Most people living today take it for granted that modern "work" is the way it is and the way it should be. Few people have the context of understanding that modern work, where you directly trade labor for money and money for the goods and services you need to live, and where your identity and social standing is largely based on your profession, is something only a minority of human beings have experienced.
In my experience, most people seem to treat human development as a one-way spear of progress. The dawn of agriculture, the industrial revolution, etc. are all just stops on a linear path that is the right path.
But maybe it's just a dead end. "Primitive" hunter-gatherer societies survived for way longer than our modern-day society has existed, and things aren't looking so promising for us right now.
Which is understandable when the alternative is generally poverty.
But if you want to have a less philosophical and more pragmatic discussion, I'd raise the issue of the billions of people who count themselves among the "working poor." For billions of people, modern work doesn't guarantee that you won't be poor.
Labor and specialization are not unique to modern-day work. Both hunter-gatherer societies and our modern industrial society have labor and specialization. But they function in completely different ways.
Specialization in industrial society is much more complex whereas in hunter-gatherer societies it is generally based on age and gender. Hunter-gatherer societies are generally more egalitarian, there is more skill overlap between members of the group, expertise is leveraged in less formal and less institutionalized ways, learning is more distributed and knowledge is more likely to be treated as communal.
You're assuming "human development" is some dark force that controls humans but it's not controllable by them, I would describe this as a slightly amusing occultist belief.
Of course, the exact opposite is true, if humans fail to maintain the straight spear of progress it will be their fault and folly, because, objectively, it isn't even hard to maintain.
The folly is believing that humans are the tip of the only branch that matters to the tree.
Upwards of 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. Human life is so special and important to us because...we're human. But our survival is not guaranteed, and for all of our truly unique attributes and advantages, we're statistically just as likely to reach the same outcome as the vast, vast majority of every other species.
And? The only conclusion I can draw, is that humans need to stop warring with each other and focus on global security and prosperity for all, even if there's only 1% chance of achieving it, that's where all of our efforts should go... but I'm not a death-cult believer, so what do I know.
> The folly is believing that humans are the tip of the only branch that matters to the tree.
Your "tree" resembles a Kali of mass-murder with the consciousness and agency necessary to exterminate any life on earth. Actually it's just chance and the chances are both favorable for humans and highly improvable with sufficient effort - that isn't hard to see when death-cult thinking is done away with.
I'd love for that too, but there's very little evidence to support the notion that this is going to happen.
None of my comments here have celebrated my somber expectations for humanity, so the mere fact that you've basically called me a "death-cult believer" simply because I'm less hopeful about our prospects is itself evidence of just how unrealistic Utopia is.
I mean, if we can't even keep from denigrating random strangers in online discussions, what makes you think we're going to stop fighting and figuring out how we can take care of each other?
I gather, because of my insinuations your faith in humanity sank to a new low? It took too little, too fast, what happened to "sticks and stones"? Being too sensitive is the foundation of conflict, it prevents the straight talk necessary for mutual understanding.
> None of my comments here have celebrated my somber expectations for humanity
Your expectations for humanity can only be based on what you expect from yourself, a person who projects his lack of positive ideas to all of humanity should at least be aware of that fact and not try to project the same despair to everyone else - this suggestion should not be viewed as controversial or offensive.
> what makes you think we're going to stop fighting and figuring out how we can take care of each other?
The fact that we haven't explored the vast majority of available options. It will happen when we stop confusing singing Kumbaya with just living in peace - two vastly different notions, e.g. the fact that someone felt offended doesn't mean he should go to war...
No, your insinuations simply confirmed what I've observed throughout life: even people with the highest of ideals and noblest of visions engage in the behavior that works in opposition to the world they want, and they're just as apt to blame others for the conflict they help stoke.
You can call people who have a different world view names, like "death-cult believers", but it should be patently obvious to you that this contributes nothing to the conversation and is far more likely to create the very animosity and conflict you complain about than it is peaceful, useful dialog.
And by the way, pretending that people should live by "sticks and stones" and telling yourself people who don't agree with you are just too "sensitive" is just a way for you to avoid taking responsibility for your contribution to the imperfect world you live in.
People offended by the truth don't work in opposition to good ideas, they're useless anyway, the sooner they reveal their inability to engage with anything of significance - the better.
> And by the way, pretending that people should live by "sticks and stones" and telling yourself people who don't agree with you are just too "sensitive"
I referred to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Apparently, you're unaware of this expression which reveals a lot about you.
People changing the subject to how offended they are, correlates with their lack of sensible ideas. It also correlates with the desire to divert the conversation into insignificant personal posturing and away from anything productive. I'm glad you illustrated that point here.
Your comments here are both humorous and sad. To believe you love humanity while having such disdain for your fellow human beings who constitute it simply because many of them won't agree with your "truth".
The good news is you can take solace in the fact that you're in good company. Many of the world's greatest atrocities have been instigated by individuals who were convinced that saving the world required dealing with large groups of people they thought "useless" and "unproductive".
As I said, the quicker, the merrier - because both are true and understanding that saves time for more productive endeavors.
Why do you keep whining anyway, if there's no hope for humanity, there's no hope for you either, as a confused part of it, it's that simple. Just stay away and don't muddy the waters as some hypersensitive primadonna, with apologies to primadonnas everywhere.
> To believe you love humanity while having such disdain for your fellow human beings
What disdain? You see disdain where there are jobs to be done, but it's all in your head. You're the definition of self-fulfilling prophecy, you've locked yourself in your own prison of despair and hypersensitivity, nobody is doing anything to you, but you keep whining and being "sad', craving to lock everyone in your self-built prison too, out of envy.
Speaking of "saving time" and "productive endeavors"...
If you believe what you've written, the most useful thing you could do is to reflect on why you've chosen to spend your time interacting with me.
I mean, I didn't engage you. You responded to a comment of mine, and then you proceeded to keep engaging in what is clearly a dead-end dialog with a useless internet stranger. There must be a reason for that, no?
I don't have to reflect, I knew why before I started.
> You responded to a comment of mine, and then you proceeded to keep engaging in what is clearly a dead-end dialog with a useless internet stranger.
The "dead-end dialog" should be your point of view, you're the one who thinks that some external force determines the fate of humans regardless of what they think or do. Doing nothing makes sense only within that point of view.
> There must be a reason for that, no?
Of course there is, if I think that something can be done to improve the human condition I would try to study the impediments to it. One of those is the doomerism which is now in vogue and also used by people with much higher social standing than the usual internet strangers.
But what are you "studying"? You haven't actually tried to engage with my perspective in a good-faith manner. You haven't asked any questions, and questions are critical for any serious study.
Instead, you denigrated me for my perspective from your very first comment ("death-cult believer"), suggested people like me are "useless", claimed I am unable "to engage with anything of significance", and even admitted that this is not a productive endeavor.
With all due respect, it seems to me you should worry less about improving the human condition in the abstract and prioritize how you might actually make a real contribution to the human condition. Because name-calling, belittling and arguing don't make the world a better place, and certainly aren't aligned to the ideal of peace, security and prosperity for all.
My humble suggestion: the simplest and most immediate way you could improve the world around you is to consider how you treat the people you interact with.
Good day.
No good faith manners are possible with your style of arguing, you didn't answer any of my arguments but you did divert the conversation away from the real issues we started with and into "I'm so injured because you're such a bad person" posturing. Next, I had to figure out how far it'd go and if anything new would come out of it.
> Instead, you denigrated me for my perspective from your very first comment ("death-cult believer")
Nothing new came out, you kept doing it and you will keep doing till the end of times you so desire.
However, while talking to you, I did come across some useful new perspectives, so I'm satisfied with the results and I thank you for your participation, really, I mean it.
Well of course it is.