In reference to the protagonist of the novel itself, one could look at his actions as being the result of a poor or lacking fictionality competence (Fiktionalitätskompetenz).
But this discussion belong to another subforum.
In reference to the protagonist of the novel itself, one could look at his actions as being the result of a poor or lacking fictionality competence (Fiktionalitätskompetenz).
ktz wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2020, 2:53 pm
At this point in time, billionaires are not incentivized to behave in a way that benefits society. They are incentivized to accumulate wealth. The modern interpretation of the invisible hand was reliant on the Kuznets curve to ensure that accumulating wealth would also benefit society, but Piketty made the case back in 2015 that when the rate of return on capital is higher than growth, inherited wealth will outstrip earned wealth and the EKC is a fantasy. I may be somewhat bastardizing Piketty's point here but my understanding is essentially that the endgame goal for individuals and corporations alike is no longer to perform productive work or meet demand with supply, but instead to get a giant pile of cash by any means possible upon which they can sit like gluttonous dragons.
I don't believe that this social credit system will solve any of the problems or flaws that we associate with money, I think the fundamental issue of human greed will create all of the same issues but in a slightly different manner if this system were implemented. I do think that, if it is possible to create a non-draconian social credit system, it would be beneficial to society in order to lead people away from doing things ONLY for financial gain, but I still feel that greed will corrupt this entire system in the same way it has corrupted the current financial situation.ktz wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2020, 2:53 pm
So getting to your question, what does a solution look like? In short, I imagine the most palatable solution that we will realistically end up with is some combination of China's social credit score system (hopefully one that uses carrots instead of the crazy 1984 stick that's happening over there) to prevent the tragedy of the commons and encourage socially conscious behavior, and then UBI to prevent social instability and unrest.
If we are talking pie-in-the-sky, I do think an optimal solution will make several updated distinctions about money. One aspect of money is its representation of physical goods like food, water, and utilities where not everyone can have enough, and services like maintaining the robots that do all the work -- whether this score is managed by the invisible hand or some centralized algorithm doesn't matter to me as long as it seems egalitarian enough that nobody is starving or whatever. Separate out a different score that represents status. Celebrity culture can be beholden to this number -- we don't need to pay them exorbitant salaries that inflate prices on goods and services for everyone else, when really we just need a number to represent who is hot and who is not in society. Let this number be used for the purchase of scarce luxuries, and hopefully you will also attract the competitive egos of the hoarders and high finance traders to do something useful for society instead of just being a bunch of gambling addict arbitrage vampires. And there should be a third score should be earned by demonstrating the capacity to make good decisions in service of the common welfare -- power. These are independent functions that are currently conflated into the same fantasy pie-in-the-sky number -- I mean, it's not like we have the gold standard anymore where money actually represents some physical quantity in the world. It's literally just a made up digitial number now.
And then, call me a communist but pretty soon, when robots take over all the work, shouldn't we check and see if the cake is big enough now that everyone can get a slice?
As can be seen on the example of elites who did/do not have to work for a living (such as royal courts, people who live off of trust funds, to some extent children whose parents provide everything for them), those people tend to give themselves to hedonistic pursuits and decadence.HJCarden wrote: ↑December 9th, 2020, 11:01 amThe group of mice that has all of their needs satisfied eventually devolves into chaos and disrepair. UBI can be good, but I think we need to be wary of removing a possibly critical part of our psychology, and that is the need to survive. If we feel "invincible" in this sense, why strive for anything?
One cannot fully appreciate positives without an experience of negatives.baker wrote: ↑December 9th, 2020, 11:23 amAs can be seen on the example of elites who did/do not have to work for a living (such as royal courts, people who live off of trust funds, to some extent children whose parents provide everything for them), those people tend to give themselves to hedonistic pursuits and decadence.HJCarden wrote: ↑December 9th, 2020, 11:01 amThe group of mice that has all of their needs satisfied eventually devolves into chaos and disrepair. UBI can be good, but I think we need to be wary of removing a possibly critical part of our psychology, and that is the need to survive. If we feel "invincible" in this sense, why strive for anything?
The struggle for survival appears to be an important factor in streamlining people's activities.
I've always quite liked messing with Mr Inbetween.One cannot fully appreciate positives without an experience of negatives.
I agree on all points.There has to be some incentive to work. In the absence of any other motivation, keeping body and soul together is a very normal motive for doing paid work.baker wrote: ↑December 9th, 2020, 11:23 amAs can be seen on the example of elites who did/do not have to work for a living (such as royal courts, people who live off of trust funds, to some extent children whose parents provide everything for them), those people tend to give themselves to hedonistic pursuits and decadence.HJCarden wrote: ↑December 9th, 2020, 11:01 amThe group of mice that has all of their needs satisfied eventually devolves into chaos and disrepair. UBI can be good, but I think we need to be wary of removing a possibly critical part of our psychology, and that is the need to survive. If we feel "invincible" in this sense, why strive for anything?
The struggle for survival appears to be an important factor in streamlining people's activities.
Yet we're also living in a culture that looks down on working for money. One is supposed to work "to make a difference to society", "to follow one's passion", "to fulfill one's potential", "to make one's dream come true".
Marcus Aurelius seems to have been a hard worker. Depsite being rich and the emperor of Rome he took time to write all those Meditations. It doesn't seem to me that the rich have greater love of "hedonistic pursuits" than anyone else, although, of course, they may be better able to indulge their hedonism. Poor people who become cocaine of heroin addicts have to rob and loot to support their habits; at least the rich can support their hedonism in less harmful ways.Belindi wrote: ↑December 10th, 2020, 6:55 amI agree on all points.There has to be some incentive to work. In the absence of any other motivation, keeping body and soul together is a very normal motive for doing paid work.baker wrote: ↑December 9th, 2020, 11:23 am
As can be seen on the example of elites who did/do not have to work for a living (such as royal courts, people who live off of trust funds, to some extent children whose parents provide everything for them), those people tend to give themselves to hedonistic pursuits and decadence.
The struggle for survival appears to be an important factor in streamlining people's activities.
What JHCarden noted about mice applies also to making vaccines against certain bacterial diseases.
If a group of decadent humans is sent to survive in an area of thriving nature, the effect would be to increase the timidity of prey animals without doing as much harm as if the human invaders had not been stupidly decadent.
I said:Ecurb wrote: ↑December 10th, 2020, 11:38 amMarcus Aurelius seems to have been a hard worker. Depsite being rich and the emperor of Rome he took time to write all those Meditations. It doesn't seem to me that the rich have greater love of "hedonistic pursuits" than anyone else, although, of course, they may be better able to indulge their hedonism.
Note the underlined qualifiers.baker wrote: ↑December 9th, 2020, 11:23 amAs can be seen on the example of elites who did/do not have to work for a living (such as royal courts, people who live off of trust funds, to some extent children whose parents provide everything for them), those people tend to give themselves to hedonistic pursuits and decadence.
The struggle for survival appears to be an important factor in streamlining people's activities.
Philosophy is a decadent pursuit? Who are you, Nero?Also, I wonder if "hedonistic pursuites" and "decadence" are so horrible? I suppose that if Aurelius had occupied all his time emperoring, he might have had less time for the decadent pursuit of writing philosophy.
Of course. But the leisured classes aren't always hedonistic and lazy. Even Keats (although he didn't go to University) inherited enough money to quit the medical profession and concentrate on poetry.Belindi wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 8:45 am People who work solely to earn money to live can also be leisured enough to learn the humanities in their formal tertiary education. This is one reason I am a socialist. It is not only the Lord Byrons who can go to university it's also the Keatses when socialism is at work.
I love the grand monuments left by investments in slavery they are exceedingly pretty, but I have learned to understand these as morally questionable. The prosperity in and of the UK (such as it is) is founded on slavery.
Of course. But the leisured classes aren't always hedonistic and lazy. Even Keats (although he didn't go to University) inherited enough money to quit the medical profession and concentrate on poetry.Belindi wrote: ↑December 11th, 2020, 8:45 am People who work solely to earn money to live can also be leisured enough to learn the humanities in their formal tertiary education. This is one reason I am a socialist. It is not only the Lord Byrons who can go to university it's also the Keatses when socialism is at work.
I love the grand monuments left by investments in slavery they are exceedingly pretty, but I have learned to understand these as morally questionable. The prosperity in and of the UK (such as it is) is founded on slavery.
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023