Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[baker]

That is true. Is Quixotry a psychological disability?

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.

[HJCarden]

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.

Never heard of this whole concept as I am admittedly very uneducated in formal economics. However, is it possible that this is akin to some broad supply = demand idea in which as these corporations get lazier and lazier and simply stop doing what got them there, that their power and wealth will eventually decline to the point where they need to start producing utility again? This rate of return won't always be higher than growth correct? Regardless very interesting and something I'm going to look into with some free time.

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?

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.

I do agree that UBI is a good thing, considering that I think we have passed the need for a "survival of the fittest" in modern society, and that we can fairly say that everyone should be able to survive. However, I think an interesting part of our psychology that could come into play with something like this is shown in the Mouse Utopia (not the exact name but I think we've heard of it) Experiment.

The 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? This is very far off track from the original discussion, but I believe that there is a baby that we should not be throwing out with the bathwater when creating a solution for this problem.

[baker]

The 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?

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.

[LuckyR]

The 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?

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.

One cannot fully appreciate positives without an experience of negatives.

[baker]

One cannot fully appreciate positives without an experience of negatives.

It seems that people generally cannot be trusted to act wisely unless their life is on the line.

Although putting their life on the line doesn't guarantee that they will act wisely.

[Steve3007]

One cannot fully appreciate positives without an experience of negatives.

I've always quite liked messing with Mr Inbetween.

[Belindi]

The 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?

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.

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.

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.

[baker]

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.

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".

I think this puts people under enormous pressure and makes working unduly harder than it needs to be. It's also something that can fuel people's hatred for their job, which just compounds the problem in so many ways.

This is also another important difference between billionaires and ordinary people: Billionaires tend to be seen as people who are able to "fulfill their potential" and so on, while ordinary people are seen as those who can't and don't. This is another reason why billionaires are seen as being allowed to more freedom, more leeway, more credence. Obstructing someone who is "fulfilling their potential" seems wrong somehow, whereas obstructing someone doing work that is socially classified as lowly, dirty, or "solely to earn money" is not seen as problematic.

Perhaps if people's attitude toward work and earning money would change, this could have wide-ranging effects and decrease the power of the ultra wealthy elite, as this elite would not be seen in a romantic, idealistic manner anymore.

[Ecurb]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Haven't the leisured classes produced poets, novelists, philosophers, scientists, etc? Of course as these activities became monetized, leisure is less necessary to their accomplishment. Nonetheless, our history includes rich aristocrats and government-supported British clergymen who use their leisure to advance science, poetry and the arts.

[Belindi]

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.

[baker]

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.

I said:

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.

Note the underlined qualifiers.

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.

Philosophy is a decadent pursuit? Who are you, Nero?

[baker]

People who work solely to earn money to live can also be leisured enough to learn the humanities in their formal tertiary education.

I'm thinking of a thread on this.

[Belindi]

Okay baker, but you will find none of us is as true a socialist as Jesus Christ.
I am well aware my very modest pad is a palace compared with that of a refugee in a camp, and I do not feel guilty most of the time. There is plenty for people to do without impoverishing themselves.

Riches are not immoral in themselves. Lotteries can have checks and balances too.

[Ecurb]

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.

"Decadent" can mean "marked by decay", or it can suggest "appealing to self indulgence", as in a "decadent chocolate cake". Self-indulgence can suggest hedonism, or it can suggest studying philosophy or writing poetry (as it did for Keats).

[Ecurb]

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.

"Decadent" can mean "marked by decay", or it can suggest "appealing to self indulgence", as in a "decadent chocolate cake". Self-indulgence can suggest hedonism, or it can suggest studying philosophy or writing poetry (as it did for Keats).