[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

File: 1544607048091.jpg (67 KB, 650x650)
67 KB
The primary driver for action is:


Throughout history some of the greatest innovations came from someone being annoyed
Annoyed at inefficiency
Annoyed at wasted effort
Annoyed because they thought there must be a better way to do something

The more comfortable an individual is the less likely they are to change their environment
All improvement is founded in change

An environment must be stable enough that routine survival is hard work but only consumes 50% of the time
The combination of having to put in effort and having free time leads to a desire for less required effort.
Too much effort and there is no time/energy to think of improvement
Too little effort and there is no discomfort which demands a change be made.

Places where survival is easy never develop
Places where survival requires 80%+ of total time never develop
How can this be translated into the economic system?
If desire is the source of motivation
Then fulfilling desire is killing motivation
Find a way to make people uncomfortable with their current situation. Marketers already do this. Females are able to do this to men as well, no woman wants a loser male. To incorporate this on a large scale, you would need wide ranging "guilt" campaigns to make consumers want to keep up with the joneses
This was clearly the prevalent theory
However there is a key missing piece

Personal satisfaction
An individual will not respond to guilt when they are satisfied with their own situation
If it's possible to occupy all free time with personally satisfying activities there is no reason to require more satisfaction

>Anon, look the Joneses go on holiday!
>Honey, let's watch netflix
>lol ok
Satisfaction achieved

Becoming tired of routine cannot occur if there are enough different activities to cycle through
Cost of
>going to museum
>weekend trip to the countryside
>Going out to fancy restaurant
>Watching netflix
are all roughly equal

An individual can reallocate their available resources and cycle through several different activities
They avoid monotony and achieve satisfaction every time
What reason is there to put effort into gaining more resources?
An invasive subliminal ad campaign that pervades all visual media would circumvent a lot of these problems, wouldn't be that hard to do, just need to convince a Telecom think-tank it's the way to go and it would become legal within a year.
If you want to go farther and more sci-fi you would need to involve the military industrial complex. Scale up military corporate partnerships to increase the state of hegemonic "forever wars". Utilize this to justify rationing of consumer goods. Everybody wins
for what?
Creating artificial sense of desire lasts up until the individual is satisfied once more

>see ad
>feel need to have X
>get home
>feeling of needing anything disappears
replace masturbate with any other satisfying activity for identical results

It would have to be a desire for something that the individual will constantly feel a lack of in their life
This runs into the problem of all basic needs already being satisfied
As we have progressed so has our ability to satisfy higher needs
At this point there aren't any parts of the Maslow pyramid that aren't saturated with cheap options

>rationing of consumer goods
Back to where we started, Anon!
This is suggesting we remove already existing satisfactions
ie we physically and purposefully reverse the effects of capitalism

How would this even manifest?
>Only 1 steak per week because war
>I want more. How can I increase this?
>Win the war
>How can I contribute to the war?
and here you hit the brick wall

Motivation is the feeling that an individual can personally contribute
What personal contribution could there be when the war is fought by the military complex?
Paying taxes does not feel satisfying and is thus not motivating.

We have evidence of "forever wars" not working
>war on drugs
>war on crime
>war on terror
Has not motivated people to contribute in their personal lives
>The primary driver for action is: Discomfort

Where do you base that?
Intuition, anecdotal evidence and logical reasoning

Living things in nature do not expend energy when it does not bring satisfaction
If achieving satisfaction is the requirement then a lack of satisfaction (defined as discomfort) necessarily pushes an organism to satisfy itself

I /could/ go around collecting lots of data points and show that there is significant statistical correlation (which isn't proof)
I could claim that the premise is "self-evident" and see if anyone disagrees

If you have some line of reasoning counter to this it would be worth the time to find evidence, circumstantial or otherwise
If not then the premise is good enough to work with on a theoretical level
Your definition:
>Living things in nature do not expend energy when it does not bring satisfaction
assumes a felicific stance for no reason and without adequate evidence;
the term "Living things" is too broad (are we talking humans, chimpanzees, algae? What kind of living being are we talking about?);
the term "satisfaction" is too vague and I do not understand what you mean with it;
your definition of "discomfort" has a mistake in methodology (where does it follow that lack of satisfaction equals or leads to discomfort?);

from what I've got so far, "discomfort", however you term it, to me is a drive for action, but not the only one. You can find discomfort as the drive for a sick person who gets out of the house to go to a doctor. But is discomfort the drive for painting a beautiful landscape? Labeling other human emotions as "discomfort" can have dangerous implications.
What about discomfort that doesn't lead to action or improvement? Do we have two kinds of discomfort or do other factors also play a role when it comes to motivation?
>The primary driver for action is:

Then why are we on this website?
>living things
All of them, plants included

A condition is satisfied when all the necessary requirements have been fulfilled
Specifically an organism (and all constituent parts) operate at peak efficiency (least expenditure of energy) under certain conditions

Satisfaction is thus defined as the act of fulfilling the necessary conditions for internal processes to progress with least waste (efficiently).
Discomfort is defined as lack of satisfaction.
ie existing in a state such that all necessary conditions for efficient action are not satisfied

>But is discomfort the drive for painting a beautiful landscape?
An artist has within them an inspiration and is uncomfortable and/or dissatisfied until they have brought it into the real world.
Analogous to an individual that has inspiration for a better design and is uncomfortable until they have created this new design.

You might ask where this "inspiration" comes from.
It does not matter.
The inspiration is not relevant to action in and of itself.
Action may be taken with or without inspiration
Inspiration may or may not lead to action
However the discomfort/dissatisfaction is omnipresent with action

>do other factors also play a role when it comes to motivation
No. Multiple sources of discomfort still impact a single scale.
The balance is Effort vs Perceived benefit

If the effort (energy expenditure) does not seem to then improve efficiency/comfort level it is not seen as increasing satisfaction.
Boredom is uncomfortable
Isolation is uncomfortable
Sharing ideas is satisfying
Absorbing entertainment is satisfying
>Labeling other human emotions as "discomfort" can have dangerous implications.

forgot to add:
Disillusionment and Reductionism can have dangerous implications
This does not mean we should avoid the discussion

I'm not proposing we build an AI and tell it to maximise human comfort
It would put everyone into a coma
I'm proposing that by looking at the issue of motivation from this particular lens could help develop a better understanding of the current problem (a lack of motivation in the developed world).
Okay, to my understanding and correct me if I misunderstand, so your definition of "satisfaction" is not akin to "pleasure" (hence my initial confusion), but it is still vague.
What, specifically, are those "necessary requirements" and when and how are they fulfilled?
Are some of them or all of them ever fulfilled permanently?
If yes, how?
>to my understanding ... your definition of "satisfaction" is not akin to "pleasure"
Pleasure is a higher-level form of satisfaction (thus has many qualifiers)

>What, specifically, are those "necessary requirements"
Thermodynamic conditions for biological reactions
when the environment changes
>how are they fulfilled
by changing the environment. Either moving to a different environment or adapting the current one.

>Are some of them or all of them ever fulfilled permanently?
So long as the environmental conditions do not change

>it is still vague
yes. I will try to add clarity through examples

Photosynthesis as a chemical reaction operates more efficiently when there is sufficient sunlight
When there is insufficient sunlight for optimal (maximal) reaction speed the plant shifts resources and grows in the direction of more sunlight.

For warm-blooded creatures, if it's too hot or too cold energy must be spent to maintain internal temperature. This pushes the creature to seek an environment in which less energy must be spent on this task.
If the perceived amount of effort required to change environment (and satisfy the condition) is less than the energy spent "fighting against" the environment the creature will move.
Otherwise the creature will not perceive a benefit from changing environment as this would require more energy than that which is spent.

Think in terms of optimisation of overall energy expenditure when executing fundamental processes.
Biological systems are made up of specific processes (chemical reactions).
"Motivation" (drive to action) is targeted towards them.
Fair enough, I agree.
The original question was: What economic system can satisfy necessary requirements, but not curb development, by keeping "discomfort" levels "just right"?

First, we need to consider the current economic system, how it operates, the scale it spans, how much effort is put into it, how much does it satisfy those requirements and, conversely, how much discomfort it produces; it's a necessary point of departure, otherwise any thought experiment is pointless and absurd.
>how it operates
Person 1 needs X to be satisfied
X is not immediately available
P1 seeks sources of X
Person 2 can create X using less effort (time & energy) than P1 (specialisation)
Equally P2 needs Y
P1 can create Y using less effort than P2
P1 and P2 both perceive they can create Y and X respectively and trade
The entire process requires less overall effort expenditure than if each Person were in isolation
This is the fundamental premise behind Supply and Demand

Money is the intermediary unit of exchange
Thus if P1 perceives they can expend their available resources in such a way as to fulfill their own demands more efficiently by earning money to purchase their demand than by creating the thing they demand from scratch they will.
This is limited by diminishing returns and maximal satisfaction of demand at any given time.

A person will spend X calories to earn money such that the money is sufficient to cause Y number of chemical reactions.
When Y number of chemical reactions have happened each subsequent reaction requires more energy than the energy required to create conditions for the reactions to happen.

>how much effort is put into it
Quantity of calories burned
>how much does it satisfy those requirements
Balanced against boredom it would seem the satisfaction is sufficient to stop motivation at any given instant of time.
Buying a burger requires little effort and satisfies the discomfort of hunger for a few hours.
Watching netflix requires minimal effort and satisfies boredom for anywhere from hours to months.

>how much discomfort it produces
Discomfort is avoided by changing the environment
Don't feel comfortable on the dirty bus?
Load up a game on your phone
The specifics are very fluid for each person but the core premise is universal

There are enough potential sources of satisfaction available at present to make possible an unending chain of satisfaction by cycling from one fulfillment to another

There are multiple sources of satisfaction for each type of need
This eliminates boredom/ build up of resistance to any individual stimulus
Each source of satisfaction is interchangeable to the point that the same resources can be shifted from one to another

Only one source of satisfaction per need is necessary at any given time
Thus each need can be indefinitely satisfied without increasing demand of resources

What we are left with is an economic system where an individual requires X resources and no more
Once they have found a method of getting X resources to spend on various goods and services they have no unfulfilled needs and the motivation for getting more resources disappears

The issue is only compounded when considering people normalize their situations
A person who has only ever eaten rice is equally as satisfied with their rice as an individual that only eats caviar and gets caviar
>how it operates
is too simplistic and archaic, there are more than two Persons existing right now.

Also, satisfaction of requirements and discomfort have to at least take into account a global mean, since the economic system is global (unless there are multiple systems that I'm unaware of, running parallel to and isolated from one another)
>there are more than two Persons existing right now
Person 2 is Money
It provides any X
It demands any Y

How much Y is needed per unit of X merely shifts the equation without changing it.

>global mean
This is a collection of each individual demand X. It can only be measured as a summation of all individuals.

>running parallel to and isolated
This is simply a factor of availability.
Which is another form of Effort Required.
You contradict yourself:
>There are multiple sources of satisfaction for each type of need
>Only one source of satisfaction per need is necessary at any given time
This line of thinking does not account for time as a dimension; Only one source per need is necessary at any given time, but, since conditions change (and we are arguing for change here), it's uncertain which source is available and desirable at any given time. Furthermore, it contradicts the statement:
>Once they have found a method of getting X resources to spend on various goods and services they have no unfulfilled needs and the motivation for getting more resources disappears
Leaving aside that this is merely an assumption:
-The current situation is not one where individuals only have a single, optimized method of fulfilling needs.
-Even if it turns into such a situation, who is to say that individuals will lose motivation to again diversify their options or resist such a situation in the first place for that matter?
-How are more options in need fulfillment necessarily inefficient, considering the complexity of both current society and its struggle for survival?
-How do we know that, once we efficiently fulfill what we think are all our current needs, other needs will not emerge?
Discomfort: hunger
Need: food
Sources: Burger, Pizza, Rice

Effort: cross the street
Satisfaction: full

Effort: cross two streets
Satisfaction: full

Effort: boil water
Satisfaction: partial

At the same time
Discomfort: bored
Need: stimulation
Sources: TV, Phone, Notepad

Effort: turn on TV
Satisfaction: partial

Effort: take out of pocket
Satisfaction: full

Effort: focus to be creative
Satisfaction: full

Certain combinations are mutually exclusive
You must be at home to watch TV
You must leave the house for Pizza
Therefore Pizza + TV is not possible

Likewise you must be focused to use the Notepad but must pay some attention to the Rice
Therefore Notepad + Rice is not possible

>uncertain which source is available and desirable at any given time
The quantity of sources increase as the economic system grows

>The current situation is not one where individuals only have a single, optimized method of fulfilling needs.
Money is the single optimised method
Time can be bought with money

>who is to say that individuals will lose motivation to again diversify their options
There is an ever increasing plethora of options
There are more things to do than those with access have time to try

>resist such a situation
resist having more sources of possible satisfaction?

>more options in need fulfillment necessarily inefficient
They are not inefficient. This is the KEY ISSUE
Minimal effort is required to fulfill needs
Why expend effort when it is not necessary?

>How do we know ... other needs will not emerge?
We already see that for the majority there are more things to spend time on that satisfy than there is time available.

We are in a situation where the entirety of possible time spent dissatisfied (and therefore motivated) is filled with various sources of satisfaction that require less and less effort.

The majority of individuals in developed societies don't have time to be dissatisfied long enough to be motivated
There are studies that show
>no increased happiness from more money after certain threshold salary
>too many choices leads to less engagement

it's also very obvious people perform better when given no choices
>What economic system can satisfy necessary requirements, but not curb development, by keeping "discomfort" levels "just right"?

discomfort should be maximised to stimulate motivation
balance is to ensure there is available time/energy to do anything about it

current economic system is exact opposite

it minimises dicomfort and so minimises motivation
and leaves no time/energy after normal day for any effort to go towards change
Threads like these are nice.
they are indeed
The current economic system couldn't even hypothetically transition to the proposed.
If you can/have make certain aspects of a job more comfortable and could artificially make them less comfortable that implies top down control of that aspect.
In such cases the employee does not have the power to change their environment and eliminate the source of discomfort.
>they could change job - this requires the new economic system be a coordination between employers across industries.

An employer could instead create artificial discomfort the employee is designed to change.
This is akin to giving people fake work so they feel better about themselves (being motivated to do something and succeeding is a great emotional boost).
Unfortunately that is also a hard sell and invariably also wastes resources.

So it must be socioeconomic.
To impose quota on satisfying goods and activities (such as junk food or youtube access) would require a deep authoritarian regime.
It also has the issue of creating a viable path for upwards mobility
>2 steaks a week for earners <30k per yr
>3 steaks at 45k
>6 steaks at 120k

the trouble here is people will be motivated to cheat the system rather than motivated to follow it
this is because the perceived effort of cheating is lower than the legitimate method of earning
CRUCIALLY making cheating come with a high penalty will not work.
Fear of danger does not incease the effort required.
Creating artificial discomfort is thus

Whatever discomfort is created in must cause real problems which individuals can then be motivated to fix
The economic system is so optimised it does not have room for real problems employees can solve (this doesn't count self-employeed people or managers)
Reverting back to local SME businesses would only temporarily help motivate.
Once a set of "best practices" has been found for each industry there is once again a lack of discomfort

Thus to motivate people the discomfort must be social.
ordinary guilt doesn't work as there are enough distractions available as to ignore the discomfort indefinitely
Competition has forever been the greatest source of discomfort and thus motivation
>that one's better than you !
The entirety of modern society tells people /not/ to compare themselves to others.
it says be content with what you have and who you are.

Is there something to be said for the buddhist philosophy?
unless you value temples more than spaceships
buddhists don't even have great works of art or culture
This thread is just two faggots tugging themselves over being as contrary, smug and difficult as possible, using the most wank language feasible.

Fuck this board.
But I would guarantee the average Buddhist is happier than the average amerimutt.
A drug addict is happy on drugs
A monkey is happy with a banana

Happy, in and of itself, doesn't not develop anything
Wrong. Happiness is intrinsically related to satisfaction.
Why are rockets better than temples?
Satisfaction leads to happiness

Discomfort > motivation > action > success > satisfaction > happiness
Happiness has nothing to do with action

Why is living in a heated home with electricity better than in a fancy cave?
>The primary driver for action is:


And that's why the modern world, with its infinite creature comforts, and worse still, as of more recent decades, instant gratification, is comprised primarily of stupid people.
The question was how to fix this issue
Hurry up and invent thinking machines so that we can pass the torch to them... while we can still think for ourselves.
So run across the bridge faster than it burns behind us instead of putting the fire out?
No wonder there aren't any aliens
Stop with these brainlet analogies and use your words, faggot.
So rockets and unhappy is better than no rockets and happy? Ok
And that's why I've been saying we need to keep all the druggies hooked on their poison of choice. Weed, alcohol, nicotine, heroin. Whatever it is we need them to keep using it so they can stay as malleable little sheep which we can easily manipulate into giving us shekels. The future is two drug, two races. One underclass drugged out of their mind on pleasure and one overclass drugged on pain.
I'm sorry you have trouble understanding.

You suggest we make no attempt to uplift humanity in the current form into the future and instead use our time and effort in creating a new entity which will then carry on our legacy while we all die out?

Nobody said you shouldn't be happy.
You simply shouldn't be comfortable.
Also, rockets make many people happy.
I should add, the reason drugging the underclass is necessary is because too much discomfort will lead to revolutionaries. We need them to be discomfort in work and their reward is bliss until they work again. Or maybe intermittently reward them when they do a good task, similar to a dog.
no wonder there aren't any aliens
Implying the fire can be put out. Putting out the fire would mean ending modern civilization as it currently exists and going back to what existed before. Never mind that no one wants that, it will never happen precisely BECAUSE there is no will to do it. We're on a collision course with our own future. Whether it's climate change or our own stupidity or both the ends us, the only option for intelligence is to jump ship before it fizzles out.
We won't necessarily feel like we've died out once this new entity becomes a reality. But it would take an essay to explain my reasoning, so I will just leave it at that.
The specific question was to theorycraft a future which avoids the current pitfalls without reverting to the past.

Obviously reversing all the progress of modern technology is impossible
That does not mean it is necessarily impossible for a system to exist which has modern developments and manages to account for failings in human psychology

Are you your parents?
Do you grandparents feel like they've died out because you exist?
Do you feel like your grandparents died out because you exist?

I would pose that since your grandparents cannot exert their will through you they have died out to that extent
>add as many great great great grand until this isn't insensitive
>Are you your parents?
That's what would require an essay to explain. Just trust me.
>Just trust me.
That's what this place is for
Anyone else feel like this isn't the first iteration?
The past mirrors the likely future so cleanly.
I'm not talking about middle ages or Byzantine era either.

A slave race always happy at home and abused at work
and a master race always happy at work abusing the slaves and suffering at home from artificial restrictions

we fukd
It would seem the conclusion is obvious
Humanity is incapable of building a sustainable civilization with all members being the same.
The question is: would you rather work hard and be happy or not work and be miserable?
The conclusion is teleology. Civilization is constantly changing and evolving, almost entirely unconsciously, without us even realizing these changes are happening or being able to anticipate them. Civilization is evolving TOWARD some invisible to us "goal" or "end state" if you don't like the implication of intentionality. Try to imagine that end state, assuming it isn't extinction.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.