> In earlier times, in hunter gatherer societies, food was scarce and work was important. But today, you cannot tell people that working in fast food or in customer support is mandatory to eat and have a roof on your head.
Just a note: hunter gatherers exist today, it's not something that humanity has given up completely, you've given it up, but it might be temporary (it seems that many current hunter gatherers went back to it in order to flee from disease and slavery brought by the westerners). Moreover, we now know that many hunter gatherers "work" less on average than those working in agriculture or - following your example - in customer support.
There might be hunter-gatherers, but they are few. Our society has given up on that and in the current state (people living on Earth) we cannot go back to that stage. For for all the purposes humanity has given up completely on being hunter-gatherers. Even if some people are still doing that, it is not a feasible for everybody.
That's the point when I say: "you've given up on that", meaning that some societies have moved to something else, but there are many in the world. It's important to understand that it's a choice, there's no "right way forward", it isn't evolution, just organization.
> we cannot go back to that stage
Not saying we have to, but it might happen in the future for many reasons (nuclear wars, climate collapse, worse pandemics, etc). The point above is about that, what if we find a DIFFERENT way? It's up to us.
> humanity has given up completely on being hunter-gatherers
This statement doesn't help anyone and it isn't true, there are millions of hunter gatherers, and many more that are in between that and very limited agriculture. Do not mistake the west for humanity.
P.S.: this is just food for thought, in the sense that we must be open to new ideas, even those that completely destroy our "normal" perception of the world if we really want to advance as a species.
I am also open to new ideas. So let's try to have a conversation about this.
Let me clarify (or add to my initial comment): When I say "we cannot go back to that stage" and "our society has given up on that" I want to say that we cannot feed 6-7 billion people with the process of hunter-gatherer. Or at least I cannot see how that could be possible.
So let's try to imagine how can it be that we all 7 billion are hunter-gatherers:
1. Are they enough animals to be hunted (not raised in farms - right?) are enough vegetables/fruits to be eaten? Can we make it so that we can assure at least 1-2 billion people (if not more) a sustainable way that we consume natural-grown resources and at the same time help replenish them without establishing a system that is like agriculture?
2. Can billion of people migrate every season to gather food?
I see no concrete answer in the now for this. It might be that we want to go there but in my assumption, this could happen either due to a catastrophic event or in hundred of years if not more.
So, ideologically we might want or not be like that. But pragmatically that is not possible right now.
Or maybe I have a different definition of what that state of living is, so maybe we should define what a hunter-gatherer society looks like?
More general, every time I see a proposal/discussion about how we should live I am always concerned about "how can we all live" not just a group of people/or a specific country. Because if we cannot find a way for all of us to live then that is not a stable model.
I think this is overlooking the main argument - having someone waste time by getting their own food/shelter isn't really any better than having them waste time doing a job to get money for food/shelter. We would likely be better off not wasting people's time and just giving them food/shelter so they are free to figure out how to best use that time
> having someone waste time by getting their own food/shelter isn't really any better than having them waste time doing a job to get money for food/shelter
The latter isn't waste on the whole - somebody is getting a service in return. Then there's a separate question of what the worker is getting (for work that is meaningful to them and for work that isn't); that's one of the topics of the original post.
No thanks. I am unwilling to provide free food and shelter to random people who are capable of working but choose not to. Their survival is not my concern.
What is the complaint here? If you had the power to print money, so would everyone else. And money would be worthless and you couldn't exchange it for food even if you had it.
The issue you are identifying here might be physics and reality rather than a political problem. ironically food does grow on trees, but it is still "mandatory" to work to prepare it if you want to eat it. You can't escape that.
There's free food in garbage bins, if you don't want to work for it. There are people who exclusively feed from large stores' garbage, it's totally doable. Although perhaps some people would consider going to the store and getting the food from the trash "work", and will settle for nothing less than a daily instacart delivery.
You can do it and it is illegal in some countries. In Germany for example.
EDIT: Ok, so I fired the comment and thought about it more afterwards. What I said is true in most cases. If a store wants to take you to court, they definitely can. Question is, would they? In most cities (Germany), they lock the containers to prevent 'stealing' in the first place. What really puts me off - and aligns with the original discussion - is, that this system is definitely not set up for people to not work. Even so, that they say, eating other peoples trash is not okay. You HAVE to work.
To follow your line of reasoning, no one is physically stopping you from printing money. No one is physically stopping you from committing crimes to gain wealth.
White-collar crimes constitute 3% of federal prosecutions. Additionally, prosecutions have been on the decline for the past several years. Add "the fear of going to jail" to your list of illusions.
Ironically, there's no mandatory work anywhere but in Communist paradises where by criminal code "parasitism" (not being enrolled to one of the organizations / skipping workdays without a valid reason) is prosecuted.
Finance doesn't create value, most of the times actually destroys it. Moreover, you're looking at this with a clearly US-centric perspective, in many other countries we don't need to know about retirement schemes, school loans and health insurance policies (you seem to have forgotten that insurance IS finance, but this might be just another example of the reason why this is hairy).
So, if tomorrow all of this changes, you'll have millions of people with really useless knowledge. And who changes these things? Politics. This is politics. Won't it be better that people learn about politics, philosophy and history so that they have the tools they need to actually understand and change the world around them?
Credit cards are rare and pretty much useless in most European countries ( and damn right unusable in the Netherlands for instance).
Mortgages and car loans are pretty simple due to heavy regulation ( they have to show the total interest, how much you will end up paying in interest over the lifespan, etc.), what's there to learn about them?
I mean i could say the same thing about most of the subject matter of this page. Most consumer oriented financial products are fairly simple, and yet people seem confused by them.
That's the point, you're not talking about money, but about debt and risk (people always forget about risk and insurance). What there is to know about credit cards, really? I pay something today with it, then I pay it back at a later date, it's debt.
This will to complicate things more than they need to comes from banks pretending that they are "cool again" and have all sorts of different products, when in reality banking is the most boring thing ever invented: here's some money now, you'll give it back to me at a later date with an interest.
Moreover, by your remark "communist utopia" you're perfectly showing that I'm right in calling for more literacy about history, philosophy and politics. This isn't communism in any possible form, au contraire we're still moving well within the boundaries of capitalism.
