💾 Archived View for midnight.pub › replies › 6230 captured on 2024-06-16 at 14:53:18. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-04-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
But the faux mathematician in me fears the "a *lot* harder part" suggests so few are - or (perhaps) even could be - sufficiently self(ishness)-denying to ever collectively make meaningful difference at the societal level. They would simply appear to be "kooks" to the vast sea of proletariat/bosses/wealthy they were barely treading water in.
For some reason this post reminds me of Gwern's article on subcultures.
The Melancholy of Subculture Society
Thus I can't help but wonder: what's wrong with being a "kook"? Why is self-denial necessary? The third option I was talking about is doing just enough to get by in mainstream society, and otherwise opting out and doing one's own thing. The ideal would be getting together a couple of million and being able to own a house and car outright while using investment interest to cover property taxes and thus face the world from the position of "fuck you", but that might not be realistic for most people.
YouTube: John Goodman in "The Gambler": the Position of Fuck You
Would this make a meaningful difference at the societal level? Not if only a few people do it. But as more people do it, mainstream capitalist society begins to crumble.
> Thus I can't help but wonder: what's wrong with being a > "kook"?
There was a time when being a "kook" seemingly had less real world consequences. Now I can imagine it being grounds for "cancellation". Never underestimate the speed at which murmuring, scarcedly-able-but-to-shout-slogans masses can whip out their torches, pitchforks, and clubs.
> Why is self-denial necessary?
It's not. But to me, without at least degrees of it people live predominantly for themselves, which I believe precludes living enough for society and/or other greater causes to flourish. So it's only necessary to the degree we want nice collective things.
> The third option I was talking about is doing just enough > to get by in mainstream society, and otherwise opting out > and doing one's own thing. The ideal would be getting > together a couple of million and being able to own a > house and car outright while using investment interest > to cover property taxes and thus face the world from the > position of "fuck you", but that might not be realistic > for most people.
That's very doable (or was in my day..), but generally not until after decades of fairly consistent minimalism (especially during inflationary times), and likely enough unfulfilling labor to arrive at sufficient savings, but then quite possibly "arriving" with too much disillusion with the world - never mind far less energy than one had in the days of one's youth - to get the precious middle finger in the all important permanently gravity-defying position. :-)
And I'm not making that up. I'm 62 and roughly in the place you describe, but I'm physically and mentally noticeably lesser than I was a few decades ago.
> Would this make a meaningful difference at the societal > level? Not if only a few people do it. But as more people > do it, mainstream capitalist society begins to crumble.
I've difficulty imagining such a crumble leading more to a meaningfully positive difference in the near term. What I *can* imagine is people murmuring, gossiping, taking rumor to be truth, and ultimately mostly panicking in fits of self interest. Perhaps something more enlightened emerges from the subsequent rubble, but I'd bet against it despite wishing it could be so.