[1827163]

I think once you escape the system you don't find games or other distractions enjoyable anymore. When you're fully actualized and are capable of "going your own path", satisfaction then comes from making things and trying to improve the world. That is if you don't want to have children, as is the case with me.

I think we've been conditioned from childhood to get a job, work for the corporate world and chase material goods. All of those further the interests of those in power.

Update: Wild foraging, living with nature, moving to another country, or doing what hunter gatherers did. Running your own business. Camping out in the wild, while still making money from something. There are so many other options, you need to be creative about it...

Anyway @NoMoreNicks I've flagged your post and I'm closing this HN account down (by deleting the password)....

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> I think we've been conditioned from childhood to get a job,

This is a hilariously millennial take on how life works. For the past million years or longer, humans learned (and quickly) that if you didn't want to starve you'd need to work to avoid that. The means to avoid starvation have changed. We're no longer hunter gatherers, and few of us are subsistence farmers--and I can have some sympathy for those who would prefer those occupations--but the truth of the matter is that nothing more than the details have changed in all that time.

People weren't "conditioning" you to get a job. They were gently introducing you to reality. It seems a little too gently, by the looks of it.

> All of those further the interests of those in power.

Huh? It furthers the interests of those who don't want to starve. But you've never even been hungry, not really, and so it's all still highly theoretical for you.

[FooBarBizBazz]

Maybe "get a job" means "join a large organization that offers W2 employment", which is -- if not completely unique to the modern West (like, maybe you were joining the Qing bureaucracy, or the East India Company, or the Roman Army) -- is at least not universal. Even today, many parts of the world are much more about small proprietors and scrappy permissionless entrepreneurship. And there are still a few hunter-gatherers. In fact, many of the identities that defined America -- like, "homesteader" -- weren't exactly "getting a job".

You can also say that we really are conditioned, by education, to slot ourselves into organizations, identify who the teacher/boss is, and do what they tell us to.

So while the past required effort, I can see how OP (1827163) could have a point.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> And there are still a few hunter-gatherers. I

Go hunt on their lands. See how they welcome you.

[FooBarBizBazz]

I suppose the point here is that, if you're not a member of this hypothetical tribe, then you still do need to "get a job"? This relates to property rights in a way: The members of this tribe have collective ownership, passed down through inheritance, and you don't. It's certainly true that inheriting wealth beats having to work for it.

If we imagine that life is good for hunter-gatherers -- or at least that they have individual autonomy -- then we get a way to frame the issue: The Machine easily steamrolls these people, taking their land from them, but, people born inside The Machine are enslaved to The Machine.

Maybe you were responding to my word "permissionless": You cannot actually hunt on tribal lands without permission. Makes sense. What I had in mind in the "permissionless" sentence was something more like operating an informal business in a developing country -- which appears to be common. Perhaps there are networks of patronage there too, that you don't see? Protection, security, "turf"?

Anyway, I'm not sure what the point of all this is, except for mood: OP was arguing from a sort of utopian perspective, and you insist on a more competitive, resource-limited worldview.

I think my point, that there are societies not built around large organizations and formal employment, still does stand, however. Perhaps everything is bad, but it's presumably bad in different ways.

[mnl]

Yes, but the thing is we have increased productivity tremendously because that's what our species does. So first we didn't need everyone working in the fields, after that we didn't need everyone working in the factories, and we're at this point in which we have to make up more and more absurd necessities and regulations so people have jobs, but we aren't going to need everyone doing that either. The clear socioethical paradigm that made sense after we realized that growing food was easier than hunting and foraging is heading a wall.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> So first we didn't need everyone working in the fields, after that we didn't need everyone working in the factories,

Do you own any fields? Do you own any factories? If you owned those, then you might be able to work in them and produce what you need to live, or at least something to trade for the things you need.

You seem to think there's a "we" here. There isn't. No one else is much in the mood to support you.

[mnl]

Yes, I own fields. No, the ROI isn't there so parishioners keep them for sentimental value mostly. It isn't worth it, it was but it's been decades that it's not.

Of course there's a "we". We depend on supply chains and working societies to even be writing anything here now. No one is willing to support anyone but we're a social species with division of roles, that's the "we".

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> Of course there's a "we".

No, there isn't. You use the word, and deep in your lizard brain you hear yourself say "myself and all these other people who care about me and love me and are on my team".

There's no "we". No one wants to be part of that "we" with you, and those who lie and say they do want to be part of it with you are hoping they get more out of the deal than they give to be part of it. I'm probably the closest thing to being your friend that you have when I'm at least honest and tell you that's horseshit.

If people like yourself spent more time trying to solve the much smaller problem of "how do I make my way in this world" instead of "how do we make it so everyone gets what they want", then quite simply more of you would get what you want.

> but we're a social species with division of roles,

Your role's about to be eliminated. Might take 20 years, the timeline's hard to pin down. But the guys who get to keep their roles are perfecting autonomous war drones. Your odds don't look good.

Where's your "we" in that?

[CatWChainsaw]

You're right that we're not going to get fully automated luxury space post-work, communist or not, because the "entrepreneurs" ushering it in will not be able to shake the motive of "profit" out of their lizard brains and would rather kill everyone not in their social/economic class than see the death of the world order that puts them at the top. But it is amusing that you comment gleefully that someone else's job is about to be eliminated, but upthread are bitching about childishness and people not wanting to work. We're supposed to want to work in a world that is actively obsoleting jobs (and leaving nothing "better" in its wake, to boot)? A bunch of people going "fuck you, got mine" makes more people better off than cooperation? If post-scarcity somehow happened your lizard brain would implode.

[melagonster]

this is a apparently communism haha