RE: More Green Party

From: zeb haradon (
Date: Wed Jun 28 2000 - 21:51:45 MDT

>From: Damien Broderick <>
>Subject: RE: More Green Party
>Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 12:15:00 +1000
>At 12:50 PM 28/06/00 -0500, Bonnie wrote:
> >Can we all agree, though, that in general, people are willing to work
> >if their material rewards are directly proportional to the work done?
>You couldn't prove it by me. I could multiply my material rewards manyfold
>by writing franchise or sharecrop fiction, or better yet by churning out
>slick mega-bestsellers called QUANTUM ASTROLOGY. Would take less work and
>earn more money.

I think the primary goal is to be happy - having more money is going to be a
huge factor in that, possibly the most important, and certainly the second
or third. The simple reason is that you need money to get many of the things
which make you happy. For example, without a computer and full internet
access, the happiness in my life would be cut in half, at least. I need
money to be able to afford a computer and internet access.
You, I assume, would not be happy writing a book on "quantum astrology". I
could make more money by selling meth, prostituting myself, or robbing
people, but I would be unhappy doing so, and I have a personal rule that I
would only work in an office which required me to wear a tie for at least
20% more money. Material rewards are extremely important, but nobody is
saying they are the only kind.
I'll pose my own version of what Bonnie said: people will work harder, in
their personal or professional life, particularly in that area which they
feel most passionate about, for more rewards of the type which bring them
the most happiness, and money is one of the most important types of these

>Watched a TV program the other night on the efforts by cleaning and other
>maintenance staff in Silicon Valley to earn enough to cope with the
>explosion in rents and other prices in the area. The poor buggers seemed to
>be working as hard as humanly possible, two jobs cleaning, mother and kids
>sleeping in the one shockingly expensive room... I guess if you paid them
>more they'd work *really* hard.

If they were "smart", yes. I put "smart" in quotes because it is too simple
a word - but if they had value of themselves and their well being, and the
willingness to rationally figure out how to attain goals which would make
them happy, and then to actually ACT on the results, then they would have
more money and more happiness.
The simplest thing to do would be to move to someplace with lower rent.
Another answer is to get a new job. Find out what you want to do, find out
what skills you need to do that, and attain those skills. Anyone, with rare
exception, is capable of doing this.

>My hope is that, as we approach the Spike, most of those odious jobs will
>disappear, and new ways will be found to assure the people displaced from
>work of a decent basic subsistence.

The people doing them already have other options of finding quite more then
baic subsistence, as you have. They are just not taking them. Why is this?

>That, luckily, is alleged to be one of
>the benefits of drextech assemblers - if they arrive on schedule.
> >So what IS it like in Australia, Damien?
>Not that different from how it is in the States, actually, Bonnie. :)



Will you tell me a bit about censorship in Australia?
I have heard of the following three films, among others, being banned:
Henry: portrait of a serial killer, Dead man, Romance (later lifted). I
looked them up on and they do have an Australian rating, which is
"R". An R in the US means that if the film shows in a theater, anyone under
the age of 18 has to be accompanied by a parent to see it. What does this
mean in Australia? Perhaps accusations of "banning" a film meant it was
dropped by a distributor, but the article I read on Romance said something
about an exhibition license not being granted, so it couldn't be shown

Zeb Haradon (
My personal webpage:
A movie I'm directing:

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:43 MDT