[joyeuse6701]

Tolerance is largely relative I think. You could have a crank that spits out pennies so long as you crank it. Invariably we will tire of turning the crank because it's monotonous uninspiring unfulfilling work. The argument could be made that someone somewhere does not have the opportunity to so easily spin a crank for money so we ought to be grateful, but the mind's adaptability is a double edged sword. You exalt the mind for it's adaptability, but it's the very same adaptability that accustoms us to our environment, and leads us to be ungrateful for the conditions we live in.

[JackFr]

Inspiring fulfilling work is a luxury not everyone can afford, and it is a conceit of the modern world that meaning and fulfillment in your life should come from your employment.

[amelius]

> Inspiring fulfilling work is a luxury not everyone can afford, and it is a conceit of the modern world that meaning and fulfillment in your life should come from your employment.

But you could also argue that the modern world is creating unfulfilling work. Not only the "bullshit jobs" (see [1]), but also highly repetitive work.

In ancient/prehistoric times, work was more diverse (and perhaps hence more inspiring) for a lot of people, I suppose.

[1] http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

[niels_olson]

> work was ... more inspiring

work which is important but not urgent is inspiring. The more complex the society, the more opportunity for such work. Read history: it wasn't that long ago that most of Europe envied those who could afford mud huts.

[hughperkins]

Not really. Computers let us create any virtual environment we want, fulfill all of our fantasies. so what do we use it for? Play cs: simulate approximately tribal warfare, and hunting for food. Genetically this is what millions of years of evolution programmed us to enjoy.

[erikpukinskis]

> so what do we use it for? Play cs: simulate approximately tribal warfare, and hunting for food. Genetically this is what millions of years of evolution programmed us to enjoy.

Gamers, broadly speaking, are a specific subset of the population, with very specific interests, and this self-reinforces to create a culture of making games about killing, sports, driving, etc. It's hard to sell a game without killing, so such games get less funding, which alienates the part of the market who is turned off by killing, and they stop playing games, which makes it harder to fund games that aren't about killing. The history of killing games also means that any game designers who are following in the tradition of games will more likely make a game about killing.

Your claim that this situation is the result of genetic programming is a very old claim. "We are doing barbaric thing X because our ancestors were barbarians" is a very common argument which has never been substantiated by solid research, and probably never will be. Not because it's false, but because it's unfalsifiable.

There is lots of very good, repeatable science showing cultural expectations reinforcing short-sighted thinking.

[HarryHirsch]

There's a difference between a boring workplace and one that's actively hostile. If the work is dull but decently paid you can have fun in the evenings. I'd rather turn parts on a lathe for 8 hours a day and be decently paid than do programming in an open-plan office.

[swiftisthebest]

False. Everyone is free to pursue that which fulfills them and find a method of sustaining their life from their endeavors. There is no fulfilling passion in the world that cannot be monetized.

[RyanZAG]

I agree with you, but there's a caveat: not every passion can be monetized easily. Some passions are so difficult to monetize that nobody has yet found out how to monetize them. Simply because everything can be monetized does not mean they can be monetized by everyone. So telling people to follow their passion is not a solution if their passion is beyond their capability to monetize.

Put another way: everyone is free to set up their own planet if they don't like this one, and it's undoubtedly possible with infinite knowledge and ability to set up your own planet. But it's not good advice to give someone today for obvious reasons.

[brightball]

At the same time crank turning is a job where you need to do little else than show up, freeing your mind to think about things other than work.

[0xcde4c3db]

There's also a lot of variation in how that job could satisfy various psychological needs.

Is the crank well-maintained, or is it continually catching, grinding, or breaking down?

Are you rewarded for turning the crank more and provided with high-quality feedback about that reward, or is there merely an unceasing open-loop demand that you turn the crank "as fast as possible"?

Do you know the function of the crank and see value in it, or is it an opaque component of an inscrutable black box?

I'll bet one set of answers leads to a lot more burnout than the other.

[jodrellblank]

or is there merely an unceasing open-loop demand that you turn the crank "as fast as possible"?

and keep your speed constant at all times. http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305

[quotemstr]

And: are you able to build a machine to turn the crank for you? A large part of the software development profession is building crank-turning machines.

[hughperkins]

Well, recently we are creating machines to build crank turning machines.