It's so interesting how our generation is so deeply interested in this idea - what would we do if money wasn't an issue? I really loved this video - a good reminder to feel okay to break the "traditional" structure and pursue happiness.

I might be off base here but I think this idea "what we would we do if money wasn't an issue” is subconsciously the reason why shows like the walking dead and to a lesser degree falling skies have become so popular with our generation. The theme of a post apocalyptic world where zombies and aliens are trying to kill off the human race are the obvious draw at its core these shows illustrate what a moneyless world would look like in the sense that survival and relationships with those in close proximity to you would be the only thing that mattered. I also think a moneyless world would be complete chaos but that just me.

I totally agree. It is the main reason I like the post apocalyptic genre. It's fun to think about not having to go to a job for money, building a fort, and attempting to just live. :)

What happens when you need something modern society provides, such as surgery or medicine?

I understand your point and agree that it would be hard to lose the expected longer lifespan. Right now I live in such a way that I expect to reach a certain age and have modern conveniences available to me. When safety, freedom from pain, fresh water, food, sewers, transportation, access to information, and so on, are denied, I get grumpy. But that's my expectation because I wake up to that reality every day.

But what if I lived without that expectation? Maybe I would be happier? Maybe take better care of myself, my communities, my surroundings, the things I currently have instead of pining for the things I want? I don't know. Maybe not. Maybe live more in the present instead of fretting about the distant future and things I have no control over? Maybe not.

There are an awful lot of people on the Earth who live without the resources I have and, I could argue, are happier than me, have less overall stress, have more leisure time, are in better physical shape, and so on. And I'm not trying to romanticize it. I also understand that many people in that condition are miserable.

But overall life satisfaction is relative, isn't it, and largely a state of mind?

> There are an awful lot of people on the Earth who live without the resources I have and, I could argue, are happier than me...

Again, the myth of the extremely happy have-nots. This is coming up regularly on HN, and it's based largely on ignorance. People who have much less than you are not more happy. Access to resources, energy, improves quality of life in every way, and increases relative happiness as well. If that were not the case, then nobody in the lesser developed world would want to have a car, to eat more stuff, to have more money to spend and send their kids to school. But actually, they do, because they strive for more stuff that will make them more happy.

I couldn't agree more.

It's probably got to do with publicity given to those who voluntarily give up wealth and chose the path of poverty.

Poverty affects humans at a very basic level; their cognition is impaired, their day-to-day life to a very minute detail is controlled by lack of money. And some of the things that we take for granted (for instance potable water) is struggle for them. Those with money can't even imagine what it is like to be poor, day in day out and for years on end with very little hope in sight.

I was not aware of all these until I read a terrific book, "The Poor Economics". It was really an eye opener for me and because of which I'm more empathetic towards poor today instead of just saying they are happier or blaming them for their poverty.

i live in a small village in rural india where I'd guess the average monthly income is less than $150. So, its a poor area, but not a destitute area. People generally have water, enough to eat, and the kids all go to school. They want cars and big houses like people in the west want faster cars and bigger houses. As a whole even for people doing labor the lifestyle isn't obviously bad. They work fewer hours, are in a more natural less poluted environment and are generally less stressed by life and work than their urban counter parts. There's a perceived lack of opportunity driving people into the cities. But its a similar drive that motivates people in the states to leave relatively nice styles in the midwest to move to Los Angeles or San Francisco to chase a dream even if it means working long hours in a restaurant and living in a crowded apartment.

One reason I think this theme resonates here is that software people are location independent in a way few other industries are. If you can work from anywhere being somewhere where your core living expenses are $200 makes sense. Siver's questions becomes real - what then ?

Depends on the genre, but if it's zombies, I've developed a nearly unlimited supply of free electricity.

1. Place zombie on treadmill surrounded by a cage. 2. Hook treadmill up to generator. 3. Read a book in front of zombie. 4. Electricity!

If I was in a film, The Power of Friendship combined with Plot Armour would fix me right up.

I don't think bzudo was being entirely serious

I think he was. I also enjoy that fantasy, truthfully I think I'd do quite well in a post-apocalyptic society. For one thing; I have a friend who worked in a medieval troupe, and he taught me some of the basic routines they use with swords. Also I participated in http://irlshooter.com/ which was amazing, a similar level of thrill that I got from skydiving.

So forgetting all the messy business of day-to-day life, just running around with pointy weapons and fighting zombies seems appealing.

You send a blind girl to fetch the medicines for you just like in The Village :)

apparently, you find yourself a vet.

It's nothing really new, though. Some hippies in the 70s (check out Easy Rider if you have never watched it) tried to live away from civilization in small communities, living off farming and trying to do without money. Not sure how most of them ended up, though. Probably not well.

You hit it on the nail, at least for me. I love the post-apocalyptic film genre because it throws the current system of society under the bus and makes the characters focus just on survival and then a possible rebuilding of society in a whole new way.

Interesting theory! I like the idea of relationships mattering than the next shiny in life. In the case of your scenario I wonder what would happen if humanity survived the zombies and aliens and fully recovered. Would we just naturally end up worshiping money (a proxy for resources) again?

Money will be back.

Guns, ammo, food, water etc. will become valuable commodities. Natural bartering will lead to money again.

I have a lot of friends who majored in the arts and humanities and graduated straight into unemployment and misery. Some of them are happy about the fact, but the majority is really resentful towards the society. They feel cheated, as they thought they'd get a low-paying job which would still allow for a modest life, but all they were offered is volunteer work. Money, it turns out, is unimportant only if your belly is full and you have a roof on top of your head.

I majored in humanities and I'm not unemployed nor in misery. I don't feel cheated at all (never did), because society does not owe me anything since I made all the calls myself.

So, you're not friends with him them?

I studied Classical Philology. I had no idea that learning Ancient Greek and Latin would be amazing preparation for learning to write code. Hey, if you can read some Ancient Greek, you can decipher a lot of [insert computer language here].

It's probably not realistic to see a humanities degree as a meal ticket, but it can be an excellent foundation for the "real world". Getting the degree teaches you to research and to learn. Those are marketable skills you can apply to many jobs. Unless you want a career in academia, in many cases the humanities degrees aren't likely going to lead you to a job in your field of study, but they will prepare you. You just need to figure out where to apply your skills.

How is Greek and Latin helping you ? is it to infer meaning through etymology/roots ? or the different grammars ordering ?

I never really cared about languages before programming, but after learning it, then logic, semantics, ontology I think about other human languages a lot. I'm curious about your point of view coming from the opposite direction.

For me it was basically learning to take a text in a foreign language and parse it. When you're faced with a different word order and, by extension, a different way of thinking about things, you're forced to take each element of the sentence and break it down as far as you can, in order to understand what's going on.

For my second year of University, I studied in Germany (rather than Canada0, which made things really hard for me. To translate my Latin texts I translated from Latin to English and then worked out how to translate the English to German.

I had a really great professor who taught us not only how to break down words to find their meanings, but he also made no bones about the fact that the key to translating is knowing when to make a good guess.

Once you can get by with Greek and Latin, you can pick up a lot of other bits of languages fairly easily. Sometimes it's by knowing root words. Sometimes it's because you've gotten good at guessing.

A lot of those skills apply directly to reading someone else's code and trying to make sense of it. I find that if you can learn to decipher a foreign, natural language, you may just do alright with languages that machines understand.

I agree! I'd be fascinated by GP's point of view. :-)

Hopefully our posts encourage him to weigh in.

I didn't actually major in the arts myself, but I can see many of my old friends suffering. Turns out, knowing ancient greek might help you get a coding job, but knowing data structures, algorithms and some Perl would help a lot more.

With the economy in the state that it is, it's a lot harder to beat the odds. Just getting an interview with a not-directly-applicable major seems to be flat out impossible.

After many years of watching people dear to me struggle, I'm starting to feel bad telling them that they just need to market themselves better, find a way to bypass the recruitment process and think outside the box. I've come to realize that they really got the raw end of the deal, and instead of any sympathy, they get told that they just need to try harder.

Yeah, it's probably a stretch to think that knowing Greek will get you a coding job, but in my case I ended up picking up Perl along the way and I found the two skills to be complementary.

Having said that, the team lead at my $work has an M.A. in Music Composition. Having the coding skills will get you the job, but there's nothing to say that a Humanities degree can't prepare you for getting the skills.

The company was Blue Cross Blue Shield (if you care)

Which generation is "our" generation?

Agreed. Apparently, unaware of the whole extensive spirtuality and simplicity movements that characterized previous generations in the 1910s, the 60s, and 70s, among other generations.

Could you please elaborate a bit about the 1910's generation simplicity? It's the first time I've seen that mentioned.

The 10's were the middle of the wave of Indian teachers coming to US shores and offering the public a first glimpse of non-Christian spirituality. The catalyst was the Parliament of World Religions of 1893 [1], when Vivekananda came to the US. By the end of the 10's, Paramahansa Yogananda had come to the US to found the Self-Realization Fellowship, the Theosophical Society was reaching the height of its popularity. The Bahai movement was beginning to take hold, etc.

It was basically when Eastern spirituality first wove its way into the American consciousness.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivekananda_at_the_Parliament_o...

almost superficial remark, the video quality was contrasting with the wisdom, here's an HD version http://vimeo.com/63961985

ps: it's a bit looking at the finger pointing to the moon but anyway. pps: thanks for the links