Hacker News Reader

I think you're rather missing the point. What I took away from the article is not "choose better entertainment". It is that many people waste the time of their life on things they do not even particularly enjoy, simply out of habit, and that it is a good idea to give some thought to how you spend your time, and to re-evaluate your choices periodically and see if they still make sense.

This is valid advice and a good reminder for any time investment, whether entertainment, work, your own business, or, as you say, improving the world. Replace "watching Lost" with "fixing leaking roofs in Mexico" and the point still stands - there are more and less effective ways of improving the world, and if you do not take the time to re-evaluate your choices, you will waste time and energy that could help more people. Sure, you could go and become a carpenter in Mexico and build houses. Or you could create a small business loan system to lend money to a thousand carpenters in Mexico. The point is, be flexible and free to change your direction if you see a better way.

He spent a lot more time talking about entertainment than anything else.

You make a good point about being open to changing direction, but I think that is your point, not one made in the article.

I think it's just because first, entertainment is an example anyone can relate to, and second, he's a game developer, so entertainment is the context he is working in.

And look, less than half way in: "... The same metric can and should be applied to all activities: is the experience worth the irreplaceable hours of your life? Not just consuming media, but hobbies, travel, acts of creation and destruction ..."

Anyway :)

First, please don't force your ideology down my throat. Specially, not through guilt. You are better than a Viagra salesman or a priest.

Second, please don't dismiss my own fucking problems as ``first world'', as if you know shit about other people's life. Again, you are not a douchebag, so don't behave like one. Yes, I know there are Foreign People suffering now. They can suck it up. We are all grown-ups now, we have problems too, and we have to take care of ourselves. We can not spend all of our life feeling sorry for others.

Third, you don't understand very much about hedonism, morality, philosophy or living. Let's try to be humble and not spit "morally bankrupt!" at every lifestyle with which you disagree. For example, Kant didn't arrive to the conclusion that, to be moral, he had to give all his belongings to the poor. Figure why.

Thanks for all of the insults. I must have really touched a nerve. Maybe you will consider your lifestyle and world view closely.

You almost imply that Kant wouldn't have a problem with hedonism. That doesn't sound very educated or well thought out.

Whilst I think he was a bit confrontational you didn't address his points at all. I am slightly bothered whenever someone dismisses a problem as "first world." For some problems such as "My parents won't buy me a new iPhone" I can see where the person is coming from. However when someone has a legitimate problem dismissing it as "first world," is unhelpful and potentially harmful.

"Don't complain about having difficulty at work, at least you aren't starving!" We all have problems, some worse than others. That doesn't mean you can just dismiss any problem someone has just because they aren't in the worst situation possible.

I see you are trying to fill your reply with as much remarkable experience as possible.

"Your goals should be to effect positive change in the world."

Should it? Why? What makes positive change a more valid goal than making more mans? (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2481) And in turn, what's so morally bankrupt about the pursuit of fun? With a focus on the individual, it would seem to value human life more than simply measuring the size of the shadow you cast.

The type of moral code that I have described is more constructive both for civilization and for the individual.

As far as Darwin or simple propagation, our science and technology have taken us beyond natural human evolution.

The pursuit of fun without regards to positive social change or individual growth does not create medium or long term benefit for the individual or society.

Generally moral codes which explicitly take into account social responsibility are more beneficial for society. The current state of affairs in our consumerist capitalist society disproves the common belief that individual interest magically translates into common interest.

Just a question to better correlate your position on hedonism: do you believe in after-life?

No. What does that have to do with hedonism?

Some anticipate a benevolently-orchestrated afterlife will compensate for selflessness in this life. 72 virgins, stuff like that.

As for me, I believe most suffering is the inexorable result of overpopulation to "life is cheap" levels, which there's no ethical way to fix within the lifetime of today's generations. I'm willing to pay my fair share (not more) out of our society's resources to treat the symptoms, but I'm not going to divert my own efforts and sacrifice limited opportunities for the rare experiences I value most.

I hope you will reconsider that belief about overpopulation, because its completely incorrect and racially and/or class based. Do the Greeks have 40% (or anyway a very high number, don't know for sure) unemployment because they are overpopulated? What about Somalia, is that country overpopulated?

The United States uses more oil than the other 3 or 4 top countries combined. The reason there is so much suffering is because resources are not only distributed incredibly unfairly, but actually many countries and groups are deliberately repressed.

If Greece can sufficiently exploit its resource base with just 60% of its population, yes, there are far more Greeks than they need, and the rest are being ill-treated because their presence is seen as a burden rather than an asset. And wasn't Somalia officially in famine just a month ago?

On reflection, I shouldn't have said "no ethical way to fix". A fundamentally different civilization, freed from our punitive "if anyone will not work, neither shall they eat" attitude, needn't make people suffer for being regarded as superfluous by the economy. And defense against "why should we feed you?" is largely why societies lacking trusted safety nets do overbreed whatever resource base is available, including foreign donations.