Hacker News Reader

Comment by ewzimm | Hacker News Reader

The basic problem is that this idea that people shouldn't have to work goes against centuries of religious thinking which is strongly embedded in American culture. The idea of the Protestant/Puritan work ethic is that hard work is a sign of God's grace and centrally important to the character of a person and society as a whole. Sometimes you will hear people talk about this directly, but more often it's just implied because it has become awkward to assert religious ideas on society explicitly.

Until that cultural pillar of hard work defining a person's character and place in God's kingdom goes away, we will be stuck with this idea that people are defined by their work.

View on HN

I still believe that hard work is necessary for a civilized world to continue. When the Pilgrims first landed they needed everyone to pitch in so they said if you don't work you don't get food. We have advanced to a point where we still need that incentive, but allow people to be more creative in how they add value to society. My gripe is that people shouldn't be forced into menial tasks because they didn't have the opportunity to "make themselves valuable" earlier in life.

There still needs to be some sort of incentive to actually do work. I'm sure most of these people in the article would rather be writing novels or creating art or something better than flipping burgers or the like.

I think the best incentive is to just make work more interesting. Even sweeping floors can be interesting if you can listen to your favorite podcasts while doing it. The menial stuff can mostly be automated, and it that will only accelerate in the future, leaving the most interesting jobs. When we have an increasing population with less work to do, the main problem we run into is finding new work and making it meaningful. This is a good problem to have.

Actually, the main problem is stopping greedy individuals from capturing the majority of benefit gained from the automation, or debt-slaving their fellow humans via rent extraction. Aside from those, I agree with you completely.

Yes, that's a huge problem. It seems like we're at the tipping point where the inequality is so huge that it's hard to ignore.

So think about this another way...

What gives you more self-worth, learning a new programming language and completing a project in it, or sitting on the couch and watching TV?

I personally believe the ancients understood this, from the usual parables. Idle hands are of the devil, and lead you to fill your time with something. Most of the easy somethings are drinking, eating and junk entertainment.

Technology may give us less to do, but at the expense of less opportunities for developing self worth. Even some of the founding computer members understood this--Wiener, a member of the "Dream Machine" crew mentioned it in the book "Cybernetics".

Perhaps I may clarify the historical background of the present situation if I say that the first industrial revolution, the revolution of the “dark satanic mills,” was the devaluation of the human arm by the competition of machinery. . . . The modern industrial revolution [i.e., the computer revolution] is similarly bound to devalue the human brain. . . . The answer, of course, is to have a society based on human values other than buying and selling. To arrive at this society, we need a good deal of planning and a good deal of struggle. . . . (Wiener, 1948, pp. 37-38, bracketed words added)

I completely agree. And there's an opportunity to get even more meaning out of work when it's your choice of what to learn and do rather than dictated by market conditions or necessity to survive.

Well, you're comparing "learning a new programming language and completing a project in it" with "sitting on the couch and watching TV". There are things you can do instead of "working" that isn't being a couch potato.

For example, learning how to play an instrument, picking up painting, attempting to master chess, or Go, are all things that you could do instead of working and are still personally enriching, if not financially enriching. They may not boost the economy directly but they will make the culture a better place nonetheless. There is a lot of untapped potential that could be explored if people have a guaranteed basic income and didn't have to work that dead-end, minimum-wage job.

Of course we still need a lot of human labour to make society run. I mean who wants to do menial labour, or plough snow at 4am so the morning commute isn't a complete disaster.

So I don't have an answer, I just think you're falsely equating "not working" with "idle hands".

"The idea of the Protestant/Puritan work ethic is that hard work is a sign of God's grace and centrally important to the character of a person and society as a whole."

I can't comment on the "God's grace" part, but hard work is indeed centrally important to the character of a person and society as a whole.

That's a fact. Ignore it at your peril.

My point wasn't to take a position on this but rather to point out that this is a deep-rooted cultural belief tied with religious values, which is the hardest kind of thing for a society to get over. It definitely has pull beyond the religious crowd, but that's how these kinds of things propogate, from sermons to unstated cultural assumptions.

Personally, I would value smart and effective work over hard work any day. If we get to the point where the most effective work is also fun and enjoyable rather than a burden, we'll be better off for it.

?? People should be defined on the actions they take, which is generally the goals, groups (industries) they belong to and work within. Otherwise it opens the floor to losers that think they are defined by whatever mix gender color, disabilities they have. You may think I'm being harsh, but I'm starting to see that now at conferences. "I'm Tina, I'm cis-gendered disabled" It's like they want to put some kind of moral hierarchy on people based on whatever minority label sticks.

I think I'm miscommunicating here. I'm not saying that people should be defined by anything in particular, just that this idea of a work ethic tied to being evidence of being a good person blessed by God is a traditional cultural concept which started in Europe and took root in America and then many other places in the world as well.

What you're talking about is an effort by people to be more inclusive by communicating things about themselves that they want others to be aware of. I can understand how this can be awkward and annoying, but it also has positive effects of bringing out these kinds of unstated assumptions like the idea of a work ethic.

If you look at history, groups tended to be more cohesive and share cultural values. This made it easy for most people to relate to each other because they could rely on certain unstated agreements. Now that we have more of an interconnected world, it's important to figure out how we can live together despite different understandings and identities. Not everyone is on board with this kind of diversity, but it's hard to see how we can move forward without finding some way to connect to people who aren't like us, and so far one of the solutions put forward is to over-communicate.

All Good points here. I'm not sure people are hung up on traditional religious values when it comes to respecting other people for hard work. We all just innately identify and respect with people who see their roles in contributing to society. I want to meet "bob the ditch digger" more than "bob, the son of serial killer" Same Bob, but with the label he controls and moves forward society with.

It's such an old idea that it's lost most of it's religious connection, but it still gets amplified in people's minds through Sunday sermons. But interestingly, we're constantly inventing new reputation systems like the one here on Hacker News that can define people in other ways. You should read Accelerando if you're interested in a speculative fiction take on future ways of defining a person's worth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com