• Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah. Me too. You would literally have to give me money, for me to sacrifice a part of my chilling out time.

        • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The notion that more is better than less has been a dominant paradigm in various fields of inquiry, from economics to psychology. However, this paradigm has been challenged by recent philosophical developments that question the validity and applicability of this assumption. I have examined the arguments for and against the traditional paradigm of more versus less, and explored some of the exceptional cases that defy this binary opposition. In order to reconcile these conflicting perspectives and provide a more nuanced understanding of the complex relationship between larger and smaller quantities, further research is still required.

            • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              In Texas they’ve solved the problem by simply deciding that bigger is better and more is more. The rest of the world is still struggling with this conundrum, so the debate is far from over.

    • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And that should be the goal of a society. Currently we work because as individuals we’re forced to. As humanity we’re already past the forced need. Enabling people to choose would be more beneficial and we have the innate quality of finding meaningful ways to spend our time.

      • Peruvian_Skies@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is that we suck at allocating productivity. For example, we produce enough food for everyone but don’t distribute it half as well as we should, so people still starve while food rots somewhere else. We waste resources propping up a whole host of parasites that add no value to society, such as famous-for-being-famous celebrities, advertisers, speculators and redundant managers, while underpaying the people who actually produce wealth. And we want a brand new iPhone every year, a brand new car every two years, etc, and by and large don’t recycle. We’re wasteful.

        Most of the actually important and time-consuming work is automated already. If we were smart about what work we do, an 8-hour work week for everyone would be more than possible. But we are so inefficient with our productivity due to warped priorities that most of us barely scrape by as it is.

        • astraeus@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Our excessive lack of proper planning and foresight really gets accentuated when you evaluate how wasteful and inefficient any of our processes are. I’ve been listening to Walden on audiobook recently, it’s almost as if Thoreau really did transcend his time and saw that the future would be equally as futile as his present at properly providing for humanity in a meaningful way.

          We would rather have luxuries and pleasures than fulfilling proper needs, work tends to take away from our needs in ways we overlook.