[IanPBann]

My priorities are to ensure the health and comfort of myself and my family. If "the comfort of a steady salary" appears to be the best way to achieve that, then I will be happy "forgoing the opportunity to make a better contribution to society".

If my work can help society at the same time then that's fantastic, but as long as it allows me to provide for those closest to me then, for me and my family, my work is the most valuable use of my time possible.

[teekert]

FWIW, keeping you family happy and healthy is a pretty big contribution to society ;)

[osrec]

The nominal value of your contribution is high (my original comment was not meant as an insult), but imagine a world where it can be higher still. And you get personal satisfaction, and you contribute towards a higher goal, rather than just ever growing cycles of consumption. Surely you would prefer that option if it was made available to you, no?

[jjuel]

Are you saying no one will have to build houses? No one will need to build roads? No one to drive the trucks? No janitors or waiters/waitresses? Arguably these things just fuel the cycles of consumption. They are actually just as societally impactful as say Elon Musk. Without these things society breaks down. You may not feel like you are contributing as much as you can, but if you look at it you might be contributing more than you think. I feel that way sometimes, but I know insurance is necessary for society and without it who knows what would happen.

[teekert]

Absolutely and I do see the value of anti AIDS drugs, that was not the point. I'm saying value is a subjective thing. Something does not have intrinsic value, things have value to people, and sometimes something is valued so broadly that it is of value to society at large indeed.

It is of course nice to have work of which you personally value the output. But in your case, someone else values your output and pays you to produce it. Calling your work "without value" is thus a bit strange to me.