Topic: The absurdity of human economy
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #116,059
The year is 200 BC. You conscript 700,000 people to make 8,000 life-sized statues of your army, all meticulously painted, which you will promptly bury only for it to remain unseen and forgotten for over 2000 years. Approximately 5% of your economy are directly involved in this project, and a substantially larger fraction to indirectly support those that are.If this backwoods kingdom with primitive technology could afford to have upwards 25% or more supporting this vanity project, it really makes you wonder: what are we all doing today? How did we become so inefficiently efficient? Why are so many people working?
The best I can think of is it's evolutionary courtship behaviors in a highly elaborate, societal-scale form.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 4 hours later[^] [v] #1,282,126
its called capitalism and its gross inefficiency wtf are u new
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oeWyARGkFDc
death to kapitalism
they mightve mismanaged it in vuvuzela but socialist ideas tend to do well.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oeWyARGkFDc
death to kapitalism
they mightve mismanaged it in vuvuzela but socialist ideas tend to do well.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 4 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,144
I thought vanity projects were supposed to be respected because it's only truly from the void itself that new meaning comes from.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,172
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,175
Projects like that from the king/emperor were important to societal stability because they enforced the strict hierarchy of power, especially in a Confucian society.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,185
@1,282,172 (A)
No, just picture reproduction. If it wasn't for people getting horny for each other, there'd be no schools. Yet people don't thank the people fucking, even though everything depends on it.
No, just picture reproduction. If it wasn't for people getting horny for each other, there'd be no schools. Yet people don't thank the people fucking, even though everything depends on it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,189
@1,282,175 (D)
That's what I said: evolutionary courtship behaviors in a highly elaborate, societal-scale form.
That's what I said: evolutionary courtship behaviors in a highly elaborate, societal-scale form.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 39 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,190
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,192
@1,282,126 (B)
It's a stretch to call the Qin dynasty capitalistic. Your thinking is too rooted in the present day and in your own position in it.
It's a stretch to call the Qin dynasty capitalistic. Your thinking is too rooted in the present day and in your own position in it.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,197
@1,282,190 (A)
Something as meaningless and empty (aka vain?) as satisfying your own lust for women, is the bread and butter of civilization OP. Because it's one of the few ways in which a woman ends up pregnant, supplying the civilization with one more for the future. So you know, respect vanity occasionally.
Something as meaningless and empty (aka vain?) as satisfying your own lust for women, is the bread and butter of civilization OP. Because it's one of the few ways in which a woman ends up pregnant, supplying the civilization with one more for the future. So you know, respect vanity occasionally.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,198
@previous (C)
Vanity, by definition, is unconnected to survival. It is superfluous. Reproduction is not. Being enjoyable or not doesn't change that.
Vanity, by definition, is unconnected to survival. It is superfluous. Reproduction is not. Being enjoyable or not doesn't change that.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,202
@previous (A)
But what I described is indeed unconnected to survival, just because activities lead to "surviving" doesn't mean they are done to survive.
But what I described is indeed unconnected to survival, just because activities lead to "surviving" doesn't mean they are done to survive.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,208
@previous (C)
> just because activities lead to "surviving" doesn't mean they are done to survive.
In a certain sense, when viewed from the individual, yes.
In an evolutionary sense, when viewed at the level of the species, no.
Many courtship behaviors in other animals are not likely done with explicit reproduction in mind. Many species probably don't even have the capacity to think much or at all about their intentions in any sense. Territorial disputes among males, for example. Sounds kind of like humans, now that I mention it.
> just because activities lead to "surviving" doesn't mean they are done to survive.
In a certain sense, when viewed from the individual, yes.
In an evolutionary sense, when viewed at the level of the species, no.
Many courtship behaviors in other animals are not likely done with explicit reproduction in mind. Many species probably don't even have the capacity to think much or at all about their intentions in any sense. Territorial disputes among males, for example. Sounds kind of like humans, now that I mention it.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,228
@previous (A)
I feel like a evolutionary sense could be applied to everything though, I mean, what would be the evolutionary point of our ability to be vain? And wouldn't the answer be that it has something to do with surviving? So now suddenly vanity is surviving.
I feel like a evolutionary sense could be applied to everything though, I mean, what would be the evolutionary point of our ability to be vain? And wouldn't the answer be that it has something to do with surviving? So now suddenly vanity is surviving.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,236
@previous (C)
I agree it does risk being overly broad and therefore meaningless.
The only way I know to strip off the excess fat, which I'm calling vanity, is to find examples past or present where humans get on just fine without it, or even better, get on better without it. Then you know it isn't necessary for survival and may be some historical or coincidental pathology of it.
We know these mega projects are not essential. They seem to be the exception not the rule.
Do we have any examples where humans are not compelled in one form or another to occupy the bulk of their time doing tasks they don't want to do? Are we simply fated to compete in this way as a species of partly hierarchical primates? I'm genuinely asking. I don't know and don't know if anyone does.
I'm guessing we aren't. I've read about some anthropologists suggesting early humans spent much of their time lounging around. I'm not sure what their reasons were. But if it is true, then that would be stripping the fat, as I said above.
I agree it does risk being overly broad and therefore meaningless.
The only way I know to strip off the excess fat, which I'm calling vanity, is to find examples past or present where humans get on just fine without it, or even better, get on better without it. Then you know it isn't necessary for survival and may be some historical or coincidental pathology of it.
We know these mega projects are not essential. They seem to be the exception not the rule.
Do we have any examples where humans are not compelled in one form or another to occupy the bulk of their time doing tasks they don't want to do? Are we simply fated to compete in this way as a species of partly hierarchical primates? I'm genuinely asking. I don't know and don't know if anyone does.
I'm guessing we aren't. I've read about some anthropologists suggesting early humans spent much of their time lounging around. I'm not sure what their reasons were. But if it is true, then that would be stripping the fat, as I said above.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 22 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,265
@previous (A)
Well I think that's remarkable, I wish you a successful trimming. Just hope you don't get too much meat with it,
Well I think that's remarkable, I wish you a successful trimming. Just hope you don't get too much meat with it,
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,282,324
@previous (C)
Do you believe that everything we do is necessary for survival? Can you imagine no way of seeing things where this wouldn't be so?
Do you believe that everything we do is necessary for survival? Can you imagine no way of seeing things where this wouldn't be so?