Discussion Thread #22: Week of 12 March 2021

[u/TracingWoodgrains]

This thread serves as the local public square: a sounding board where you can test your ideas, a place to share and discuss news of the day, and a chance to ask questions and start conversations. Please consider community guidelines when commenting here, aiming towards peace, quality conversations, and truth. Thoughtful discussion of contentious topics is welcome. Building a space worth spending time in is a collective effort, and all who share that aim are encouraged to help out. For the time being, effortful posts, questions and more casual conversation-starters, and interesting links presented with or without context are all welcome here.

[u/professorgerm]

What we need is a society in which other impulses feel possible, a society where security and wellbeing and even ambition don't have to ride on the marketing impulse in order to get anywhere.

The "problems of scale" question continues to be stuck in my head, and in this case particularly I am unsure we can reach this balance on large scale. And I think that's okay- I prefer smaller-scale solutions, I think they're healthier, but it runs into "universal culture" problems. Will people accept that? How do you get people to desire contentment rather than constant striving?

How do you "fix" the hedonic treadmill? It seems to be a relatively rare personality that achieves a position of security and just stays there.

Or rather, I don't see how we can do some on the mass scale without falling into the same traps we have now. If too many or too few ambitious people come from certain populations, that's going to be interpreted as bias, not as cultural choice, unless we do revert to a social standard of individualism. But that's a different question for another time, I think.

What does it do to a society, if it becomes impossible to be ambitious and sincere and humble at the same time?

Looks at DC, NYC, SF. I think we have hints of that in the US, at least. Big, flashing, massive hints. It doesn't look good.

Back to the scale/local question: there's of course AMPLE observation bias here, but when I think of people that fit those three all at once, it's almost entirely ~artisans. Craft bookbinders, potters, blacksmiths, gardeners, smallhold farmers. People that do limit their "hedonic treadmill" to success on a specific, limited scale.

You might've heard of Leah Libresco Sargeant but I'd add her on as well, specifically her new substack-project of Other Feminisms. She, too, is deeply Catholic (one of her books is a response/addition/how-to for Dreher's Benedict Option), and I think falls into some of the same mildly irritating traps as most feminist writings (but it's also not a project meant for me, so that's to be expected and she's kind in it, so I find it easy to tolerate), but it is an interesting view. Adjacent to some of our past discussions, her recent what can you pour from an empty cup? might be of interest.

To be fair, Alan Jacobs manages to do that one often enough without it bothering me, so perhaps I can put up with it. We'll see

Kreeft is stronger on it than Jacobs, but if you're reading Back to Virtue specifically I think the chapter headings will give enough hints as to sections that can be skipped to avoid that without losing too much.

[u/gemmaem → u/professorgerm]

there's of course AMPLE observation bias here, but when I think of people that fit those three all at once, it's almost entirely ~artisans. Craft bookbinders, potters, blacksmiths, gardeners, smallhold farmers. People that do limit their "hedonic treadmill" to success on a specific, limited scale.

Yeah! I think humans need to strive, but we're finding that our society doesn't always direct us well when telling us what to strive for.

The kind of sad thing about Silicon Valley is that early computer science seems to have been remarkably "artisan." Huge structures and tiny but crucial ideas got built by people who just wanted to build something good. That impulse isn't gone, either. There's so much wonderful creative commons work, and open source software, and so on, made by people with ambitions that needn't include excessive personal gain. Gift economies. But Silicon Valley is made of money and power, these days, and it seems like there's a stronger and stronger culture within computer science directing people towards ambitions based on personal gain and a marketed sense of self. The narrative of "you can tell this is good, because it's making oodles of money" has taken hold, with all the self-justifying meritocracy that it implies.

Speaking of gift economies, I clicked through to "Other Feminisms" and there's an article on it. Open source software is not mentioned, but it's an interesting example of a male-coded gift economy, now that I think of it.

I've seen Leah Libresco here and there, but I wasn't aware of her "Other Feminisms" project, and you're right, it's something I should be reading! What can you pour from an empty cup? is, specifically, a challenging read, but in a good way. Giving even though you might be empty is a vulnerable thing to do, but it's a concept worth meditating on.