Hacker News Reader

Comment by fasterik | Hacker News Reader

I hope we see a revival of the humanities in the coming decades. The original meaning of "liberal" in liberal education referred to cultivating free human beings (Latin libertas). Arguably, the most important skills going forward are the ability to think independently and critically, to adapt to new circumstances, to formulate one's thoughts in a coherent and convincing manner, and to understand things in a broader historical perspective.

View on HN

I'm not sure how widespread this meme (in the general sense, not the internet fad sense) is, but I came across it theorized by this humanities account, Adam Walker - Close Reading Poetry:

The New Renaissance is Coming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCvixEyV10Q

> I hope we see a revival of the humanities in the coming decades. The original meaning of "liberal" in liberal education referred to cultivating free human beings (Latin libertas).

I doubt it given how liberalism is falling out of favor in politics so rapidly

It turns out that liberalism is a metastable state between dictatorship of the proletariat and dictatorship of the owner class. But then, I think Marx could have told you that a century and three quarters ago...

Making money is going to be everyone’s primary goal, especially if you’re now competing against machines as well. If you ask me, my prediction is that humanities and liberal arts as organized schools of thought are going to fall even more to the wayside unless you’re very rich. It’s going to be replaced by cultural memes and other short relatable digestible pieces of “community” knowledge kind of like a lot of the youth already.

> Making money is going to be everyone’s primary goal

I disagree. Making money is a means to an end, that end being one's ability to live a comfortable life as a member of society. If other means are able to achieve that end, then that reduces the need (or even desire) for money.

While I'd cynically agree that modern society as structured today will fight tooth and nail to keep those other means from being viable (because the current powers-that-be are such specifically because they were able to accumulate the most money), that doesn't have to be the case. We can and should demand better.

Exactly. Making money is a means to an end.

For those for whom making money is a primary goal, they miss their essential purpose in life.

OK so how do you acquire everything you need in order to achieve your essential purpose, without making money?

The first step is to quantify “everything you need”, and go individually from there.

Who said anything about not making money?

"means to an end"

That’s just a random platitude that everyone will agree with, but has no workable means of achievement in the real world.

What the hell does “demand better” even mean here?

Like global economic and political systems has a manager you can demand to speak to like a Karen getting subpar customer service?

Any change is going to require wide spread spiritual and moral change in the general populace first.

> What the hell does “demand better” even mean here?

Probably asking for $5000 checks from the government.

Trump has that covered.

Just vote Republican! He promised!

You can demand whatever you want, but most people are not going to be with you. Very few people at least in the US are going to agree with the communist perspective that a street cleaner or security guard should be paid the same amount as a doctor. You can suggest some form of workable socialism, which would be good, but I am mainly referring to the transition phase between now and some sort of utopian future where resources are unlimited and robots do all of our physical and mental labor. That transition period is going to last decades or for the rest of our lives and most of the early period, at the very least, for our kids.

“the communist perspective that a street cleaner or security guard should be paid the same amount as a doctor”

Nobody in this thread (AFAICT) is arguing for that. By all means, people who contribute more to society should be rewarded for it. The only thing being argued is that everyone deserves to enjoy a baseline standard of living, on top of which they might receive additional benefits in exchange for the work they do. As automation continues to expand, providing everyone with that baseline standard of living unconditionally becomes more and more practical to achieve, in which case it becomes more and more unethical for society to refuse to do so.

Humans as individuals and groups will fight tooth and nail to "have more" because that is our nature. Money was a brilliant invention that allowed people to get what they want without forcefully taking it from someone else, or having a particular skill or thing that you could barter.

No they won't..like, observably they won't. This is a problem almost every entrepreneur who looked at small businesses as a start up opportunity ran into immediately: most small businesses are run by people who are exactly happy with where they got to, and so showing up and promising you'll expand the business goes over as well as a lead balloon.

People are generally fine with a personal decision of "I have enough" they are much less happy about being told that by a government.

>Making money is going to be everyone’s primary goal, especially if you’re now competing against machines as well

What you've just stated is a Marxist/materialist perspective. Up to a certain point of meeting basic survival needs, it's probably true. But there are other ways to think about what ultimately determines human goals once survival needs are met. This illustrates my point about the humanities, often we put our thinking into boxes without realizing that the box exists at all.

Why are you guys so obsessed with money? You can live a perfectly good life with little wealth if you want to, humans are really great at adapting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com