unfortunately, such a environment, in it’s truest sense, could not exist in the structure that exists today.

EDIT: Meerkats exhibit similar behavior, as do wolves, etc. Any pack animal you can think of really.[/quote]

I don’t think there were any native tribes with large populations.

How large are wolf packs? Why isn’t there one united wolf clan? Same for Meerkats.

[/quote]

Large populations by our standards, but there were several very large nations of tribes with smaller sub-cultures.

Animals do not have the cognitive ability to think in such manners. Using wolves as examples, I’m sure the pack mentality was an evolved behavior over a long time and maybe if given enough time, you would see large wolf nations. But without the cognitive abilities of humans, it would have to happen by chance over long, long periods of time.

71

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

as do wolves, etc. Any pack animal you can think of really.[/quote]

The strongest wolves eat first and the weakest get scraps…Same with Nile Croc gangs. [/quote]

Most definitely, but the general scientific convention are animals are not self aware and do no experience morality, therefore, simply rely upon instinct. Instinct would then require you to do everything you can for your survival first. Hell, they’ll even eat before their young will in some animal communities. But the general idea is all of them play their part so the group can survive.

Humans, on the other hand, are self aware, experience morality, etc. At heart, humans are animals too, but we have a higher intelligence level which leads to the ability to rise above such animalisic behavior. [/quote]

Just to clarify your position, your opinion is that our self awareness/morality should allow us to get past our base instincts and instead act communially. Is that a fair assessment?

I’ll agree it sounds great, in theory. [/quote]

Sure, that’s a fair assessment. Further, I believe the way society is set up today disincentives such behavior.[/quote]

Ok. But what is the community without its constituent parts?

If I don’t do what is best for me and mine, how am I supposed to contribute to the community?

If what I get is based on that contribution, what am I supposed to do if I get short changed on those bushels of wheat?

The guy down the street has 6 kids so he gets 6 bushels for doing the same thing as me, but I only get one.

We have 7 between us, why don’t we each get 3.5?

72

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

as do wolves, etc. Any pack animal you can think of really.[/quote]

The strongest wolves eat first and the weakest get scraps…Same with Nile Croc gangs. [/quote]

Most definitely, but the general scientific convention are animals are not self aware and do no experience morality, therefore, simply rely upon instinct. Instinct would then require you to do everything you can for your survival first. Hell, they’ll even eat before their young will in some animal communities. But the general idea is all of them play their part so the group can survive.

Humans, on the other hand, are self aware, experience morality, etc. At heart, humans are animals too, but we have a higher intelligence level which leads to the ability to rise above such animalisic behavior. [/quote]

Just to clarify your position, your opinion is that our self awareness/morality should allow us to get past our base instincts and instead act communially. Is that a fair assessment?

I’ll agree it sounds great, in theory. [/quote]

Sure, that’s a fair assessment. Further, I believe the way society is set up today disincentives such behavior.[/quote]

Ok. But what is the community without its constituent parts?

If I don’t do what is best for me and mine, how am I supposed to contribute to the community?

If what I get is based on that contribution, what am I supposed to do if I get short changed on those bushels of wheat?

The guy down the street has 6 kids so he gets 6 bushels for doing the same thing as me, but I only get one.

We have 7 between us, why don’t we each get 3.5?

[/quote]

Let’s talk about “based on contribution” as this is important.

This is only an issue if value types and level of effort of contribution differently. In the theory presented, all contribution is equal, no matter what it is. If you are relationship, do you divide your in house resources by how much money you make over your wife/gf? What about house work?

Now that I’m thinking about it, family is a perfect example of communial living. My girlfriend does the laundry, general house cleaning and has a job. I do all the cooking, house maintenance, take care of the finances and bring in a little more money than she does.

On paper, I might add more “value” to the relationship, but we share everything the same. If she lost her job or broke her leg and can’t work, I pick up the slack. I don’t keep score. I don’t say “Sweetie, when you get better, you owe me 3 weeks of cooking and about $6,000 in wages.”

73

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

as do wolves, etc. Any pack animal you can think of really.[/quote]

The strongest wolves eat first and the weakest get scraps…Same with Nile Croc gangs. [/quote]

Most definitely, but the general scientific convention are animals are not self aware and do no experience morality, therefore, simply rely upon instinct. Instinct would then require you to do everything you can for your survival first. Hell, they’ll even eat before their young will in some animal communities. But the general idea is all of them play their part so the group can survive.

Humans, on the other hand, are self aware, experience morality, etc. At heart, humans are animals too, but we have a higher intelligence level which leads to the ability to rise above such animalisic behavior. [/quote]

Just to clarify your position, your opinion is that our self awareness/morality should allow us to get past our base instincts and instead act communially. Is that a fair assessment?

I’ll agree it sounds great, in theory. [/quote]

Sure, that’s a fair assessment. Further, I believe the way society is set up today disincentives such behavior.[/quote]

Ok. But what is the community without its constituent parts?

If I don’t do what is best for me and mine, how am I supposed to contribute to the community?

If what I get is based on that contribution, what am I supposed to do if I get short changed on those bushels of wheat?

The guy down the street has 6 kids so he gets 6 bushels for doing the same thing as me, but I only get one.

We have 7 between us, why don’t we each get 3.5?

[/quote]

Let’s talk about “based on contribution” as this is important.

This is only an issue if value types and level of effort of contribution differently. In the theory presented, all contribution is equal, no matter what it is. If you are relationship, do you divide your in house resources by how much money you make over your wife/gf? What about house work?

Now that I’m thinking about it, family is a perfect example of communial living. My girlfriend does the laundry, general house cleaning and has a job. I do all the cooking, house maintenance, take care of the finances and bring in a little more money than she does.

On paper, I might add more “value” to the relationship, but we share everything the same. If she lost her job or broke her leg and can’t work, I pick up the slack. I don’t keep score. I don’t say “Sweetie, when you get better, you owe me 3 weeks of cooking and about $6,000 in wages.”[/quote]

So I’m supporting the guy down the streets kids?

Guess what? I build the barges that carry the coal to the power plants.

Now I’m telling you, I get more or the power plant gets no coal. Screw your lightbulbs and everybody elses too.

(I have to bail on the discussion, maybe later)

74

Right now a big issue is jobs. Some, maybe a lot, look to the govt, to Obama, to create these jobs. How does the govt create jobs and just as importantly what kind of jobs does the govt create? It’s almost like none of that matters as long as there is something that someone can get a paycheck for. The govt, or people, don’t ask, “what do we need to make life better?”

75

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Right now a big issue is jobs. Some, maybe a lot, look to the govt, to Obama, to create these jobs. How does the govt create jobs and just as importantly what kind of jobs does the govt create? It’s almost like none of that matters as long as there is something that someone can get a paycheck for. The govt, or people, don’t ask, “what do we need to make life better?” [/quote]

And what makes it even worse is that these useless jobs created are some how valued more than things that do make life better. If you took someone from a remote culture who has no idea what technology is and you told them that their efforts at producing a toy is more valued than producing food, they’d probably look at you like you were crazy.

76

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Right now a big issue is jobs. Some, maybe a lot, look to the govt, to Obama, to create these jobs. How does the govt create jobs and just as importantly what kind of jobs does the govt create? It’s almost like none of that matters as long as there is something that someone can get a paycheck for. The govt, or people, don’t ask, “what do we need to make life better?” [/quote]

And what makes it even worse is that these useless jobs created are some how valued more than things that do make life better. If you took someone from a remote culture who has no idea what technology is and you told them that their efforts at producing a toy is more valued than producing food, they’d probably look at you like you were crazy.[/quote]

On the flip side, that person probably doesn’t have running water. I.E. their life is no where near as comfortable (for lack of a better term) than ours. It’s hard to compare the economy of a remote tribe and that of an industrialized nation.

77

Comfort is relative and subjective.

78

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Comfort is relative and subjective. [/quote]

True. I suppose someone could consider sleeping on straw and shitting in a bucket more comfortable than a house with hot water & a Lazy boy. To each his own.

79

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Comfort is relative and subjective. [/quote]

I agree with this.

80

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
It has nothing to do with jobs or working.

You have people who are bright, intelligent and creative. When they go to college they are thinking about earning a living, having a career, etc., and proceed accordingly. Instead, they shouldn’t have to worry about earning a living but rather they should focus on keeping an open mind and learning as much as they can about as many things as they can. He is talking about the innovators, inventors and visionaries. Obviously some, or many, will have to “earn a living” but in order for us to bring out the potential of those who are capable of creating innovations we need to remove the shackles of having to think about earning a living before they even have had a chance to realize that potential. [/quote]

So this is really re-thinking why we endeavor for things like education, it’s stepping beyond Darwinian models for the human race. This is similar to what I used to think. Rather than thinking about education as a means to an end monetarily, we need to think about education as a means to an end to further the human race via maximizing whatever it is one’s potential would be given their natural skill sets and enjoyment. I’m thinking an example is fewer people in law because it pays well, and more in science, medicine, philosophy and the arts because they are good at these things and passionate about them. If you eliminate money, you eliminate work and turn work into endeavor/ passion.

But, how do we sustain humanity without forcing or paying off people to do things nobody wants to do? We might have lopsided talents and not need half the population becoming artists as endeavors.

On one hand, it would suck to have had Einstein become a lawyer because he needed the money… But on the other hand guys like Newton would have only studied and furthered Alchemy if left to his passions.

How do we steer humanity towards progress if we all define progress differently? Damn this stuff gets convoluted fast.