This. I think people generally are just really boring and don't have the capacity to think about all the extraordinary things they could be doing with their limited time on the planet.

The world is infinite and extraordinary and full of joy and pain and suffering and intrigue - most people through upbringing, education and lack of long term thinking, cannot see past menial jobs, solving menial problems of no real value - simply because it passes the time and gives you a little lazy leisure and the occasional pat on the back from your superiors.

It's not a lack of imagination and it's not that they're boring. It's because society is structured to punish people who try to step outside of their roles, socially and economically.

If you're from a poor family, they won't like it if you try to rise to a higher rank and may even reject you entirely. If you try a creative pursuit, you will suffer people's judgments and outright scorn on your journey.

Society needs people to shovel the gravel, and unless you can figure out a more efficient way to shovel even more gravel by tomorrow, it's back to your shovel. (The clock is ticking; what's your big idea, kid?)

There's an idea that you should be free from other people's judgments, and I think it's good practice to not take them to heart, but we still all social creatures and I think in the west we tend to overestimate how independent we really are, how much we are a part of our families, and how much we're a product of our environment.

Lots of people want to be artists and creatives and visionaries, but society needs very few of those, and if people deem you do not belong to that class then they will try their best to strike you down.

Many have tried, many have been stricken down.

The most creative and ambitious people I know are not the most comfortable, though. The worst way I see "society" "punishing" people economically is they get a 6-figure desk job and are afraid to leave it.

Why do you say you think society needs very few artists and creatives and visionaries? I say we have too many people writing the same CRUD web apps (and usually, if the numbers are to be believed, having their projects killed, before or after launch). Artists at least produce something.

Many have tried, and then they go back to their boring useless desk jobs because they have a mortgage.

Okay, I guess it's fair to say society is not willing to pay for more artists and visionaries. If we all spent $200 of our income a month buying music and art from local artists (and I don't mean buying beer at a club, I mean actually giving them that money), and it had the same priority as paying for gas or mortgage payments, there would be millions of new artist jobs. But people generally aren't doing that.

People are willing to pay for gas. They're willing to pay people to drill the wells and design and build the refineries. They're paying people to lay the pipe. They're paying business people to say, "Keeping track of all that data is hard and expensive, let's build a web app to manage that, lower our costs and become the best oil and gas company on the market."

So CRUD apps get built. Some of them are useless. Some save companies millions and millions of dollars. But on average I'm willing to assume businesses come out ahead with this whole "in house software" trend. Because I've personally built smaller pieces of CRUD software in house that has saved Nicole and Monica in accounting from weeks of dull spreadsheet work.

Of course, responsibility for actual products gets lost when you go through eight layers of management. Lots of people are pretending to work because it's enough to fool the VP who might come strolling by. But on average it must be working to some extent because I can buy gas and my car runs.

Our socioeconomic system is great at delivering hefty and immediate penalties to people who try to escape being a cog in the machine: loss of income (and often access to food/shelter/health care/etc.), loss of social status and connections, and becoming an outcast from one's (former) community.

I can't blame people who don't find these punishments attractive.

One doesn't have to become a homeless person living in the forest - look at artists as an example - why are they revered so much? Because they have managed to live as outliers outside of the norm.

Artists who have proven themselves worthy of being called artists are revered.

People who try and don't make it are subject to contempt and scorn.

It's society's way of saying, "We only need a few great people to be artists, and if you're not that, then go back to doing something else useful for people."

And in our society, usefulness is measured by income.

.01% of artists are revered because their work is worth a lot of money.

It's too bad you don't know any artists. You must be one of the boring people mentioned above. I know many - few have any money, but they live rich, interesting lives outside of the status quo.

It's not a black or white sort of thing. Living as an artist isn't necessarily better.

It's a question of how much is it worth to you, and are you willing to pay the cost? Are you willing to suffer for years to make it and actually produce worthwhile art?

Some have the creative drive to the point where it's their only option. Others could take it or leave it.

Frankly, I used to try to look interesting and found it's far better to look boring and do what makes me happy. But that's just what works for me.

Never forget that we're all different people with somewhat different needs.

David Berman of the Silver Jews (may he rest in peace) wrote the following about the artistic struggle: "If we'd known what it would cost to get here, would we have chosen to?"

I've known many artists, liked lots of them. Doesn't mean they're generally revered, lol.

What do they eat and do they have a shelter?

or just that we remember the ones who succeeded and forgot all the others