[flagged]
But that said, supposing we are looking at 60 years from now having a few billion fewer people on Earth, just by attrition (lack of replacement) that is not automatically bad. We could afford to shrink in population - if there’s a floor to that contraction. If indeed there are way too many people in a decade for the available human jobs, then it could be the equilibrium is just a lower population. Which could be temporary - who knows what the future could bring, such as possible space colonization, which may need more humans and also give people the hope that I think Gen Y and Z have lacked, which is one reason for their low repro rates.
the only real argument for continued growth in to preserve the current structure of investment. that's your great filter, and it will result in economic collapse which isn't the same as extinction.
The complete destruction of the human through exploitation and control, as seen in the article, is a major reason people are too unhappy to start families.
The worst part? Most people don't even know why, so there's never a general public reaction to fix it.
It’s here and it’s been here for decades - it’s just finally impossible to ignore or wave away
Gig workers are self-chattelizing because there is no floor to the depravity that society will accept, and an endless supply of people who will chattelize themselves for a moment of pleasure
Or perhaps they "chattelize" to survive?
There's not much pleasure to be had from gig work apart from the freedom to perhaps choose your own hours and perhaps be free of a human boss. Both of which are quite the opposite of chattelizing, in the short term.
They have birthday parties and loving embraces in deprived ghettos that have community solidarity
The most beautiful human interactions I’ve ever seen are in the absolute most deprived poor places including when I was working in the fucking Balad hospital in 2010
Virtue does not come from work
"I rarely get to see my kids. That's a risk you have to take."
I’ve been waiting for someone to pull that one out as a gotcha…
But hey good for you for doing a bunch of searching about me personally (because I intentionally use my name so that people can do precisely what you’re doing) which indicates that I have triggered you to the extent where you’ve taken time out of your day to go and look me up personally
And your quote, inflammatory marketing slop that it is, is top and center in the images after searching your name once. "A bunch of searching" is not required. There's not much out there about you that requires digging into, just the usual founders' must-haves (crunchbase profile, paid write-ups, personal blog etc). Nothing special there either.
But please do enjoy the extra attention from me. Because that is special. To me.
The pleasure of being an Uber driver? Wouldn’t the better analogy be survival for most gig workers?
it is simply how do I get more money sex property attention etc…
There are no monks door dashing
Might want to remove the "Wizard" from your bio, it'd be far more accurate.
people want to get money so that they can have an “enjoyable life” very few indeed dedicate themselves to a virtue or an ethics above pleasure
“enjoyable life” as defined through pretty much the entirety of written human history consists of sex and play
So yes humanity is demonstrably composed of egoist consuming hedonists
Okay. How does this advance the discussion? Obviously then that means opposing that means being anti-human.
If it is required to take action in the world as a person or anything that has the capability to do things then by function there is energy required to take action
If the actions of that population are detrimental to the global population, because local measurement of global externalities is ignored, then you have a population that is self-destructive simply because it cannot communicate or coordinate across all of the places that’s having impacts
The systems you currently live in are antihuman…yet entirely composed of humans acting for their own individual gain without the capability of considering the collective whole
Is it anti-human to suggest that existential threat that stems from a total failure of the biological organism to coordinate at the scale that it’s individual impacts have ?
Is it antihuman to claim that the population does not have the capability of being able to counter its own accelerating self-destructive behavior?
If I may play his game:
He writes to boost his own ego. By way of making his claim, he seeks to appear wise and wizardly, for who else but he could have made such an astute observation and present it with such confidence; it must certainly be true and he must certainly be better than us.
And who would make such a claim, but the one who is pure enough to see through the muck and see the truth of the claim? He must not be one of the egoist consuming hedonists! He must be outside of them to have seen them!
Or not, perhaps he is one of these egoists and he knows it, and will happily admit it. And by doing so, he will raise himself up even further. For he knows his faults and he is not ashamed to have us know them too. We shall soon see.
In the end, he will soon have more sex. (He already got the attention.)
The majority of people have absolutely no choice for their actions
FTFY
Especially given that for an increasing number of folks the alternative to doing what you're told is starvation (food insecurity), homelessness, and death (from lack of healthcare).
The poorest Americans remain among the richest people in the world and across human history. Many people don't have material choices. Almost every American does.
The fact of Harriet Tubman disproves your claim