ViridianNott

Not at all! I think it’s enough for everyone to contribute according to their abilities. You’re making a living using your skills instead of mooching off of others, and that’s more than a lot of people can say.

I also believe that the vast majority of work benefits human society in some way or another, even if it’s sometimes harder to see. As long as there isn’t a scalable alternative to plastic, people need it to meet their daily needs and standards, and you contribute to that directly.

Because my “productivity” as you call it directly benefits the health and happiness of those around me. Likewise, it is impossible for you to eat modern food, live in a house, and go on the internet without directly benefiting from the labor of others.

I think it is, by definition, selfish to benefit from the labor of others without giving anything in return, if it’s at all possible for you to do so. You clearly have the mental and physical capacity to argue with internet strangers, and therefore you have the mental and physical capacity to carry out at least some labor.

I’m a biologist working on increasing the accessibility of pharmaceuticals and it’s totally my dream job!

There are days that I’m not exactly happy to be at work, but I can’t imagine how selfish and lazy I would feel if I gave it all up pursue nothing other than my own comfort.

Scarcity is relative and therefore will always exist. The value of the resources that an average person expects from their economic output is ever-increasing.

The average person living in North America 1,000 years ago would have been most concerned with the scarcity of food resources. 100 years ago North America was less concerned about food scarcity than the prior example, but orders of magnitude more concerned with the scarcity of goods relating to higher level needs: nice clothing, tools, quality living spaces, etc. Today, concern about the latter is partially replaced by even higher level needs: entertainment, technology, education, and luxuries. *(see bottom of comment)

This evolution in scarcity has been a consistently positive trend since at least the European renaissance, but I would personally argue that it started just after the fall of Rome (the last significant “market crash” in advanced civilization). If that continues, people in another 1,000 years could be most concerned about the scarcity of space flight vehicles or quantum computers, for all I know.

*My point here isn’t that nobody in North America is unable to meet their basic needs, just that the average person’s perception of what is scarce has changed over time on a societal scale. People never stopped feeling scarcity because their expectations have changed along with the availability of goods. There is no reason to believe that people will stop expecting better goods as society advances further and further.

Meaningless as long as they continue to use the site/app and give him ad revenue.

I agree completely that Kropotkin is more right than your average social Darwinist or nazi, but all three use “evolution” as a concept to further their political interests, and do not correctly portray the reality or nuance of the Darwinian influences on primates societies. There’s a reason he had a reputation for being a crackpot among evolutionary biologists in the first place.

I’m as much for altruism as anybody else, but as a biologist I can’t pretend that Darwinian evolution promotes unbridled cooperation in groups of primates with no room for selfishness and competition… it is quite the opposite actually. Primate societies tend to be hierarchical and unequal, even within otherwise united groups.

Not to say that Darwinian evolution makes cooperation an impossibility; social conditioning and education overpower evolutionary instincts all over the place in human society. One only needs to look at things like religion and political ideology to understand that evolution and instinct are not the primary movers of human behavior nowadays.

Edit: To be clear, I am not saying that that supposedly Darwinian political beliefs like social Darwinism and naziism are driven by natural human behavior. I just want to point out that Marxist Leninist ideas can’t make that claim either. Almost no human ideas or institutions can. Except for cuckholding. That is a profoundly Darwinian behavior.

Set my phone face-down on my leg for a moment while watching porn… the picture I was looking at was sent to 3 of my Snapchat contacts. I was able to delete 2 of the 3 before they were opened, but the guy who saw it was my ROOMMATE at the time and was IN THE NEXT ROOM.

Hard to live down.

From my perspective in academic science, Covid has stifled the brain drain. For a long time, it was hard for young academic professionals to enter the US, even if they were trying to get an education. My lab has made several hires that proceeded to have to move on because they couldn’t get into the country. It’s a damn shame and a waste of talent.

I’ll quote Steely Dan here: “Unhand that gun, begone. There’s no one to fire upon.”

As infuriating and frustrating it is to live in a world plagued with systemic issues, it’s important to recognize that many of the world’s problems can’t be traced back to a single person, government, organization, or ideology. Some things are just nobody’s fault, and can’t be solved be a mere change of leadership.

Every society in the world today, no matter how it is structured or who it is lead by, will be subject to a list of inevitable problems. Scarcity. Bigotry. Violence. Crime. Incompetence. Selfishness. The uncomfortable fact is that nobody knows how to structure a society such so that all citizens meet their basic needs in exchange for an amount of work that they find tolerable.

This is true of the United States, of Europe, of the Soviet Union, of China under the CCP, and of every other country to ever exist. Some countries are, of course, worse than others. But in many countries you find that people and politicians try in earnest to improve society and simply fall short, sometimes because they misidentify the core issues, and other times because they don’t have good enough ideas for solving them.

I encourage everyone to look at politics as groups of impassioned people with strong opinions about how their lives might be improved. At the end of the day, those of us with kind hearts are trying our best to defeat a common enemy, and merely differ in approach. I think a lot of people would do good to realize that.

I did not enjoy it very much. I love a good RPG, but my short experience with Hogwarts Legacy felt pretty railroaded, with a lot of superficial choices and nothing that truly impacted the world or gameplay.