Money is not motivation...

[Eric_The_Pipe]

Everybody that participates in it is conditioned to still others just go along with all because of coercion.

I'm sorry, I think I know what you are trying to say, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Please rewrite that sentence.

[gib]

Who the hell dug up this dead old thread???

The real absurdity lies within the concept of earning a living. Think about that one for a moment.

Some humor lays in taking colloquialisms to be literal statements. But very little truth lays there.

Earning a living is not a literal statement. If it was changed to, amassing resources so that our bodies may still function and parts of our lives will be easier, would you feel better?

Also for your edification:

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, doesn't only refer to chains.

A leopard cannot change its stripes, is not only about leopards.

And, A picture is worth a thousand words, does not mean that it is an exact number.

I think Ty makes a good point. I doubt he's missed the fact that it's a figure of speech, but one has to wonder why sometimes figures of speech are phrased the way they are. To call the practice of working in exchanging for money "earning a living" certainly puts a somewhat biased spin on it, making it out to seem like one has an obligation to work in order to have the right to live. But I also question what "work" is supposed to entail here. I think Ty makes a good point if it were that by "work" one means "working for the man," but if by "work" we mean getting off your ass and putting some effort into some form of physical labor, then I'd say all animals need to "earn a living" in order to eat, stay sheltered, fend for themselves, etc. If they expect to survive by just sitting there waiting for their resources to come to them and for predators to keep away and respect their right to live and not be harmed, then they have another thing coming (which isn't to say it would be necessarily unethical of them, but stupid). On the other hand, I think "earning a living" typically means "getting a job"--as opposed to living in the wild and hunting for food and building your own shelter, etc.--but even here I question whether the biases of this slang expression are unwarranted, for it seems to me that we just don't live in a world anymore where living off the land as the animals do is much of an option anymore, and society with its modern economic structures is pretty much the new environment; "earning a living" in that case might just connote nothing more than the fact that getting a job is just how one lives now a days, and that it would be stupid (but not necessarily unethical) for one to sit on his ass and wait for the money to pour in all by itself. Knowing Ty, however, he does not subscribe to this interpretation.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

Who the hell dug up this dead old thread???

The real absurdity lies within the concept of earning a living. Think about that one for a moment.

Some humor lays in taking colloquialisms to be literal statements. But very little truth lays there.

Earning a living is not a literal statement. If it was changed to, amassing resources so that our bodies may still function and parts of our lives will be easier, would you feel better?

Also for your edification:

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, doesn't only refer to chains.

A leopard cannot change its stripes, is not only about leopards.

And, A picture is worth a thousand words, does not mean that it is an exact number.

I think Ty makes a good point. I doubt he's missed the fact that it's a figure of speech, but one has to wonder why sometimes figures of speech are phrased the way they are. To call the practice of working in exchanging for money "earning a living" certainly puts a somewhat biased spin on it, making it out to seem like one has an obligation to work in order to have the right to live. But I also question what "work" is supposed to entail here. I think Ty makes a good point if it were that by "work" one means "working for the man," but if by "work" we mean getting off your ass and putting some effort into some form of physical labor, then I'd say all animals need to "earn a living" in order to eat, stay sheltered, fend for themselves, etc. If they expect to survive by just sitting there waiting for their resources to come to them and for predators to keep away and respect their right to live and not be harmed, then they have another thing coming (which isn't to say it would be necessarily unethical of them, but stupid). On the other hand, I think "earning a living" typically means "getting a job"--as opposed to living in the wild and hunting for food and building your own shelter, etc.--but even here I question whether the biases of this slang expression are unwarranted, for it seems to me that we just don't live in a world anymore where living off the land as the animals do is much of an option anymore, and society with its modern economic structures is pretty much the new environment; "earning a living" in that case might just connote nothing more than the fact that getting a job is just how one lives now a days, and that it would be stupid (but not necessarily unethical) for one to sit on his ass and wait for the money to pour in all by itself. Knowing Ty, however, he does not subscribe to this interpretation.

So you want to live like an animal? I prefer medicine and consistent food. I can deal with working for someone else quite easily.

But, I encourage you to go with the animal rote. The life span of such people is much shorter, and it would successfully remove you from the gene pool. Which means a lesser chance of my child having to deal with such things.

[James S Saint]

Ty and Gib are right (largely).

Today's socialist regime is based on "you live only to serve our society". And "our society" runs on Money thus if you do not earn Money from us, you do not earn the right to live, and there is no longer anywhere to escape to.

It isn't an issue of either being social or anti-social. It is the lack of choice as to which type of social one might want to be. Because it has been dictated that "society shall run via Money", choices have been removed. One either lives via money or is "anti-social".

And if "We" don't like you are any reason at all, through authoritarian vote, we will deny you Money (earned or not) and remove you from our society. Void of Money, Media (communication), and/or Medicine, you will simply vanish from our holy presence - "voted off the island". And no one will even know. It has been going on successfully for decades. It isn't even about to change.

[gib]

So you want to live like an animal?

Who said that? I was merely doing an analysis on the phrase "earn a living".

[Eric_The_Pipe]

So you want to live like an animal?

Who said that? I was merely doing an analysis on the phrase "earn a living".

Nobel savage is a better word, over animal.

Ty and Gib are right (largely).

Today's socialist regime is based on "you live only to serve our society". And "our society" runs on Money thus if you do not earn Money from us, you do not earn the right to live, and there is no longer anywhere to escape to.

It isn't an issue of either being social or anti-social. It is the lack of choice as to which type of social one might want to be. Because it has been dictated that "society shall run via Money", choices have been removed. One either lives via money or is "anti-social".

And if "We" don't like you are any reason at all, through authoritarian vote, we will deny you Money (earned or not) and remove you from our society. Void of Money, Media (communication), and/or Medicine, you will simply vanish from our holy presence - "voted off the island". And no one will even know. It has been going on successfully for decades. It isn't even about to change.

Agreed

[Uccisore]

If you're able-bodied and don't work, and yet enjoy the benefits of hot food and sleeping indoors, then you may well be a lazy good for nothing and it's totally understandable that society would castigate you. I disagree that avoidance of this is the only reason people work, but if it's the only reason a person can find, that's still better than no motivation at all.

[LaughingMan]

Everybody that participates in it is conditioned to still others just go along with all because of coercion.

I'm sorry, I think I know what you are trying to say, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Please rewrite that sentence.

Huh?

[LaughingMan]

Who the hell dug up this dead old thread???

The real absurdity lies within the concept of earning a living. Think about that one for a moment.

Some humor lays in taking colloquialisms to be literal statements. But very little truth lays there.

Earning a living is not a literal statement. If it was changed to, amassing resources so that our bodies may still function and parts of our lives will be easier, would you feel better?

Also for your edification:

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, doesn't only refer to chains.

A leopard cannot change its stripes, is not only about leopards.

And, A picture is worth a thousand words, does not mean that it is an exact number.

I think Ty makes a good point. I doubt he's missed the fact that it's a figure of speech, but one has to wonder why sometimes figures of speech are phrased the way they are. To call the practice of working in exchanging for money "earning a living" certainly puts a somewhat biased spin on it, making it out to seem like one has an obligation to work in order to have the right to live. But I also question what "work" is supposed to entail here. I think Ty makes a good point if it were that by "work" one means "working for the man," but if by "work" we mean getting off your ass and putting some effort into some form of physical labor, then I'd say all animals need to "earn a living" in order to eat, stay sheltered, fend for themselves, etc. If they expect to survive by just sitting there waiting for their resources to come to them and for predators to keep away and respect their right to live and not be harmed, then they have another thing coming (which isn't to say it would be necessarily unethical of them, but stupid). On the other hand, I think "earning a living" typically means "getting a job"--as opposed to living in the wild and hunting for food and building your own shelter, etc.--but even here I question whether the biases of this slang expression are unwarranted, for it seems to me that we just don't live in a world anymore where living off the land as the animals do is much of an option anymore, and society with its modern economic structures is pretty much the new environment; "earning a living" in that case might just connote nothing more than the fact that getting a job is just how one lives now a days, and that it would be stupid (but not necessarily unethical) for one to sit on his ass and wait for the money to pour in all by itself. Knowing Ty, however, he does not subscribe to this interpretation.

Actually, society makes it abundantly clear that you have an obligation to work just to have a right to live.

It's all a part of that process where the state owns you from cradle to grave where rights are just deceptive delusions and extortions.

You work for those who have a monopolization on reality whether it be a corporation or government.

[AutSider]

We don't drag ourselves out of bed every morning and go to work because we're so eager to get that next pay check. We drag ourselves out of bed every morning because we feel responsible. We're trying to avoid being judged or reprimanded by our bosses or our clients. We're afraid of being castigated as a lazy good-for-nothing by society. Money is not what motivates us.

But it is our justification. When we ask ourselves why we do this - day after day after day - wishing every morning that we could just sleep in for 10 more minutes - what do we tell ourselves? "I'm getting payd!" Thus, after we ask ourselves this question, and answer it, we go on with our day, we go on doing what we push ourselves to do. Money is how we excuse ourselves. It's what we use to silence our complaining and not dwell over the predicaments we find ourselves stuck in.

Maybe it's true for you, but there are some of us who couldn't give less of a shit what society thinks about us. I only worked for money and I'd rather have money than reputation, if I got paid while not having to work I wouldn't go and work just to preserve my reputation, nope.

[Arminius]

Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.

So we have three great modern human erros or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It's a vicious circle.

So a solution of the three great modern human erros or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

No one wants to take responsibility!

Do you have any suggestion?

[Carleas]

...disproportionate and thus wrong/false...

Can you say more about your use of the word "thus" here? What are these things disproportionate too, and why does it follow from that that it's wrong? If a family serves dinner proportional to the size of each family member (so big Jamie the football star gets more than little Elmer who is 3), the distribution would disproportionate relative to human-ness (which would dictate exactly equal servings). Why is either distribution false/wrong as a result?

[Arminius]

...disproportionate and thus wrong/false...

Can you say more about your use of the word "thus" here? What are these things disproportionate too, and why does it follow from that that it's wrong? If a family serves dinner proportional to the size of each family member (so big Jamie the football star gets more than little Elmer who is 3), the distribution would disproportionate relative to human-ness (which would dictate exactly equal servings). Why is either distribution false/wrong as a result?

The word "thus" means something like the word "consequently".

The disproportion between: (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans, (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources. That is what is meant by the three great modern human errors or mistakes: (1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; (2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); (3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy. In the long run that will lead to something like a suicide of all humans.

A more fair distribution can follow then (and only then!), if those three great modern human errors or mistakes have been disappeared or at least demagnified. Else the unfair distribution remains, the unfairness increases exponentially.

We have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). We must slow down.

[James S Saint]

We must slow down.

You must "change direction". Slowing down might help in that regard.

[gib]

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

Can you explain this more? Sounds like you're saying that if each set of parents has 2, and only 2, children--no exceptions--the gap between the rich and the poor will be minimized (or 3 and only 3 children, or 4 and only 4... point is: no diversity in the number of children). How will that minimize the gap between the rich and the poor?

[Carleas]

I'm still not understanding how "wrong/false" follows from any of these "disproportions". If you don't mind, I'd like to take (1.) as an example so that I can see what you mean by fleshing out one of your claims.

You seem to be talking about the "input of machines", and that the input of machines is somehow disproportionate to the input of humans. I assume you mean something like that each machine inputs more than each human, so that the input-per-individual ratio is much higher for machines than for humans, and thus disproportionate. Is that right? If so, why should that be "wrong/false"? It seems clear that when it comes to printing pages out from a computer, the input from a machine (a computer printer) is going to be greater than the input from a human stenciling in block letters.

More generally, I don't see that disproportionate equates to wrong or false. It seems very right to me that Einstein was disproportionately influential in the world of physics relative to the average human (or to the average physicist for that matter). Why does that result produce a moral or practical wrong, or a falsity?

I apologize if these questions seem pedantic, I'm only concerned to understand your ideas before I engage them.

[Arminius]

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

Can you explain this more? Sounds like you're saying that if each set of parents has 2, and only 2, children--no exceptions--the gap between the rich and the poor will be minimized (or 3 and only 3 children, or 4 and only 4... point is: no diversity in the number of children). How will that minimize the gap between the rich and the poor?

My recommendation:

Everyone should reproduce himself / herself one time in his / her life, so that the reproduction rate could be always about 1, the fertilitiy rate always about 2 children per woman. If he / she doesn't want a child, that should be no problem anyway because he / she would have to pay for his / her desire - a so called "management of reproduction", or "management of children", or "management of family" would adopt the task having one child per one adult person. Anf if one person wants to have more than one, or a couple (two persons) more than two children, he / she / they would have to pay for that desire. In short: the reproduction rate would always be about 1, the fertility rate always about 2.

We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). So where the fertility is too high you can be sure that there is poverty and vice versa. Politicians have no idea or just don't want (corrupion etc.) to change anything in that way that fertility can "control" prosperity (wealth): the current politicians and other so called "experts" (they are no experts at all) want the prosperity (wealth) to "control" the fertility, but that doesn't work in the long run. In the long run the result is always poverty of all or about 99%, if prosperity (wealth) is wanted to "control" the fertility. Prosperity (wealth) produces infertilitiy, especially of those who work very much, but also of those who are very much self-centered (cp. "individualism", bad egocentrism), and at last of all or almost all.

[Arminius]

I'm still not understanding how "wrong/false" follows from any of these "disproportions". If you don't mind, I'd like to take (1.) as an example so that I can see what you mean by fleshing out one of your claims.

First of all one has to underline the term "in the long run". In the long run it is possible that machines replace all human beings - the probability is about 80%, I estimate.

- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&p=2464094#p2464229
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&p=2464575#p2464575
- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=185612&p=2464663#p2464663
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&p=2464939#p2464926
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&start=325#p2468035
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&p=2471909#p2471909
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562&p=2472562&sid=b58c2449fb7bb20e3b4e93f5d55ad9f1#p2472562

You seem to be talking about the "input of machines", and that the input of machines is somehow disproportionate to the input of humans. I assume you mean something like that each machine inputs more than each human, so that the input-per-individual ratio is much higher for machines than for humans, and thus disproportionate. Is that right? If so, why should that be "wrong/false"?

That is wrong / false because it leads probably (see above: 80%) to the replacement of all human beings, and if, not (20%), to poverty of all or at least 99% of all human beings, to dullness, and to other badnesses.

It seems clear that when it comes to printing pages out from a computer, the input from a machine (a computer printer) is going to be greater than the input from a human stenciling in block letters.

Yes, but that is not what I am talking about (see above and my thread "Will machines completely replace all human beings?").

Why does that result produce a moral or practical wrong, or a falsity?

The probability that machines will replace all human beings is too high (80% - as I estimate; see above), and if they will not replace all human beings (20% - as I estimate; see above), the probability of poverty, dullness, and other badnesses is too high (99% - as I estimate).

[Arminius]

Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans; (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can interpret this "advantages" as "short advantages", or as "pretended advantages", or even as "disadvantages" because the prize is to high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!

So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

We must take another direction and slow down.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans,

Proof must be provided this is true.

(2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans;

Again, proof?

(3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?

Is no such thing, though maybe if proof was provided I might listen a little better.

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true?

I agree, the disadvantage that is discussed is not provided with any proof, hell, not even an argument.

The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can call this "advantages" as "short advantages", or as "pretended advantages", or even as "disadvantages" because the prize is to high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!

So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

An answer has been given, by you, with all the presumptions of having asked a question with specific answers. Remember, though I may be a figment of your imagination, this figment does have any clue what the hell you are on about. Please explain deeper...

We must take another direction and slow down.

I disagree, though mostly because I can.

[Arminius]

You disagree?

Okay, that's internet. Internet is agreement or disagreement, but nothing else. Who cares?

But where is your argument, your counter argument?

The proof you mentioned will follow. But okay: maybe there is no proof, what is your proof then? There is no counter proof.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

You disagree?

Not yet. You haven't given me a reason to.

Okay, that's internet. Internet is agreement or disagreement, but nothing else. Who cares?

No one cares.

But where is your argument, your counter argument?

Against what? At this point it is theorizing. I counter with, it is not true.

The proof you mentioned will follow. But okay: maybe there is no proof, what is your proof then? There is no counter proof.

I cannot prove you wrong, with a counter, because you have provided nothing to prove you right.

[Arminius]

Is there a little misunderstanding? If so, then please excuse me. If not, then please excuse me.

[gib]

We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). So where the fertility is too high you can be sure that there is poverty and vice versa. Politicians have no idea or just don't want (corrupion etc.) to change anything in that way that fertility can "control" prosperity (wealth): the current politicians and other so called "experts" (they are no experts at all) want the prosperity (wealth) to "control" the fertility, but that doesn't work in the long run. In the long run the result is always poverty of all or about 99%, if prosperity (wealth) is wanted to "control" the fertility. Prosperity (wealth) produces infertilitiy, especially of those who work very much, but also of those who are very much self-centered (cp. "individualism", bad egocentrism), and at last of all or almost all.

Well, unless you think the rich are already having a minimum number of children, I don't see how the poor reducing their fertility to the same minimum would help close the gap between the rich and the poor. If having less children will help the poor become richer, it would also help the rich become richer.

[Arminius]

We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). So where the fertility is too high you can be sure that there is poverty and vice versa. Politicians have no idea or just don't want (corrupion etc.) to change anything in that way that fertility can "control" prosperity (wealth): the current politicians and other so called "experts" (they are no experts at all) want the prosperity (wealth) to "control" the fertility, but that doesn't work in the long run. In the long run the result is always poverty of all or about 99%, if prosperity (wealth) is wanted to "control" the fertility. Prosperity (wealth) produces infertilitiy, especially of those who work very much, but also of those who are very much self-centered (cp. "individualism", bad egocentrism), and at last of all or almost all.

Well, unless you think the rich are already having a minimum number of children, I don't see how the poor reducing their fertility to the same minimum would help close the gap between the rich and the poor. If having less children will help the poor become richer, it would also help the rich become richer.

Yes, especially the poor, but also the rich. So it would help all to become richer. But the rulers would not agree with that because they would not become as fast richer as they now do, although they would become richer too, but not in the same fast way as now. So this solution is not wanted by the most powerful 1% (possibly on the way to become a new "human species").

The problem is not, that it would not work - it would work very well -, but the problem is that no one wants to be responsible for such a policy. For the rulers and the politicians it is easier to control the population by continuing their policy of lies, cants, double moral standards, simulation and so on. Those who have to be responsible are not responsible at all. So the irresponsibility continues - meanwhile the shear between rich and poor increases exponentially.