While it's quite true that life is not fair, there is a huge difference between (a) when a parent says this during an exchange designed to help the child deal positively and creatively with this fact, and (b) when a parent says this as justification for lying to the child, betraying the child, and in other ways abusing said child.
I personally experienced the latter, and it was devastating. It led me not only to distrust others and expect bad things from being honest with people, but also not to pursue what I wanted most in life because it would get snatched away from me where I least expected it.
Therefore, I think it's important for both parents and people who want to maintain positive relationships with other people to do their best to treat the other person fairly. It's like the Prisoner's Dilemma exchange. If we treat every exchange as a zero-sum dog-eat-dog situation where the only way I win is if you lose, then pretty much everyone loses overall.
I agree that isn't something that any parent should do. How parents manage to find it within themselves to justify abusing their children is beyond me.
It was complicated. Some parents are so toxic that they don't have a good side, yet they justify being cruel because they want to see themselves as good people (and therefore they cast the child as bad). My dad did have a good side, however, and I'm sure he didn't really want to abuse me. However, his own childhood was severely toxic, which left him with a bunch of issues. I'm actually writing a book about my experiences and struggles to heal.
Loved every word! The analogies of locust clouds and blizzards illustrating toughness of life were spot on and reminded me of similar stories in the Laura Ingalls Wilder books. Great life lessons in those books. So very tired of the whining and entitled attitudes prevalent in society today. Life's a b***h, get strong and handle it!
I'm hopeful that our society's pendulum will swing back to valuing self sufficiency--swing back to realizing that fairness will never exist. And to seeing again that we as individuals are in the driver's seat of our own fate. Your words here are a step in the right direction. Thank you.
I would like to push back on this, Athena. I do happen to think society owes people something. We were here first.
As Thomas Paine said in Rights of Man: "Man did not enter into society to be worse off than he was before."
Society itself is a human innovation. Its whole purpose, the very reason it exists at all, is to serve human interests. But modern society is complex, and the competency waterline people are required to meet in order to have a comfortable and secure life and a respected place in the world is gradually rising higher and higher. Until very recently from a historical perspective, one could be pretty dumb and still be able to participate in society and live a reasonably comfortable life relative to the other members of one's in-group. In a subsistence culture, everyone has to be useful, so everyone is. There were fewer choices, but that was the human condition. The menial work people were required to perform was endless and obvious, but at least you didn't have to be unusually bright in order to have a place among your peers; in fact, collective cultures discouraged trying to distinguish one's self among the group. Self interest and group interest were indistinguishable, because without the group there was no self.
Right now, in our modern context, most people who weren't able to get a college degree are barely hanging on by their fingernails. Society got where it is today by systematically destroying the lower, simpler living standards of the past and paving over them with unimaginable progress, but the price for that has been an ever-increasing number of people who can't participate in the system and are disenfranchised by it.
Today, menial labor (and increasingly, sophisticated work) is performed by robots and machines. Your neighbor's 56-year-old uncle who has driven a truck all his life and is confounded by his smart phone is soon going to be replaced by computerized trucks that drive themselves cheaper, more efficiently, and with fewer errors than he ever could, and then he will be out of a job. What is he going to do then, go back to school and study machine learning to get an edge on the job market?
I'm not saying that progress is bad. We have more rights and luxuries today than a medieval person would have ever thought to ask for themselves in a million years, and we could still be doing and living better than we are, and we should continue in the direction of progress. I see very little virtue in struggling unnecessarily and as far as I'm concerned the problem is always the lower standard of living, not the higher one.
Still, society doesn't get to render people obsolete without owing them something in return. How many people is the system allowed to fail before we declare the system a failure? Let's ground that idea using real numbers. Is 100 people enough? 1,000? What kind of guarantees are we entitled to expect now that society has taken EVERYTHING for the sake of optimizing it?
This has been the concern for as long as innovation has been a part of society. There are always jobs that are fazed out, and there is always concern about those that might be left behind.
Humans are remarkably adaptable and innovation tends to solve for problems because it is the necessity is the impetus of change.
I don't think it's correct that this has always been a concern. It is specifically a post-slavery, post-Industrial Revolution, capitalist society concern.
That's not to say that I think capitalism is "bad." It has been an excellent replacement for the old world system where the only means of wealth acquisition was land conquest.
But as soon as AI can do all the IQ 80-100 jobs, all those people will be replaced by AI in the job market. As soon as AI can do all the IQ 100-120 jobs, all those people will be replaced by AI in the job market. As soon as AI can do all the IQ 120-140 jobs, all those people will be replaced by AI in the job market.
Eventually, no one will be able to meaningfully contribute unless we completely change the rules about what it means to do that.
I heard the same thing in 1985. Computers were going to take all our jobs.
Another prediction - Homemakers would want PC's so they could store recipes. I heard no predictions about the numerous IT jobs or the popularity of the internet.
The fact is we do not know the nature of employment in the future. Chances are it will be totally unexpected.
I respect your perspective. I was not even alive yet in 1985.
People myself and younger - for better or worse - anticipate seeing new economic systems forged in place of capitalism, at least as it exists in its current form. Capitalism has been a great replacement for the Old World system of land conquest, but humanity is always progressing and much of our youth are hoping for a future where ideally no one will have to center their lives around generating income.
To put it more bluntly, we are hoping humans will be replaced by robots in the job market sooner than later. We will still enjoy the same amenities we do now and better, only they'll all be automated. At that point, we will be forced to change the rules that govern how wealth is earned. There are many possibilities in the works, and some models have been tested or are being tested currently on small populations all over the world in order to observe their outcomes.
I don't think you're wrong about this, Athena. We saw after the first wave of the Industrial Revolution that the working class was largely dissatisfied with the state of progress. One of their main gripes was that the new machinery, in replacing them, had forced them into a state of "imposed idleness" and they no longer knew what to do with themselves.
But if progress is a one-way ticket to sleeping on the sidewalk in the snow for a whole subset of the population, then where does that leave us?
Of course these things are the test of a person. Of course you're right about that. Of course some people will make it through such things and come out on top while others will knuckle under. "The strong do what they can; the weak suffer what they must." etc., etc.
So, okay. There will be winners and losers, and that's all well and good for the people who can manage. But what happens to the so-called losers? Just...too bad, go suck eggs?
Even the Romans, who fed people to lions recreationally, knew better than to play it like that.
We live in a first world country that's awash in capital. Perhaps you saw that tweet not too long ago that said if you worked every single day earning $5,000/day from the time Christopher Columbus first sailed to the Americas in 1492 to right now, you still wouldn't have a billion dollars, yet Jeff Bezos, just by himself, is worth $160 billion USD.
What do you think is the correct course of action that we, as the wealthiest first world country on earth, should take in order to deal with our people who take more from the system than they are capable of putting in?
I agree with you that society is here for us, however, society is comprised of people, and life will NEVER be fair for people in a society. People within the society have the power to achieve their own aims, however. And society often provides an education or an opportunity for some sort of education for those who want it bad enough. Its a sad fact that sometimes bad things happen to people--people lose their jobs or become mentally ill, etc. Society does provide unemployment and disability assistance, but it should not be depended upon to fix all things deemed to be "unfair." Utopia does not and cannot exist. We must strive to make the best lives for ourselves that we can, and not sit back and whine, "Woe is me, society owes me fairness."
I respect your position but I find that I don't share your views on this. What you have expressed here is, of course, the social and economic philosophy I was raised with, but I am an apostate of it.
I don't believe the system rewards hard work. I don't believe it rewards honesty. I don't believe it rewards careful long-term planning. People myself and younger overwhelmingly feel this way. We are the most educated generation in American history, and we can't afford to buy our own homes. I'm 29 years old. I don't know anyone my age who has anything in their savings account. It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.
You say people within society have the power to achieve their own aims. I would like to know what makes you think so. It reminds me of when I was in elementary school and they used to tell us that everyone has the power to become anything they set their mind to. I used to think: "Why does mostly everyone set their mind to being boring and average?"
I don't think anyone expects society to fix all things deemed to be "unfair." But we do live in the wealthiest country on earth. Isn't it a shame to let people in our communities go without basic necessities? 40% of the wealth here is concentrated among the top 1% of people. The bottom 90% of people hold less than 1/4 of the wealth. That's not the natural order of things. That's a result of the system smiling upon certain people with favor.
It's possible to go from poor to rich in America. But I've never personally seen it. That doesn't mean poor Americans are stupid or lazy. If either intelligence or street smarts or common sense or willpower or determination or even simple, animal desperation were the ticket out of the poorhouse, very few would still be here. No one chooses this.
I get where you're coming from, but my personal thinking on the matter is that if we can provide everyone with basic necessities, why not do that? Why grudge people what they're not "supposed" to have, knowing they simply need a minimum of things? It makes such a huge difference to people and we could afford it if we made it s priority. According to whom should people not have the basics of survival in a nation that is positively awash in capital? Why is a higher standard of living for the whole country a problem to anyone?
I'm really asking.
I think money problems are boring. Worrying about money all the time is not the best use of our time as a species, and it's certainly not the most fun we could be having. And yes, I do happen to think that we should maximize people's opportunities to enjoy life wherever it is possible for us to do that. I want that for us. I think the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality is going out of fashion, and to me it can't go fast enough. I think we are all entitled to basic necessities at least, as audacious as that sounds to so many people. In fact, I find it odd that anyone could be opposed to this.
Please don't take offense, but you are the product of the current education system and of media brainwashing that is advocating the "Unfairness Doctrine," as I call it. Many young people today are very materialistic--they want new cars/trucks, a new house, new furniture, the latest electronic devices. They don't know what sacrifice is. Your generation won trophies simply for participating. Its a real problem. We have a generation of "woe is me" whiners with their hands out. Your generation feels the need to "start out" at the same level of economic prosperity that their parents currently enjoy after decades of work. And then resent the fact that they can't. How unfair life can be, lol.
You mention "basic needs." I'd like to know what do you consider basic needs? In distributing "basic needs" we run the risk of going down a slippery slope of expecting more and more to be handed to us. Socialism doesn't work. History shows us this. Taking from those who work and "have" and giving to those who "have not" results in a society that no longer strives to achieve, work hard and to be innovative. It's a poison to society. Our Founding Fathers were pretty wise men who created a nation using history as a model of what works and what doesn't. They also knew that a free nation can only last so long before corruption, greed and laziness will corrupt it. Sadly, this is the path we are currently on, in my opinion. I will reiterate that society does provide assistance when needed, disability income, or unemployment income, etc. But depending upon it for basic needs is a slippery slope.
It has been instilled in you that life isn't fair, that so many around you exist in mediocrity, and you wonder why that is. Here's a quote for you:
"All know the way. Few actually walk it." ~Bodhidharma~
We know that we have the ability to improve our circumstances through hard work, sacrifice and determination. But few choose to do what it takes. That's their choice. And guess what? Perhaps they're happy with what they have. Benjamin Franklin says that to be content we shouldn't compare ourselves to those who have more than we do. Wise words! Very wise man! He also says that happiness depends more upon the inward disposition of the mind than on outward circumstances. I agree.
Yes, bad things happen to people--people work hard and may lose everything due to unforeseen circumstances. Dishonest people get ahead in life. Its too bad, but that's life.
I find it appalling that people are resentful of the "1%" wealthy in our society. Perhaps those people worked their *sses off to get what they have, or perhaps they have some special talent that allows them to succeed that I don't have. Why can't we congratulate those people rather than envy them? Good for them!
You say that "We are entitled to..." No, we're not. Society shouldn't provide for those who are bored with the topic of money and who want to have fun. Please stop envying and holding your hand out and realize the necessity of realistic expectations. And get to work on improving your own life.
Thank you for your response. I am not offended by your assessment in the least; on the contrary, I am glad to have a frank discussion about this and appreciate your thoughts and engagement very much.
Please correct me if I misrepresent any of your views in this reply. I am making a good faith effort to engage with the substance of what you have said (I think you would agree that this would be a waste of our time otherwise).
I find that your overarching point was that my generation is soft and audaciously entitled from growing up in the relative luxury of a system that was handed to us on the blood, sweat, and tears of tougher, more steadfast and industrious people. Because they steeled themselves to meet the unfair world on its terms, they managed to give us everything we have. My generation in particular has had the opportunity to grow up in an environment that rewards mediocrity and caters to our precious little self-important feelings, and is so utterly bereft of struggle that we find the very notion that everything in the world isn't free for the asking deeply offensive and intolerable.
You contend that in reality, it's simply foolish to think the world will conform to our expectations just because we make demands of it, and if I don't internalize this, and HURRY, then life will chew me up and spit me out at the feet of Want while I scream and wail about how reality isn't supposed to apply to me because what about my theories?? What about my needs? Why isn't anyone providing for my needs? Doesn't anyone CARE?
I do not know how old you are, but assuming you are from my parents' generation then all I have to say with regard to your contempt for the fact that we were praised for mediocrity as kids (which I agree did happen) is "then why did you do it?" I'm using the collective "you" here, obviously. You were the adults. It happened on your watch. If my generation has stepped into the real world ill prepared for the demands of adulthood, does that not mean your generation failed in its parental duties on a large scale?
This is where my grandmother, who grew up dirt poor without even indoor plumbing, would break in and say, in an exaggerated sing-song voice full of pretend guilt: "Oh, you poor thing. I suppose we should have just left you on a hill to die then."
By the way, I dared not ever breathe a word to this woman about being tired, because I always knew that invariably her response would be: "My dear sister in Christ, how are you tired? You ain't done shit." In fact, as a rule I never let on to anyone born before 1960 that I'm tired because I don't want them to have a literal stroke, and that's what will happen unless I can prove I've been out in the sun all day long churning butter in a calico dress or picking cotton with my fingers raw and dripping blood onto the soil after not having consumed any food or water for three whole days.
My grandma and I butted heads on this as I grew into adulthood. I would say that I don't regard not having any energy as an accomplishment, and she would say that's because I'm lazy, and then I would say I prefer the word "indolent" as it sounds more sophisticated, and she would say "call it whatever you want" and then I would say that it's a pity she never learned how to adequately value her own leisure time, but that not all of us are crippled in the same way, and then she would say I better go sit on the other side of the couch or else she was going to pinch me and send me to bed.
I was raised on the bootstrap theory of capitalism. I understand it thoroughly, and I don't think our current system functions at all the way you describe. Factually, success is not simply the natural result of honest hard work and having the fortitude to push through our own resistance to being productive. If honest effort truly does create optimal outcomes, then I assume you are maximally wealthy and successful yourself? If not, why not? Have you not worked hard? Have you made poor life choices? Are you INDULGENT?
Or perhaps the reasons you aren't (I'm assuming) Bill Gates wealthy are incredibly complicated and nuanced, and the bootstrapper dynamic which holds that the only two kinds of people in the world are billionaires and lazy pond scum can't realistically be mapped onto your life circumstances?
Do tell.
No disrespect, though. I would like to point out that I'm not a socialist, at least not in the way you're implying. History has furnished us with enough examples of non-capitalistic systems failing spectacularly to make me immediately wary of anyone who comes forth being like "no but listen you guys we finally worked out all the bugs and Socialism 3.8 is going to solve everything, for real this time, and –" No! Go away!
Currently, capitalism is the only system we know of that remotely works in progressive societies that care about human dignity. Unlike so many young people today, I am not anti-capitalism, at least not in the sense that I am pro-socialism instead. I am just pro-whatever works. It's not that I don't think capitalism works. I just believe very strongly that it could work much better with some updates to the system that will accommodate the technological reality that's straight ahead of us right now, which is inevitably one where many people are going to be rendered obsolete in the job market, I'm sorry. Factually, that's what we're facing. I have no feelings of loyalty to capitalism on principle. I just want the system that works the best, and to me there is much room for improvement in ours.
People say: "Everyone said the same thing about industrialization. Everyone said the Industrial Revolution would render the American worker obsolete, and look, it didn't destroy all the jerbs after all!" But mechanical equipment is not the same thing as AI.
Look. Certainly, you can replace horses and buggies with automobiles and your coachman will be out of work unless he learns how to drive a car, so big deal. Industries change and people have to update their skills, right? So what's new?
What's new is AI, which will be capable of doing every single job that human beings can do, only better and cheaper, making it the obvious choice under capitalism, which rewards productivity that is inexpensive. There are only so many tiers of abstraction we humans can make of our jobs. Maybe "guy who does the work" is easy to replace with "guy who operates the machine that does five guys worth of work" but when the machine that does the work can operate itself, then what? Guy who supervises all the self-operating machines? Even if that is the case, millions of jobs will still vanish. And God only knows the term "high unemployment" worried everyone under Capitalism 2.4 (circa early 20th century–now); therefore, we must torture that exact model into all future social contexts at all costs.
Wrong.
This seems too obvious to even say, but we cannot meet the challenges that are ahead of us armed as we are with nothing but precedent left over from a bygone era, especially if we remain bogged down by all the people who are actively hostile to the concept of anyone getting anything without having to suffer for it first.
There are problems with Universal Basic Income, for example, that I don't think anyone has come up with adequate solutions to, but there are very enticing benefits as well.
If we abolish the requirement that people must justify their existence with work and allow them to stay home instead, then the people who become destructive and can't handle idleness can just…go back to work. Plus, the job market will be freed up by the mass exodus of people who would rather stay home and take care of their children or their aging parents, compose new music, tend a neighborhood garden, write a novel, investigate unsolved murders, or pursue other interests, so there will be increased demand to fill the jobs that remain and those who fill them can enjoy better working conditions and higher wages. No one will be forced by necessity to take a low-paying job under terrible working conditions that leaves them too exhausted at the end of the day to do night classes or locate some kind of escape hatch from that awful, awful lifestyle.
You seem to think people would HATE freedom from work, but the data that exists seems to point in the opposite direction. Rates of human happiness across the average lifespan suddenly skyrocket at retirement age, when retirees are collecting social security checks, not working, golfing, eating breakfast for four hours, watching The Price Is Right reruns, not working, heading out to the putting green, not working, and oh yeah, not doing any work for anyone else.
Likewise, rates of self-reported happiness have been on the decline overall for decades, but the happiness levels of American women in particular plummeted dramatically in the 1970s, right around the time when our society had fully normalized "stay-at-work moms." (Can anecdotally confirm, as a child of the latchkey kid generation whose parents were born in the 60s.)
Human beings, like all living things, have intrinsic motivation and are never content to sit around twiddling our thumbs all our lives. And we won't begin doing that even if we cut the yoke of mandatory employment. In fact, some of the greatest people in history who did incredible things for humanity were able to do so because they were born into wealthy families and lived off the guaranteed income of their families estate while they pursued their hobbies to universally valuable ends.
Oh yeah, that's another thing. Wealthy people tend not to have gotten where they are by suffering and enduring grunt work. Bill Gates loved computers and was compelled by passion to create software. He didn't have to force himself.
And the rest, as they say, is insider trading.
Believe it or not, the way we live currently is not "the way things are" in a real sense. We live in an era. But truly, all is flux.
My absolute worst nightmare would be to show up in a courtroom as a lawyer, with a 'career make or break case' on the docket, and then glance over at the bench for opposing counsel and see you sitting on that bench.
I'd like to add that just as you fight blizzard by showelling that damn snow out of your way you fight off people who in order to increase their income try to cut off from yours and by neglecting safety of work conditions by arguing with them. I do not live in US, so do not understand wholly the situation there, but just accepting current trends feels a bit like watching that korean shopping centre slowly collapse.
Surely some people waste their income in stupid ways and that new thing about shiplifting under certain monetary value is unpunishable that is disastrous. But do not tell me that poor should just think only about how to work harder and harder so that they survive next cut after next cut while those above keep cutting as long as they get away with it. We want eradicate greed and all that but we keep surviving by keeping it in check.
And here's the thing. The more unbearable are working conditions for the productive portion of population, the more they start filtering into unproductive layer which puts further strain on the workers. Making working more rewarding than not working is key thing. Making it possible to return to respectable lebel after falling is another. Case in point comparison of rehabilitation rates in Netherlands where they have this program for prisoners as opposed to where no such process is in place.
Oh and do not tell me that poor are the only ones keeping themselves poor. Yes it is on us to fix it, but fixing it requires identifying all the causes. And identifying when environment is being poisoned thus decreasing chances of the participants to pull themselves by bootstrups.
I suppose inducing collapse can lead to qualitative selection, but let's just say that relying on collapsing only is... There si reason there are reforms and examples of how a society on the brink of crisis actually caught second breath instead of collapsing.
Teach hungry men to fish, not watch them and waiting to see how many learn to fish by themselves and how many starve to death. There is a reason why we evolved to have also caring supportive trait as opposed to each out for themselves like very very smart octopuses who nevertheless remain without civilization like that we have.
"I am for doing good to the poor...but I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty, but leading them out of it. I observed that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and they became poorer. On the contrary, the less done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
snark: please allow me to comment and see if I follow this: Here is what I think: Likely most of us speak some other language, but we agree here to use English. So when you say push back- I have your thoughts also.
I see your thoughts, completely vital and I agree wholly!! yet admire the posts of Christy.
These comments, these POVs aren't, for individuals in conflict. When President Obama famously said "you didn't build this"- He was expressing the same way you did. He had the guts and balls to say that and the conservatives freaked- but could not refute him one bit!! They didn't even try. Because this thinking is on a higher level where conservatives can't go!! haha.
So Christy comes along and gives me a swift kick in my arse that I need!! And I thank her for telling me (and all of us- as straight as she can!) to get my head out of my butt so she can kick it again!!
I have so much, I have been given so much. Both of you tell me to get back in the game and not just retire in my luxury. I really need both of you!! Look at your post: Your time and effort and passion!! -smiles-
For whatever the reason, there are comments that I am not permitted to ♥️ in this thread, no matter how forcefully I press on the screen of my OnePlus 9pro. And you know, that just ain't fair Athena.
What IS fair, is that you have a good collection of sharp motherf*ckers commenting here.
Fairness is without doubt just another manmade concept that has no place in the natural world, which is ruled by 'might is right' and the law of the jungle.
Here's to hoping that we can manage to maintain this charade of fairness, for a little while longer
If you have been on the same page for awhile and have interacted with other comments, it sometimes won't show the heart light up. At least that has how it has been for me. If I spend time going through a comment thread and responding to new ones as I come across them, after a short time, the page no longer shows that I have liked someone's comment. If I refresh the page however, it will show that the like button indeed was pressed and it registered. It just didn't show it until I refreshed.
I feel like there's a lot to unpack with the term 'fair.' It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people;
1. As Athena mentioned, that everyone "gets the same stuff."
2. That everyone is rewarded commensurate with their contribution or punished in line with their misdeeds. (And then we get into endless discussions about how we determine the value of a contribution.)
3. That people relate to each other based on informed consent. If you shake on a deal you follow it through.
4. That people get what they need and contribute what they can.
5. That expectations are met or traditions or laws upheld.
6. That people get what they want.
I don't *agree* with a lot of these standards, but they *are* standards that some people appeal to as 'fair,' so I include them here. And the standards with the most buy-in and popular support are those which give at least a bow of respect to multiple different standards. Social Security has popular support. It gives more to people who paid in more, but not in precise relation to how much people paid in. People who paid in a lot get screwed over a little. People who paid in less get a little more. John Q. Averagevoter, at least, seems to like this arrangement. Maybe because they think they're gaining an advantage. The complaint that things are "not fair" is usually not directed at uncaring natural forces, but at uncaring human beings. The threat is some kind of non-cooperation, and perhaps even violence. "Adhere to the standard of fairness or we sacrifice or degrade the relationship!" Often, it's an empty threat. When people reply to a complaint of unfairness with the rejoinder "life isn't fair" they're basically responding that the complainer doesn't have sufficient power to back up their threats, so they can go pound sand. A union might be able to organize a strike or a boycott, complain about 'unfairness,' and get some of their demands answered. An employee who hasn't been paid could call the labor relations board and cause some legal trouble for their employer. A 9 year old isn't able to pout sufficiently to make themselves un-grounded.
I absolutely agree with Athena's observation that modern life is far, far better than it was, historically. I'm regularly thankful for this.
And your comment reminded me... Well not 'reminded', as I haven't forgotten it (though I really wish I could)... I guess 'reinforced' the knowledge that the commenters in this thread, as well as the author are far from what is realistically 'the average person'. At least in the US, in my day to day, there are at least two standard deviations between the people here, and the average person.
How this relates to your comment, i'm not entirely certain I can say. I guess I'm just bitching about how stupid people seem to be in general, and (probably unfairly) picked your comment to rant under.
Never mind. If I had a point to make, I've forgotten what it might've been
Thanks, Mike. I appreciate it. It really is interesting how internet forums allow people to heavily select their associates. Maybe the process isn't overt, but it happens. There are whole worlds of people that I almost never accidentally talk to, even when it feels like I'm talking to random people from all over the globe.
It seems like a lot of people learn one worldview and spend their time mis-representing the worldviews of others. When I was younger, I thought that the notion of "philosophical incommensurability" was garbage. Of *course* we can take an idea from one philosophy or religion and translate it into an idea in a different philosophy or religion or value system, or use utilitarianism as a kind of common language. It turns out that people almost never do this, that it violates some deep tribal norm even among intelligent and educated people. I feel like the reason many people select their associates is not to seek truth, but to find a like-minded tribe with a convenient outgroup that allows them to bond and hold common values. If that's the average person's goal, then maybe a disconnect from reality shouldn't be surprising, since 'truth seeking' was never the game they were playing to begin with?
You have likely hit the nail on the head, and I'm not excluding myself from that, either. I started .my adult life as a rip roaring, patriotic conservative, fresh outta the USMC when Desert Storm ended.
I got online in 2007, and I found my tribe... But I ran into some problems as I slowly but surely began to see that 'my tribe' existed on the other side... Instead of with the closed minded "patriots" with whom I had imagined. I began to see that in reality, I was with a group of folks so self centered and 'tribal' that most of them did not give one single f*ck about anyone, outside of themselves, their immediate family, and their gun club.
My journey wasn't the most comfortable one, but eventually I found myself more at home with those who at least had enough interest in other folks to ask themselves the question 'why'.
Nice meeting ya, man. Right here on the front porch of an evil, dangerous, psychopathic genius 😋 of all places
Beautifully written and elegantly presented: As always!!
I have given this subject much thought: I am incredibly fortune!! But I learned most of the wrong lessons. I have lived in abundance so long, doing dishes or going to the store count as "work" for me.
Thanks you for your insight into our very beings. Please keep up your wonderful work.
I find the expressed views telling, but I wonder if the author has considered the following perspective: One can recognize that the world cannot be fair but simultaniously desire to make it fair (and value this desire). In this case, complaining about unfairness brings attention to percived sources of unfairness and thus could be used to combat it. This in turn could be reasoned to make the world more fair (or at least feed the desire for fairness). Is it not logical to continue complaining in this case? I.e. this perspective recognizes the authors claims but still values complaining as tool to achieve a goal?
The world will never be fair, and I tend to find those that have the fantasy that it can be made so are those that simply want things for themselves, and to hang the costs. They tend to be inexperienced and immature, not wanting to deal with adversity and overcome it, but rather have things given to them because they feel entitled to it.
Life is hard, and it always will be. How that difficulty is addressed is the mark of character. expecting the world to bend to some sort of notion of "fairness" is asking the world to value one persons worldview over others. If a person wants a better lot in life, they can create it. If they want to help others, they can do so. Professing their discontent over the unfairness of it all is not helping anyone.
If I understand correctly, the critique bases itself on the notion that such view holder may not adequately understand that complaining without following though with action yields few results. Equally, that said action and pursuit of fairness wont actually achieve any ‘universal fairness’ as fairness is subjective to a given in-group. However, if one disregards "universal fairness" and only values their own subjective idea of fairness, there seems to be no conflicting arguments. The question is (especially from the perspective of psychopathy) why should one care about ‘hanging costs’ or helping others if all they prioritize is their own subjective view of fairness and are aware of this? My guess would be that such prioritization should be deemed unrealistic and thus irrational to pursue or that the priorities themselves would simply have to be different?
It is something that a person must find for themselves, which is the ability to see the world objectively and interact with it accordingly if they wish to pursue bettering it. Most are not capable of handling their own lives, and yet seek to change the world to suit their opinion of what is right, good, or fair, Until they have the ability to manage their own corner of their existence, they should keep their opinions about the rest of it to themselves.
Life isn't fair, but there is also another principle - balance. Life and overall even non-living structures exists thanks to balance between components, between different forces, between mechanisms. That's what gave birth to fairness. It is seeking of balancing act that serves prolonging survival. It just musn't be taken for granted. It exists through continuous maintanance. And it is never perfect and there areseasonal ups and downs which are part of balance too. But without striving for it it will fall apart.
The lack of care that the greater universe has for treating individuals according to their wishes is one thing. I'm not religious in that way either, while I might wish there were a fair great parent figure up there who will save us from our folly, I could never quite get how people can believe it.
There is the issue of fairness within human societies though; I take that as totally separate, and have a lot more complex emotions when humans treat others unfairly. Even if maybe we are just as driven by the interactions of molecules in our brains as a tiger might be that eats someone's kid, or the physics of a tornado that kills a whole family.
I also empathize with people who have horrible things happen though, and can emotionally relate to the *wish* for the universe to be fair and the sometimes intense grief that horrific events can cause. I always know it's just a wish though.
Different neurotypes, different reactions, strengths, weaknesses I guess.
If I offered someone 10 dollars to do something like "pull this lever" they would gladly do it and take the money. But if two months later they find out that by pulling the lever I earned 1000 dollars and the only way I could've done it was asking someone to pull the lever, there would be a good chance they would be angry. But what has changed? They still got +10 dollars. There is no law saying I should split evenly 500 dollars for each one.
Well, if the roles were reversed maybe I would have gotten angry, and the other person would point out "complain as much as you want, but there is another 23 people willing to pull the lever for 10 dollars" and I would not only pull the lever but I would say "oh, how life is unfair!", walking away 10 dollars richer.
There is no law stopping them from going to the person that gave you 1000 for pulling the lever and teling them you didn't pull shit and they did it instead so how about the employer fires you and employs them to pull that lever.
Life isn't fair and it shouldn't be expected but when we have the chance to make something fair we can go ahead and make it happen.
We can still thrive for more as a civilization with advancements of technollgy and science that will put us closer to providing people equalized opportinities.
And yes, we are lucky in many aspects indeed. But we tend to crave more. That's how even got to this point!
Thank you for the post! I like the reminder message that crying over smth not being fair won't do much necessarily lol. We have to ride the waves, as you mentioned.
I much prefer the cold. I figure I can always put on clothing for warmth, but can only get so naked. Once there is nothing left to take off there is no escaping the discomfort.
While it's quite true that life is not fair, there is a huge difference between (a) when a parent says this during an exchange designed to help the child deal positively and creatively with this fact, and (b) when a parent says this as justification for lying to the child, betraying the child, and in other ways abusing said child.
I personally experienced the latter, and it was devastating. It led me not only to distrust others and expect bad things from being honest with people, but also not to pursue what I wanted most in life because it would get snatched away from me where I least expected it.
Therefore, I think it's important for both parents and people who want to maintain positive relationships with other people to do their best to treat the other person fairly. It's like the Prisoner's Dilemma exchange. If we treat every exchange as a zero-sum dog-eat-dog situation where the only way I win is if you lose, then pretty much everyone loses overall.
I agree that isn't something that any parent should do. How parents manage to find it within themselves to justify abusing their children is beyond me.
It was complicated. Some parents are so toxic that they don't have a good side, yet they justify being cruel because they want to see themselves as good people (and therefore they cast the child as bad). My dad did have a good side, however, and I'm sure he didn't really want to abuse me. However, his own childhood was severely toxic, which left him with a bunch of issues. I'm actually writing a book about my experiences and struggles to heal.
I had a tee shirt with the slogan, “Always cheat, always win”. On it. Few people got it
I do.
Hahaha!!!!! So funny!! Believe everyone on this thread does get it!! TY
Loved every word! The analogies of locust clouds and blizzards illustrating toughness of life were spot on and reminded me of similar stories in the Laura Ingalls Wilder books. Great life lessons in those books. So very tired of the whining and entitled attitudes prevalent in society today. Life's a b***h, get strong and handle it!
Agreed. Life is hard, and it doesn't get less so because someone whines about it. It simply gets harder the longer problems are allowed to persist.
I'm hopeful that our society's pendulum will swing back to valuing self sufficiency--swing back to realizing that fairness will never exist. And to seeing again that we as individuals are in the driver's seat of our own fate. Your words here are a step in the right direction. Thank you.
I agree. Humans do better when they know that they are capable and have purpose in their lives. There is quite a void of that currently.
Athena, in Honor of Christy, can I give her this:?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SCzVEUlqqA
Hope it runs for you commercial free:
I haven't heard that song in a long time. Love it! Thank you :-)
You are so kind! TY!! So glad you enjoy-!-
You used that expression and hit a vital cord of all of us-!-!-
I would like to push back on this, Athena. I do happen to think society owes people something. We were here first.
As Thomas Paine said in Rights of Man: "Man did not enter into society to be worse off than he was before."
Society itself is a human innovation. Its whole purpose, the very reason it exists at all, is to serve human interests. But modern society is complex, and the competency waterline people are required to meet in order to have a comfortable and secure life and a respected place in the world is gradually rising higher and higher. Until very recently from a historical perspective, one could be pretty dumb and still be able to participate in society and live a reasonably comfortable life relative to the other members of one's in-group. In a subsistence culture, everyone has to be useful, so everyone is. There were fewer choices, but that was the human condition. The menial work people were required to perform was endless and obvious, but at least you didn't have to be unusually bright in order to have a place among your peers; in fact, collective cultures discouraged trying to distinguish one's self among the group. Self interest and group interest were indistinguishable, because without the group there was no self.
Right now, in our modern context, most people who weren't able to get a college degree are barely hanging on by their fingernails. Society got where it is today by systematically destroying the lower, simpler living standards of the past and paving over them with unimaginable progress, but the price for that has been an ever-increasing number of people who can't participate in the system and are disenfranchised by it.
Today, menial labor (and increasingly, sophisticated work) is performed by robots and machines. Your neighbor's 56-year-old uncle who has driven a truck all his life and is confounded by his smart phone is soon going to be replaced by computerized trucks that drive themselves cheaper, more efficiently, and with fewer errors than he ever could, and then he will be out of a job. What is he going to do then, go back to school and study machine learning to get an edge on the job market?
I'm not saying that progress is bad. We have more rights and luxuries today than a medieval person would have ever thought to ask for themselves in a million years, and we could still be doing and living better than we are, and we should continue in the direction of progress. I see very little virtue in struggling unnecessarily and as far as I'm concerned the problem is always the lower standard of living, not the higher one.
Still, society doesn't get to render people obsolete without owing them something in return. How many people is the system allowed to fail before we declare the system a failure? Let's ground that idea using real numbers. Is 100 people enough? 1,000? What kind of guarantees are we entitled to expect now that society has taken EVERYTHING for the sake of optimizing it?
This has been the concern for as long as innovation has been a part of society. There are always jobs that are fazed out, and there is always concern about those that might be left behind.
Humans are remarkably adaptable and innovation tends to solve for problems because it is the necessity is the impetus of change.
I don't think it's correct that this has always been a concern. It is specifically a post-slavery, post-Industrial Revolution, capitalist society concern.
That's not to say that I think capitalism is "bad." It has been an excellent replacement for the old world system where the only means of wealth acquisition was land conquest.
But as soon as AI can do all the IQ 80-100 jobs, all those people will be replaced by AI in the job market. As soon as AI can do all the IQ 100-120 jobs, all those people will be replaced by AI in the job market. As soon as AI can do all the IQ 120-140 jobs, all those people will be replaced by AI in the job market.
Eventually, no one will be able to meaningfully contribute unless we completely change the rules about what it means to do that.
As society evolves, so does the places in which humans are invaluable for at least a time.
I heard the same thing in 1985. Computers were going to take all our jobs.
Another prediction - Homemakers would want PC's so they could store recipes. I heard no predictions about the numerous IT jobs or the popularity of the internet.
The fact is we do not know the nature of employment in the future. Chances are it will be totally unexpected.
Absolutely.
I respect your perspective. I was not even alive yet in 1985.
People myself and younger - for better or worse - anticipate seeing new economic systems forged in place of capitalism, at least as it exists in its current form. Capitalism has been a great replacement for the Old World system of land conquest, but humanity is always progressing and much of our youth are hoping for a future where ideally no one will have to center their lives around generating income.
To put it more bluntly, we are hoping humans will be replaced by robots in the job market sooner than later. We will still enjoy the same amenities we do now and better, only they'll all be automated. At that point, we will be forced to change the rules that govern how wealth is earned. There are many possibilities in the works, and some models have been tested or are being tested currently on small populations all over the world in order to observe their outcomes.
All is flux.
If humans have nothing to strive for they become destructive. They require the burden of responsibilities and the opportunity to achieve things.
I don't think you're wrong about this, Athena. We saw after the first wave of the Industrial Revolution that the working class was largely dissatisfied with the state of progress. One of their main gripes was that the new machinery, in replacing them, had forced them into a state of "imposed idleness" and they no longer knew what to do with themselves.
But if progress is a one-way ticket to sleeping on the sidewalk in the snow for a whole subset of the population, then where does that leave us?
Of course these things are the test of a person. Of course you're right about that. Of course some people will make it through such things and come out on top while others will knuckle under. "The strong do what they can; the weak suffer what they must." etc., etc.
So, okay. There will be winners and losers, and that's all well and good for the people who can manage. But what happens to the so-called losers? Just...too bad, go suck eggs?
Even the Romans, who fed people to lions recreationally, knew better than to play it like that.
We live in a first world country that's awash in capital. Perhaps you saw that tweet not too long ago that said if you worked every single day earning $5,000/day from the time Christopher Columbus first sailed to the Americas in 1492 to right now, you still wouldn't have a billion dollars, yet Jeff Bezos, just by himself, is worth $160 billion USD.
What do you think is the correct course of action that we, as the wealthiest first world country on earth, should take in order to deal with our people who take more from the system than they are capable of putting in?
I agree with you that society is here for us, however, society is comprised of people, and life will NEVER be fair for people in a society. People within the society have the power to achieve their own aims, however. And society often provides an education or an opportunity for some sort of education for those who want it bad enough. Its a sad fact that sometimes bad things happen to people--people lose their jobs or become mentally ill, etc. Society does provide unemployment and disability assistance, but it should not be depended upon to fix all things deemed to be "unfair." Utopia does not and cannot exist. We must strive to make the best lives for ourselves that we can, and not sit back and whine, "Woe is me, society owes me fairness."
I respect your position but I find that I don't share your views on this. What you have expressed here is, of course, the social and economic philosophy I was raised with, but I am an apostate of it.
I don't believe the system rewards hard work. I don't believe it rewards honesty. I don't believe it rewards careful long-term planning. People myself and younger overwhelmingly feel this way. We are the most educated generation in American history, and we can't afford to buy our own homes. I'm 29 years old. I don't know anyone my age who has anything in their savings account. It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.
You say people within society have the power to achieve their own aims. I would like to know what makes you think so. It reminds me of when I was in elementary school and they used to tell us that everyone has the power to become anything they set their mind to. I used to think: "Why does mostly everyone set their mind to being boring and average?"
I don't think anyone expects society to fix all things deemed to be "unfair." But we do live in the wealthiest country on earth. Isn't it a shame to let people in our communities go without basic necessities? 40% of the wealth here is concentrated among the top 1% of people. The bottom 90% of people hold less than 1/4 of the wealth. That's not the natural order of things. That's a result of the system smiling upon certain people with favor.
It's possible to go from poor to rich in America. But I've never personally seen it. That doesn't mean poor Americans are stupid or lazy. If either intelligence or street smarts or common sense or willpower or determination or even simple, animal desperation were the ticket out of the poorhouse, very few would still be here. No one chooses this.
I get where you're coming from, but my personal thinking on the matter is that if we can provide everyone with basic necessities, why not do that? Why grudge people what they're not "supposed" to have, knowing they simply need a minimum of things? It makes such a huge difference to people and we could afford it if we made it s priority. According to whom should people not have the basics of survival in a nation that is positively awash in capital? Why is a higher standard of living for the whole country a problem to anyone?
I'm really asking.
I think money problems are boring. Worrying about money all the time is not the best use of our time as a species, and it's certainly not the most fun we could be having. And yes, I do happen to think that we should maximize people's opportunities to enjoy life wherever it is possible for us to do that. I want that for us. I think the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality is going out of fashion, and to me it can't go fast enough. I think we are all entitled to basic necessities at least, as audacious as that sounds to so many people. In fact, I find it odd that anyone could be opposed to this.
Wow, where to start?
Please don't take offense, but you are the product of the current education system and of media brainwashing that is advocating the "Unfairness Doctrine," as I call it. Many young people today are very materialistic--they want new cars/trucks, a new house, new furniture, the latest electronic devices. They don't know what sacrifice is. Your generation won trophies simply for participating. Its a real problem. We have a generation of "woe is me" whiners with their hands out. Your generation feels the need to "start out" at the same level of economic prosperity that their parents currently enjoy after decades of work. And then resent the fact that they can't. How unfair life can be, lol.
You mention "basic needs." I'd like to know what do you consider basic needs? In distributing "basic needs" we run the risk of going down a slippery slope of expecting more and more to be handed to us. Socialism doesn't work. History shows us this. Taking from those who work and "have" and giving to those who "have not" results in a society that no longer strives to achieve, work hard and to be innovative. It's a poison to society. Our Founding Fathers were pretty wise men who created a nation using history as a model of what works and what doesn't. They also knew that a free nation can only last so long before corruption, greed and laziness will corrupt it. Sadly, this is the path we are currently on, in my opinion. I will reiterate that society does provide assistance when needed, disability income, or unemployment income, etc. But depending upon it for basic needs is a slippery slope.
It has been instilled in you that life isn't fair, that so many around you exist in mediocrity, and you wonder why that is. Here's a quote for you:
"All know the way. Few actually walk it." ~Bodhidharma~
We know that we have the ability to improve our circumstances through hard work, sacrifice and determination. But few choose to do what it takes. That's their choice. And guess what? Perhaps they're happy with what they have. Benjamin Franklin says that to be content we shouldn't compare ourselves to those who have more than we do. Wise words! Very wise man! He also says that happiness depends more upon the inward disposition of the mind than on outward circumstances. I agree.
Yes, bad things happen to people--people work hard and may lose everything due to unforeseen circumstances. Dishonest people get ahead in life. Its too bad, but that's life.
I find it appalling that people are resentful of the "1%" wealthy in our society. Perhaps those people worked their *sses off to get what they have, or perhaps they have some special talent that allows them to succeed that I don't have. Why can't we congratulate those people rather than envy them? Good for them!
You say that "We are entitled to..." No, we're not. Society shouldn't provide for those who are bored with the topic of money and who want to have fun. Please stop envying and holding your hand out and realize the necessity of realistic expectations. And get to work on improving your own life.
Thank you for your response. I am not offended by your assessment in the least; on the contrary, I am glad to have a frank discussion about this and appreciate your thoughts and engagement very much.
Please correct me if I misrepresent any of your views in this reply. I am making a good faith effort to engage with the substance of what you have said (I think you would agree that this would be a waste of our time otherwise).
I find that your overarching point was that my generation is soft and audaciously entitled from growing up in the relative luxury of a system that was handed to us on the blood, sweat, and tears of tougher, more steadfast and industrious people. Because they steeled themselves to meet the unfair world on its terms, they managed to give us everything we have. My generation in particular has had the opportunity to grow up in an environment that rewards mediocrity and caters to our precious little self-important feelings, and is so utterly bereft of struggle that we find the very notion that everything in the world isn't free for the asking deeply offensive and intolerable.
You contend that in reality, it's simply foolish to think the world will conform to our expectations just because we make demands of it, and if I don't internalize this, and HURRY, then life will chew me up and spit me out at the feet of Want while I scream and wail about how reality isn't supposed to apply to me because what about my theories?? What about my needs? Why isn't anyone providing for my needs? Doesn't anyone CARE?
I do not know how old you are, but assuming you are from my parents' generation then all I have to say with regard to your contempt for the fact that we were praised for mediocrity as kids (which I agree did happen) is "then why did you do it?" I'm using the collective "you" here, obviously. You were the adults. It happened on your watch. If my generation has stepped into the real world ill prepared for the demands of adulthood, does that not mean your generation failed in its parental duties on a large scale?
This is where my grandmother, who grew up dirt poor without even indoor plumbing, would break in and say, in an exaggerated sing-song voice full of pretend guilt: "Oh, you poor thing. I suppose we should have just left you on a hill to die then."
By the way, I dared not ever breathe a word to this woman about being tired, because I always knew that invariably her response would be: "My dear sister in Christ, how are you tired? You ain't done shit." In fact, as a rule I never let on to anyone born before 1960 that I'm tired because I don't want them to have a literal stroke, and that's what will happen unless I can prove I've been out in the sun all day long churning butter in a calico dress or picking cotton with my fingers raw and dripping blood onto the soil after not having consumed any food or water for three whole days.
My grandma and I butted heads on this as I grew into adulthood. I would say that I don't regard not having any energy as an accomplishment, and she would say that's because I'm lazy, and then I would say I prefer the word "indolent" as it sounds more sophisticated, and she would say "call it whatever you want" and then I would say that it's a pity she never learned how to adequately value her own leisure time, but that not all of us are crippled in the same way, and then she would say I better go sit on the other side of the couch or else she was going to pinch me and send me to bed.
I was raised on the bootstrap theory of capitalism. I understand it thoroughly, and I don't think our current system functions at all the way you describe. Factually, success is not simply the natural result of honest hard work and having the fortitude to push through our own resistance to being productive. If honest effort truly does create optimal outcomes, then I assume you are maximally wealthy and successful yourself? If not, why not? Have you not worked hard? Have you made poor life choices? Are you INDULGENT?
Or perhaps the reasons you aren't (I'm assuming) Bill Gates wealthy are incredibly complicated and nuanced, and the bootstrapper dynamic which holds that the only two kinds of people in the world are billionaires and lazy pond scum can't realistically be mapped onto your life circumstances?
Do tell.
No disrespect, though. I would like to point out that I'm not a socialist, at least not in the way you're implying. History has furnished us with enough examples of non-capitalistic systems failing spectacularly to make me immediately wary of anyone who comes forth being like "no but listen you guys we finally worked out all the bugs and Socialism 3.8 is going to solve everything, for real this time, and –" No! Go away!
Currently, capitalism is the only system we know of that remotely works in progressive societies that care about human dignity. Unlike so many young people today, I am not anti-capitalism, at least not in the sense that I am pro-socialism instead. I am just pro-whatever works. It's not that I don't think capitalism works. I just believe very strongly that it could work much better with some updates to the system that will accommodate the technological reality that's straight ahead of us right now, which is inevitably one where many people are going to be rendered obsolete in the job market, I'm sorry. Factually, that's what we're facing. I have no feelings of loyalty to capitalism on principle. I just want the system that works the best, and to me there is much room for improvement in ours.
People say: "Everyone said the same thing about industrialization. Everyone said the Industrial Revolution would render the American worker obsolete, and look, it didn't destroy all the jerbs after all!" But mechanical equipment is not the same thing as AI.
Look. Certainly, you can replace horses and buggies with automobiles and your coachman will be out of work unless he learns how to drive a car, so big deal. Industries change and people have to update their skills, right? So what's new?
What's new is AI, which will be capable of doing every single job that human beings can do, only better and cheaper, making it the obvious choice under capitalism, which rewards productivity that is inexpensive. There are only so many tiers of abstraction we humans can make of our jobs. Maybe "guy who does the work" is easy to replace with "guy who operates the machine that does five guys worth of work" but when the machine that does the work can operate itself, then what? Guy who supervises all the self-operating machines? Even if that is the case, millions of jobs will still vanish. And God only knows the term "high unemployment" worried everyone under Capitalism 2.4 (circa early 20th century–now); therefore, we must torture that exact model into all future social contexts at all costs.
Wrong.
This seems too obvious to even say, but we cannot meet the challenges that are ahead of us armed as we are with nothing but precedent left over from a bygone era, especially if we remain bogged down by all the people who are actively hostile to the concept of anyone getting anything without having to suffer for it first.
There are problems with Universal Basic Income, for example, that I don't think anyone has come up with adequate solutions to, but there are very enticing benefits as well.
If we abolish the requirement that people must justify their existence with work and allow them to stay home instead, then the people who become destructive and can't handle idleness can just…go back to work. Plus, the job market will be freed up by the mass exodus of people who would rather stay home and take care of their children or their aging parents, compose new music, tend a neighborhood garden, write a novel, investigate unsolved murders, or pursue other interests, so there will be increased demand to fill the jobs that remain and those who fill them can enjoy better working conditions and higher wages. No one will be forced by necessity to take a low-paying job under terrible working conditions that leaves them too exhausted at the end of the day to do night classes or locate some kind of escape hatch from that awful, awful lifestyle.
You seem to think people would HATE freedom from work, but the data that exists seems to point in the opposite direction. Rates of human happiness across the average lifespan suddenly skyrocket at retirement age, when retirees are collecting social security checks, not working, golfing, eating breakfast for four hours, watching The Price Is Right reruns, not working, heading out to the putting green, not working, and oh yeah, not doing any work for anyone else.
Likewise, rates of self-reported happiness have been on the decline overall for decades, but the happiness levels of American women in particular plummeted dramatically in the 1970s, right around the time when our society had fully normalized "stay-at-work moms." (Can anecdotally confirm, as a child of the latchkey kid generation whose parents were born in the 60s.)
Human beings, like all living things, have intrinsic motivation and are never content to sit around twiddling our thumbs all our lives. And we won't begin doing that even if we cut the yoke of mandatory employment. In fact, some of the greatest people in history who did incredible things for humanity were able to do so because they were born into wealthy families and lived off the guaranteed income of their families estate while they pursued their hobbies to universally valuable ends.
Oh yeah, that's another thing. Wealthy people tend not to have gotten where they are by suffering and enduring grunt work. Bill Gates loved computers and was compelled by passion to create software. He didn't have to force himself.
And the rest, as they say, is insider trading.
Believe it or not, the way we live currently is not "the way things are" in a real sense. We live in an era. But truly, all is flux.
My absolute worst nightmare would be to show up in a courtroom as a lawyer, with a 'career make or break case' on the docket, and then glance over at the bench for opposing counsel and see you sitting on that bench.
Your comment above was beyond noteworthy.
Sorry to interrupt, just thought I'd chime in.
What a huge compliment. Thank you!
I'd like to add that just as you fight blizzard by showelling that damn snow out of your way you fight off people who in order to increase their income try to cut off from yours and by neglecting safety of work conditions by arguing with them. I do not live in US, so do not understand wholly the situation there, but just accepting current trends feels a bit like watching that korean shopping centre slowly collapse.
Surely some people waste their income in stupid ways and that new thing about shiplifting under certain monetary value is unpunishable that is disastrous. But do not tell me that poor should just think only about how to work harder and harder so that they survive next cut after next cut while those above keep cutting as long as they get away with it. We want eradicate greed and all that but we keep surviving by keeping it in check.
And here's the thing. The more unbearable are working conditions for the productive portion of population, the more they start filtering into unproductive layer which puts further strain on the workers. Making working more rewarding than not working is key thing. Making it possible to return to respectable lebel after falling is another. Case in point comparison of rehabilitation rates in Netherlands where they have this program for prisoners as opposed to where no such process is in place.
Oh and do not tell me that poor are the only ones keeping themselves poor. Yes it is on us to fix it, but fixing it requires identifying all the causes. And identifying when environment is being poisoned thus decreasing chances of the participants to pull themselves by bootstrups.
I suppose inducing collapse can lead to qualitative selection, but let's just say that relying on collapsing only is... There si reason there are reforms and examples of how a society on the brink of crisis actually caught second breath instead of collapsing.
Teach hungry men to fish, not watch them and waiting to see how many learn to fish by themselves and how many starve to death. There is a reason why we evolved to have also caring supportive trait as opposed to each out for themselves like very very smart octopuses who nevertheless remain without civilization like that we have.
I will add another quote from Benjamin Franklin:
"I am for doing good to the poor...but I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty, but leading them out of it. I observed that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and they became poorer. On the contrary, the less done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
Well played, sir. Every word of it.
snark: please allow me to comment and see if I follow this: Here is what I think: Likely most of us speak some other language, but we agree here to use English. So when you say push back- I have your thoughts also.
I see your thoughts, completely vital and I agree wholly!! yet admire the posts of Christy.
These comments, these POVs aren't, for individuals in conflict. When President Obama famously said "you didn't build this"- He was expressing the same way you did. He had the guts and balls to say that and the conservatives freaked- but could not refute him one bit!! They didn't even try. Because this thinking is on a higher level where conservatives can't go!! haha.
So Christy comes along and gives me a swift kick in my arse that I need!! And I thank her for telling me (and all of us- as straight as she can!) to get my head out of my butt so she can kick it again!!
I have so much, I have been given so much. Both of you tell me to get back in the game and not just retire in my luxury. I really need both of you!! Look at your post: Your time and effort and passion!! -smiles-
What really is "fair"?
It's up to you to decide.
As for me, this past year has been very harsh, almost the most difficult I've encountered in my life. No joke.
I just keep going, thankful I'm not in Ukraine or Russia, try to apply what I've learned from other tough times, and go on.
Can't remember thinking "this is not fair."
I also sleep a lot.
You have a mature outlook on things, so you aren't looking for a place to lay blame, but rather a way to get through.
If you're going through hell, keep going.
Thank you for your comment Athena.
I suppose my view reflects having to pretty much support myself from around age 13. I did what needed to be done.
There's no reason to blame others. My response to another's action, drama etc. is not to be drawn in.
The take away - If you are wanting to blame someone, take a look in the mirror. One is responsible for their own life.
I have a complaint to make here:
For whatever the reason, there are comments that I am not permitted to ♥️ in this thread, no matter how forcefully I press on the screen of my OnePlus 9pro. And you know, that just ain't fair Athena.
What IS fair, is that you have a good collection of sharp motherf*ckers commenting here.
Fairness is without doubt just another manmade concept that has no place in the natural world, which is ruled by 'might is right' and the law of the jungle.
Here's to hoping that we can manage to maintain this charade of fairness, for a little while longer
If you have been on the same page for awhile and have interacted with other comments, it sometimes won't show the heart light up. At least that has how it has been for me. If I spend time going through a comment thread and responding to new ones as I come across them, after a short time, the page no longer shows that I have liked someone's comment. If I refresh the page however, it will show that the like button indeed was pressed and it registered. It just didn't show it until I refreshed.
I was having the same problem with likes. Thanks for asking about it.:)
Yep, we're a pretty sharp group; nice to have you join in.
Am sometimes having the same technical issues as you.
Have a nice weekend 😊
Refreshing the page seems to fix the issue, and shows that indeed you did like a comment even if it didn't show the heart prior to the refresh.
I feel like there's a lot to unpack with the term 'fair.' It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people;
1. As Athena mentioned, that everyone "gets the same stuff."
2. That everyone is rewarded commensurate with their contribution or punished in line with their misdeeds. (And then we get into endless discussions about how we determine the value of a contribution.)
3. That people relate to each other based on informed consent. If you shake on a deal you follow it through.
4. That people get what they need and contribute what they can.
5. That expectations are met or traditions or laws upheld.
6. That people get what they want.
I don't *agree* with a lot of these standards, but they *are* standards that some people appeal to as 'fair,' so I include them here. And the standards with the most buy-in and popular support are those which give at least a bow of respect to multiple different standards. Social Security has popular support. It gives more to people who paid in more, but not in precise relation to how much people paid in. People who paid in a lot get screwed over a little. People who paid in less get a little more. John Q. Averagevoter, at least, seems to like this arrangement. Maybe because they think they're gaining an advantage. The complaint that things are "not fair" is usually not directed at uncaring natural forces, but at uncaring human beings. The threat is some kind of non-cooperation, and perhaps even violence. "Adhere to the standard of fairness or we sacrifice or degrade the relationship!" Often, it's an empty threat. When people reply to a complaint of unfairness with the rejoinder "life isn't fair" they're basically responding that the complainer doesn't have sufficient power to back up their threats, so they can go pound sand. A union might be able to organize a strike or a boycott, complain about 'unfairness,' and get some of their demands answered. An employee who hasn't been paid could call the labor relations board and cause some legal trouble for their employer. A 9 year old isn't able to pout sufficiently to make themselves un-grounded.
I absolutely agree with Athena's observation that modern life is far, far better than it was, historically. I'm regularly thankful for this.
Great comment, man.
And your comment reminded me... Well not 'reminded', as I haven't forgotten it (though I really wish I could)... I guess 'reinforced' the knowledge that the commenters in this thread, as well as the author are far from what is realistically 'the average person'. At least in the US, in my day to day, there are at least two standard deviations between the people here, and the average person.
How this relates to your comment, i'm not entirely certain I can say. I guess I'm just bitching about how stupid people seem to be in general, and (probably unfairly) picked your comment to rant under.
Never mind. If I had a point to make, I've forgotten what it might've been
Thanks, Mike. I appreciate it. It really is interesting how internet forums allow people to heavily select their associates. Maybe the process isn't overt, but it happens. There are whole worlds of people that I almost never accidentally talk to, even when it feels like I'm talking to random people from all over the globe.
It seems like a lot of people learn one worldview and spend their time mis-representing the worldviews of others. When I was younger, I thought that the notion of "philosophical incommensurability" was garbage. Of *course* we can take an idea from one philosophy or religion and translate it into an idea in a different philosophy or religion or value system, or use utilitarianism as a kind of common language. It turns out that people almost never do this, that it violates some deep tribal norm even among intelligent and educated people. I feel like the reason many people select their associates is not to seek truth, but to find a like-minded tribe with a convenient outgroup that allows them to bond and hold common values. If that's the average person's goal, then maybe a disconnect from reality shouldn't be surprising, since 'truth seeking' was never the game they were playing to begin with?
(Sorry for the rant.)
You have likely hit the nail on the head, and I'm not excluding myself from that, either. I started .my adult life as a rip roaring, patriotic conservative, fresh outta the USMC when Desert Storm ended.
I got online in 2007, and I found my tribe... But I ran into some problems as I slowly but surely began to see that 'my tribe' existed on the other side... Instead of with the closed minded "patriots" with whom I had imagined. I began to see that in reality, I was with a group of folks so self centered and 'tribal' that most of them did not give one single f*ck about anyone, outside of themselves, their immediate family, and their gun club.
My journey wasn't the most comfortable one, but eventually I found myself more at home with those who at least had enough interest in other folks to ask themselves the question 'why'.
Nice meeting ya, man. Right here on the front porch of an evil, dangerous, psychopathic genius 😋 of all places
Nice meeting you, likewise, Mike! :-)
Beautifully written and elegantly presented: As always!!
I have given this subject much thought: I am incredibly fortune!! But I learned most of the wrong lessons. I have lived in abundance so long, doing dishes or going to the store count as "work" for me.
Thanks you for your insight into our very beings. Please keep up your wonderful work.
Thank you, Tim
I find the expressed views telling, but I wonder if the author has considered the following perspective: One can recognize that the world cannot be fair but simultaniously desire to make it fair (and value this desire). In this case, complaining about unfairness brings attention to percived sources of unfairness and thus could be used to combat it. This in turn could be reasoned to make the world more fair (or at least feed the desire for fairness). Is it not logical to continue complaining in this case? I.e. this perspective recognizes the authors claims but still values complaining as tool to achieve a goal?
The world will never be fair, and I tend to find those that have the fantasy that it can be made so are those that simply want things for themselves, and to hang the costs. They tend to be inexperienced and immature, not wanting to deal with adversity and overcome it, but rather have things given to them because they feel entitled to it.
Life is hard, and it always will be. How that difficulty is addressed is the mark of character. expecting the world to bend to some sort of notion of "fairness" is asking the world to value one persons worldview over others. If a person wants a better lot in life, they can create it. If they want to help others, they can do so. Professing their discontent over the unfairness of it all is not helping anyone.
If I understand correctly, the critique bases itself on the notion that such view holder may not adequately understand that complaining without following though with action yields few results. Equally, that said action and pursuit of fairness wont actually achieve any ‘universal fairness’ as fairness is subjective to a given in-group. However, if one disregards "universal fairness" and only values their own subjective idea of fairness, there seems to be no conflicting arguments. The question is (especially from the perspective of psychopathy) why should one care about ‘hanging costs’ or helping others if all they prioritize is their own subjective view of fairness and are aware of this? My guess would be that such prioritization should be deemed unrealistic and thus irrational to pursue or that the priorities themselves would simply have to be different?
It is something that a person must find for themselves, which is the ability to see the world objectively and interact with it accordingly if they wish to pursue bettering it. Most are not capable of handling their own lives, and yet seek to change the world to suit their opinion of what is right, good, or fair, Until they have the ability to manage their own corner of their existence, they should keep their opinions about the rest of it to themselves.
Life isn't fair, but there is also another principle - balance. Life and overall even non-living structures exists thanks to balance between components, between different forces, between mechanisms. That's what gave birth to fairness. It is seeking of balancing act that serves prolonging survival. It just musn't be taken for granted. It exists through continuous maintanance. And it is never perfect and there areseasonal ups and downs which are part of balance too. But without striving for it it will fall apart.
The lack of care that the greater universe has for treating individuals according to their wishes is one thing. I'm not religious in that way either, while I might wish there were a fair great parent figure up there who will save us from our folly, I could never quite get how people can believe it.
There is the issue of fairness within human societies though; I take that as totally separate, and have a lot more complex emotions when humans treat others unfairly. Even if maybe we are just as driven by the interactions of molecules in our brains as a tiger might be that eats someone's kid, or the physics of a tornado that kills a whole family.
I also empathize with people who have horrible things happen though, and can emotionally relate to the *wish* for the universe to be fair and the sometimes intense grief that horrific events can cause. I always know it's just a wish though.
Different neurotypes, different reactions, strengths, weaknesses I guess.
Good read Athena. Wish more people were as logical.
If I offered someone 10 dollars to do something like "pull this lever" they would gladly do it and take the money. But if two months later they find out that by pulling the lever I earned 1000 dollars and the only way I could've done it was asking someone to pull the lever, there would be a good chance they would be angry. But what has changed? They still got +10 dollars. There is no law saying I should split evenly 500 dollars for each one.
Well, if the roles were reversed maybe I would have gotten angry, and the other person would point out "complain as much as you want, but there is another 23 people willing to pull the lever for 10 dollars" and I would not only pull the lever but I would say "oh, how life is unfair!", walking away 10 dollars richer.
People seem to always find ways to make themselves unhappy.
There is no law stopping them from going to the person that gave you 1000 for pulling the lever and teling them you didn't pull shit and they did it instead so how about the employer fires you and employs them to pull that lever.
Life isn't fair and it shouldn't be expected but when we have the chance to make something fair we can go ahead and make it happen.
We can still thrive for more as a civilization with advancements of technollgy and science that will put us closer to providing people equalized opportinities.
And yes, we are lucky in many aspects indeed. But we tend to crave more. That's how even got to this point!
Thank you for the post! I like the reminder message that crying over smth not being fair won't do much necessarily lol. We have to ride the waves, as you mentioned.
I much prefer the cold. I figure I can always put on clothing for warmth, but can only get so naked. Once there is nothing left to take off there is no escaping the discomfort.
That is a smart reasoning.
That would make sense