[hackinthebochs]

>All the "degenerate activities" you mentioned are a problem in the first place because in a scarcity-based society they slow down/prevent people from working

This is a weird take. Families are worse off if a parent has an addiction because it potentially makes their lives a living hell. Everyone is worse off if people feel unsafe because of a degenerate sub-culture that glorifies things like hijacking cars. People who don't behave in predictable ways create low-trust environments which impacts everyone.

[EMIRELADERO]

I would say that those attitudes are 99% caused by resource-related issues. There's a reason why drug abuse (and antisocial behavior generally) is mostly found among the lower classes.

If I could pick between the world we are in now and one where all the problems societies face that are related, directly or indirectly, to the distribution of resources are eliminated, I would pick the latter in a heartbeat. The "price to pay" in the form of a possible uptick in "degeneracy" during the first few months/years is worth it, not to mention that I doubt that problem would arise at all.

[hackinthebochs]

It's a dangerous fantasy to think that all societal problems are caused by uneven distribution of wealth and that they will be solved by redistribution. No, some people just aren't psychologically suited to the modern world, whether that involves delaying gratification or rejecting low effort, high dopamine stimulation. The structure involved in necessary work and the social structures that lead people down productive paths are one way we collectively cope with the incongruence between our society and our psychology. Take away these structures and the results have the potential to be massively destabilizing.

[EMIRELADERO]

So... manufactured poverty?

You're just saying it's desirable that some people be at the bottom even in a scenario where the opposite could be feasibly achieved. All on some theory that the human mind (or at least some instances of it in the population) simply... won't be able to take it without going insane?

We should need a much, much higher standard of proof for what could result in unnecessary pain and suffering for years. Especially when this:

> some people just aren't psychologically suited to the modern world, whether that involves delaying gratification or rejecting low effort, high dopamine stimulation.

...is not a proven fact, and is, with respect to social media, highly contested and inconclusive.

[hackinthebochs]

>You're just saying it's desirable that some people be at the bottom even in a scenario where the opposite could be feasibly achieved.

What's wrong with having people at the relative bottom? Trying to force equality onto society does not have a good track record. We can raise the absolute bottom past the point of poverty while also not upending social structures that have served us well for centuries.

>All on some theory that the human mind... simply... won't be able to take it without going insane?

I'm saying transformative change across the whole of society shouldn't be undertaken lightly. I don't need to prove that a world where human labor is obsolete would be damaging to the human psyche. Those who want to rush ahead just assume things will be just fine. They have the burden of proof. We've seen how bad things can get when the social engineers get it wrong. We're at a local peak in human flourishing for a large part of humanity. Why should we pull the lever on the unknown in hopes that we will come out ahead?