10 ms·

Those aren't the only sorts of motivation folks might have to work. Plenty of people working in sewage, collecting rubbish and so on do it because they think i

Those aren't the only sorts of motivation folks might have to work. Plenty of people working in sewage, collecting rubbish and so on do it because they think it makes an important contribution to society, same as people in the army. I find it hard to disagree that their contribution is more important than software development in some ways -- I'd rather have streets clear of rotting rubbish and rats than a new version of office.

mattlutze 11y ago
The practical question is whether the same or a greater volume of people today, would be working in sanitation and sewage tomorrow, if they could chose not to. I'm not sure there's a reasonable way to argue in the affirmative.
- Jedd 11y ago
  That's a practical question. There are upwards of 2 billion people who don't have sanitation and sewage professionals looking after their waste. I'm not suggesting we'd all want to live in our own filth, any more than I'm suggesting everyone without access to plumbers lives in their own filth. Wander out into the country (or even some slightly advanced sub-urban areas) and admire the low-maintenance standalone septic systems, humanure outhouses, etc. If you don't have to work - would you really feel the need to live within ten metres of several other families, in a concrete box, limited sight of or access to open space, etc? Is the location you currently choose to live predicated upon your requirement to work, and a pragmatic decision on the best location to that end - a trade-off between comfort and commute?
  - wanderer2323 11y ago
    I would really feel a need to live in the place with hot water running from the taps, a working in-house plumbing and heating, a serviced waste disposal facility withing walking radius, the electricity service, an internet connection, a speedy access to all kinds of emergency services etc. Not to mention the reliable service level (e.g. I would want to get an electrician to look (and likely fix) at a failure within a day). I have wandered "in the country" and there are either - areas where the services are set up in the same way as in the city (large amount of "sanitation and sewage professionals" are involved) - areas where you have to cope with a subpar standards of living
  - mattlutze 11y ago
    Folks with septic systems still need them cleaned, and outhouses need to be regularly evacuated. Decreasing population density simply serves to make us less productive. And really, the author's argument only sounds like it's reasonable because of the massive increases in productivity an the technological advances we've had as a race, through our obsession with work and achievement. I don't think many of those 2 billion people would say they prefer to poo in a box hanging over a river, then have to get their drinking water out of that river, over more sophisticated alternatives like separate potable, gray- and blackwater management.
    - Jedd 11y ago
      I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse. > Folks with septic systems still need them cleaned, and outhouses need to be regularly evacuated. Indeed. So, the OP suggested we could (if not now, then in the not too distant) stop working, or at least stop doing this 40-hour a week for 40 years thing. Some people suggested 'but who cleans my toilet?!' I suggested that if you decentralise that task, then you don't actually need to employ a handful of people to clean 4 million people's toilets. You're now saying 'outhouses need to be regularly evacuated' - which is true, but regular and frequent are often conflated, and humanure systems need to be emptied out regularly every 6-12 months ... it's dry, non-identifiable compost at that point. But we're at severe risk of missing the point. If the only retaliation someone has to 'we should start to think about how to consciously engineer our society such that we don't all have to work 40 hours a week for 40 years' with 'I don't want to spend two hours every 6 months moving composted poo around' ... then that person has missed the point. > Decreasing population density simply serves to make us less productive. As you get older you realise the imperative to be (exclusively, solely) more productive is somewhat misguided. > And really, the author's argument only sounds like it's reasonable because of the massive increases in productivity an the technological advances we've had as a race, through our obsession with work and achievement. This does not devalue the proposition - it merely puts it into context. > I don't think many of those 2 billion people would say they prefer to poo in a box hanging over a river, then have to get their drinking water out of that river, over more sophisticated alternatives like separate potable, gray- and blackwater management. You're doing that thing again. I quote myself, from the message that you responded to: >> I'm not suggesting we'd all want to live in our own filth, any more than >> I'm suggesting everyone without access to plumbers lives in their own filth. You also failed to answer any of the questions I asked you.

mattlutze 11y ago

The practical question is whether the same or a greater volume of people today, would be working in sanitation and sewage tomorrow, if they could chose not to. I'm not sure there's a reasonable way to argue in the affirmative.

Jedd 11y ago
That's a practical question. There are upwards of 2 billion people who don't have sanitation and sewage professionals looking after their waste. I'm not suggesting we'd all want to live in our own filth, any more than I'm suggesting everyone without access to plumbers lives in their own filth. Wander out into the country (or even some slightly advanced sub-urban areas) and admire the low-maintenance standalone septic systems, humanure outhouses, etc. If you don't have to work - would you really feel the need to live within ten metres of several other families, in a concrete box, limited sight of or access to open space, etc? Is the location you currently choose to live predicated upon your requirement to work, and a pragmatic decision on the best location to that end - a trade-off between comfort and commute?
- wanderer2323 11y ago
  I would really feel a need to live in the place with hot water running from the taps, a working in-house plumbing and heating, a serviced waste disposal facility withing walking radius, the electricity service, an internet connection, a speedy access to all kinds of emergency services etc. Not to mention the reliable service level (e.g. I would want to get an electrician to look (and likely fix) at a failure within a day). I have wandered "in the country" and there are either - areas where the services are set up in the same way as in the city (large amount of "sanitation and sewage professionals" are involved) - areas where you have to cope with a subpar standards of living
- mattlutze 11y ago
  Folks with septic systems still need them cleaned, and outhouses need to be regularly evacuated. Decreasing population density simply serves to make us less productive. And really, the author's argument only sounds like it's reasonable because of the massive increases in productivity an the technological advances we've had as a race, through our obsession with work and achievement. I don't think many of those 2 billion people would say they prefer to poo in a box hanging over a river, then have to get their drinking water out of that river, over more sophisticated alternatives like separate potable, gray- and blackwater management.
  - Jedd 11y ago
    I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse. > Folks with septic systems still need them cleaned, and outhouses need to be regularly evacuated. Indeed. So, the OP suggested we could (if not now, then in the not too distant) stop working, or at least stop doing this 40-hour a week for 40 years thing. Some people suggested 'but who cleans my toilet?!' I suggested that if you decentralise that task, then you don't actually need to employ a handful of people to clean 4 million people's toilets. You're now saying 'outhouses need to be regularly evacuated' - which is true, but regular and frequent are often conflated, and humanure systems need to be emptied out regularly every 6-12 months ... it's dry, non-identifiable compost at that point. But we're at severe risk of missing the point. If the only retaliation someone has to 'we should start to think about how to consciously engineer our society such that we don't all have to work 40 hours a week for 40 years' with 'I don't want to spend two hours every 6 months moving composted poo around' ... then that person has missed the point. > Decreasing population density simply serves to make us less productive. As you get older you realise the imperative to be (exclusively, solely) more productive is somewhat misguided. > And really, the author's argument only sounds like it's reasonable because of the massive increases in productivity an the technological advances we've had as a race, through our obsession with work and achievement. This does not devalue the proposition - it merely puts it into context. > I don't think many of those 2 billion people would say they prefer to poo in a box hanging over a river, then have to get their drinking water out of that river, over more sophisticated alternatives like separate potable, gray- and blackwater management. You're doing that thing again. I quote myself, from the message that you responded to: >> I'm not suggesting we'd all want to live in our own filth, any more than >> I'm suggesting everyone without access to plumbers lives in their own filth. You also failed to answer any of the questions I asked you.