Re:14,400-year-old flatbread remains that predate known agri...
by wool_gather on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @08:41AM
(#17549249)
It's a good joke, but kind of a mediocre parable. The thing is, I don't think anyone would disagree that, all else being equal, living in a small fishing village, sleeping late, etc., would be better if you were a millionaire. The question then is which parts aren't equal between the two scenarios, and which of those are more important to you. I guess it's helpful as a prompt to consider that question.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:14,400-year-old flatbread remains that predate known agri...
by coldtea on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @09:10AM
(#17549443)
>It's a good joke, but kind of a mediocre parable. The thing is, I don't think anyone would disagree that, all else being equal, living in a small fishing village, sleeping late, etc., would be better if you were a millionaire.
That's not the meaning of the parable though.
The meaning is that you can enjoy such things without being a millionaire.
Tons of people have been sold a rat-race stressful life in "careers", when they can achieve their ultimate goals with much more modest means (and in less stressful occupations).
Re:14,400-year-old flatbread remains that predate known agri...
by opportune on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @09:23AM
(#17549534)
you're right, but I guess the problem for me is that I would just feel helpless if I went straight for being the fisherman. If you have a war chest from your corporate career, it doesn't matter if your area has political instability or crime or suffers from overfishing. You never have to worry about your kids wanting to go to an expensive school or getting a serious illness (at least, financially).
To me it would seem selfish to choose that life knowing that dependents (parents, children, spouse, whatever) might end up comparatively worse for it. Of course that's not a problem if you don't have any of those, or don't care