• lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If something is challenging, then by definition, a substantial number of people who attempt it will fail. If you want life itself to be challenging, you are by necessity advocating for many people who attempt it to fail despite their best efforts. I’m not sure what exactly failing at life means in this context–probably something like not having adequate food, shelter, or medical care. What you seem to be saying is that denying people the necessities of life is a good thing if scares the rest of the population into maximizing their economic output. Squeezing the most possible work out of people who have no choice but to work is literally the value proposition of slavery.

    The fact that you can use slave labor to do useful things, like defend Ukraine, cannot justify it. And I don’t even know what you’re getting at with “protecting the environment”, because the economic system that makes people live in terror of losing their jobs is the same one that’s actively making the planet uninhabitable.

    Did it ever even occur to you that motivating people through fear might not even be the most effective way to get useful labor out of them? Or that even if it was, life is about more than economic output?

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, but “failing” doesn’t mean you die. Failing means you rely on government programs.

      probably something like not having adequate food, shelter, or medical care

      My ex was a failure at life and she never had problems getting any of those things in California. You get a lot of benefits being under the poverty line