Why the world is a better place than before

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Variations yes, but the way you make it out to be someone wakes up and decides to be homeless or a millionaire. That's very strange to me, just like having to do something 24 hours a day. I just wake up and go to work, or if I don't have a job I go and look for a job. I take the best job I can find. To me it's a lot like picking the best place to pick berries for a primative man. Normal people don't say, hey I think I'll be rich today, or hey I think I'll go dive a dumpster today. They generally dive a dumpster cause they are pretty nuts I think, and being rich is something everyont want but not everyone gets.
.

WEll thats just silly.No one with a brain could think that rich or dumpster diving was an 'either/or" proposition

Originally posted by Kidicious


Yes, we certainly have different perspectives Flubber, you are very strange to me, and I thought that you were starting to see how ridiculous you were being by comparing the homeless lifestyle to hg lifestyle but you keep trying to do it somehow.

There is a comparison in that each can be a subsistence type lifestyle in the environment they are in

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Ugh, then you kept calling me lazy and saying you weren't. In fact you are still doing it.

Where?? Show me the quote. I do say that you seem to say one of the primary benefits of the HG life is the ability to do absolutely nothing for long periods. I would flip that and see it as a negative if the reverse was also true (it may not be)and I had long periods with nothing to do

You might be the most industrious guy around (how the heck would I know) but in your posts it does seem to me that you love the idea of doing nothing.

If you cannot understand that distinction well then I doubt your comprehension abilities but I instead believe that you understand the difference and are merely being deliberately obtuse for your own purposes

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


WEll thats just silly.No one with a brain could think that rich or dumpster diving was an 'either/or" proposition

But weren't you saying that people have choices?

There is a comparison in that each can be a subsistence type lifestyle in the environment they are in

First, saying that a hg society was subsistence doesn't make much sense. Second, I really don't think being homeless is subsistence. I think it's below subsistence. But how is that relevant. We are talking about who is happier. Do you honestly think that homeless people are happy?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Where?? Show me the quote. I do say that you seem to say one of the primary benefits of the HG life is the ability to do absolutely nothing for long periods. I would flip that and see it as a negative if the reverse was also true (it may not be)and I had long periods with nothing to do

It's not negative at all. Most people don't want to work more than 30 hours a day, and I don't think that is lazy. I also don't think it is lazy to want to hang out and not do much after work. But you keep implying that that is lazy and therefore negative.

You might be the most industrious guy around (how the heck would I know) but in your posts it does seem to me that you love the idea of doing nothing.

If you cannot understand that distinction well then I doubt your comprehension abilities but I instead believe that you understand the difference and are merely being deliberately obtuse for your own purposes

I don't care about being industrious. You can be just a regular guy, not lazy and not industrous. I like to work. When the work is done I like to relax. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Kidlicious]

Here's the thing.

You are saying that people have choices, and that is a positive for modern society. But you are also saying that people can be homeless and that is somehow like living in an hg society, but it's not at all the same. Being homeless is very bad and no one is saying that being homeless is better than being a more typical type person. (I guess I can't speak for Ludd though)

So you are really not making sense. Do you get that?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

But weren't you saying that people have choices?

yes

0 units of effort with certain expected results
1 unit "
2 unit


****************************

100000 units of effort with certain expected results

Effort is a continuum not a dichotomy


And effort is just one variable among hundreds in people deciding what they like and what they want-- so yes people have lots of choices--

But ( and here I'll state the obvious since otherwise you'll say I don't understand something obvious) not all choices are available to all people. People are limited by aptitude and ability. And you cannot choose to "be a millionaire". But you can choose to follow a course which increases your personal wealth

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious



First, saying that a hg society was subsistence doesn't make much sense. Second, I really don't think being homeless is subsistence.

Subsistence-- A means of subsisting, especially means barely sufficient to maintain life.


You are correct in that both hg and the average homeless had lives that exceed the test of barely sufficient to maintain life-- ok so lets not use 'subsistence as a relevant term.

Originally posted by Kidicious



We are talking about who is happier. Do you honestly think that homeless people are happy?

I honestly think that the answer to that is individual but that for the majority, the answer is a clear no. I also know that there is probably a minority that would say they are blissfully happy. ( Whether that is an accurate self-assessment or a delusion borne out of mental illness or substance abuse is another question)

Down in Newfoundland there was one really obvious homeless guy inn St. Hohn's-- the most cheerful guy you would ever want to meet. Always around, never bugged anyone but rejected all attempts at longer term help and often slept outside spurning available beds-- He died a couple of years back and had a well attended funeral. They packed a downtowen church and most everyone had an amusing anecdote of an encounter with "Hobo Bill" . Was he happy with his life? Damned if I know but he seemed happy. operhaps he was and any thoughts that he "must not be" are just us placing OUR expectations on him
(and yes I know this example is atypical)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

It's not negative at all. Most people don't want to work more than 30 hours a day, and I don't think that is lazy. I also don't think it is lazy to want to hang out and not do much after work. But you keep implying that that is lazy and therefore negative.

HUH??

Read my comment again. My potential dislike of a HG lifestyle of 40K years ago isn't that I hate the idea of not having to work. Its just that I fear that once the work is done, that there would not be much fun or interesting or challenging to do "for fun".

MY comment was

I would flip that and see it as a negative if the reverse was also true (it may not be)and I had long periods with nothing to do

So please address not what I wrote and not where your biases lead you.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious



I don't care about being industrious. You can be just a regular guy, not lazy and not industrous. I like to work. When the work is done I like to relax. There is nothing wrong with that.

Total agreement. You will never see me say otherwise.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You are saying that people have choices, and that is a positive for modern society.

Yes--

1. do you deny that people have more choices now?

2. Regardless of your answer to #1--- Do you deny that choice is a positive for most people?

Originally posted by Kidicious


But you are also saying that people can be homeless and that is somehow like living in an hg society, but it's not at all the same.

The lifestyle of a modern homeless and a hg from 40K years ago will bear little resemblance to each other ( again a statement that is so freakingly obvious -arrghh) yet there are some parallels. Each seeks shelter and nourishment from their environment without taking much in the way of steps for their longer term well being. Stresses are also similar in that they are typically dealing with short terms threats since more generally there is enough food and resources to support them. The fact that a hg band WERE the form of society (and often in small bands) and modern homeless are really a sub-section of modern society or a portion that reject or are rejected by modern society even as they live among it (usually in the buigger centers of thousands or millions) . . . pretty much ends the parallells .

Originally posted by Kidicious


Being homeless is very bad and no one is saying that being homeless is better than being a more typical type person. (I guess I can't speak for Ludd though)

Show me where I even hint I think it is good. I do know that there are homeless that reject any help that would change that status. Whether they "get" something on a deeper level that eludes me or whether they are semi-deranged people that aren't competent enough to assess what is really in their self interest, I cannot say (but for the most I suspect the latter)

Originally posted by Kidicious

So you are really not making sense. Do you get that?

I actually make decent sense when you address what I actually say and not your weird interpretations of what I say--

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Flubber

I do find it interesting that some people can think that sitting around all day with little to do is the ideal but hey, different strokes for different folks.

To me, working in an office is "sitting around all day with little to do".

There's no end of things to do, see, explore, think about, imagine, or create. From my perspective, working for the sake of money only limits the possibilities and opportunities, aswell as the creativity and inquisitiveness of the individual.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by General Ludd



To me, working in an office is "sitting around all day with little to do".

There's no end of things to do, see, explore, think about, imagine, or create. From my perspective, working for the sake of money only limits the possibilities and opportunities, aswell as the creativity and inquisitiveness of the individual.

See I can respect that.

I just happen to have a job that is interesting quite a lot of the time

[Kidlicious]

Is it just as easy for you to make one post? If so I'd prefer that, or maybe two.

Originally posted by Flubber
yes

0 units of effort with certain expected results
1 unit "
2 unit


****************************

100000 units of effort with certain expected results

Effort is a continuum not a dichotomy


And effort is just one variable among hundreds in people deciding what they like and what they want-- so yes people have lots of choices--

I don't understand any of that.

But ( and here I'll state the obvious since otherwise you'll say I don't understand something obvious) not all choices are available to all people. People are limited by aptitude and ability. And you cannot choose to "be a millionaire".

But you can choose to follow a course which increases your personal wealth

Are you talking about preference to leisure vs work? In that case I think that most people have a pretty even preference between the two. I suppose with regard to primative man he didn't have the choice to work more to aquire more wealth, however like I said, I think that most people don't really like to work as much as you do. And I'm not saying that you have an unhealthy attitude towards work, but some people do work too much, just like some people do many other things too much.

Subsistence-- A means of subsisting, especially means barely sufficient to maintain life.

Used in the original context it means that wage workers make only enough to survive and have children who can grow up to work. So it doesn't apply to either case really.

You are correct in that both hg and the average homeless had lives that exceed the test of barely sufficient to maintain life-- ok so lets not use 'subsistence as a relevant term.

No, that is not what I meant. Homeless people do not get their needs met by definition. They are homeless. They can't afford a home, shoes etc...

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I've eaten in soup kitchens here in the US. The good thing is that I lost weight. The bad thing of course is that the food was horrible. It might be better in other areas.

And in different organizations. I've eaten 5 to 6 meals a week at soup kitchens this past year. Generally it's all alot better food than you'd get at a cafe, and free always tastes better anyways.

Dumpster diving I've never done. I think the mentally ill mostly do that

Only when "mentally ill" extends to everyone who lives outside the norm. It generally takes a certain amount of cleverness and clarity of mind to dumpster dive well, as you need to get to know what places have good food, when they close, when the garbage is collected, ect... the random russling through garbage cans on the street may be what you're thinking of. I wouldn't eat a half eaten sandwich. When I dumpster dive I'm looking for groceries.

but I know for sure that people do it for a living, not just in case of emergency, and some people make more than minimum wage.

I didn't mean it was only done in emergencies, just that money is or should only be used for emergencies and things that can't easily be found or stolen, such as an apartment. (or in the case of the addicted homeless - drugs)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
I honestly think that the answer to that is individual but that for the majority, the answer is a clear no. I also know that there is probably a minority that would say they are blissfully happy. ( Whether that is an accurate self-assessment or a delusion borne out of mental illness or substance abuse is another question)

I'm glad to here that you don't believe that most homeless people are happy. If you ever find yourself doubting that they are unhappy go visit a homeless shelter. Look at their faces. The happy guy probably got kicked out because he was too nuts or drunk all the time.

So please address not what I wrote and not where your biases lead you.

You should go back to what you were saying before that. I took it to mean that you would not like to live in an hg society because they didn't have enough work to do, and that I prefered such a society for that very reason. You should have considered my bias and been more clear. Theres only so much the reader can do.

Yes--

1. do you deny that people have more choices now?

2. Regardless of your answer to #1--- Do you deny that choice is a positive for most people?

If the life of primative man is better than all of the choices you can make for yourself in the modern world then what good are all the choices?

The lifestyle of a modern homeless and a hg from 40K years ago will bear little resemblance to each other ( again a statement that is so freakingly obvious -arrghh) yet there are some parallels.

You're talking about parallels that are completely irrelevant, and you keep defending what you started. Why don't you just admit that it has no relevance.