Comment by monster_group | Hacker News Reader

Comment by monster_group | Hacker News Reader

The first half of the article resonates with me. I didn't use to have hobbies and I used to feel like a machine just going to work, coming back, sleep, rinse and repeat. I love programming but after writing nth CRUD app in flavor of the month framework / technology, it just isn't that fulfilling anymore. I picked up couple of hobbies - teaching Sanskrit and playing guitar and my life has improved drastically. I no longer derive meaning only from work. Both hobbies are just hobbies and I do it for fun only with no intention of monetizing them. In fact, I couldn't monetize them even if I wanted to. Sanskrit is too esoteric to have any commercial value of any kind. And I truly suck at guitar. Nobody's ever gonna pay me to play guitar. But whatever I can play, gives me pleasure, so I do it. My dad asks me why I waste so much time in useless hobbies when I could be investing that time working towards next promotion and pay raise. I reply to him, they are not useless if they make me happy and content.

> My dad asks me why I waste so much time in useless hobbies when I could be investing that time working towards next promotion and pay raise

There’s something to be said about a narrow focus on “tangible” benefits. Life is meant to be… lived. Such a comment can be made by someone who lives on the assumption that they have figured out all there is to be figured out in life - so much so that they are qualified to call anything that doesn’t yield an immediately tangible benefit as a “waste”.

My hobbies play a strange role in my day job - one that would never have made sense in hindsight. They keep me content too, of course. But they also help me understand the subject matter in strange new ways (through the lens of the hobby).

> Life is meant to be… lived.

this opinion seems to be a relatively recent development as human civilization industrialized and material wealth reached more and more plentiful. However, it is an entitlement that not everyone equally has.

Life is not meant to be anything, but survival. The fact that there's the idea that you can enjoy life, is a huge sign of privilege. Of course, one should chase it, but don't believe for a minute that anyone is entitled to it.

Well, it was definitely present in the USA in 1911:

> "Bread and Roses" is a political slogan as well as the name of an associated poem and song. It originated from a speech given by American women's suffrage activist Helen Todd; a line in that speech about "bread for all, and roses too"

> What the woman who labors wants is the right to live, not simply exist – the right to life as the rich woman has the right to life, and the sun and music and art. You have nothing that the humblest worker has not a right to have also. The worker must have bread, but she must have roses, too.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bread_and_Roses

Or in the 1930s when Keynes was speculating that advances in productivity and machinery would reduce the work week to 15 hours:

https://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/432122637/keynes-predicted-we...

Or on 1906 in Our Riches on Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgrpwwN8zM0

So that covers the begining of the 1900s on the USA, England, and Russia.

Other more direct examples would Paul Lafrague's 1883 The Right to be Lazy or the 8-hour campaign that got us the shorter 8-hour work day we have today. ( https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Eight-hour_day )

Truly enjoyed learning about "bread and roses", thank you.

My curiosity led me to the following:

The Right To Be Lazy by Paul Lafargue - https://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/ch01.htm

I did mention Paul Lafague's The Right to be Lazy at the end of the comment you replied to though. ;)

How do you prevent that from slipping down to the nadir (imo) of “nobody is entitled to survival”? Or is that also a part of your belief system..? (Not meaning to judge)

I'm not the OP, but that is part of my belief system. It may seem ridiculous, but I'd be happy to discuss.

>How do you prevent that from slipping down to the nadir (imo) of “nobody is entitled to survival”?

Simple; the reality of my "Existence" gives me the right to Survive using any and all means.

Here is a passage between Hump and Wolf Larsen from Jack London's The Sea-Wolf.

[Hump] “What do you believe, then?” I countered.

[Wolf Larsen] “I believe that life is a mess,” he answered promptly. “It is like yeast, a ferment, a thing that moves and may move for a minute, an hour, a year, or a hundred years, but that in the end will cease to move. The big eat the little that they may continue to move, the strong eat the weak that they may retain their strength. The lucky eat the most and move the longest, that is all. What do you make of those things?”

...

[Wolf Larsen] Again, what’s it all about? Why have I kept you here?—”

[Hump] “Because you are stronger,” I managed to blurt out.

“But why stronger?” he went on at once with his perpetual queries. “Because I am a bigger bit of the ferment than you? Don’t you see? Don’t you see?”

“But the hopelessness of it,” I protested.

“I agree with you,” he answered. “Then why move at all, since moving is living? Without moving and being part of the yeast there would be no hopelessness. But,—and there it is,—we want to live and move, though we have no reason to, because it happens that it is the nature of life to live and move, to want to live and move. If it were not for this, life would be dead. It is because of this life that is in you that you dream of your immortality. The life that is in you is alive and wants to go on being alive for ever. Bah! An eternity of piggishness!”

> the reality of my "Existence" gives me the right to Survive using any and all means.

According to what system of law? Enforced by what level of violence? You might declare certain things to be “your rights”. But without a big stick to defend those rights they are nothing but useful thinking.

I thought the listed passage from The Sea-Wolf made my point clear. Here is the key point again;

But,—and there it is,—we want to live and move, though we have no reason to, because it happens that it is the nature of life to live and move, to want to live and move. If it were not for this, life would be dead. It is because of this life that is in you that you dream of your immortality. The life that is in you is alive and wants to go on being alive for ever.

"Natural Law" gives me the right for Survival. The Theory of Evolution/Survival of the Fittest lays out the environment/circumstances which control/modulate this but the instinct to Survive is inborn in all living organisms.

Another passage from The Sea-Wolf which drives home the point;

[Hump] “God made you well,” I said.

[Wolf Larsen] “Did he?” he answered. “I have often thought so myself, and wondered why.”

“Purpose—” I began.

“Utility,” he interrupted. “This body was made for use. These muscles were made to grip, and tear, and destroy living things that get between me and life. But have you thought of the other living things? They, too, have muscles, of one kind and another, made to grip, and tear, and destroy; and when they come between me and life, I out-grip them, out-tear them, out-destroy them. Purpose does not explain that. Utility does.”

“It is not beautiful,” I protested.

“Life isn’t, you mean,” he smiled. “Yet you say I was made well.

...

“Stability, equilibrium,” he said, relaxing on the instant and sinking his body back into repose. “Feet with which to clutch the ground, legs to stand on and to help withstand, while with arms and hands, teeth and nails, I struggle to kill and to be not killed. Purpose? Utility is the better word.”

In essence, you're deriving an "ought" from an "is" [1]. I'm not convinced that the presence of an inborn instinct X justifies a "right to X".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

Not quite. The "is-ought" problem has to do with deriving "moral oughts" from "factual is'" which is quite rightly untenable (independent of any specific worldview).

The instinct to Survive has nothing whatsoever to do Morality/Ethics; it is a biological imperative.

No laws of physics gives you the right to survival. You will survive if you have the physical ability to do so in a given environment. And you won’t if you don’t. Anything else is self-delusional. You can claim whatever rights you want until somebody sticks a gun in your mouth.

I am not sure what is so difficult to understand in what i have written but, let me try restating it;

The Instinct to Survive is inborn and every living organism exercises it as a "Law of Nature", but whether and how it will actually Survive is modulated by The Theory of Evolution/Survival of the Fittest. They are two different things. That instinct is what makes an organism do anything and everything to try and survive to pass on its genes.

That has nothing to do with your original “I have a right to survive”. You have no such right. You either survive or you don’t. That’s it. “Rights” are a human construct that only exists if you have the power to enforce it.

You are still not getting it, the phrase i used was;

>the reality of my "Existence" gives me the right to Survive using any and all means.

I am born -> I Exist -> Existence gives me the birth right to use any and all means to try and survive.

I absolutely get your point. I just disagree. And you are not getting my point: “Birth rights” doesn’t exist. It is all in your head. You might use the idea of “rights” to justify to yourself what you are doing. Others will use other made up justifications (gods, ideologies, skin colour, race etc.) But it is a made up human idea. Lions doesn’t need to appeal to its “birth right” to kill you. Evolution doesn’t care about your “birth rights”. You either survive or you don’t. That’s it.

>Life is not meant to be anything, but survival. The fact that there's the idea that you can enjoy life, is a huge sign of privilege. Of course, one should chase it, but don't believe for a minute that anyone is entitled to it.

Well said and you are absolutely right! I will argue even more strongly that those whose privilege allows them to even think in these terms have no idea of what "reality" is. Reminds me of a passage in Jack London's The Sea-Wolf between Hump and Wolf Larsen.

[Wolf Larsen] “What do you do for a living?”

[Hump] I confess I had never had such a question asked me before, nor had I ever canvassed it. I was quite taken aback, and before I could find myself had sillily stammered, “I—I am a gentleman.”

His lip curled in a swift sneer.

“I have worked, I do work,” I cried impetuously, as though he were my judge and I required vindication, and at the same time very much aware of my arrant idiocy in discussing the subject at all.

“For your living?”

There was something so imperative and masterful about him that I was quite beside myself—“rattled,” as Furuseth would have termed it, like a quaking child before a stern school-master.

“Who feeds you?” was his next question.

“I have an income,” I answered stoutly, and could have bitten my tongue the next instant. “All of which, you will pardon my observing, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wish to see you about.”

But he disregarded my protest.

“Who earned it? Eh? I thought so. Your father. You stand on dead men’s legs. You’ve never had any of your own. You couldn’t walk alone between two sunrises and hustle the meat for your belly for three meals. Let me see your hand.”

...

Wolf Larsen dropped my hand with a flirt of disdain.

“Dead men’s hands have kept it soft. Good for little else than dish-washing and scullion work.”

I grew up poor and we lived in a lower-middle economic class community. I agree that enjoying life is a privilege, and probably one that not many people can enjoy in the lower economic class.

But I did see many people eke out happiness with whatever they seemed to have. Some groups had family-wide soccer games in the evenings. There seemed to be informal leagues (no uniforms or dues). It was clear parents had just arrived from work and were spending time with children in the parks. There were almost daily BBQs, again, in public parks. Clothing/etc would clearly convey it was all on a tight budget, but wow, they were always happy!

For other groups, there seemed to be a rat race of studying.

Yet for others, the kids never saw their parents, they seemed to be taken from one after-school activity to another by nannies.

I'm not sure what was better - A, B, or C. My family was in the rate race category (b) and -- while I enjoy the "success" it brought -- i'm not sure if I've lived my life as much as others.

The kids in category C that went from swim practice to forced piano lessons to kumon to forced karate didnt seem that happy either (then or now.)

I'm not sure if there is an insight here, but i'd say: whether we're entitled to it or not -- if you have a moment to enjoy happiness in whatever way you can, do it. Why not?

Thank you. You summarised what I meant to say in such an eloquent manner. The last paragraph touched me.

I think the real historical curve is U-shaped.

Hunters and gatherers had a lot of oral culture and other art precisely because they didn't spend most of their time "working". They had more leisure time than early farmers. But, of course, hunting and gathering will only support relatively small populations, especially compared to agriculture.

Agriculture without industry was brutally demanding on the small folk, but as civilization progressed, we have reached the state when many of us have significant leisure time again.

"when many of us have significant leisure time again."

why yes, and even a convenient bottle to piss in when that person doesn't have time to get to the bathroom.

don't underestimate the amount of quasi-slavery in our modern economy.

Where I live, about 75 % of the population used to be serfs during feudal times.

While we have bad jobs until today, nowhere near 75 % of the population does them. A lot of the worst, most backbreaking and repetitive activity is now done by machines.

My ancestors who were subsistence farmers ran away into heavy industrial jobs in the 1920s because they considered life of an industrial worker easier. Subsistence farming is hell.

> this opinion seems to be a relatively recent development as human civilization industrialized and material wealth reached more and more plentiful.

"The unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates (350BC)

Your general point on the luxury of choice stands, but I think it goes much farther back than the industrial age. It's ultimately a question on meaning which is not new.

"Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to? You will never find that life for which you are looking. When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man."

> The fact that there's the idea that you can enjoy life, is a huge sign of privilege

Honestly, I think it's a simple logical realization. Most people happen to be smart enough to see that life can and could be enjoyed and lived, we've long outpaced animals and survival now involves much more our self organizing then anything else.

Basically, the biggest obstacle to one enjoying life and one surviving is other people. You're absolutely entitled to take that opportunity and demand of others better.

Live free or die. Entitlement isn't just about whining, it's the inherent resistence to a society that isn't logical about giving you your fair share, and working towards the common good of our specie.

That entitlement is the will to survive, and it's the reason people want to survive, so that they can enjoy life.

And if you go looking in history, you'll see it everywhere, people fighting because they believe they deserve better and because they logically see that better is feasible.

I don't see how it's a relatively recent development, social animals have leisure time where they just play around and "live" in the same way humans do. If anything the idea that life is just survival seems to be an invented concept forced on people.

I obviously wasn't born back hundred years ago, but I have a feeling that people were raised into tougher spirits able to endure more and aim sharply at finding pleasure wherever you can in a freer mindset.

People born a hundred years ago suffered through the great depression and then got thrown into the meat grinder that we call World War II. Certainly those two events produced tough spirits, but I wouldn't wish that on anybody.

sorry I meant hundreds not just early 20th century with its peculiar mechanized violence

Oh, I understand now, thanks for clarifying.

you're welcome

That is your opinion of course but not a universal truth.

" My dad asks me why I waste so much time in useless hobbies when I could be investing that time working towards next promotion and pay raise. "

I am never sure how to think about these people. It's probably great if you can find fulfillment in work and don't need other things to happy. But not too many people are wired that way.

Not that I sympathise much with the OP's father, but like most fathers he has the best intentions. In some cultures you can't waste your youth on frivolities, it's for building wealth to enjoy later. It works for some people and there is some merit in learning to defer happiness for periods of hard work, but you can't defer it forever. There is nothing wrong with relatively intense hobbies (the guitar can be very involving) but there is a good argument that an hour a day of practise is probably enough and securing a future needs to be done too.

My dad was like this - I got plenty of feedback, mainly due to laziness in my youth. However, once I got a job, he stopped advising me on my work or hobbies. I think in his eyes, if I managed to get a job making decent money and lived independently, I was old enough to make my own decisions.

> didn't use to have hobbies and I used to feel like a machine just going to work, coming back, sleep, rinse and repeat

This hits home for me. The last year has been hard because I haven’t been able to do any of my usual hobbies—snowboard, travel, concerts, baseball, etc. and it’s really taken the spice out of life.

I'd argue, they are also improving your mental health and making your decisions better, therefore helping you climb that ladder quicker.

> And I truly suck at guitar.

And I do as well. Absolutely love it.

And over time I have come to suck at a lot of other things as well. Drumming I now particularly enjoy.

Hey. I enjoy both Sanskrit and the guitar. Would you be interested in getting in touch? I have a few questions. :)

> And I truly suck at guitar.

To quote G.K. Chesterton, "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com