[BobbyJo]

> Doing shit because you have no choice but to do it sucks, period.

Isn't life composed almost entirely of this? Cooking, eating, sleeping, using the toilet, taking care of love ones... If every responsibility you have in life is automatically absolutely horrible by nature of being a responsibility, why live?

[pm215]

The items in your list are largely ones which evolution has tied into feeling naturally good to most people, because it helps that we have an incentive to do them. (Cooking less so, but it is at least clearly and directly tied to the pleasant outcome of eating.) The sort of tasks we must to at work are usually not those which we're adapted to find innately enjoyable, and the link between them and outcomes we do want is often indirect enough that we know it only intellectually.

Secondly, the typical natural pace for the items on your list has peaks and troughs, natural downtime. Many jobs demand full effort for extended periods with not much downtime either on a daily cycle or a longer yearly one. That too we are not very well adapted for, I think.

[BobbyJo]

> The sort of tasks we must to at work are usually not those which we're adapted to find innately enjoyable, and the link between them and outcomes we do want is often indirect enough that we know it only intellectually.

So you agree that needing to do something doesn't automatically make it unenjoyable then?

> Secondly, the typical natural pace for the items on your list has peaks and troughs, natural downtime. Many jobs demand full effort for extended periods with not much downtime either on a daily cycle or a longer yearly one. That too we are not very well adapted for, I think.

I didn't say all jobs were fun. Most aren't, but not because they need doing. Needing to be done has almost nothing to do with how horrible a job is.

[Aerbil313]

> So you agree that needing to do something doesn't automatically make it unenjoyable then?

I’m not GP, but I’d say the things we need to do not being enjoyable is a deficiency and problem of the technological system, and not necessarily a solvable one. In a pre-tech world (e.g. 15th century), our needs were directly tied to our happiness due to biological reward circuits.

Ted Kaczynski argues about this point extensively in his books, I recommend esp. Technological Slavery, available free online.

[keybored]

> If every responsibility you have in life is automatically absolutely horrible by nature of being a responsibility, why live?

Life isn’t worth living, if that’s what you are asking. But there could be reasons to, you know, not intentionally die. Maybe you’re a Catholic for example. Or maybe you just have small children.

[avgcorrection]

I don’t think “why live” is a valid refutal.

Just because life is bad in absolute terms (?) doesn’t mean that it would not be better without having to work in the modern sense of the word.

[BobbyJo]

> I don’t think “why live” is a valid refutal.

Why not? If your argument relies on life being a near uniformly horrible experience, yet you choose to live, aren't you in essence invalidating your own argument?

> Just because life is bad in absolute terms (?) doesn’t mean that it would not be better without having to work in the modern sense of the word.

This isn't a point I tried to make. My point was invalidating the premise that anything that needs doing is automatically bad. That's entirely separate from the idea that more free time might be enjoyable.

[avgcorrection]

> This isn't a point I tried to make. My point was invalidating the premise that anything that needs doing is automatically bad. That's entirely separate from the idea that more free time might be enjoyable.

So you’re being “Socratic”, to put it politely.

[BobbyJo]

Thread parent posited an axiom. I'm just interested how far people are willing to carry it before they admit it isn't viable.

"Work sucks" is great as a relatively common shared experience. It is not, however, a great presumption to carry around as if it's a natural law.

[avgcorrection]

> Thread parent posited an axiom. I'm just interested how far people are willing to carry it before they admit it isn't viable.

Viable. Thinking that most things in life (that you have to do) sucks is perfectly viable. Plenty of people could be of that opinion.

> "Work sucks" is great as a relatively common shared experience. It is not, however, a great presumption to carry around as if it's a natural law.

The great danger of proposing that something universally sucks is that the chronically happy will get upset. Maybe even unhappy.

[BobbyJo]

> Thinking that most things in life (that you have to do) sucks is perfectly viable. Plenty of people could be of that opinion.

I share this opinion. This, again, isn't what I'm arguing against.

I'm arguing against the notion that having to do something means doing it sucks.

Even if I take the most generous possible meaning of the parent be: "If you're being forced to do something, it's because it sucks, otherwise you wouldn't need to be forced."

That's still not true. I had to be forced to exercise, but then I enjoyed exercising. When I was little, I had to be forced to bathe, but once I was in it was hard to get me out because I enjoyed it. I was effectively forced into my current career, but I also enjoy that.

> The great danger of proposing that something universally sucks is that the chronically happy will get upset. Maybe even unhappy.

And the flaw is most often that it does not universally suck. Some people are into getting their testicles stomped on, so be careful throwing around your experiences as a base truth.

[wizardforhire]

Life is what gets in the way of living.