Topic: Work - page 2. (Read 2437 times)

Wouldn't you appear bad to a potential mate if all you cared about were material possessions?  Shouldn't loving and sharing be a more attractive quality to a relationship, since love is the main ingredient to a relationship?

SgtSpike, that's simply not true, humans have existed for thousands of years by caring for their selves.  Is there not enough food?  Grow some yourself.  These things called regulations prevent us from caring for ourselves.

Who actually dreams to play video games 24/7?  I loaded up counter strike source, the other day, and it just wasn't the same.  Most people grow out of these phases and find something they enjoy that also contributes to others.

Of course computers could have been created without currency, do you have to feed your computer dollar bills to turn on?  It's all metal.  It took the push of a little bit of greed to get technology as far as it is, in today's society, but it could have happened without.

Regarding electricity, that in no way destroys the environment, unless of course, we use coal and oil to generate electricity rather than clean, renewable, hemp biodiesel.

Technology is very much possible without money, if you enjoy technology, you can work on it to further develop it, with like minded humans.

Actually, Dank is not so far off from reality.

I live in a commune, albeit a very small one. There are only five of us. We often need resources from outside, so I earn money at a day job (none of the other four people are employed.) Two of us are in school full time. One spends her time maintaining our commune and also does what she loves, playing the flute. The last guy just sits around all day (well to be honest, he can barely walk and can't talk yet). We never transfer money between ourselves, but work gets done because we want it to be done.

 

Sure nature created factories, just as nature created roads.  People wanted them (roads and factories), so people built them.  They just did them in a more organized way than your haphazard "I'll do what work I want" method would have accomplished.

Why do we need any possessions to trade?  Well, because far too many people would leech off of those who did real work in such a society.  I know I would.  I love music, and would love to stay at home and write music all the time.  I am sure others would love to play video games all day, or stay home with their families/children.  It all sounds lovely, but if that happened, no work would get done.  Roads would go unmaintained, food would go unharvested, community buildings would become dilapidated and unsafe... you live in a dream world if you really think this would work in a modern society.

And we would destroy far more of our resources if each person tried to homestead on their own.  Do you have any idea how efficient we have become at producing food per acre of land compared to 100, 200 years ago?

You being on a computer at all, by the way, is rather hypocritical.  Not only would computers have NEVER been possible without currency, but they - *gasp* - use electricity, which is destroying the environment!  Better shut it off real quick like!  And shut off all your electrical service, actually - it wouldn't have been possible without PAYING people to provide it for you.

Firstly because people would abuse it and secondly because appearing to be a good prospect for mating turns out to be something that gets selected for.


No.

I think you'll find that the people who lived in palaces used fear and force to make people build it for them.  How many kings built their castle their self?  Also, you can't go and build a mud shack yourself nowadays, in the US anyways.

How many people that work are benefiting society, earth, by doing so?  Most jobs consist of the destruction of our resources.

Might as well say nature created factories, if you're going by that perspective.  The thing is, we are all brothers and sisters, why do we need any possession to trade rather than sharing our possessions?  And is it really fair if the top class prints the money their self?

The people that enjoyed building houses would live in palaces while many would live in mud shacks. Money allows for specialization which in turn leads to efficiency gains. The real tragedy of the modern system is that human productivity has increased by more than an order of magnitude with industrialization and computerization but we appear to be devoting a greater proportion of our lives to working than ever (those of us that work).

I would further argue that "nature" has created money as part of the "equilibrium".  If people want work to be traded between them fairly, they'll create currency.

Well guess what, they did.

I'm sure there would be a whole forum dedicated to infrastructure constriction.

OK, say I wake up one day and say "I really want to build a road from here to Dank's house". I have no money (since there is no money in this scenario). How do I get the resources I need to build the road? How do I organize other people to help me build the road?

ITT: Arguing against the use of money. On a forum dedicated to raising a new currency.

Nature is an equilibrium of everything.  If people want new roads to drive on, they'll build them.  Nothing about singing in a bar (unless it's a hookah bar!) or being a critic sounds appealing to me, for example.

There are very few people who prefer paving roads and cleaning gutters over singing in bars and being a film critic.

that should at least shut him up for a bit

People that enjoy building housing?  If people weren't paid to do stuff they don't like, and had freedom to choose, they would be able to do what makes them happy.  Everyone is a good person, deep down.  Everyone wants to contribute to society, people just need to find their destiny.

Edit: 1420th post.

Which is absolutely irrelevant to your assertion that people should do only the work they wish to do and which makes them happy.  You're presuming that enough people will want to work in providing essential infrastructure to provide for the needs of those who want to work in other fields.  You're completely overlooking the fact that many people who work at providing infrastructure do so only out of economic necessity, not because it makes them happy.  Put more simply, if all of us choose to sit around indulging our creative side, who is going to provide us with housing and food in return for our artistic efforts?  You're really going to be dependent on a well off individual patronising your artistic endeavours, except you'll be dependent on them for food and shelter instead of for money.  And the number of well off individuals looking for artists to subsidise is much smaller than the number of wannabe artistes.

The US grows enough food to feed the whole planet, starvation occurs when the price of food is artificially inflated by regulatory systems.

The US also has the capability of being independent from crude oil and relying solely on hemp based biodiesel fuel, if 6% of continental land was allocated to hemp farms.

Of course, but dank was talking about a world in which people do only the work which makes them happy and in which people's motivation to feed, shelter or otherwise provide him with basic life essentials would be him sharing his music - if not enough people who have food in excess of their own needs like his music, he starves. 

You still get to choose what you want to give.

Sharing: People should do it because they want to do it, not because they're made to do it.

Skydiving: People should do it because they want to do it, not because they're made to do it.

Laundry: People should do it because they want to do it, not because they're made to do it.

College: People should do it because they want to do it, not because they're made to do it.

"Silk": People should do it because they want to do it, not because they're made to do it.

Sex: People should do it because they want to do it, not because they're made to do it.

AML and KYC paperwork: People should do it because they want to do it, not because they're made to do it.