I have always found it absurd how unproductive members of society who have made leisurely pursuits their life goal are despised by mainstream opinion...
Oh, I'm all in favor of people choosing to pursue leisurely pursuits, provided they don't expect other people to work like dogs to make it possible. 
Topic: Useless intellectual work - page 2. (Read 7946 times)
It's very common to denounce the "digging ditches" fallacy as an absurd way for keynesianists to try to improve work market by offering useless jobs.
There is deep seated fallacy in the collective consciousness of Jewish/Christian/Islamic societies regarding the morality of money.
The widespread view is that money is somehow related to effort and that those that put in the most effort are morally deserving of the most money.
This approximation might have been applicable to some extent in an agrarian society of 2000 years ago, but in the modern information economy it is not even approximately true. Those who make the most money are of course not those who put in the most effort but those who generate the most marginal utility, and this ability is becoming increasingly decoupled from effort.
A famous formulation of this fallacy is Marx' Labour Theory of Value, but there are several other versions of it on both sides of the political spectrum. It's a meme that remains surprisingly robust even in 2010.
I have always found it absurd how unproductive members of society who have made leisurely pursuits their life goal are despised by mainstream opinion, while equally unproductive members who outwardly project the image of effort for effort's sake, are respected.
http://reason.com/archives/2008/06/16/baby-bust
I found a very interesting article that call our hypothesis into questions.
Let just say we have to wait and see what happen.
I found a very interesting article that call our hypothesis into questions.
Let just say we have to wait and see what happen.
We can already see that happening. It was working age population demands that prompted these very same European nations to open up their immigration laws under the, now provably false, assumption that immigrants from a distinctly different racial, religious and cultural background would be willing to asimulate into the host culture.
I thought it was the host culture's unwillingness to assimilate was the critical factor.
Certainly not. Many of these same nations openly oppose the development of 'parallel cultures', Germany's opposition to homeschooling being a big example. They go out of their way to help immigrants assimilate, in ways that the US does not. There are just some cultures that cannot coexist without some degree of 'culture clash'. We in the US are accustomed to some degree of 'culture clash' being a self-described "melting pot", but that contributes to our higher overall crime rates. Europe is getting there faster than they can adjust, and that could be it's undoing.
I think that "Demographic winter" is a serious hypothesis that should not be ignored.
I wasn't suggesting that anyone ignore it. Regardless of the long term trendline, the short term has very real effects upon us now. I was merely highlighting the greater perspective.
We can already see that happening. It was working age population demands that prompted these very same European nations to open up their immigration laws under the, now provably false, assumption that immigrants from a distinctly different racial, religious and cultural background would be willing to asimulate into the host culture.
I thought it was the host culture's unwillingness to assimilate was the critical factor.
Not in all countries, that is mostly true in Western European nations. That said, even that much is statistical noise in the trendline of human history. There have been more dramatic setbacks to that trendline than the relatively recent reproductive habits of a couple of generations of wealthy and self-absorbed white people.
When the future belongs to old people, you're not going to care much about breeding. I expect some kind of chaos and instability within a couple of decades in these countries.
We can already see that happening. It was working age population demands that prompted these very same European nations to open up their immigration laws under the, now provably false, assumption that immigrants from a distinctly different racial, religious and cultural background would be willing to assimilate into the host culture.
Not in all countries, that is mostly true in Western European nations. That said, even that much is statistical noise in the trendline of human history. There have been more dramatic setbacks to that trendline than the relatively recent reproductive habits of a couple of generations of wealthy and self-absorbed white people.
I thought that too, until I read a book from some french demographs "Essai de prospective démographique". Main author is Pierre Chaunu. According to their studies, even if indeed it's in western countries that the phenomenun is the more acute, developping countries do also follow this line, in an alarming rate. Many of them have already a natality rate below replacement rate. And yet, their population is growing rapidly, which gives a false impression of a vivid population, while it is only aging. Contraception may be a recent invention in human history, but it is of a huge importance, probably very much underestimated, imo.
I think that "Demographic winter" is a serious hypothesis that should not be ignored.
Not in all countries, that is mostly true in Western European nations. That said, even that much is statistical noise in the trendline of human history. There have been more dramatic setbacks to that trendline than the relatively recent reproductive habits of a couple of generations of wealthy and self-absorbed white people.
When the future belongs to old people, you're not going to care much about breeding. I expect some kind of chaos and instability within a couple of decades in these countries.
Some people think a lot of things about the future, but if history is of any value it tells us that those who make distant predictions have a terrible track record. I'll stick with the long term trendline in my own assumptions, which is decidedly more people with longer lifespans.
Longer lifespans doesn't do much for human reproduction. Whether a woman lives 60 or 110 years, she will have the same amount of babies, and this will probably be below replacement rate. If you like to folow long term trendline, don't look at total population number, but look at this rate. In every countries, natality is sliding below replacement rate. Longer lifespans only hides this phenomenum, giving the impression of a growing population. But it's not growing : it's aging. And after getting old, all these people will just die, leaving behind them a dramaticly smaller number of people. And don't think it would be good news, you would be very wrong, imo.
Not in all countries, that is mostly true in Western European nations. That said, even that much is statistical noise in the trendline of human history. There have been more dramatic setbacks to that trendline than the relatively recent reproductive habits of a couple of generations of wealthy and self-absorbed white people.
Some people think a lot of things about the future, but if history is of any value it tells us that those who make distant predictions have a terrible track record. I'll stick with the long term trendline in my own assumptions, which is decidedly more people with longer lifespans.
But it's not growing : it's aging. And after getting old, all these people will just die, leaving behind them a dramaticly smaller number of people. And don't think it would be good news, you would be very wrong, imo.
Eliminating aging would rank on par with human colonization, perhaps even more important than human colonization. At least, that's my opinion. I would be happy to donate a small sum of my money into anti-aging research every month, with bitcoins.
Let's be clear about one thing, no one person should get to decide what is "worth it" for the rest. It matters not how worthy the cause, not even if the very survival of the entire human species depends upon it with an absolute certainty. If you are advocating for the taxation of others to fund your ideal project, you are advocating for the legalized theft of the rightful property of others. Whatever it is, if it is truly worthwhile, someone will fund it voluntarily.
+1, creighto.
Couldn't say it better.
This is an exercise in the Broken Window Fallacy. Basically, you're assuming that something won't develop if DARPA did not fund the internet. Something else entirely could have develop -or- something similar to the internet.
+1
We might also take bitcoin as an example. Satoshi's white paper is the smartest document I had read in years. And yet, correct me if I am wrong, but Satoshi is not a State employee, nor is bitcoin any part of a government project.
Actually, we don't know that, we can only assume. Satoshi is a very private character. We don't even know if his name is real. For all we know, he could be another teen genius in the vein of "DVD Jon"; wisely prohibited from too much online interaction by his 'rents. Actually, now that I think about it, he never was one to post on the forum often; but he does seem to have dropped off even from that level since the school year has started.
Hmmm....
Some people think a lot of things about the future, but if history is of any value it tells us that those who make distant predictions have a terrible track record. I'll stick with the long term trendline in my own assumptions, which is decidedly more people with longer lifespans.
Longer lifespans doesn't do much for human reproduction. Whether a woman lives 60 or 110 years, she will have the same amount of babies, and this will probably be below replacement rate. If you like to folow long term trendline, don't look at total population number, but look at this rate. In every countries, natality is sliding below replacement rate. Longer lifespans only hides this phenomenum, giving the impression of a growing population. But it's not growing : it's aging. And after getting old, all these people will just die, leaving behind them a dramaticly smaller number of people. And don't think it would be good news, you would be very wrong, imo.
A society needs to support it's artisans and thinkers to have a healthy vibrant culture. The single movers among the thousand sheep make the payoff worth it.
Let's be clear about one thing, no one person should get to decide what is "worth it" for the rest. It matters not how worthy the cause, not even if the very survival of the entire human species depends upon it with an absolute certainty. If you are advocating for the taxation of others to fund your ideal project, you are advocating for the legalized theft of the rightful property of others. Whatever it is, if it is truly worthwhile, someone will fund it voluntarily. The day that an H3 fusion reactor breaks the parity barrier, the funding for a permanent settlement on the Moon will appear; with or without the aid of any government. There are hundreds of tabletop reactors, with hundreds of experimental engineers, trying to find the key to making that leap. If it can be done, it will be done within my lifetime; and another moonshot will come in short order.
This is an exercise in the Broken Window Fallacy. Basically, you're assuming that something won't develop if DARPA did not fund the internet. Something else entirely could have develop -or- something similar to the internet.
+1
We might also take bitcoin as an example. Satoshi's white paper is the smartest document I had read in years. And yet, correct me if I am wrong, but Satoshi is not a State employee, nor is bitcoin any part of a government project.
But this is only temporary. Most countries have already entered demographic transition phase, so that we can very much predict that there will be a drastic decrease in human population, not even due to wars, social unstability or whatever, but only because of the decrease of natality due to contraception and rise of feminine condition. Some people even think it could lead to human extinction. Anyway, this will cause major social problematic situations, and will require a full refundation of societies, but it will also make the need of resources a problem from the past.
Some people think a lot of things about the future, but if history is of any value it tells us that those who make distant predictions have a terrible track record. I'll stick with the long term trendline in my own assumptions, which is decidedly more people with longer lifespans.
It would be a massive accomplishment to have a human settlement on Mars. The boon to science and living standards would be incredible from the challenges that need to be solved. Suddenly we'd be abundant in rare resources- everyone on Earth would be rich from Mars-Earth trade. It's the new frontier of exploration.
And it's not a flag on the surface exercise. Any mission to Mars would require people staying on the surface a minimum of 6 months as the window to fly back to Earth does not happen often. In fact many (Buzz Aldrin included) argue it should be a one-way mission.
I'm not sure how you can argue against "Useless intellectual work", when the internet you're using is a product of that. A society needs to support it's artisans and thinkers to have a healthy vibrant culture. The single movers among the thousand sheep make the payoff worth it.
And it's not a flag on the surface exercise. Any mission to Mars would require people staying on the surface a minimum of 6 months as the window to fly back to Earth does not happen often. In fact many (Buzz Aldrin included) argue it should be a one-way mission.
I'm not sure how you can argue against "Useless intellectual work", when the internet you're using is a product of that. A society needs to support it's artisans and thinkers to have a healthy vibrant culture. The single movers among the thousand sheep make the payoff worth it.
This is an exercise in the Broken Window Fallacy. Basically, you're assuming that something won't develop if DARPA did not fund the internet. Something else entirely could have develop -or- something similar to the internet.
Let us note that we cannot predict technological trajectory of an alternative universe.
It would be a massive accomplishment to have a human settlement on Mars. The boon to science and living standards would be incredible from the challenges that need to be solved. Suddenly we'd be abundant in rare resources- everyone on Earth would be rich from Mars-Earth trade. It's the new frontier of exploration.
And it's not a flag on the surface exercise. Any mission to Mars would require people staying on the surface a minimum of 6 months as the window to fly back to Earth does not happen often. In fact many (Buzz Aldrin included) argue it should be a one-way mission.
I'm not sure how you can argue against "Useless intellectual work", when the internet you're using is a product of that. A society needs to support it's artisans and thinkers to have a healthy vibrant culture. The single movers among the thousand sheep make the payoff worth it.
And it's not a flag on the surface exercise. Any mission to Mars would require people staying on the surface a minimum of 6 months as the window to fly back to Earth does not happen often. In fact many (Buzz Aldrin included) argue it should be a one-way mission.
I'm not sure how you can argue against "Useless intellectual work", when the internet you're using is a product of that. A society needs to support it's artisans and thinkers to have a healthy vibrant culture. The single movers among the thousand sheep make the payoff worth it.
Oh my god. You are hopelessly brain-washed.
My initial post is not against science or technological progress. Please read it again.
It would be a massive accomplishment to have a human settlement on Mars. The boon to science and living standards would be incredible from the challenges that need to be solved. Suddenly we'd be abundant in rare resources- everyone on Earth would be rich from Mars-Earth trade. It's the new frontier of exploration.
And it's not a flag on the surface exercise. Any mission to Mars would require people staying on the surface a minimum of 6 months as the window to fly back to Earth does not happen often. In fact many (Buzz Aldrin included) argue it should be a one-way mission.
I'm not sure how you can argue against "Useless intellectual work", when the internet you're using is a product of that. A society needs to support it's artisans and thinkers to have a healthy vibrant culture. The single movers among the thousand sheep make the payoff worth it.
And it's not a flag on the surface exercise. Any mission to Mars would require people staying on the surface a minimum of 6 months as the window to fly back to Earth does not happen often. In fact many (Buzz Aldrin included) argue it should be a one-way mission.
I'm not sure how you can argue against "Useless intellectual work", when the internet you're using is a product of that. A society needs to support it's artisans and thinkers to have a healthy vibrant culture. The single movers among the thousand sheep make the payoff worth it.
Jump to: