jlc

I have done that - to myself. I created a new personality, experimented with it, decided I liked it better than my old one, then 'moved on in'.

Jan

Thank you, helmsman.

Jan

Good point.

Jan

That is how we perform autoverification of results in our Laboratory Information System. The lab has some options for defining normal results, and the computer is allowed to accept those results automatically. The outliers have to be viewed and accepted by a tech.

I think you are correct insofar as where we are; I am less certain that you are correct with respect to where we will be in a decade.

Jan

Are you enjoying what you are doing? If you are tired from doing stuff you like (and you just happen to like to many different things) then you are not bad off. Play on.

Are you in a period of transition? (Remember G'kar's "Periods of transition intersperse with periods of revelation."?) Are you transitioning from engineering to finance or vice versa? Then grit your teeth and see it through.

But if you are not having fun and you are not pursuing a goal that will let you have fun with life - for goodness sake CHANGE SOMETHING!

Jan

In such situations, I am inclined to say things like, "Ayn Rand advocated win-win situations: If you taught someone something, then you could receive a tangible reward such as money or barter, you could receive an intangible reward such as feeling good about having taught something you love to others, or you could receive a long-term benefit in that you increase the effectiveness of your friends, to whom you might turn in an emergency."

Then I add, "Rand's philosophy abhors the idea that you must purchase your own sense of self-worth by performing deeds you despise to people you scorn. You are worth value in your own right; you do not need to buy it from anyone."

"So - what is wrong with these ideas? Tell me how self-esteem and friendship are Evil."

Jan

Or the implementation in robotics will relieve us of the weight of the non-producing consumers, and the rest of us will be free to create whatever we want. (Hope.)

Jan

Well...I can understand that...I mean - I did AGREE with Zenphamy...! :>)

I have read through the remarks currently on the list, and I find that XenokRoy's comments: "I am finding that the latest generation no longer are motivated by the ability to earn more, They are satisfied with less money and shorter work hours more so than more money..." and "Using the Words of my nephew to my father. "Grampa, this isn't the great depression. If things go wrong there are safety nets in place to make sure everyone is OK."" are in keeping with what I have seen/experienced with my employees.

And the nephew is at least partly correct. While I do not blindly trust the 'safety nets' he relies on, we are a far cry from the type of subsistence society where a single dry spell or unusual rainfall can mean your family will starve. It is not all that uncomfortable, after all, to live in your parents' basement and make only a little money...and have all the free time you want to have fun. (In a sense, 'time' and 'fun' are the commodities we are buying with our money. If they are in your grasp already, why should you work so hard?)

I think that this will persist as long as we have an affluent society. There will be fewer people who are sufficiently fascinated by the world to want to work in it.

Jan

I have found that as well. An extra vacation day is more welcome than an equivalent money bonus.

Jan

In the above message...I agree with everything completely.

Does that mean no cowboy coffee and Drambuie? Maybe I will have hot coco and Drambuie...or just the Dram.

Jan

Objectivism, or something similar, is probably my answer, but it is not the answer for the bulk of humankind. My right to a free choice strongly requires that other people be able to make their free choices too.

I am not interested in being 'pure', just in being functional and ethical. So I think we fundamentally disagree with each other here, Zenphamy. Perhaps someday we will sit around a fire, drinking brandy, and arguing this until the stars dim and the sun rises.

Jan

My arguments are solely in the direction of the individual being able to freely choose their mode of life, even if I do not agree with it. I did not make any argument about Stalin, Hitler or Attila - that was someone else.

As long as the basic structure of society supports individual freedoms, I am in good shape. If individual freedoms are supported, then someone is free to choose socialism. How do I then keep this choice from poisoning the whole system (as it has done in our current life)? It is not by ignoring what I perceive as a part of human nature, it is by trying to find a way to contain their preferences in a manner that does not endanger me.

Jan

If that is true, it is murder. And it should be prosecuted as such.

Jan

There is something badly wrong with this study. My sister lived in Switzerland for several decades...and everything is controlled there. Even the type of plants you are allowed to plant on your property along a road are controlled - and different restrictions if you live on a corner.

New Zealand and Denmark have socialized medicine. How are they in the top 20?

This smells funny.

Jan

I just say, "No. But thank you for giving me the opportunity." in a formally polite but firm tone of voice. And I look them directly in the eyes. Then they look down and bag my grocs.

Jan

Ascent, not descent. Now you climb the mountain - UP UP UP!

Jan

Yeah. That is me...At 62 I am still startled that I do not see a 20 or 30 year old me in the mirror. I have not had to stop doing anything that I enjoy (though I will admit to taking just a bit longer to recover).

Jan

I like that. Good for you! Too many people think that the correct answer is still 'to leave it all up to the doctor'. There is no excuse for that in the internet age.

Jan

If you define altruism that comprehensively, then it has nothing positive about it. But that is not the usual use of the word. By making it clear that it is OK to voluntarily donate something to charity, we remove one of the generally perceived faults of Objectivism.

Jan

Alas! I just replied in detail to a different post of yours.

You bring up some additional topics, though: I do not think that self-selecting communes are universally failures. Religious communes have been profit centers over the years. I think that the communes in the 60's and 70's failed because they were incompetently managed.

I think that educational environment can shift some of the population into a mode that emphasizes the worth of the individual (and that these people will be reasonably happy in that mode) but I do think that most of humanity would joyfully exchange freedom for security.

Jan

I agree. (See below Zenphamy for full reply).

Jan

Let me try to state my view carefully, since I do not want to be misunderstood on a topic this crucial. My ideal solution to the cultural problem of economic, technological, and ethical decline is not to subtract myself into a hidden valley of like-mined people: It is to take over the USA. I want the US to be my Gulch!

My honorable ancestors have fought for freedom in this country since before it was a country. I would like to save my personal values from oblivion - and take the rest of the US with me. But, with the great infrastructure advantages this would bring, it would also bring a lot of luggage.

I seriously suggest that if something like Objectivism ever gains the upper hand in governance of the US, one of the things we will have to deal with is the fact that a lot of intelligent people genuinely prefer socialism. My answer is the same as that of jdg: Let them form communes within the matrix of a free society. Society can treat with the 'commune' as an 'entity' (it must support itself and pay whatever taxes are appropriate, etc). The crucial proviso would be that no one could be prevented from leaving the commune whenever they wanted to.

I have no personal love for socialism (!), but forcing everyone to live by my preferences would be like making everyone eat steak because I like it (yum!). Some people want to be vegetarians. And, yes, I do think that >50% of human beings in general would prefer to live in a socialism, even if they were raised in a free environment (and yes, these socialists would include some of the most intelligent people in the country).

The topic of this post is "Can a free society work for the less clever"? I think that, for a free society to work at all (even were we to start over on another planet) we will have to take the basic nature of humanity into account - including the likelihood that some of our children and grandchildren will be socialists.

Jan
(edit grammar)

I took wiggy's comment to be about the PC attribute of 'required altruism'. I agree with you Salty, about voluntary altruism.

Jan

I think this is a great example of 'hoist on your own petard'. Yeah: go ahead and raise the minimum wage...we will just 'out science you'.

Jan