Do you believe "I cannot come into work because I cannot afford gas" will be viable?

[uuuhname]

I'd call that "chores".

That's not what is meant by the term "work", which goes far past survival.

Hunter-gatherers generally spent less than four hours a day on any kind of useful labor, precisely because they only did what they or their group needed for survival, and then kicked back to socialize. And most of that "labor" was comparable to modern things like "going to the grocery store (hunting)", or "doing home renovations/repair". Stuff you do not get paid for, today. Because it's not "work". It's "chores".

All your arguments are the same as those made in the Nazi Reich or the USSR. Literally, the same exact arguments. The same focus on everyone needing to contribute. The same accusations leveled against those who could not, for whatever reason. They're inhumane and indefensible. Just pure, unadulterated selfishness, no matter the human costs.

it is really incredible how "primitive" cultures are more often happier and healthier than people living in modern society. but they aren't toiling to make their bosses stock portfolio go up so might as well push them into a literal meat grinder.

[Endus]

it is really incredible how "primitive" cultures are more often happier and healthier than people living in modern society. but they aren't toiling to make their bosses stock portfolio go up so might as well push them into a literal meat grinder.

it's not even complicated.

Hunter-gatherers only do as much labor as is needed to keep the tribe healthy and happy. There's typically some hierarchical structures, but not many, by virtue of the size of the group and the homogeneity of labor in general.

Civilization, starting with agriculture, allows for much greater hierarchical structures to form, and those at the upper levels won't be doing base labor, so those who do such labor need to over-produce enough to support those upper echelons. Literally the origin of concepts like taxes or land ownership/rents. Hunter-gatherers generally labor 2-4 hours a day or so, and it's mostly stuff they or their close kin will directly benefit from. Early agriculture saw workers spending 10-12 hours a day farming, and the bulk of their production was not for their in-group's direct benefit. Leading forward to modern society, where "work" is nearly always labor done for someone else's benefit and profit, rather than your own. To the point that people don't even question that. And they really should.

I wouldn't put too much on the "healthier" bit, though. Most of the truly awful diseases require conditions that hunter-gatherer groups simply didn't present; large populations in close proximity, poor sewage, transfer from animals like rats which integrate into cities seamlessly, polluted water conditions, etc. While hunter-gatherers WERE healthier, it wasn't an intentional change, just an unpredictable consequence. Unlike labor shifts, which WERE deliberate and intentional.

[Shadowferal]

Hm..there was a theory that posited Gobekli Tepe as a former "Eden." Hunter gatherers only needed a few hours of the day to acquire food. They then tried the agricultural route and even built a temple, working all day..and after a few generations later they likely said "fuck this." They deliberately buried the temple and returned to the few hrs a day work, abandoning the area 8k years ago.

[Endus]

Hm..there was a theory that posited Gobekli Tepe as a former "Eden." Hunter gatherers only needed a few hours of the day to acquire food. They then tried the agricultural route and even built a temple, working all day..and after a few generations later they likely said "fuck this." They deliberately buried the temple and returned to the few hrs a day work, abandoning the area 8k years ago.

To be fair, Gobekli Tepe is so fucking old it's baffling to everyone, and all theories are basically pissing into the wind. It's megalithic but intricately carved, at a time when there weren't anything but hunter-gatherers. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence of long-term settlement at the site, but there is evidence it was built over a long period of time (generations, at least), meaning it wasn't the center of a settlement, but a site nomads kept returning to and progressively working on for reasons we truly do not have the least understanding of yet. They can't even confirm it is a "temple" of any kind, though it's hard to think of a purpose other than some religious one.

[Mayhem]

Can you be more specific? Typically when I hear "brain" I think "intelligence" and when I hear "heart" I think "morals/feelings". I feel like you're insinuating intelligence here, which I'd definitely disagree with.

I wholeheartedly agree, there's little to no intelligence in capitalism.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I wasn't too keen on the options but I voted it's not a good excuse. This still doesn't mean employers shouldn't take this into account. Ultimately I don't think an employee can just phone in and say "Sorry can't come in today gas is too expensive". If they are having trouble they should speak to their employer about it and try to work out a solution which may involve help with travel costs, changing the working hours so travelling is less frequent or some other intervention.

If companies are not paying their employees enough money to even afford gas, that kind of employer is just gonna say "tough shit" and tell you to find another job or to cut expenses out of your life so you can work. You know, things like food and health care. Who needs those things?

[Zan15]

Oh its there for a reason. You think employers will sympathize? laughs in capitalism

at this point in this economy and labor situation they better not laugh. Workers have more options than ever before.

Flipping them off and finding another job has never been easier.

[PC2]

Hm..there was a theory that posited Gobekli Tepe as a former "Eden." Hunter gatherers only needed a few hours of the day to acquire food. They then tried the agricultural route and even built a temple, working all day..and after a few generations later they likely said "fuck this." They deliberately buried the temple and returned to the few hrs a day work, abandoning the area 8k years ago.

Well we can't go back to the good ole hunter-gatherer days regardless of how much you conservatives want to take us back. That kind of life doesn't allow for a large and growing population.

Also our way of life will never been sustainable, we'll always have to adapt to the new problems of each era. Going backwards isn't an option.

[uuuhname]

Well we can't go back to the good ole hunter-gatherer days regardless of how much you conservatives want to take us back. That kind of life doesn't allow for a large and growing population.

Also our way of life will never been sustainable, we'll always have to adapt to the new problems of each era. Going backwards isn't an option.

Jesus Christ, no one is promoting anarcho-primitivism. we're simply pointing out how this capitalist mindset is in no way the base state of human interaction and how civilizations are built.

[Cthulhu 2020]

As to your "Work should be optional!" thing. No. At baseline, human life takes work and resources to survive. Ergo, you have a minimum burden necessary, a minimum amount of work it takes to sustain you. And, since it's possible for others to not care about you, and since you're the sole proprietor of yourself, it's your own responsibility to meet those needs if no one else is willing to.

Yeah there's absolutely no way to support humans without doing work! It's not like we have factories worked entirely by machines and self driving vehicles and monetization at every level of the food chain!

Saying that humans MUST work to survive is an outdated idea. We have more resources in our life than ever before, and we have the means and resources to provide basic living resources for people. The only reason we're not implementing it is people spreading the draconian idea that they must through back breaking work just so they don't die.

Also, let's not forget how many millions tons of food get thrown away in the US every year simply because it didn't sell while it was "fresh". When I was a kid, the local super markets used to donate bread, cans of food, etc. all of this stuff that hit its shrink date but was still good. Now? They just throw it in the dumpster. Because making sure that food makes it to food banks takes a couple of extra employees and more work! Humans are suffering needlessly because businesses are too busy min maxing profits to care.

"It's their own fault they're suffering. Bootstraps, they're lazy, etc."

So you know when articles come out about how little money people make in various countries, and how their starvation and disease rates are super high, and everyone collectively thinks that's awful, and that country is garbage for letting its people suffer? I don't get why people like you see rampant human suffering as a positive outcome and wish it to happen in the US. I want the US - I want EVERY country - to be the shining city on the hill. Why do you think so many people immigrated to the US over the last 250 years? Because it was an escape from terrible conditions. Not that early to mid USA was a paradise, but it was better than most places.

I just don't understand why it's a race to the bottom for people with your mindset.

- - - Updated - - -

All your arguments are the same as those made in the Nazi Reich or the USSR. Literally, the same exact arguments. The same focus on everyone needing to contribute. The same accusations leveled against those who could not, for whatever reason. They're inhumane and indefensible. Just pure, unadulterated selfishness, no matter the human costs.

Let's not forget that when the economy was going south, much of the anti Semitic propaganda was basically just the welfare queen argument.

I'm having a hard time finding the exact quote, but it went something to the tune of "The lazy Jew is living off the hard work and welfare of the diligent German citizenry."

[BeepBoo]

willful misanthropy.

Nah. Not caring for part of humanity isn't misanthropy. Stop acting like there's something "wrong" with me because I don't care about absolutely every person ho walks this earth. Just say you don't like people like me and get over it. You're not required to like me. And hey! If you ever see me hanging off a cliff, feel free to keep me honest to my own morals and don't help me. I'm not asking you to do something I wouldn't do.

lacks any human empathy or decency.

"any" k.

I'm not bragging, that's what anyone should do. As did the other half-dozen or so people who quickly stopped to help.

*what you think* anyone should do. Nope. I'm not gonna make such demands.

and you never meant it as a serious "solution".

I nearly straight up said I don't think people dying of lack of helping hand isn't a problem, so let me be more clear: it's not a problem. It's fine. If you can't get help and you have no social worth, that says something negative about you IMO.

I'd call that "chores".

Tomayto/tomaato. I'm not nitpicking what humans do for bare minimum survival versus what they do to get higher up the food chain. Besides that, you're still not advocating for humans to have to do their "chores" either, and still get a free ride. because YOU think it's "easy enough" for strong people to just altruistically dedicate their strength. Nah. Pass.

Just pure, unadulterated selfishness, no matter the human costs.

Biggest difference between me and those people is I won't hunt down people to exterminate them, nor propose doing such a thing. Anyone that can get out is free to. Anyone that can draw more breath can while they are still able. I'm just not about to have ye olde government point guns at anyone and tell them they have to support said people, either.

Yeah there's absolutely no way to support humans without doing work!

If you think automation can provide everything all the current humans need to keep their current lifestyles or even just basic necessities without a single human having to do actual labor you're quite frankly stupid. We're nowhere near that yet.

Ask yourself this: if all humans stopped working *tomorrow* what would we be without? How much less stuff do you think would be available?

because businesses

Sure. Has nothing to do with the other people involved in those businesses, from the top to the bottom, not wanting to shoulder that burden themselves. Mhmm.

Here's a hint: I'm 100% capable of shuttling those goods. I would never volunteer to do it. My personal sense of satisfaction and enjoyment comes precisely 0% from doing things for other people. Ergo, I'd like to spend 0% of my time doing things for other people out of the goodness of my heart. Stop being upset that the most capable and well-off people also seem fine with at least some amount of suffering of others before they're willing to take action because they're too busy being focused on their own lives and happiness to be bothered with that petty shit. I'm over here trying to have fun jet skiing and ignoring hardship :lol:

[Milchshake]

Kinda surprised that car-pools or ride-shares havent gotten more mentions.

I thought that some collectivist solutions would be more popular. Oh well.

[uuuhname]

okay so not misanthropic (if you ignore the synonyms) but certainly fascistic. what an upgrade.

[Mayhem]

Ask yourself this: if all humans stopped working *tomorrow* what would we be without? How much less stuff do you think would be available?

Cool idea, let's value and pay wages based on how much direct impact them stopping to work would have on society.

[BeepBoo]

Cool idea, let's value and pay wages based on how much direct impact them stopping to work would have on society.

What makes you think we don't? The fact that they have to be concerned for their survival if they don't work? Why should that ALSO not play a part in the consideration for compensation?

- - - Updated - - -

okay so not misanthropic (if you ignore the synonyms) but certainly fascistic. what an upgrade.

Nope. I'm exactly 0% authoritarian. On the contrary, I'm the antithesis of that. I don't want anyone to be able to forcefully tell anyone else what to do. Also, what synonyms? I'm not antisocial, because I do want the company of others. Maybe the loosest one of "unfriendly"? But to what degree? I'm not inherently unfriendly. I'll be nice because being nice costs me nothing. I won't DO anything for you, but that's not inherently "unfriendly" to me.

I assure you, I'm nothing in the synonym list for mithanthropic, either. you just don't like that I have strict boundaries about who I choose to be concerned with and then have next to no care for anything outside of that.

[uuuhname]

Nope. I'm exactly 0% authoritarian. On the contrary, I'm the antithesis of that. I don't want anyone to be able to forcefully tell anyone else what to do.

but you want to force people to have to labor to not starve to death. or more to the point you don't want to even be around people you deem as lesser to you.

[BeepBoo]

but you want to force people to have to labor to not starve to death. or more to the point you don't want to even be around people you deem as lesser to you.

If someone lived in the woods on their own as the last person alive, would you say they're "forced" to do labor to not starve to death?
That's how this works.

If having to choose between "force people to work for their own survival" and "force people to work for others' survival" I know which one I'd rather have, because SOMEONE is going to have to do the work. Deal with your own circumstances and leave me the fuck out of that equation.

[Mayhem]

What makes you think we don't? The fact that they have to be concerned for their survival if they don't work? Why should that ALSO not play a part in the consideration for compensation?

Right, the fact that people have to be concerned for their survival makes me think they aren't valued based on the direct impact them stopping to work would have on society.

Because that is a thought that makes sense. Why should, them having to work to survive, play a larger part in consideration than their impact on society?

[BeepBoo]

Right, the fact that people have to be concerned for their survival makes me think they aren't valued based on the direct impact them stopping to work would have on society.

They are valued for the direct impact them stopping would have on society. For a vast majority of people who are in these labor categories, that number is near-nothing. They'd be replaced *that day* with someone else because they're essentially just meat-machines doing robotic labor. They're so easy to replace that they have next-to-no impact if they just up and quit, because someone else who is concerned with survival will just hop in and take their place. That's what happens when no one wants to support you or help you survive and you decide you'd rather eek out another day than bite the bullet, which is a very rational decision IMO.

[uuuhname]

If someone lived in the woods on their own as the last person alive, would you say they're "forced" to do labor to not starve to death?
That's how this works.

If having to choose between "force people to work for their own survival" and "force people to work for others' survival" I know which one I'd rather have, because SOMEONE is going to have to do the work. Deal with your own circumstances and leave me the fuck out of that equation.

subsistence living and "living in a society" are not mutually exclusive things, you know? that's why we brought up the fact primitive cultures still "work" but only work as much as they need to in order to survive. and those groups DO in fact "work for other's survival" because the explicit implication there is those other people are working for your survival as well.

this just comes off as a Child's understanding of how human civilization works.