|
|
|
|
|
|
by bskrobisz
1879 days ago
|
|
|
You've painted the above comment as a negative spin, but I'm not really understanding, in your post, where it isn't just a less extreme version of this same spin. You're suggesting a human should spend otherwise free time (which would otherwise be spent enjoying leisure, which we can presume has high positive value for that human) to generate value for others, in the hopes of receiving value in return? In a system where this isn't an iterated version of the game (e.g. you're only playing against other actors a small number of times each), I don't see how this could function without systems like social credit which are abusable at higher levels than the individual actors. |
|
|
I see it more like people like/love their craft and sometimes it makes sense to just do it because one likes, and somehow gets "something" out of helping the other person too.
Think about a depression where people are refusing to work for eachother because no one can pay, nonetheless an engineer could build a website for a business just because they know if the business goes under it has perpetuated and exacerbated the depression... another more quaint example might be a cobbler who would fix people's shoes for whatever they can pay, because if he sticks to the normal price few could afford it and he'd be idle, but if he's generous enough to just do it anyways then at least the one in need is no longer.
In typing back and forth I guess it basically boils down to charity. The idea that charity could potentially nullify and turn around a vicious cycle in an economy because folks selflessly added to virtuous cycles. It doesn't have to be as brutal as a depression, but could be simple as a local business person you care about who cannot compete with the unlimited funds or whatever from another company.