What's the biological / evolutionary reason for laziness?

[Spiffor]

Re: What kind of a communist are you? Part II

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Re-reading the thread, I've got to flag this.

Capitalism has been a progressive development over earlier forms of production. FACT. There's no communism without advanced capitalism. Marx was very clear on this, and FWIW history bears it out.

I remind you of this because it sounds like you think that the development of capitalism is a bad thing, rather than a necessary stage on the road to communism, as every self-respecting Marxist knows.

If human history had started only shortly before capitalism, we'd probably be at an advanced stage of communist wealth beyond our dreams by now.

I know that.

But the pre-capitalist history gives us very broad experiences, and provides us with an immense scope of human thought and intuition. I don't think such a broad experience would have been possible if we had always been in one economic system, that considers profit and hard work as its main values.

[Cort Haus]

I would expect that hard work would be central to the values of communism too, as shirking would be a betrayal of the working class. The extraction of surplus value (profit) would still be needed over the aggregate economy, for growth and prosperity to be delivered.

The difference would be that the profit is used for the (theoretical) benefit of all, rather than the sole benefit of the capitalist. This would, in principle, lead in turn to a larger cake than capitalism could deliver, partly because the tendency for the rate of profitibility to fall as capital replaces labour in a competitive market would not be the problem for communism that it is for capitalism.

Communism is not supposed to be a free lunch. It's supposed to be a bigger, tastier lunch.

[Lul Thyme]

[SIZE=1]

EDIT: LT, are you joking? Assuming you could strip away the bark, you'd still break your teeth trying to take a bite out of a tree. Humans don't have the jaw muscles and ever-growing teeth of a rodent, or the handy digging-claws of a badger, or the prehensile tail of a monkey, which is why we need saws and shovels and rope. Tools are a plain necessity of our condition, and have been since we came out of the trees.

Are YOU joking?
You seriously I can't go through an inch thick tree in a day with my teeth?
Why would my teeth brake?
First, jaw muscle has almost nothing to do, since it could be done by almost pure grinding.
Second, the teeth wouldn't brake.

Anyway the point is that tools can allow to do new things, but ALSO can allow to do things that were doable before, but faster and more easily, which you said was not the reason for tools.
A statement that I find baffling.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


Are YOU joking?
You seriously I can't go through an inch thick tree in a day with my teeth?
Why would my teeth brake?
First, jaw muscle has almost nothing to do, since it could be done by almost pure grinding.
Second, the teeth wouldn't brake.

So you want to demonstrate it at the next Polymeeting?

[Elok]

By all means, bite a tree sometime. Take a video too, so we can watch. Unless it's several seasons dead and/or a particularly soft pine, you won't make any appreciable dent. I suppose it could theoretically be a pine, but pine isn't useful for all applications, nor does it grow everywhere. If you need hornbeam wood, you're screwed. And assuming you do make an appreciable dent, you'll ruin your teeth if you do it for long. You can wear down your teeth by grinding them in your sleep, what the hell do you think a tree will do to them? It'll mess up your gums something fierce too, what with the splinters. Plus I believe some trees start producing tannins in bulk when they sense damage of that sort, so you'll have to either take breaks to vomit or suffer illness.

And while tools can allow us to do already possible tasks more easily, the most important tools are the ones that enable new tasks entirely. And those tools are not a matter of laziness, or more efficient activity, but of plain survival.

The word "tool" signifies more than just wrenches and saws. Everything we employ external to ourselves is in some sense a tool, or else derived using a tool. The clothes you're wearing right now (I'm assuming you're wearing clothes, if not don't tell me), even if they are not considered tools themselves, which I suppose would be stretching it, are at least dependent on tools to be made. You can't get a leather jacket without a skinning knife and tanning-vat, nor a cotton shirt without a loom and needles, etc. Without tools, we are powerless against the elements, predators, diseases, and pretty much everything else. With them, we are the ultimate generalist survivors.

Thanks for the discussion, though. I never thought I'd find myself arguing about the possibility of gnawing through trees.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Elok
Thanks for the discussion, though. I never thought I'd find myself arguing about the possibility of gnawing through trees.

[Dis]

you see, we have found something we haven't discussed before at poly.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Elok

And while tools can allow us to do already possible tasks more easily, the most important tools are the ones that enable new tasks entirely. And those tools are not a matter of laziness, or more efficient activity, but of plain survival.

You're seeing a distinction where there are none.

If a tool allows us to do something that we couldn't do at all, then it certainly allows us to do it in a more efficient manner then we could without, which is to say more efficient than nothing.

All tools make our lives easier, which was Spiff's original point to which you somehow took objection at the beggining of page 2.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dis
you see, we have found something we haven't discussed before at poly.