[ExI] keynes vs hayek again, was: RE: 3d printers for sale

[Anders Sandberg]

On 27/08/2012 17:11, Charlie Stross wrote:
>
> Back off even further: how does one define "contribute to the community they live in"? (Is a rentier with a private income who devotes their idle life to painting or writing fiction -- and is therefore able to produce works of art that entertain people but don't necessarily generate enough income to live on -- a parasite? What about a rentier with a private income who generates employment in the cocaine trade?) Or how about the traditional "vicar's wife" or "first lady"? Someone who probably isn't working for a living but who is making themselves useful indirectly?

I am often thinking about this, since I live an ultra-privileged life as 
an Oxford scholar. Sure, I do grant hunting and need to publish or 
perish, but let's face it: it is a creative job with no heavy lifting, 
light demands and very flexible hours in a lovely place. Am I really 
contributing anything? Sure, I research how to deal with existential 
risk and how to improve ethics and rationality, things I consider to be 
important... but I do know there are people who think what I am doing is 
complete ivory tower stuff divorced from reality. What if they are right?

I think a partial answer could be made along the lines of Robert R. 
Wilson's famous defense of Fermilab ("It has nothing to do directly with 
defending our country except to make it worth defending.") There are 
activities that do not serve any instrumental purposes yet are 
worthwhile. Even if all that I do is philosophy, that might be good 
enough (I wouldn't be happy with that state, though).

This is also true for the painter, fiction writer or perhaps also the 
vicar's wife. Human relationships are not primarily useful - we tend to 
look down on people who just see contacts as merely tools - but have 
some kind of value or importance in themselves. A community without 
relationships would not really be a community.

> Or even further: *why* do we consider it useful or morally good for everyone to make a tangible contribution?

I think one could make an Aristotelian case that it is part of an 
excellent human life. We are social beings, and true happiness is doing 
something we experience meaningful. To not use ones skills to the 
fullest, or on projects that are not meaningful, means that one is 
missing out. Sure, there are projects that just benefit me, and I think 
they can be both moral and valuable. But just doing such projects leaves 
out large areas of endeavor - doing something that is meaningful because 
it contributes to the community is clearly a way towards excellence and 
happiness.

Ideally of course we should set things up so this doesn't have to be 
forced by want or coercion, but just from a desire to be really great 
people. But I suspect that requires us to get rather far into a post 
scarcity society. For the time being we should figure out how to handle 
the paradoxical tensions of a *less* scarcity-dominated society.


-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University