Hate Work

[Gloominary]

Does anyone else here hate work so much they spent most of their life avoiding it as much as possible?

[Mr Reasonable]

You a welfare queen?

[Gloominary]

You a welfare queen?

I've never been on welfare in my life, are you a drug dealer?

[Mr Reasonable]

Never in my life.

[Zero_Sum]

Does anyone else here hate work so much they spent most of their life avoiding it as much as possible?

*Raises hand*

Don't worry, with the great western economy model we will all be unemployed soon enough, fret not.

[Silhouette]

Define work.

When I'm not "at work", I'm still working, and I don't just mean in the physics sense of e.g. exerting a force such that I walk to and from home. I work on things, mentally and physically, I'm trying to educate myself, I'm reading, listening and writing, I'm performing laborious difficult tasks in a competitive environment when I play a video game, I'm trying to construct useful programs, gather and interpret useful data, I'm creating a product when I play or write music. I love all these things and do such work because I want to, and even if nobody else wants me to. I don't sell any of them, they're for me - does that make them not work?

When I am "at work" I am employed to act in such a way that achieves somebody else's goal to provide a service to people who want it - demonstrated by their willingness to give up some of their money for it - such that my employer can pay me less than what I earn them, thus making money off using me. The pay I get, I use to essentially rent my means to perform the work that I do when I'm not "at work". What I do to help towards being used by somebody richer to get even more rich is boring - it's tedious and monotonous and does not provide me with the fulfillment I rent from other richer people. I hate this arrangement though I can't claim to exactly hate doing what I do when "at work", I'd just very much rather not have to do it in order to afford to do what I would rather do. Admittedly I can only do what I would rather do because of other people doing work in this arranged way that I hate, so more accurately I hate that it's out of my control that people insist on the arrangement being in the way that it is, rather than some potential other way. Those who are more in control of making sure the arrangement is in its current form seem to insist that it has to be the way that it is and that no potential other way is viable, and I hate that.

So hate is there and work is there, though their relation is not simple.

A desire to avoid is there, but it is of a very particular nature and not general in the sense of "spending most of my life avoiding work as much as possible".

[Zero_Sum]

True story, I've read instances where a majority of people in the 18th century or prior was self employed. Working under other people versus for yourself is very different completely.

[Gloominary]

Does anyone else here hate work so much they spent most of their life avoiding it as much as possible?

*Raises hand*

Don't worry, with the great western economy model we will all be unemployed soon enough, fret not.

Glad I'm not the only one around here.

[Zero_Sum]

Does anyone else here hate work so much they spent most of their life avoiding it as much as possible?

*Raises hand*

Don't worry, with the great western economy model we will all be unemployed soon enough, fret not.

Glad I'm not the only one around here.

My motto currently is to work as very little and less as possible riding the surf board of poverty federal tax exemption status part time until this economy inevitably collapses in the near future.

In this economy there is no social mobility, benefits, or advancement for the working class, so why bother working hard at all if there is no reward and incentive for doing so?

Twelve years I worked my heart out sometimes putting myself in perilous environmental health conditions (twelve hour shifts six days a week)thinking to myself that someday I could get ahead and have a better quality life yet for all that struggling or sacrifice on my part for twelve straight years I have nothing to show for it where I am no longer under any illusions anymore. Fuck it, let it all burn to the ground for all I care. There will be plenty of opportunities when the day of reckoning comes which I eagerly look forward to.

[Silhouette]

In this economy there is no social mobility

Twelve years I worked my heart out sometimes putting myself in perilous environmental health conditions (twelve hour shifts six days a week)thinking to myself that someday I could get ahead and have a better quality life yet for all that struggling or sacrifice on my part for twelve straight years I have nothing to show for it where I am no longer under any illusions anymore.

That says it all.

The single most important factor in an economy is that it self-perpetuates maximum motivation in as many of the right people as possible. All of this cheerleading over personal responsibility might get people to try in the short run, but if ultimately it visibly amounts to nothing it's all just lip service that demotivates even more when you are confronted with the prospect that you fell for a scam.

I don't support this Gloominary notion of minimalism, not because I don't agree with its benefits, but because it's not consistent with trying to stand out as being a more impressive and attractive human being. On a personal level I like attractive people and the existence of people to try to win over who stand out over the rest, and I like trying to be one of them. But also on a wider scale the prospect of feeling out new possibilities advances what we are able to do as a species for ourselves as well as over other species that would otherwise threaten our dominance. Think of healthcare - we would otherwise be at the mercy of microorganisms if we didn't try, and potentially other species would even be nipping at our heels if we didn't try to defend ourselves.

The problem is what the economy encourages as excellence. Of course there are very many ways to explore that are to our detriment that can be turned into "success" in an unregulated economy. Capitalism can only be optimal if there are more possible ways to benefit our species than to either trick it or exploit it to its detriment. This is why we NEED government that actually does this job rather than funds detrimental exploration. You cannot trust privatised companies to do more to our benefit than tricking and exploiting our weaknesses when excellence and advantage are incentivised. But equally, you cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater and get rid of the incentivisation of excellence and advantage altogether.

[Gloominary]

@ Zero Sum

My motto currently is to work as very little and less as possible riding the surf board of poverty federal tax exemption status part time until this economy inevitably collapses in the near future.

In this economy there is no social mobility, benefits, or advancement for the working class, so why bother working hard at all if there is no reward and incentive for doing so?

Twelve years I worked my heart out sometimes putting myself in perilous environmental health conditions (twelve hour shifts six days a week)thinking to myself that someday I could get ahead and have a better quality life yet for all that struggling or sacrifice on my part for twelve straight years I have nothing to show for it where I am no longer under any illusions anymore. Fuck it, let it all burn to the ground for all I care. There will be plenty of opportunities when the day of reckoning comes which I eagerly look forward to.

For the last 8 years I worked just enough to live.
I kept most of my expenses low and I borrowed money when I needed to.
I took low skilled, low paying jobs.
I put my health and my free time ahead of making money, which I used to read, write, watch videos, play games and relax, and I guess I don't have much to show for it either, but I wasn't expecting to have something to show for it, monetarily.
While I might get some training this year so I can make more money, I never want to work full time, the most I've worked was for 35 hours a week for a short period of time, and that was too much, I never want to work that much again.
I guess I wouldn't mind making enough money to save up and buy a cheap apartment in a small town, but at this point that remains a dream, I can't even afford to eat and pay rent, I have to borrow money, which'll probably run out before the end of this year.
Oh well, was nice while it lasted.

[Silhouette]

For the last 8 years I worked just enough to live.
I kept most of my expenses low and I borrowed money when I needed to.
I took low skilled, low paying jobs.
I put my health and my free time ahead of making money, which I used to read, write, watch videos play games and relax, and I guess I don't have much to show for it either, but I wasn't expecting to have something to show for it, monetarily.
While I might get some training this year so I can make more money, I never want to work full time, the most I've worked was for 35 hours a week for a short period of time, and that was too much, I never want to work that much again.
I guess I wouldn't mind making enough money to save up and buy a cheap apartment in a small town, but at this point that remains a dream, I can't even afford to eat and pay rent, I have to borrow money, which'll probably run out before the end of this year.
Oh well, was nice while it lasted.

So you're single then.

[Gloominary]

For the last 8 years I worked just enough to live.
I kept most of my expenses low and I borrowed money when I needed to.
I took low skilled, low paying jobs.
I put my health and my free time ahead of making money, which I used to read, write, watch videos play games and relax, and I guess I don't have much to show for it either, but I wasn't expecting to have something to show for it, monetarily.
While I might get some training this year so I can make more money, I never want to work full time, the most I've worked was for 35 hours a week for a short period of time, and that was too much, I never want to work that much again.
I guess I wouldn't mind making enough money to save up and buy a cheap apartment in a small town, but at this point that remains a dream, I can't even afford to eat and pay rent, I have to borrow money, which'll probably run out before the end of this year.
Oh well, was nice while it lasted.

So you're single then.

I'm single now, I had a girlfriend a year and half ago.

[Gloominary]

My motto is to just get by, I'm not trying to be an attractive person like Silhouette is, at least not in the conventional sense of attractive. My objective, if I have one, is to subvert what attractive is, find a few people who're attracted to me as I am, or to be alone. That being said, I think I have been too extreme in the past, and am now trying to find the right balance for me.

[Zero_Sum]

In this economy there is no social mobility

Twelve years I worked my heart out sometimes putting myself in perilous environmental health conditions (twelve hour shifts six days a week)thinking to myself that someday I could get ahead and have a better quality life yet for all that struggling or sacrifice on my part for twelve straight years I have nothing to show for it where I am no longer under any illusions anymore.

That says it all.

The single most important factor in an economy is that it self-perpetuates maximum motivation in as many of the right people as possible. All of this cheerleading over personal responsibility might get people to try in the short run, but if ultimately it visibly amounts to nothing it's all just lip service that demotivates even more when you are confronted with the prospect that you fell for a scam.

I don't support this Gloominary notion of minimalism, not because I don't agree with its benefits, but because it's not consistent with trying to stand out as being a more impressive and attractive human being. On a personal level I like attractive people and the existence of people to try to win over who stand out over the rest, and I like trying to be one of them. But also on a wider scale the prospect of feeling out new possibilities advances what we are able to do as a species for ourselves as well as over other species that would otherwise threaten our dominance. Think of healthcare - we would otherwise be at the mercy of microorganisms if we didn't try, and potentially other species would even be nipping at our heels if we didn't try to defend ourselves.

The problem is what the economy encourages as excellence. Of course there are very many ways to explore that are to our detriment that can be turned into "success" in an unregulated economy. Capitalism can only be optimal if there are more possible ways to benefit our species than to either trick it or exploit it to its detriment. This is why we NEED government that actually does this job rather than funds detrimental exploration. You cannot trust privatised companies to do more to our benefit than tricking and exploiting our weaknesses when excellence and advantage are incentivised. But equally, you cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater and get rid of the incentivisation of excellence and advantage altogether.

What we need is a socialist government that actually cares about the public collective welfare of its citizens. Concerning the United States social political capitalistic economy the damage is irreparable and there is no level of reform that will work other than its complete collapse.

The American political conservatives here speak of meritocracy but I for one will say meritocracy is completely dead in this nation. Here everything revolves around money, nepotism, who you know, family inheritance, debt serfdom, and political loyalties. This nation is rotten and disgusting to its core where only a complete reset will fix the situation.

[Gloominary]

Call me crazy, but I think we shouldn't feel like we have to make ourselves, 'more attractive' ('more normal', hardworking, blah-blah), before we hook up with people, as friends or more.
I'd rather just be myself, and accept people for who they are, and where they're at.
Birds of a feather, right?

[Silhouette]

Call me crazy, but I think we shouldn't feel like we have to make ourselves, 'more attractive' ('more normal', hardworking, blah-blah), before we hook up with people, as friends or more.
I'd rather just be myself, and accept people for who they are, and where they're at.
Birds of a feather, right?

That's the ideal, and its true to an extent. But the underwater part of the iceberg is social norms, contributions and expectations/predictions of these things. If you're going to be in a relationship, you have to be a good mate in the real world, beyond just being an abstract "you" who does your thing however it pleases you - or as well as. Compatibility minimises this pressure, sure. But what if you had a kid? Are you seen as going to be able to raise a good one, whether or not you actually would? Bare in mind that even if you and/or potential mates don't want one, you only exist because a long chain of previous generations were picked for being seen as able to have and bring one up - or you wouldn't be here. That's the problem with minimalism - you're breaking a chain. Maybe it needs breaking, and maybe your minimalism is nature's answer to breaking it. Your life will be a process of coming to terms with this and resolving either way, whether or not you actually achieve your resolutions.

My motto is to just get by, I'm not trying to be an attractive person like Silhouette is, at least not in the conventional sense of attractive. My objective, if I have one, is to subvert what attractive is, find a few people who're attracted to me as I am, or to be alone. That being said, I think I have been too extreme in the past, and am now trying to find the right balance for me.

Attractive people don't have to try to be attractive, people who try to be attractive can be attractive by their trying, and people who try to recreate attractiveness in a new way can also be attractive. You compete in reaction to what you think you can do about the attractiveness that you have, but you compete nonetheless, and you derive purpose in your potential failure just in case - but you can't deny your urges. If you do, health is basically inversely proportional to how much you deny them - explore at your peril. Of course, Buddhism et al. proves you can come out the other side - I guess this is why people keep comparing you to a Buddhist. I've had the same suggested of me plenty of times too. My life and choices are very minimalistic too, and no surprises it's been a few years now since I had a long term gf too.

What we need is a socialist government that actually cares about the public collective welfare of its citizens. Concerning the United States social political capitalistic economy the damage is irreparable and there is no level of reform that will work other than its complete collapse.

The American political conservatives here speak of meritocracy but I for one will say meritocracy is completely dead in this nation. Here everything revolves around money, nepotism, who you know, family inheritance, debt serfdom, and political loyalties. This nation is rotten and disgusting to its core where only a complete reset will fix the situation.

I am very familiar with the reactive attitude of turning against your own interests, just to be in control of it and to derive satisfaction from calling it. But it's your end either way. Imagine the hell we would all have to endure if society collapsed! Seriously, if you don't appreciate all the things you take for granted, you need to rethink things right now.

Society has to transition, yes, unless you quite fancy your chances in an unstable reset of all our infrastructure and the products and services it provides and maintains. I don't fancy mine, so I don't want things to crash. What about you?

We need a Socialist government, obviously, but convincing others who have been indoctrinated to think that Socialism is Totalitarianism is no easy feat. And a Socialist government is not without its drawbacks either, meaning that even the most reasonable of us all are going to be wary of such a prospect. But even more difficult than that is overthrowing those in power who have the resources to keep the current status quo in place until it does inevitably implode... Fortunately, I think advances in technology will force the issue. There is literally no way to justify the continued employment of most of the world in order to justify their income when a robot can do anybody's job better than they can. Happily, Capitalism is very good at driving its own demise in such a way, whether or not we live to see it - I can only hope we do. What are we all going to do once AI takes over all our work? All be unemployed and starve? I don't think so - some kind of planned distribution method will be forced, and it might not even need to be a person at the top of it all. Will that make us slaves? Maybe. Are we already?

[Gloominary]

@Silhouette

Define work.

I tend to define it more narrowly, not merely as any ol' activity, or an activity requiring effort (of course all activity requires effort in the strict sense of the word effort, but some activity flows more freely than others, as you alluded to), but exerting yourself for someone in exchange for something else.
It's not that I hate exerting myself for people, I don't mind working part time, I don't mind 'moderately' exerting myself, and sometimes I enjoy doing the things I enjoy doing for people, but what I hate doing is working full time, 'excessively' exerting myself, doing the things I don't enjoy doing for people.

It's very difficult to find a job you wouldn't mind, let alone enjoy doing full time, especially in todays economy, where jobs are getting tougher and tougher (at least mentally and emotionally or, somatically if you will), more and more meaningless and repetitive for less and less pay.
If we had a more socialist economy, at least we wouldn't need to work as much.
Would people exert themselves less for both others and themselves, or would they do just as much or perhaps even more, as you suppose, because they'd be able to do exactly what they wanted?
Myself I think it's a combination, people would do less if they didn't have to, but when they did exert themselves, they'd do more of what they enjoyed doing.

When we exert ourselves for others and we know we're probably not going to be paid for it, that's not work, as I define it, it's a gift.
You could even say ILP is a gift economy, it's voluntary, as opposed to coercive, philosophical communism, share and share alike, what's mine is yours and yours mine.
It's proof there's truth to what you say, that we can be productive without being immediately and in a tit for tat sort of way, rewarded.
In a round about way, the more we enrich other peoples thinking, the more likely they'll at some point enrich ours in turn, in some sense we're sowing seeds in others who'll someday bear fruit for us, but not everyone can be so longsighted, all the time, and there also such a thing as being taken advantage of by those who're less generous, or squandering on ingrates.

Additionally, when we are free to give to others, because we don't have to worry about need, we are more free to put more of ourselves into our gifts, be more creative and self-expressive, we're giving things to people that we ourselves enjoy, or believe in, rather than just to please them so we can get what we're desperate for, and this can make giving more authentic and enjoyable for the giver, and the receiver can always pass on it if they don't like it, so it's win-win, at least not win-not lose.

But I think economies like ILP are the exception to the rule.
Otherwise we wouldn't need socialism or capitalism, we wouldn't need to coerce people at all, negatively or positively, with sticks or carrots, into helping and not harming.
Humans can be generous, some more than others, but we can also be very selfish, and also very idle, and while I've been advocating for taking it easy more, we still have to do something.
I don't believe in voluntary communism, in the main, nor I do believe in universal welfare for those who're unwilling to work.
And also, people can be very particular about what they want to do.
Sure it's easy to philosophize or paint, but who's going to do the dirty work of cleaning shit out of drainpipes and such?

This is why I'm advocating for a socialism where we get rid of the artificial scarcity of capitalism, where the price of essential goods and services are inflated while wages stagnate, even tho they're hundreds of times easier and more efficient to produce than they were centuries ago, thanks to machines taking our jobs, and the green revolution of the mid 20th century, but that we don't go to the other extreme of eliminating work altogether, for human nature isn't sufficiently benevolent for that.
People need to be rewarded for doing more work than others, it's just the capitalist fat cat who inherited his great grandfathers fortune off of exploiting the environment and workers vulnerabilities, isn't helping anyone and so, isn't actually entitled to anything.

That being said, it's a good thing that people do less, for less is more.
You seem to think the more activity, the better, where as I think: all things in moderation.
Like the capitalist, you're always attempting to maximize activity, you just disagree with the mechanism for this maximization, where as the capitalist thinks, the free market, where you have to give in order to get, is the engine for economy productivity and growth, you think we can just make everything entirely equal, or everyone can have their necessities taken care of, and (almost) all of us will work even more than we do now, where as I, on the other hand, am somewhat anti-productivity and growth, I want to see the economy as a whole shrink, but mostly for the upper class, not so much the poor, I'd like to see things improve a little for us.

Productivity isn't a good, there is a time to produce, and a time to be idle, a time to grow, and a time to sustain, even recede.
It's because I recognize there's limits to our reality, not only as a species, but as individuals, that I believe there's such a thing as vanity, as greed, as immoderation.
Where as you think there's always a creative way around limits, I think we have already surpassed them long ago, it's just we haven't fully felt the consequences of doing so yet, we're only now beginning to.

even technology is not a good of itself, or if it is, you can have too much of a good thing, too much power, too much pleasure, material, overpopulation, too artificial an environment in many or in all respects and so on, even too much knowledge, too much thinking, I really believe you can have too much of anything.
There is also value in space, in peace and solitude, or alternatively in danger, or in restriction.

[Zero_Sum]

Call me crazy, but I think we shouldn't feel like we have to make ourselves, 'more attractive' ('more normal', hardworking, blah-blah), before we hook up with people, as friends or more.
I'd rather just be myself, and accept people for who they are, and where they're at.
Birds of a feather, right?

That's the ideal, and its true to an extent. But the underwater part of the iceberg is social norms, contributions and expectations/predictions of these things. If you're going to be in a relationship, you have to be a good mate in the real world, beyond just being an abstract "you" who does your thing however it pleases you - or as well as. Compatibility minimises this pressure, sure. But what if you had a kid? Are you seen as going to be able to raise a good one, whether or not you actually would? Bare in mind that even if you and/or potential mates don't want one, you only exist because a long chain of previous generations were picked for being seen as able to have and bring one up - or you wouldn't be here. That's the problem with minimalism - you're breaking a chain. Maybe it needs breaking, and maybe your minimalism is nature's answer to breaking it. Your life will be a process of coming to terms with this and resolving either way, whether or not you actually achieve your resolutions.

My motto is to just get by, I'm not trying to be an attractive person like Silhouette is, at least not in the conventional sense of attractive. My objective, if I have one, is to subvert what attractive is, find a few people who're attracted to me as I am, or to be alone. That being said, I think I have been too extreme in the past, and am now trying to find the right balance for me.

Attractive people don't have to try to be attractive, people who try to be attractive can be attractive by their trying, and people who try to recreate attractiveness in a new way can also be attractive. You compete in reaction to what you think you can do about the attractiveness that you have, but you compete nonetheless, and you derive purpose in your potential failure just in case - but you can't deny your urges. If you do, health is basically inversely proportional to how much you deny them - explore at your peril. Of course, Buddhism et al. proves you can come out the other side - I guess this is why people keep comparing you to a Buddhist. I've had the same suggested of me plenty of times too. My life and choices are very minimalistic too, and no surprises it's been a few years now since I had a long term gf too.

What we need is a socialist government that actually cares about the public collective welfare of its citizens. Concerning the United States social political capitalistic economy the damage is irreparable and there is no level of reform that will work other than its complete collapse.

The American political conservatives here speak of meritocracy but I for one will say meritocracy is completely dead in this nation. Here everything revolves around money, nepotism, who you know, family inheritance, debt serfdom, and political loyalties. This nation is rotten and disgusting to its core where only a complete reset will fix the situation.

I am very familiar with the reactive attitude of turning against your own interests, just to be in control of it and to derive satisfaction from calling it. But it's your end either way. Imagine the hell we would all have to endure if society collapsed! Seriously, if you don't appreciate all the things you take for granted, you need to rethink things right now.

Society has to transition, yes, unless you quite fancy your chances in an unstable reset of all our infrastructure and the products and services it provides and maintains. I don't fancy mine, so I don't want things to crash. What about you?

We need a Socialist government, obviously, but convincing others who have been indoctrinated to think that Socialism is Totalitarianism is no easy feat. And a Socialist government is not without its drawbacks either, meaning that even the most reasonable of us all are going to be wary of such a prospect. But even more difficult than that is overthrowing those in power who have the resources to keep the current status quo in place until it does inevitably implode... Fortunately, I think advances in technology will force the issue. There is literally no way to justify the continued employment of most of the world in order to justify their income when a robot can do anybody's job better than they can. Happily, Capitalism is very good at driving its own demise in such a way, whether or not we live to see it - I can only hope we do. What are we all going to do once AI takes over all our work? All be unemployed and starve? I don't think so - some kind of planned distribution method will be forced, and it might not even need to be a person at the top of it all. Will that make us slaves? Maybe. Are we already?

I spent nine years off and on repetitively being homeless so believe me when I say it I can survive a lot better than most with less where I have too much experience if anything surviving off of nothing. If society collapsed tomorrow while being no walk in the park I would do better than most people. Also, I don't just wish for society to collapse simply alone for afterwards I wish to see it rebuilt into something better. I don't believe society or civilization can get better however until a hard catastrophic reset happens first. Total absolute global chaos will be the catalyst and there is no stopping that as we're all on the road of that horizon now.

My solution for those currently in power is death and public execution with no quarter, they never show us any mercy and we must not show them any either. We can no longer afford mercy or tolerance. The only language they understand concerning negotiation is the art of war, a war for survival and human dignity must be waged.

Automation won't happen because there isn't enough raw natural resources or energy on this planet to sustain it. My planned redistribution method is autocracy.

[Gloominary]

@Silhouette

That's the ideal, and its true to an extent. But the underwater part of the iceberg is social norms, contributions and expectations/predictions of these things. If you're going to be in a relationship, you have to be a good mate in the real world, beyond just being an abstract "you" who does your thing however it pleases you - or as well as. Compatibility minimises this pressure, sure. But what if you had a kid? Are you seen as going to be able to raise a good one, whether or not you actually would? Bare in mind that even if you and/or potential mates don't want one, you only exist because a long chain of previous generations were picked for being seen as able to have and bring one up - or you wouldn't be here. That's the problem with minimalism - you're breaking a chain. Maybe it needs breaking, and maybe your minimalism is nature's answer to breaking it. Your life will be a process of coming to terms with this and resolving either way, whether or not you actually achieve your resolutions.

I may or may not have a kid in the future, but if I do, it just means I have to make enough money to support it, without, or with income assistance, it doesn't mean I have to become a materialist and buy a house and an SUV, or become a travelist and take trips to Hawaii and Mexico every year.
And if I don't have a kid, than yea, I can live exactly how I please, on my own, or more-less how I please, with someone, at least temporarily.
Right, while no two people are 100% compatible, and men and women are fundamentally different in ways (women tend to be a bit more materialistic and future conscious than men for one, even if they don't plan on having kids), and so some compromise is unavoidable, finding someone who you're compatible with, helps significantly.
I have absolutely no interest in dating a materialistic, high-medium maintenance woman, just as they would have absolutely no interest in dating someone like me, and while low maintenance women are more difficult to find, they are out there.

Attractive people don't have to try to be attractive, people who try to be attractive can be attractive by their trying, and people who try to recreate attractiveness in a new way can also be attractive. You compete in reaction to what you think you can do about the attractiveness that you have, but you compete nonetheless, and you derive purpose in your potential failure just in case - but you can't deny your urges. If you do, health is basically inversely proportional to how much you deny them - explore at your peril. Of course, Buddhism et al. proves you can come out the other side - I guess this is why people keep comparing you to a Buddhist. I've had the same suggested of me plenty of times too. My life and choices are very minimalistic too, and no surprises it's been a few years now since I had a long term gf too.

I compete, but I compete more by promoting my values, and selecting people who already have similar values, than by selling out and adopting values alien to my being.
It can definitely be a more lonely road at times, and isn't for everyone, especially for extroverts, materialists and people who live solely for the approval of others, but it's the road I prefer, and it doesn't have to mean total isolation.