I just finished a book about a man who has been living without money for over 10 years titled "The Man Who Quit Money". It's a different perspective on not needing money. Instead of having plenty of money this book is about a man who doesn't need any money at all because he chooses not to need money, he lives outside of the money system. The title of this post seems to include men like Suelo, the subject of the book, but the content of the post seems to exclude people like this as it focuses on having more than enough money instead of not needing money.
The book does a great job describing the evolution of this man's philosophy on living outside of the money system and what it has done for him. If at all interested I highly recommend it. Instead of trying to accumulate so much money you can't imagine needing more a healthy alternative might be to focus on reducing your need for money.
I was curious, so I looked it up on Amazon. This is an excerpt of the book description:
The Man Who Quit Money is an account of how one man learned to live, sanely and happily, without earning, receiving, or spending a single cent. Suelo doesn't pay taxes, or accept food stamps or welfare. He lives in caves in the Utah canyonlands, forages wild foods and gourmet discards. He no longer even carries an I.D. Yet he manages to amply fulfill not only the basic human needs-for shelter, food, and warmth-but, to an enviable degree, the universal desires for companionship, purpose, and spiritual engagement.
How did he find companionship in the Utah canyonlands? Does he have a girlfriend who shares the same lifestyle? Or is this more of a "the trees and animals are his friends" sort of thing?
He has a very active blog which he is posting to and replying to comments most days. He does volunteer work and other work in exchange for food or other provisions. I think he still travels frequently staying with people who offer room. He has a family that he's described as being very close to. He has spent time with people who share his views but I don't know about his current situation. He is gay so if he is in an intimate relationship it is probably with a man. I think he might have a more active social life than myself.
This may not answer your entire question, but in the first pages of the book preview on Amazon:
"He does not panhandle, and he often works--declining payment for his efforts."
Also:
"And although he lives in a cave, he is not a hermit: he is relentlessly social, remains close with friends and family, and engages in discussions with strangers via the website he maintains from the public library."
It doesn't seem like this lifestyle is fundamentally sustainable for society (foraging does not scale). With something that will not work if everyone does it, is it really worth idolizing?
The book does talk about how this lifestyle is available only because of the consumerist lifestyle that dominates this country and the paradox this seems to present. The thing is there's an entire spectrum between how this man lives and the consumer lifestyle that is now the norm in this country. There's no ned to idolize his lifestyle, it's more about being aware of your needs and what makes you happy or keeps you at peace and consciously choosing your place along that spectrum. The author describes his views on this kind of self reflection and I found it very comforting because it seemed to closely align with the lifestyle I would like to adhere to. It's not the extreme Suelo has chosen but I believe it's closer to that end than what I think is typical in this country. Check out the book, it's an easy and enjoyable read. I'd send you my copy but I really want my wife to read it.
There are several of these people/stories out there. All still use some kind of currency, though. Usually favors, or they trade physical things. What's wrong with a paycheck when you're doing work that solves a problem? It's still a system of mutually-beneficial trade, yet it's seen as less noble. Why is that?
Well it's all about the options one has right? I personally am looking to be able as much as a person can do.
If you chose to not live with money, you can be happy, but you are only very very restricted in what you do.
You can live in the woods for sure, but you will never be able to have a family except they all want to live in the woods, you will never be able to give you child an education if it wants to, you'll never be able to be a scientist again, nor solving problems for other people, you can only solve problems for yourself.
For me personally, that's not something to strive for.
Impossible to answer this honestly until you've reached that point. More than likely you will discover a passion for something that currently does not exist in your life. Life is never ending learning, including who you are today and how you are different than yesterday.
Then perhaps you need to do some more soul-searching? Not saying it's a bad thing that you have reached this point and haven't figured "the answer" yet, but I'm pretty sure "the answer" is probably somewhere inside of you.
I have not reached that point.. yet (I hope I will, rather sooner than later), but supposing I did reached that point, let's say, yesterday, oh boy, there are soooo many things that I would love to be doing.
For instance, after maybe going on a shopping spree for all those things that I've always wanted (truly not that many or that extravagant), for example setting up a very nice NAS + Media Center for my house, getting a swimming pool maybe, a laptop upgrade (mine is past 7 years of daily use...) and maybe stuff for my girlfriend/wife, I would then spend a few months travelling (not the whole world mind you, maybe 4-5 2-month trips or so). But aside from inane things and materialistic desires...
I would love to do a few things (besides spending time with family/friends) that would make up my "daily life", meaning I would like to do this as a form of retirement.
- Study without worrying if I'm going to be able to maintain the scholarship for example. Just get a Physics degree and maybe a chemistry one.
- Put an animal shelter and then replicate if successful, i.e. put a LOT of shelters throughout my country.
- My most desired idea: To develop what I call an "Idea Lab", which is something I'm sure a lot of other people have thought of. What about using my bottomless bucket of money to fund really neat and cool ideas that a lot of normal folks have, and having a staff of engineers, mathematicians, and in general all types of scientists and makers, to make these ideas come to life. Ideas that should help other people like water purification tools/processes, clean energy generation, etc.
I think those are the 3 things that would very easily consume my life if I had no need for money. I would love for example to donate to my college a building or two, computers, maybe pay lecture for really cool guys to inspire students, etc.
In short, I do actually dream on becoming wealthy enough not to care about my survival so I could help others around me. First family and friends and then my immediate community. And finally, if I actually become like ultra-rich, I would just DIE to put my own space company and help, even if a tiny bit, to get humanity out of this planet and unto the stars. In that regard I think something like Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace would absolutely rock!
But of course, like someone else mentioned before, that's what I say I will do in my hypothetically perfect world. But I like to think that I won't deviate much from the general idea.... of course only time will tell.
PS: Now that I think of it, I would certainly look at putting libraries around my hometown for example. Real libraries (like with books and maybe even classrooms or something). What about putting some type of "online university", that's basically a building with the necessary tools to let people study coursers from Coursera and the like? and maybe even have "TA's" that would help you out if you got stuck. I think that could go a long way to help people bootstrap themselves out of poverty, like one other poster commented before. So no giving away free money, but the opportunity to make something for yourself. Which coming in from a third world country, let me tell you how satisfactory it is to see someone that had everything against them, succeed and be a happy person.
...and of course I would like a pony that shits rainbows... but like my dad likes to say "the cool thing about imagination is that it's free, so why dream small?"
Me too and that's exactly my point. I don't know you but based on your writing and presence here on HN we probably have a few things in common. Specifically a need to be challenged and a need to learn and/or explore. This leads us to change as a person each day and it is very interesting the types of things a person will pursue when not pursuing money. For that matter, the same applies to marriage. When I stopped pursuing a mate I had the time to indulge on myself.
Some of the weirdest things I've done that I never would have seen coming:
- paint. I literally rent a warehouse so I can paint on massive canvases. Been doing it for years now, I don't show off my work, I have no need to be an artist I have a need to be creative
- work a 9-5 mega corp job. I know this sounds like a bummer to most of the HN world. But it keeps me active. Gives me a place to be and a regular schedule and a network of friend. Where I live 5 days a week there is nobody my age that isn't at work. Without a job, my natural habit it to be nocturnal and I don't live in on of the few cities where that is reasonably possible.
- code for fun and not the profit. I've coded since ~97, that's when I was in high school. Before that, I wasn't a typical kid that was coding back then. I was semi-popular bully/pothead/dropout kid that just wanted to party all the time. But I always liked math so my counselors would force me towards computers. That changed everything for me. I never saw it coming but now recognize that was the most pivotal part of my life
Point is, speculating on what you will want to do with your time in the future assuming two of the biggest variables in our society were removed or became inapplicable to you is like guessing what the price of bitcoin will be in 3 years. You can guess, and probably make a solid case to defend your guess but more than likely three years from now you will be proved wrong.
Either way I agree with your message and agree that you should strive for this thought process. Always chase a passion and always look for new ones. Too much focus on money and fame will likely not fulfill you in the long run.
I've been thinking along these lines lately. I've never much cared for or been interested in attention. I'm totally comfortable with the fact I'm going to be forgotten. I've been very lucky and I don't have to worry much about money. I'm about to finish school. What do I do next? I basically have two answers: (1) Entertain myself. Learn things because I curious. Work on things because I think they're exciting or interesting, without worrying if they're useful or valuable. (2) Try to make socially valuable contributions. How do I best put my skills to work for others? Free software is one good model here. I've been trying to learn about the non-profit model.
I'm very interested to hear other people's thoughts.
Very lucky. A combination of things. I'm financially responsible and I don't want much. Startups. My partner is successful. Finishing school doesn't mean I'm 23. I decided to get a PhD in mathematics in my mid-30s. This is an example of (1).
As someone in almost the same position as you were in, may I ask a more personal question? Were you able to get into a prestigious school once you had money? I want to go not because I care about prestige or about connections, but simply because I want to find out what the experience is like, and know that I can stand with the best. I do online MIT classes for fun just to prove to myself that I can do it, but I never really had opportunity growing up, nor did I realize how much opportunity mattered. Now I'm concerned it's too late.
I'd love to get your thoughts. Please feel free to shoot me an email if you have ideas about how I might pursue this.
Me too, I do not desire attention at all, I would love the freedom to pursue intellectual activities that are challenging... I really enjoy making apps and there aren't many apps that really showcase the latest iPads abilities well
My ultimate goal would be financial freedom to work on cool apps full time .. something with A.I. in it, but really delivers graphically as well, as I enjoy challenging both the algorithmic side of my brain with AI and the spatial side of my brain with 3D programming, and I really really enjoy squeezing the last inch out of hardware!
Just lost my job though, so I'm pushing to launch my app this month ASAP, but might have to go back to making cat websites for a few months :(
It will be interesting though to see how your interest in making apps for the sake of it is impacted by the fact that you're now making them for money. That, of course, intersects with the premise of the article.
I think the idea of following one's passion as a means of obtaining financial security is generally oversold (though clearly not impossible). As soon as you add the financial factor, the enjoyment can be sucked out of it. For one, you're not doing it in the way you might if not for the need to monetize. Secondly, you find yourself doing all kinds of stuff that are decidedly not your passion (administrivia, marketing, etc.)
I know what a non-profit is. It just means that left over money (i.e. fees and dontations minus costs) does not accrue to any shareholders, but stay within the organization and that it enjoys certain tax benefits. I'm interested in it as a possible organization vehicle for social good, although I realize that is not necessary. The Linux Foundation is also a non-profit.
After I sold my company for enough money that it was obvious I'd never have to work again, my mind went to the same place as yours.
Contributing to free/open software is a good one.
But also there are so many pseudo-business projects that are worth doing, and not commercializing. You know like when people say, "People love it, but we're trying to figure out how to monetize it." Wouldn't it be nice to not monetize it, and just leave it as a cool thing that exists? Closer to art than commerce.
I think you hit most developer's dream in your last three sentences. Code is art and it's a fantastic way to give back to the world (if you can afford to do so).
Nah, code can solve problems. It doesn't matter if it's pretty code, or the most efficient code, it just needs to be useful to someone. Developers are tool builders, not artists.
Can you show me the source that you think is art? I see lots of #define and code that looks like C source.
Just to be clear, we are talking about source code itself that is art, right? Of course, source code can be written to create art. It's a tool, after all.
Hey, if I've got enough money to not worry about it, I'm likely to do things right for the sheer pleasure of it.
I suppose it's a bit like wordworking. Sure, most things serve some purpose, but I think that - ignoring costs - it's more pleasant for everyone involved if the end result is pleasing to look at and well built.
I have very often worried about how much goes undone, because it can't be done for a profit. As a musician who has never made a cent from it, I know that I make what I make because I want to. I know there are people who make crazy art/tech installations, who probably don't make money.
Still, I always wonder, what if any amazing things are technically feasible right now, that nobody is doing because there's no clear business plan?
Lots of things. But if there's no business plan, then you'd be doing it for yourself. And honestly, doing something for a lot of people is vastly more helpful to all of us, than sitting alone at home with your toys.
My friend Tom always asks me, when I'm suggesting rolling our own whatever (software) "Joe, we CAN do anything. What SHOULD we do?" meaning how should we spend our limited time and effort most productively. And the free market is a great measure of what's productive.
Linus wrote Linux initially as an exercise to learn about writing kernels for i386. That it was just a hobby and not intended to be professional was even in the initial release announcement.
It is also possible to view Stallman as having written gcc and emacs so that he could live according to his own moral views with regards to software. That other people benefit from these pieces of software seems to be an altruistic component of Stallman's ethical worldview but ultimately a side effect of Stallman's personal goal of not needing to touch proprietary software. If Stallman was willing to compromise on his moral convictions, it is likely that neither gcc nor emacs would exist as they do today.
Amen, I have personally experience how much better I enjoy working on something when I don't necessarily need to worry about monetizing it. In my mind, my non-profit work is immensely more successful and rewarding because everyone involved are doing it because they just really want to.
It requires a very different way of thinking and looking at things. Money is a metric often used to measure success. Even in non-profits people start to get "metric driven", but I feel that somehow belittles my efforts.
Truth be told, money is work + luck. The only metric that I like to look at is, am I doing what I can. Random dehumanizing metrics be damned, you can't measure everything!
It does. There's lot of psychology research on this, intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation, etc. Have a look at Alfie Kohn's books, like Punished by Rewards.
Thanks. I recently read Drive, which was an eye opening book, especially when I can attest to the negative consequences of bonus based ruining of intrinsically motivated people.
I don't think Gates et al are outliers. Most people who make $10m+ from their own efforts do it at least in part because they enjoy working and the vast majority I'd estimate keep on working in some form although they may shift fields such as Gates moving to philanthropy and PG moving from Viaweb to his other stuff. It's more lottery winners who were not so in to their work who quit and then generally run in to a bunch of problems afterwards.
@cottonseed @sivers Nit sure where are you from but if you can help 1. create softwares in our lanaguage (Tamil or any indian language) it would be greatly helpful for us to keep the language for another couple of centuries atleast. It lived for more than 2000+ years but i think it will go extinct soon. There is enourmous amount of knowledge in there with lot of empazize on some personal life , profesional life and governance. I think if you can make your effort in this area it will be great.
For example we have something called Thirukkural which i feel covers anything that would ever need to be written about managing your life and i see no reason for any more new MB concepts.
The other option (very very interesting and may be fulfilling) is that try changing the country , given that you say you dont attention and i think you are either capable of making lot of money or already have money. Then setup an corporate empire in our country (India) and drive politics to the better side (you can be in the backgound orchestrating). I think India is the largest country with large population which will fall in love for good governance and reasonable life of course the current scenario is changing the slightly due to west model being copied but it is not yet too late to change it.
OP is right in that you should at least do this experiment about the money as entrepreneur. If you had all the money in the world would you still be building what you are building? I have come to believe that if the answer is no that I am doing the wrong thing. Everything must at least be building toward what I think I need to do in life and that doesn't mean only making money to do them but activily working on it as well. It makes me very happy and I think it would do that to more people if they would follow that principle.
I guess I was lucky in that when I learned programming when I was 8, over 30 years ago, it created my path so to say and I seldom worked solely for the money as a result. The money was more or less a side effect of working towards my goal; actually, I would be a lot richer if I had picked money but I don't want to waste time so I had great opporunities pass be by in favour of being able to further my research. But even though my dreams are getting clearer; they started out vague and far away. That's not a bad thing; if it were clear it would've been done many times over already.
Suppose you know exactly what you would rather spend your time doing but simply don't have the resources. The reality is that many noble and often selfless pursuits require substantially more resources than the average person has access to.
To use an example, suppose you're disgusted by homelessness and want to solve it. Realistically this is something that requires political influence and a large amount of money, not just to float yourself, as trying to solve this problem is unlikely to pay well, but also to develop solutions. So you say to yourself, I'm going to spend the next 5-10 years of my life trying to fill these gaps. Part of this plan may likely involve becoming a "successful" entrepreneur, as the typical job is unlikely to provide you with these resources either.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to admit that our pursuits are often stepping stones to achieving more later on.
Of course they are; I just said that I need it like this and I think it would be better for some others as well. Doing something unrelated as stepping stone often ends up never doing anything about your goal and ends up on the pile of 'moving to another country when I am older'. And such. Not working on the goal especially when you need a lot of money for it which you probably never reach is making people unhappy longterm.
I would spend more time helping others understand that life is difficult and that we are impermanent. If we stop and think about why we feel unhappy, angry, insecure or afraid then we can understand and remove the cause.
We long for the past or we hope for the future and in doing so, we rush through the now. Stop. Breath. Be human. Life is more than your job. You job is impermanent. You are impermanent. Your health or the people you love may be gone tomorrow.
Sincere question from an open-minded student: My mindset is such that I try do everything for long-term happiness, but if I stop worrying about the future and live only one day at a time, where will I ever end up?
I, too, am a student. We all learn from each other.
We can't say where we will end up in life. No one knows this for certain. Being responsible and planning for the future are good things. Taking good care of yourself financially, mentally, physically and emotionally are all important now and for the future.
Life happens while we make plans. Many times, life interferes with our plans. That's OK. That doesn't mean we should stop planning. Understanding that we cannot predict or control the future will transform our suffering.
We can live now and plan for our future and have peace inside as well.
If you pick up almost any book on eastern philosophy you'll find that living in the present is the key. Give up the future. It won't be how you imagine anyway.
Amen! Agreed. I always like thinkers that challenge the unexamined life and its motivations. It gives you something to think about and just enough motivation to question why you are doing what you are doing-- and make a change.
I'm not so sure any normal human is free of the need for some kind of attention. To be kicked out of a group feels like death to us, because our mental machinery was formed to deal with a situation where it was often death. We value the regard of our peers because it's actually a life and death resource to us.
That said, humans are pretty horrific, when it comes down to it. Not that many creatures do the things to their own species that humans do as often as we do with as much enthusiasm.
Given money enough, and time, I definitely have things I would work on (mostly developing numerical algorithms for solving physical modeling problems, and expressing them in software). Yet, paradoxically, I worry about being given unconditional money and time to work on them.
Occasionally my wife and I talk about my quitting work, and us moving to Thailand (her native country). Her vision of my ideal life there is that I wouldn't have to work, and could sit around doing my pet projects without any time or money constraints.
That always strikes me as dangerous. Those projects I want to work on didn't jump into my head unbidden. The ideas arose from years of coming to grips with real-world problems that don't have entirely satisfactory solutions. If I untether myself from the work that led to the ideas I want to pursue, then where will the next ideas come from? And how will I know whether they are worth pursuing?
To me, having side projects that seem worth doing, especially from the point of being useful to others (Sivers' way of distinguishing what he means by "not just relaxing"), requires their being grounded in real-world projects. And one measure of the worth of real-world projects, like it or not, is that people are willing to pay to get them done.
Occasionally my wife and I talk about my quitting work, and us moving to Thailand (her native country). Her vision of my ideal life there is that I wouldn't have to work, and could sit around doing my pet projects without any time or money constraints.
I can sympathize. My wife and I have ties to South America. Food and shelter are way way cheaper down there. The voices in my head make compelling arguments for making the move. What stops me is the kids. Don't see much of a future for them in South America vs growing up in SV.
Don't know much of anything detailed about "South America", which is a fairly big place, but a bit of time there beyond a vacation would probably do wonders for the kids in any case. My kids, wife and I live in Italy now, but I hope in the future that we'll get to live a bit in the US (where I'm from) so that they get to experience that, too.
Really? I haven't been in either place, but everything I've heard about California says it's a great place if you're a single twenty-year-old geek but a dreadful place to grow up in; intuitively I would have thought moving to South America would be ideal for the kids if they have US citizenship and therefore the right to move back to Silicon Valley later, if and when they are in the situation of being single twenty-year-old geeks?
Kids are gr8 I think: attending good public schools with favorable demographics and good influences, lots of extracurricular activities in the community, tons of outdoorsy excursions such as hiking, camping, nature. Great museums and exposure to diverse culture. Skiing in winter. Problem is cost of living. Reasonable sized housing for a family of 4 and a dog IMO is 3/2 1800 sqft with yard and garage on 5000sqft lot. Thats hitting 1.5M+ in my hood right now. So buying is out of the question. Right now I'm renting a 3/2 condo for 3650, so, as a lifetime renter, over next 10 years were are talking about 500-600K in rent alone if you factor in increases. How does one save for retirement? college for kids?
Problem with most of south america is infrastructure and security. These are things that here in the states we take for granted.
South America is a huge fucking continent. There are places in the Andes in Chile and Argentina that have standards of living comparable to 1st-world countries and a quality of outdoor activities that go beyond what you could get in the best Alpine towns of Switzerland, with free, high-quality public education and good universities nearby. They're obviously not the cheapest places to be in, but they easily cost 1/3 or less of what living in California does.
Those projects I want to work on didn't jump into my head unbidden. The ideas arose from years of coming to grips with real-world problems that don't have entirely satisfactory solutions. If I untether myself from the work that led to the ideas I want to pursue, then where will the next ideas come from? And how will I know whether they are worth pursuing?
Excellent insight. One of the issues with the retired leisure lifestyle is that your scope narrows and you don't have very many interesting problems to work on. ("steak or lobster?", "Gstaad or Monaco?")
> Excellent insight. One of the issues with the retired leisure lifestyle is that your scope narrows and you don't have very many interesting problems to work on. ("steak or lobster?", "Gstaad or Monaco?")
That's really up to you. No one is stopping rich people from going into scientific research or philanthropy (for an example, look at Bill Gates).
What I mean is that a lifestyle of constant luxury and leisure provides no problems, no resistance.
Whereas taking on actual challenges - as BG has done - provides things against which to struggle, and stimulates creativity.
You're right that it's a conscious choice. Choosing the "easy way" means that you aren't likely to be as creative and productive as if you take on complex challenges.
"If I untether myself from the work that led to the ideas I want to pursue, then where will the next ideas come from? And how will I know whether they are worth pursuing?"
Can't you always dive back into industry when you're past your current crop of ideas?
Good question. In my case, probably not, but it might work for others (I do fairly specialized research; if I drop it, either somebody else will pick it up right away, or it will die altogether).
More likely for me, I think, is that I would develop interest in some other problem area, and just dig in to the new domain. For example, I'm always struck when I hear about the sorts of medical problems that hit people from my wife's village. I don't know anything about medicine, but it feels to me like a focused data collection project could lead to a significant improvement health outcomes.
It may be partially due to my training as a researcher keeping my eyes open to it, but it is a pretty rare month that goes by where I don't run into an interesting problem I could easily spend a year or two working productively on. Many of them don't come out of my current work or even during my work time.
The idea of running out of "good ideas" is unfathomable to me, honestly. Running out of time is very easy to imagine, though.
I can't over emphasize the importance of this message!!!!!!!!!!!!
After college, I worked for a 'prestigious' consulting firm and found immediate success in the perspective of my peers. Truthfully, I enjoyed it. That feeling faded quickly and the cubicle walls closed in and 13 months later I quit.
With no plan or direction, I moved back with my parents, who did not charge me rent and bought much of my food. In other words, I had nearly zero expenses with a stock pile of cash from my prior employer. I relaxed for 2 months before realizing that I could pretty much live this content life for like 25 years. $20k goes a long way with no expenses.
I started spending my time building websites for friends and found the work fascinating and completely rewarding. It's that curiosity and fulfillment that I seek out in everything I do. I have since created a life for myself and the $20k in savings is long gone so money still drives me.
But at least I know what motivates me. I know what I'd do if I could do anything and that is an incredible gift.
I am fortunate enough to be in this position. In my 50s, in good health, and I don't have to work if I don't want to. I've always dreamed of being in this situation and now I am. So what am I doing with my time?
- Still enjoying not having to get up and go to work, and not having to work for idiot managers. Sometimes I waste whole days going nothing (thanks, 2048). I worked in startups for 25 years, and have been mulling over my "pattern": I meet a charismatic founder, get seduced, work my ass off. That's a lot less attractive now. The getting seduced part depended, in part, on the golden carrot. (But only in part.)
- Exercising a lot more.
- Working on my pet projects, with a degree of urgency that varies over time. I don't need these projects to pay the bills, or to be loved and used. I get my jollies out of writing the software.
- Consulting, but being very selective about the projects I pick. They have to be interesting, and hopefully related to my pet projects. I've had some success here.
- Learning to play piano. (Would have been so much easier if I didn't stop when I was a child.)
- Enjoying more time with my wife.
- Getting back to teaching (software, of course).
Here's the "problem": At my age, (and due in large part to my temperament), I'm still not thinking very far outside the box. I can afford to do lots of new things, but I'm having some trouble figuring out which ones to actually do. Why?
- Software: I've always written software. I always will. I need to make time for other things.
- Inertia: I tend to do what I know, and expand out from there gradually. I seem to be incapable of ravenously seeking out novelty.
- Need ideas: After many years of working very hard, putting job and family first, those are the things I tend to think about.
- Need to say yes more: Except for the teenager living at home, I can go someplace warm and windy and windsurf for a week, anytime I want to. Not sure why I don't. I'm starting to say yes to more impulsive things, but it definitely goes against the grain.
- Frittering time away on small projects: I took on too many, so for a while, I had no time for anything else. I'm in a lull now, so I'm again contemplating how I want to spend my time.
I suggest that you go travelling. It's fun anyway, but you will also see new people and places that might give you the 'a-ha!' to give you a new target to work towards. Find a way to travel without your teenager, methinks, because then you'll be focusing more on seeing the things you want to see, rather than a more generic please-the-whole-family itinerary.
I spent several months crossing the US and there were only two destinations locked in - the arrival airport and the departure airport. I'd have a general idea of what I was doing the next day, but it wasn't unusual to decide in the morning to go in a different direction. It was fantastic freedom of movement, and I saw things I'd've never seen otherwise. I could travel on my whims.
Travelling with others has pros and cons - more people means more to keep happy, but also more shared experiences and memories. But however you do it, keep the ability to make spontaneous changes.
> Not just “sit around and do nothing”, because that's still just relaxing. I mean after that, when you're ready to be useful to others again.
What would you do then, if you didn't need the money, and didn't need the attention?
Yes, we need money to live. We need attention to live, too.
What's interesting to me about that bit above is that it's presented in this sort of homiletic style, as if it's the distillation of experience down to some obvious and unquestionable core, but it's pernicious in that it's pure ideology.
"[W]hen you're ready to be useful to others again," does so much work in this regard. It frames entrepreneurship as a service that is situated within a matrix of rational choices and utilitarian moral justification. We do these things because they're legitimately useful, they just happen to make us filthy rich. This wealth, however serendipitous and embarrassing it might be, is also justified by the actual utility it provides. Zuckerberg is wealthy because Facebook is an unquestionable force for good.
The author continues, framing entrepreneurs as, at worst, misguided persons who move from being accidentally useful to being purposefully useful; Persons temporarily blinded by their universal needs for attention and money. Never mind the problem of defining exactly how much attention and money one needs--to say nothing of security and nutrition, arguably up for purchase, or love, validation, and a sense of growth, arguably not up for purchase--to...live? Survive? Get by? Flourish? Never mind all that, once that's taken care of, entrepreneurs like the author can now get back to their innately good core of, from the author's tagline, "mak[ing] useful things, and shar[ing] what [we] learn."
Look, fundamentally, entrepreneurs exist to get rich. The "problems" they "solve" are chosen for their profitability, and the rhetoric about utility is just a way to colonize the discourse and deflect attention from the obvious avarice of it all. On the level of manipulation, the level of stopping the hoi polloi from rising up and strangling you, it makes sense; Anyone too stupid to see they're, for example, making their personal lives worse with Facebook so that Zuckerberg can sell ads, isn't going to have the discretion or wisdom to run an economy after any misguided revolt, no matter how apparently justified.
As a means for understanding our own motivations and desires, our relationships to the game of Capitalism, these are the guilt-addled ramblings of emotionally crippled narcissists. Basic self-awareness demands that we do better.
My comment refers to the hope or expectation that noble acts will always be outwardly rewarded in some form (in this life or after) by a being who rewards us based on merit. That expectation is not a driving force for an atheist or naturalist.
My point is that the absence of (expected) outward recognition or reward for altruistic behavior (by a supernatural or spiritual being) does not preclude someone from experiencing the joy that comes through service. And no, I personally don't classify that joy as a selfish reward, but rather a natural consequence built in to the human brain. Whether put there by God or developed via natural forces/evolution as a mechanism to protect life (we feel satisfaction in helping other animals - not just our own species), it doesn't matter; the fact is, it's a part of our nature and can hardly be discredited in any moral debate.
When you say "Even an atheist must admit that there's a certain satisfaction that comes from helping other people (even anonymously) that really has no limit." you imply that theists have a reason to being altruistic (an probably will?) while atheists don't (and probably won't). Altruism and faith are not correlated, hence I disagree to the way you worded that.
I try to think this way. One thing I try to do is not work too much, so I had been freelancing trying to keep my hours to around 25 a week. It freed up time to do other things, I was learning to play guitar and working on some film scripts (I am using "was" because I decided to take on a full time programming gig until June but even this I didn't take for the money, it's way below market, I took the job because it sounded interesting).
One problem I encountered was people just not "getting it." And I don't mean random strangers, I mean potential clients. It's oddly difficult to tell people "I make enough money to support my lifestyle working 25 hours a week and I like to save the rest of my time for other projects that interest me." They expect you to be "doing more" or see you as lazy, after all why not make the most money you can possibly make at all times? When in fact I think I'm far less lazy than most people, I put a ton of effort into coding, educating myself, going the extra mile, working on projects for fun, reading technical books, going to talks. I'm also very serious about my pursuits beyond my programming "day job." And yet I've found it difficult to convey that, and that clients consider me unserious because I was intentionally working less than 40 hours a week even if they are looking for someone for a part time role.
How do clients become aware that you only work 25 hours per week?
If they're asking you "how much do you work," you can reply: "Considering my other commitments, I can give you 25 hours per week." They don't need to know what your other commitments are, and they'll probably be content to assume those commitments consist of other freelancing gigs.
My clients don't know any details about each other. They know I have multiple clients, but they don't know each other's identities, how many there are, or how much time I give to each.
If they say they want that, they probably also mean they want 40+ hours a week. If your goal is to work below 40 hours, then such clients aren't for you. In that case it's not a question of them "getting it." You genuinely don't offer the service they want to buy.
One of the best skills you can develop as a freelancer is to read between the lines when doing client development. Some clients say they want a freelancer, but what they really want is a full-time, remote employee. They won't necessarily know that about themselves, and if they don't, they won't articulate it directly. So you need to get good at sussing things out.
Taking a pseudo-freelance, client-demands-full-time gig and trying to compress it into ~10 hours a week is a recipe for disaster. You won't please the client, you'll drive yourself insane, and you'll end up resenting the work.
The biggest favor you can do for yourself is to discriminate ahead of time. Determine which sorts of jobs, and which sorts of clients, fit with your model. Accept the ones that do; turn down the ones that don't. (Don't be afraid to refer someone who doesn't fit your model to a freelancer you know who is a better fit. It's just a good-karma thing.)
I disagree with you, it depends a lot on the problem.
If I were to hire a contractor to do work for me, I would require exclusivity for the duration of the contract and not because I want a certain number of hours necessarily. Being a developer I know that the delivered value is not directly related to the number of hours, I really do and in fact I'm skeptical of the value delivered by people claiming to work long hours.
No, I would want exclusivity because focus is important and people (especially developers) cannot focus on multiple things at the same time, unless we're talking about things that the contractor is very specialized in, has done those things repeatedly and has a track record to show for it. For CRUD stuff for example, I wouldn't care. But for new, more difficult, more challenging problems that require focus and inspiration, then I would require exclusivity. On the types of problems that I currently work on, for example, I cannot focus on multiple things on the same day, or even the same week. Sometimes if I get distracted by conversations that are unrelated to what I'm working on, my whole day is fucked because then I have to remember the context I was in and I'm already tired and out of my zone and I can't get back anymore, ending up staring at the laptop with a stupid look on my face. I have days in which I notify everybody that I need to get work done and don't want to be interrupted, unless there's an emergency.
Sometimes I envy devops, or CRUD developers, or other types of freelancers that can rely on experience to place themselves on autopilot or that can deliver value in a short amount of time. For example devops get paid mostly for being on-call, which means they can get calls at 12 o'clock at night, but can also mean that they don't have much to do all day and thus can serve multiple clients at the same time.
And note that I'm not comparing the difficulty of the job here, but about the types of gigs on which you can rely on experience or on short amounts of focus to deliver value. Or who knows, maybe I don't have enough experience and some day I'll be able to place myself on autopilot.
That's the big distinction. You're imagining yourself as the client, but I'm imagining the thought process of clients such as I've actually had. In my personal experience, clients are almost always never developers. And they do conflate hours worked with value delivered. I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule, but for what it's worth, I've never encountered one.
You could say something like this: "I'm generally not able to disclose details about other projects. But I can tell you that their effect on my availability will be..."
don't do that, just be straightforward instead. At least they know what they are dealing with, liking it or not is simething else.
Sure, it's not a blatant lie, but imo it comes close enough. Suppose you do say this, and later a client finds out you actually hardly have any or no other projects ('work' projects, that is), I'm pretty sure they would think you haven't been completely honest. And such thoughts harm trust.
> Sure, it's not a blatant lie, but imo it comes close enough.
That's only the case if you have literally no other projects. If you have even one other project, it's not the slightest bit misleading. All I recommended saying is that you don't disclose details about your other work. That statement implies nothing about the volume of the other work, except that it's non-zero.
If I were in your shoes, I would frame the rest of the time as professional development, which is likely a positive sign that might convince them to give you high rates that at times grow.
"I aim for about 25 hours/week of client work so I have plenty of time for professional development and personal projects where I can focus on learning instead of delivering the best results for my clients."
If phrased right, you can make it sound like you're already an expert at what you're doing for them, which is why you don't necessarily learn as much from it, so it's important to spend time honing your skills in new areas so you can expand your offerings.
I envy your work style, but I'm constantly afraid I would then be poor when I'm old.
What's your retirement plan? Do you even have one yet? Don't take me wrong, I'm in my mid 20s and I live in a country with offers you an ok retirement.
Well, to be frank, I am putting off thinking seriously about retirement. I feel like I can accomplish some substantial creative work and that the time to try to do that is now while I'm young. I guess you could say I'm hedging multiple interests, with the expectation that if none of my experiments takes off I'll have to try out something different and more full time in the future. Just to be clear, the idea isn't to not work. In many cases I'm actually working far more than 40 hours a week, but I'm only doing 25 hours of work for some person or organization that is paying me. But I'm working on stuff I personally care about.
That's true. I am doing far better than just scraping by but I also don't have much in terms of savings. One challenge is that I live in Brooklyn, which has a high cost of living.
I used to think like that a lot but more and more I wonder if it is really a good idea to go through life in a way so you have it nice when you retire.
I currently am doing something very similar, and I feel pretty strongly that I could literally do this until I die, just like I plan to do my music gigs until I die.
Literally, I am billing < 20 hours a week, and unless I become disabled and/or get dementia/Alzheimers, I feel that I will like doing what I am doing in some form or other forever.
I've done a lot of different things in my life, and this _is_ having it nice. It's far nicer than the "retirements" of many of my friends in their 70s, though I will grant it is not as plush or completely free of pressure as my parents' retirements as school teachers/administrators.
Yeah I'm doing something similar. The hours I work varies, this week I'm waiting for a client to get back to me about some stuff so it'll be < 20 hours, but I never work more than 40. As you say I could probably do this until I die. I don't have a family yet though, I'm sure things will be different then.
I'm also travelling in SE Asia so my outgoings are very low. I didn't realise how cheap it was here. I'm bringing in nearly 5x (before tax) of what I'm spending.
Good luck. My goal is to retire to a 20 hour or 3 day work week some day. Need to think of some passive-aggressive domain name to get that thought across. Maybe retiredguru.com or something.
A few years ago I decided that I wanted more free time to work on side projects, travel, whatever, and I made what I thought was a rather reasonable offer to my current employer and a couple of suitors.
I said "pay me 3/5ths of the salary you just offered me and I'll work 3 days a week". I also offered to keep this arrangement flexible so that I could work in stretches of varying lengths if needed.
This did not go over well. People were actually offended by this proposition and it went nowhere.
As a founder myself, I understand the desire to only hire people that will give you their full heart and soul. But, I'm also a practical person and if someone's skills are valuable to me, then they are very likely still valuable in part.
In fact, when it comes to a product/engineering position, I think the employer would come out on top in such a scenario. They still get access to the person's brain and all of their knowledge and ideas. For someone that's being offered high compensation, their knowledge and ideas are probably a big part of the reason why.
I've tried this several times too and it has never worked well. I've been both employee and employer and I really wish people were more rational about this.
Not only that but I think this is the key to fix the economy! Think about it: if people could accept salary cuts for less work we would have more jobs and could transition to an eventual post-scarcity economy smoothly.
Creative workers don't output more than 25 quality hours a week anyway.
I think for many people, most people even, this is not a rational decision. It's not about your time being worth a certain amount of value to the company and 4/5 or 3/5 of availability being worth proportionately less. Some people are offended by the idea of you wanting to structure your weeks differently in the first place & think of it purely as special treatment. They are obsessed with the idea of a five day work week and the traditional employer-employee relationship and accepting employment on non-standard terms would be giving away the employer's implicit power over the employee.
To the degree that they're actually offended, I think it may be more reflexive that the employee would put an upper bound on the amount of work they would do in a week.
We sort of have this system already in place - it's called part time work, and it's generally reserved for jobs that don't offer benefits like paid vacation time or health insurance.
If I am willing to work 3/5 days a week for 3/5 of the pay, do I also only get 3/5 of the health care coverage and 3/5 of the vacation time of my 5/5 peers?
3/5 of vacation time - yes, why not? That's standard for part-time people here in the UK.
We obviously don't have the same healthcare situation as you, but surely it's just part of the negotiation? If 5 days a week is worth a $100k salary and $10k healthcare (don't ask me if that healthcare cost is 10x too high or 10x too low... but that doesn't matter) then 3 days a week is work $60k salary plus $6k healthcare. So offer that person $54k and healthcare. Or $66k and no healthcare. Simple enough, surely?
How about zero vacation time, and I keep the full healthcare? Or yeah, pay me 3/5 the healthcare, that's also reasonable. I'm sure this pice of the puzzle could be negotiated in each case.
> Creative workers don't output more than 25 quality hours a week anyway.
This is key. Most employers don't realise what a great deal this is. They are paying much less for probably the same amount of output. The person might even be more productive because they are more rested and can think better.
Yeah, this is a shame. I recently left my previous workplace due to a mix of burnout & boredom. I could tell this was brewing up inside me, so I asked to work 4 days a week.
Unfortunately leadership didn’t like the idea; were afraid of others doing the same. So instead of biting the bullet they lost me.
I've had fair success with similar arrangements (4 days instead of 5) and have found that I am just as productive in the 4 days as I am in the standard 5. The reduction in stress and the enjoyment that comes from pursuing your own interests has a tremendously positive impact on both your life and your work.
Arranging part-time conditions can be a slightly bumpy process: as stated above, management is often initially offended that you don't want to dedicate your life to their company, but framing your request correctly can smooth over most bumps.
When requesting a part-time arrangement I usually present it quite honestly: referring to a need for work/life balance, but also referring to the learning outcomes from pursuing challenging projects and the positive impacts they will have on my experience and capacity at work.
At the end of the day most managers realise that they are faced with either agreeing or facing the inevitable lose of an employee, but the decision can be made easier for them if you highlight the positive outcomes for your performance at work.
Incidentally, when I've described my part-time work schedule to friends and family, the universal response has been amazement and jealousy. The desire for a better work/life balance is such a common thing that I'm curious as to why so few people pursue better arrangements...?
Good advice thanks. I think the biggest fear they have is that they think other people will get jealous or ask for the same offer and it will spiral out of control. So, perhaps this works best if you work remotely, or if you try it with a very small company.
I wonder if it was in the way you phrased it? Part-time work is commonplace in non-skilled industries, and for consultants in skilled industries. It's not common but certainly present in skilled industries. I imagine it's highly dependent on the type of work you do; part-time work coding for a non-core project would probably be more acceptable than part-time work as a client account manager, for example.
Having spent most of my working life in corporate world, when I first came across people working side projects my initial reaction was that they wouldn't be a good employee. My assumption was they are here for a pay check while their passion and energy goes into their personal projects. Also you felt you'd train them up and they would be off in 6 months.
But working with a few of these guys I found they are usually the best employees. They tend to bring energy and innovation to everything they do and generally better than a corporate drone who really does just want to cash paychecks for the rest of their life. At least in my area of marketing where one needs to look for innovation. Also they didn't exit after 6 months as building side businesses takes time and don't all succeed. For me know I'd take side projects as a plus on a CV but I suspect many people will hold to that first instinct I felt.
I did this a year ago and took four days a week for the relative pay cut. It was the best thing I've ever done related to work.
My one day off is for my own projects, and it has also become special time I can spend with my wife (I was able to convince her to do the same thing at her job).
I can't imagine going back to a full work week. All I can imagine doing is taking another day for my own projects when I can support it financially.
I left a job in the midst of Dotcom Boom 1.0. When I was trying to resign, my boss was like "Where are you going? How much are they paying? We'll match it! We'll better it!"
He found it hard to grasp that my plan was to do absolutely nothing. In fact, I told him my plan was to go watch TV for a while.
I was by no means rich but I had enough money to keep me going for a few months and this was during the Boom. It wouldn't take more than a couple of days to find a job when I was ready for one.
If you're living paycheck to paycheck and have big responsibilities (kids, a mortgage, etc) it can be inconceivable that you're willing/able to not play the game of trying to always acquire as much money as possible.
2.) Enable people to educate themselves. Public libraries were essential in building the mindset and providing the place and materials for me to drag myself out of poverty.
> 2.) Enable people to educate themselves. Public libraries were essential in building the mindset and providing the place and materials for me to drag myself out of poverty.
Completely off-topic from the OA, but do you have any plans on this front? Plans, hopeless dreams, crazy ambitions, etc.
I've been reading about stoicism lately (the ancient philosophy, not the adjective for lack of emotion) and I think that practicing stoics have some nice tools to help people out with this.
One of the primary ways that stoics find tranquility is by "wanting what you already have" instead of "wanting what you don't have." Easier said than done, so they offer some tools to help, inluding negative visualization (imagining life without things you care about), only worrying about things you have control over, and occasionally denying yourself pleasures.
For an intro to stoicism you should start with Seneca's letters and Marcus Aurelius' Meditations before you jump into Guide to the Good Life (which I do not recommend, despite Derek's praise of it)
Both amazing, but I think I prefer Epictetus' Discourses to either one.
I'm not a big fan of Guide to the Good Life either -- mostly because I think it takes a very profound (and by no means simple or obvious) set of ideas and reduces it to a kind of intellectual fad diet.
For something weightier, you might look at the works of Pierre Hadot (Philosophy as a Way of Life and What is Ancient Philosophy?), both of which contain excellent discussions of stoicism.
A Guide to the Good Life has its issues, particularly around complicating simple ideas (for example, his "trichotomy of control" adds nothing at all the the basic dichotomy, other than confusion).
However, he does a good job of giving a basic introduction and framing for Stoic concepts. I think it's easier to digest the Romans (particularly the concise and acerbic style of Epictetus) if you are somewhat familiar with the subject. I got much, much more from Epictetus than I did from Irvine, but he is, I think, a valuable on-ramp.
I'm also not sure what the big deal is with Marcus Aurelius. Compared with The Enchiridion and even Seneca's letters, it's haphazard and dull. I'll give it another shot once I'm done with all of Seneca's letters.
Personally, I would start with Irvine, then the George Long translation of The Enchiridion (it's more poetic than the Carter translation, IMO). I'm about half way through Seneca's Letters, and while enjoyable, he takes a long time to cover the same insights as Epictetus.
Truly warms my heart to see there is some resonance on HN for the stoics. I came across Epictetus in a particularly low part in my life - it was this particular passage that nailed me - excuse the bad formatting/spelling. http://wismer.github.io/
I wouldn't start with Epictetus just because I think some of his lines can be easily misinterpreted, for example, the line about kissing your child and thinking about his death can really put people off.
I had the same initial reaction with Marcus, but honestly it might be because I didn't have the right translation (pick Gregory Hays's!!) and not enough background on the man. I would highly recommend watching this short series that mentions both Epictetus and Marcus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLD09Qa3kMk I truly think you'll see the Meditations in a different way after watching this. Also, Pierre Hadot has a very good (but scholarly) analysis on it in The Inner Citadel.
And for Epictetus, I always introduce him with the story of the Vietnam prisoner of war James Stockdale who in a way relied on stoic principles to endure the tortures he was inflicted. He wrote and lectured about the lessons there, Google him around.
The Antidote: Happiness for People Who Can't Stand Positive Thinking
This book was my first introduction to stoicism. I loved the book and idea behind stoicism. I meant to find more but had forgotten about it. Thanks for the book suggestion.
If you're looking for something longer and more in-depth, the late David Foster Wallace's talk on a similar subject is incredibly sincere and motivating:
It's so interesting how our generation is so deeply interested in this idea - what would we do if money wasn't an issue? I really loved this video - a good reminder to feel okay to break the "traditional" structure and pursue happiness.
I have a lot of friends who majored in the arts and humanities and graduated straight into unemployment and misery. Some of them are happy about the fact, but the majority is really resentful towards the society. They feel cheated, as they thought they'd get a low-paying job which would still allow for a modest life, but all they were offered is volunteer work. Money, it turns out, is unimportant only if your belly is full and you have a roof on top of your head.
I majored in humanities and I'm not unemployed nor in misery. I don't feel cheated at all (never did), because society does not owe me anything since I made all the calls myself.
I studied Classical Philology. I had no idea that learning Ancient Greek and Latin would be amazing preparation for learning to write code. Hey, if you can read some Ancient Greek, you can decipher a lot of [insert computer language here].
It's probably not realistic to see a humanities degree as a meal ticket, but it can be an excellent foundation for the "real world". Getting the degree teaches you to research and to learn. Those are marketable skills you can apply to many jobs. Unless you want a career in academia, in many cases the humanities degrees aren't likely going to lead you to a job in your field of study, but they will prepare you. You just need to figure out where to apply your skills.
How is Greek and Latin helping you ? is it to infer meaning through etymology/roots ? or the different grammars ordering ?
I never really cared about languages before programming, but after learning it, then logic, semantics, ontology I think about other human languages a lot. I'm curious about your point of view coming from the opposite direction.
For me it was basically learning to take a text in a foreign language and parse it. When you're faced with a different word order and, by extension, a different way of thinking about things, you're forced to take each element of the sentence and break it down as far as you can, in order to understand what's going on.
For my second year of University, I studied in Germany (rather than Canada0, which made things really hard for me. To translate my Latin texts I translated from Latin to English and then worked out how to translate the English to German.
I had a really great professor who taught us not only how to break down words to find their meanings, but he also made no bones about the fact that the key to translating is knowing when to make a good guess.
Once you can get by with Greek and Latin, you can pick up a lot of other bits of languages fairly easily. Sometimes it's by knowing root words. Sometimes it's because you've gotten good at guessing.
A lot of those skills apply directly to reading someone else's code and trying to make sense of it. I find that if you can learn to decipher a foreign, natural language, you may just do alright with languages that machines understand.
I didn't actually major in the arts myself, but I can see many of my old friends suffering. Turns out, knowing ancient greek might help you get a coding job, but knowing data structures, algorithms and some Perl would help a lot more.
With the economy in the state that it is, it's a lot harder to beat the odds. Just getting an interview with a not-directly-applicable major seems to be flat out impossible.
After many years of watching people dear to me struggle, I'm starting to feel bad telling them that they just need to market themselves better, find a way to bypass the recruitment process and think outside the box. I've come to realize that they really got the raw end of the deal, and instead of any sympathy, they get told that they just need to try harder.
Yeah, it's probably a stretch to think that knowing Greek will get you a coding job, but in my case I ended up picking up Perl along the way and I found the two skills to be complementary.
Having said that, the team lead at my $work has an M.A. in Music Composition. Having the coding skills will get you the job, but there's nothing to say that a Humanities degree can't prepare you for getting the skills.
I might be off base here but I think this idea "what we would we do if money wasn't an issue” is subconsciously the reason why shows like the walking dead and to a lesser degree falling skies have become so popular with our generation. The theme of a post apocalyptic world where zombies and aliens are trying to kill off the human race are the obvious draw at its core these shows illustrate what a moneyless world would look like in the sense that survival and relationships with those in close proximity to you would be the only thing that mattered. I also think a moneyless world would be complete chaos but that just me.
I totally agree. It is the main reason I like the post apocalyptic genre. It's fun to think about not having to go to a job for money, building a fort, and attempting to just live. :)
I think he was. I also enjoy that fantasy, truthfully I think I'd do quite well in a post-apocalyptic society. For one thing; I have a friend who worked in a medieval troupe, and he taught me some of the basic routines they use with swords. Also I participated in http://irlshooter.com/ which was amazing, a similar level of thrill that I got from skydiving.
So forgetting all the messy business of day-to-day life, just running around with pointy weapons and fighting zombies seems appealing.
I understand your point and agree that it would be hard to lose the expected longer lifespan. Right now I live in such a way that I expect to reach a certain age and have modern conveniences available to me. When safety, freedom from pain, fresh water, food, sewers, transportation, access to information, and so on, are denied, I get grumpy. But that's my expectation because I wake up to that reality every day.
But what if I lived without that expectation? Maybe I would be happier? Maybe take better care of myself, my communities, my surroundings, the things I currently have instead of pining for the things I want? I don't know. Maybe not. Maybe live more in the present instead of fretting about the distant future and things I have no control over? Maybe not.
There are an awful lot of people on the Earth who live without the resources I have and, I could argue, are happier than me, have less overall stress, have more leisure time, are in better physical shape, and so on. And I'm not trying to romanticize it. I also understand that many people in that condition are miserable.
But overall life satisfaction is relative, isn't it, and largely a state of mind?
> There are an awful lot of people on the Earth who live without the resources I have and, I could argue, are happier than me...
Again, the myth of the extremely happy have-nots. This is coming up regularly on HN, and it's based largely on ignorance. People who have much less than you are not more happy. Access to resources, energy, improves quality of life in every way, and increases relative happiness as well. If that were not the case, then nobody in the lesser developed world would want to have a car, to eat more stuff, to have more money to spend and send their kids to school. But actually, they do, because they strive for more stuff that will make them more happy.
It's probably got to do with publicity given to those who voluntarily give up wealth and chose the path of poverty.
Poverty affects humans at a very basic level; their cognition is impaired, their day-to-day life to a very minute detail is controlled by lack of money. And some of the things that we take for granted (for instance potable water) is struggle for them. Those with money can't even imagine what it is like to be poor, day in day out and for years on end with very little hope in sight.
I was not aware of all these until I read a terrific book, "The Poor Economics". It was really an eye opener for me and because of which I'm more empathetic towards poor today instead of just saying they are happier or blaming them for their poverty.
i live in a small village in rural india where I'd guess the average monthly income is less than $150. So, its a poor area, but not a destitute area. People generally have water, enough to eat, and the kids all go to school. They want cars and big houses like people in the west want faster cars and bigger houses. As a whole even for people doing labor the lifestyle isn't obviously bad. They work fewer hours, are in a more natural less poluted environment and are generally less stressed by life and work than their urban counter parts. There's a perceived lack of opportunity driving people into the cities. But its a similar drive that motivates people in the states to leave relatively nice styles in the midwest to move to Los Angeles or San Francisco to chase a dream even if it means working long hours in a restaurant and living in a crowded apartment.
One reason I think this theme resonates here is that software people are location independent in a way few other industries are. If you can work from anywhere being somewhere where your core living expenses are $200 makes sense. Siver's questions becomes real - what then ?
Interesting theory! I like the idea of relationships mattering than the next shiny in life. In the case of your scenario I wonder what would happen if humanity survived the zombies and aliens and fully recovered. Would we just naturally end up worshiping money (a proxy for resources) again?
You hit it on the nail, at least for me. I love the post-apocalyptic film genre because it throws the current system of society under the bus and makes the characters focus just on survival and then a possible rebuilding of society in a whole new way.
It's nothing really new, though. Some hippies in the 70s (check out Easy Rider if you have never watched it) tried to live away from civilization in small communities, living off farming and trying to do without money. Not sure how most of them ended up, though. Probably not well.
Agreed. Apparently, unaware of the whole extensive spirtuality and simplicity movements that characterized previous generations in the 1910s, the 60s, and 70s, among other generations.
The 10's were the middle of the wave of Indian teachers coming to US shores and offering the public a first glimpse of non-Christian spirituality. The catalyst was the Parliament of World Religions of 1893 [1], when Vivekananda came to the US. By the end of the 10's, Paramahansa Yogananda had come to the US to found the Self-Realization Fellowship, the Theosophical Society was reaching the height of its popularity. The Bahai movement was beginning to take hold, etc.
It was basically when Eastern spirituality first wove its way into the American consciousness.
This is a fairly common complaint with stoicism. Just because you're happy with what you have doesn't mean you can't also be intrinsically motivated to make life better for yourself and others. But it also leaves you in the wonderful state wherein you don't mind the outcome of your efforts because you were already happy with your state to begin with. It's a fuller appreciation of what you can control and what you can't and the in-between states where you can control your inputs but not the output. You start to set goals that focus only on the actions you have complete control over and don't worry about the outcomes you can't control.
> Just because you're happy with what you have doesn't mean you can't also be intrinsically motivated to make life better for yourself and others.
An important note: the clinical definition of Attention-Deficit Disorder is exactly "being unable to feel motivated, except under conditions of stress/fear/pain."
A common self-medicating strategy for people unaware they have ADD, is to invite unhappiness and stress in order to derive motivation from it. If the only thing that can get you to start working on a project is the feeling of a looming deadline, you may want to get yourself checked.
Agreed 100%. Sometimes it feels like some people are trying to define every regular human action and emotion as some disease that needs to be medicated.
Neurotransmitter imbalances (e.g. clinical depression, AD[H]D, anxiety disorders, etc.) are not diseases. This doesn't mean that people who have them are okay; it just means that thinking of them in terms of what you normally associate with the label 'disease' will lead your thoughts astray.
Instead, neurotransmitter imbalances are genetic impairments. Like, say, nearsightedness.
As with nearsightedness, neurotransmitter imbalances are just annoying natural features of some people's bodies. As with nearsightedness, it kind of sucks to be those people, but they don't generally know what they're missing, because they've always been that way.
But, as with nearsightedness, prosthetics have been invented that "even the playing field" between those with and without the impairment. And, as with nearsightedness, it's readily apparent to those who use the prosthetic that they were impaired, because they now have access to experiences that they may have heard unimpaired people speaking of, but never previously got to experience for themselves.
(And, as with nearsightedness, this has caused the genetic defects responsible for the impairment to spread rapidly through the population; because the impairment is no longer a disadvantage, there's no longer any evolutionary pressure to protect the genetic code responsible from mutating.)
Try imagining telling someone with nearsightedness that they should just learn to cope with everything being fuzzy, instead of getting glasses. Imagine condemning the boom in contact-lens sales as "overmedication." It seems ridiculous, right?
Surely for psychological impairments the line is blurred. Nearsighted is trivially diagnosable, and it's mainly a physical problem.
ADHD is fuzzily defined and overdiagnosed. People can be different from one another. "Curing" someone from being active and unfocused has uncomfortable implications.
Let me highlight the most important part of what I said:
> And, as with nearsightedness, it's readily apparent to those who use the prosthetic that they were impaired, because they now have access to experiences that they may have heard unimpaired people speaking of, but never previously got to experience for themselves.
The human body requires its internal chemicals to be maintained within certain ranges for various features to function. Each of these features is relevant to what would be called "the human experience"--things that are built into the generalized human utility-function to want, as terminal values.
When you have a neurotransmitter imbalance to a degree that it becomes an impairment, it is so because it disables some of these features, and therefore bars one's access to these terminal values.
In AD(H)D, the feature that gets impaired is the "sense of intrinsic motivation" generated by the dopamine system. The terminal values one loses access to are the feelings of striving, accomplishment, or pride in one's work; and, in more extreme cases, the feeling to hope that one will be able to improve one's lot in life by one's own hand. (When you know you can't motivate yourself to get a job, being jobless is a lot more depressing.)
When you apply the appropriate prosthetic to the impairment--combined dopamine agonist/reuptake inhibitors, in this case--you gain access to this feature, and through it, the terminal values you were barred from.
As with putting on glasses, if you have the impairment (everything is blurry), then it is very, very obvious that when everything comes into focus, that this is the way things were "meant" to be--not from some moral imperative, but just because the rest of your body was built to rely on this feature that was previously broken.
With glasses, this means you suddenly stop bumping into things, and don't find yourself moving closer to people to see them. With normalized dopamine levels, this means you suddenly feel able to make yourself accomplish things you've always wanted to accomplish.
If your dopamine is set to the correct range for your body, this doesn't "make you into a robot" or any of the things people talk about with various neuroaffective drugs. Inasmuch as that was ever true in clinical settings, it was from failure to identify the neurotransmitter which is in imbalance (i.e. treating a norepinephrine production deficiency with dopamine agonists).
---
And now, a rant:
Inasmuch as AD(H)D treatment is made out to be a problem in pop-culture, though, it does indeed come from "overdiagnosis"--if you give a drug to boost a neurotransmitter into a reference range to someone who is not impaired, you will of course boost that neurotransmitter out of the reference range it was already in. People who can see fine already will find glasses quite harmful to their vision.
"Overdiagnosis" is a very strong word for what happens with AD(H)D, though. Population studies have been done, with random samples of adults brought in off the street given strict evaluations to test for AD(H)D--and as much as 3% of the population has scored far into the "impaired" range. (This is, coincidentally-enough, about the same percentage we see for all the other neurotransmitter-reference-range problems, e.g. clinical depression, giving merit to the genetic-drift hypothesis.) This number is far higher than the number of people actually diagnosed with AD(H)D. The stigma behind "overdiagnosis" has lead to underdiagnosis.
The real problem, of course, is parents wanting to treat their children for neurotransmitter imbalances at all. Children do not have stable neurotransmitter reference ranges. Their brains produce random spurts of neurotransmitters at random times, just like their bodies produce random spurts of growth in random body parts. (This is why children have ...
After this condensed lecture on neuroscience I certainly understand this problems in a deeper way. Thanks for that.
Diagnosing this chemical imbalances has got to be quite hard, if each person has a different profile. Furthermore, most people aren't even tested for it.
It's not an easy problem to solve, and parental pressure for drugs that calm an extrovert kid certainly don't help.
I've found there are two particular thoughts that need to occur for the "motivation to improve and better myself" to manifest itself.
1) honest love for oneself; a belief that bettering oneself is not a completely selfish goal, but actually helps everyone and everything else in your life that you care about (insofar as you interact with them)
2) an honest belief that energy spent on self-improvement is effective; if I try to change myself in this way or that and am unsuccessful, it makes the next attempt much harder to get started.
I don't fell that being happy is worth it. If I needed no money and no attention, perhaps happiness shouldn't also be the next goal to achieve. See what I mean here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88jj6PSD7w
Interesting that this was downvoted... I wonder if it was the tone or the content. While I don't think it's clear that this person's desire for self-improvement is their "biggest problem," I like that this comment points out a potential assumption in the grandparent comment: that improving ourselves is some kind of requirement or moral imperative.
You could make a plausible argument that self-improvement allows one to accomplish more for others, and use this to connect self-improvement with moral obligations to the community. And you could simply have a deeply ingrained desire for self-improvement (Maslow's Hierarchy seems to suggest that this is a fundamental human need). However, I think it's good to acknowledge that this idea -- that we should improve ourselves -- is not prima facie necessary; it's simply another human desire.
Many people often feel that something's wrong with life or something is missing. A little voice in their heads comes up and says "maybe if I had X that'd fix it", or "maybe if I was Y I'd be happy". In fact, I'm coming to realise (as all the books I've read over the years have been saying) that it's the thinking that is the whole problem. In fact it's not a case of just intellectually accepting this idea that's important. We can go deeper.
Where does the voice come from? What is this thing called "I" that is blindly followed? It would appear it is just another thought. The mind is just a stream of thoughts and "I" is just another one. It has no substance, no reality.
It seems that the only thing that does exist is the present, so just ignore the past and future. The more you are able to ignore the voice in your head (and it's much easier when you see it has no reality) the more you start to tingle, literally. You (well I don't know about you, but I) feel amazing. Satisfied and replete.
So to conclude, what I was getting at was that maintaining the belief that you need to "improve" somehow, or be "better" just adds more fuel to the fire and keeps the mind spinning, distracting us from the present and ever experiencing that fulfilling feeling.
How can people say this without giving the slightest reflection over their own lives and moments of happiness? I've had plenty of moments where desire-satisfaction has granted me happiness. Sometimes even without the satisfaction, the desire itself had given me a sense of worth and a life path that I found exciting and joyful.
It's mostly a problem of conflating many different emotions under the one umbrella-term of "happiness." If, by happiness, you mean contentment, then removing desire can give you that. If, by happiness, you mean relief or satisfaction or excitement, then no, removing desire will not give you those.
> If, by happiness, you mean contentment, then removing desire can give you that.
But would this not require, in some sense, the desire for contentment? I suppose this is just a semantic issue; somehow our usage of "desire" excludes this case (perhaps because it is so fundamental).
"Desire", when you strip away the connotations, generally just means "spikes in your dopamine system that reward you for acting toward a goal your brain associates with a previous large dopamine release."
Contentment, on the other hand, is something more like "the lack of any particular goal currently requiring you to think, plan, or expend energy."
Basically, they're at odds: when you have a desire, you are by definition discontented.
Contemplate what proportion of those moments are related to work and money, and contemplate how much those issues permeate the rest of your life to the point where they impede your enjoyment of other facets of life.
I made a conscious decision to work from home and comfortable places because I realized that commuting two hours a day was destroying my health. Very few projects would be worth that sacrifice to me (although I realize that many are out there).
I made a choice to eat mindfully and properly in every meal unless I have something else of extreme urgency. I find very few things are worth interrupting a meal. There's at least one hour of every day you can enjoy tremendously, and many people lose complete sight of that.
I am not disagreeing with your premise, but the truth is that most people's desires, in my opinion, seem to be highly misplaced, given that not many people out there are actually working towards a goal so noble that it's worth the rest of the sacrifices in their lives. Having shorter vacations, less time for relaxation and pursuing hobbies is worth it if you're engaged on projects that give tremendous satisfaction and make a difference.
I'm really glad to read such comment. You do a service to other HN fellas mentioning stoicism as a way to "solve" this kind of problem. After a few years reading and studying stoic works (such as Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, already mentioned in this thread) I can say I'm finally good with myself and I could not recommend it enough for other geeks and nerds who eventually find themselves in such negative mindset. Hackers: read the old philosophers, you'll do yourself a favor, your mind will thank you. Modern life is nearly unbearable when you don't have the tools to fix it.
Stoicism seems like it would be relevant to a Roman. If you had no air conditioning and very little good things, being stoic would probably make you pretty happy.
We're not in ancient Rome anymore.
I don't see any reason for modern humans to be stoic. It seems like a great way to stagnate. When you can't change your environment, it makes sense to change your mind to accept your environment. When you can, self-modification is harmful. It lets you accept things you could change if you worked to to change them.
Stoicism seems to be at odds with a personal drive towards self-improvement. It doesn't seem relevant to modern environments where this improvement is possible.
Perhaps looking at it in a less black and white manner would show where it could help.
For instance, I work with Enterprise Software but not with cars. Perhaps being Stoic towards my material possessions( such as liking my Honda and stop looking at the Maserati I don't need) while still driving towards improvements in the areas that matter, such as my relationships (family, friends, strangers) and career (software, etc)?
Stoicism isn't anti-improvement. Epictetus was an abused slaved, then philosophical leader. Seneca was rich and was tutor and adviser to the emperor. Marcus Aurelius was the emperor.
Yes, Stoicism teaches you that you don't have (at least ultimate) control over the world. But it does emphasize that you have control over yourself. You internalize your goals: Instead of "winning the tennis championship" it's "be the best player I can possibly be despite circumstance".
"Man is disturbed not by things, but by the views he takes of them."
Since 'improvement' is so often a subjective quality the stoics may perhaps suggest you rebase what you consider to be self improvement.
What if one could find a way of being happy regardless of 'self improvement' drives?
If happiness is the objective and you can be happy without changing your environment, even if changing the environment is trivial, what's the difference?
Let me assure you that, having gone through a very major health crisis, stoicism is eminently useful, and practical. I have lost things that are impossible to recover. And I'm doing pretty good, thanks.
There are some things you really cannot change. We can change more than we used to, but not everything. Stoicism helps.
And we also change things we don't need to change. We chase after things that bring us no happiness. By allowing you to be happy with what you have, stoicism lets you seek those things that truly matter.
"When you can, self-modification is harmful. It lets you accept things you could change if you worked to to change them."
I think "changing the things you can" (as Niebuhr once put it) is precisely the second half of the stoic idea. In fact, not changing things that by rights should be changed runs contrary to virtue, which the stoics held as the chief -- and indeed, the only -- true good.
Your forgetting that some things can't be changed with respect to other things. I may hate the commute to work, but otherwise find my job great and my house great. I may have optomised that commute as much as possible already (audio books, a nice car, best route) but it is still the worst part of my day. If I behave more in line with stoicism then this no longer worries me as much. Sure this may stop innovation by me in that particular area but I'm still inovative in other areas and people who are better able to tackle that issue are the ones that can deal with it (if indeed there is a better soloution).
Be it stoicism or any school of thought that recommends a way of life, the key fallacy to avoid fall into is that it is these principles that make you happy, or productive, or wealthy, or healthy or whatever. While such principles can be temporarily crutch for a person, over time the crutch gains the status of legs instead of people using it to learn to walk.
My mind keeps coming up with generalizations all the time. For example, "the more space you have for your family, the less valuable time together you spend". Needless, useless generalizations like this about just about everything. So I've formed a mental habit of just pausing and asking "really?" .. and soon these just go poof.
In other words, I automatically question the validity of any concept I construct. This way, I'm free to stick to one temporarily and have no qualms about abandoning concepts that aren't valid for me.
The nice thing about Derek's post is that he's just posing the question and leaving it to the reader to ruminate on what answer would mean to them. The skill to pick up here is to ask these kinds of questions ... like all the time.
It's funny, I've heard of the term stoicism in the philosophical regard, but never knew what it was, and yet now I'm reading that it embodies a lot of what I've felt for years.
Growing up, my family never had much, and I always had to make due with simple activities. Luckily enough I got immersed in the Internet at a young age, because I was able to inherit outdated computers, but never had the fancy toys or gadgets or games that my friends did. I had to find ways to entertain myself with very little, and since then my interests have always revolved around a very small subset of simple, low-fidelity activities. Drawing (materials are universal), weightlifting (free-weights only), programming (self explanatory).. Things that I know could never really be taken from me.
As I'm preparing to graduate college, I've told friends and family that I never want to own a car, or a house. I haven't owned a bed in two years. The only major purchases I want are a decent laptop, which I consider a necessity for a software developer, and books. I want the tools I need to live and grow my skills and intellect.
In that sense, I probably take the modern translation of stoicism too far. But then again, I'm easily fulfilled.
The original works of Seneca and Epictetus are also surprisingly applicable to modern life, and their problems are surprisingly relatable. I recommend Seneca's "On the Shortness of Life" and Epictetus's handbook in modern translation.
Incidentally, if you're moved to get broad outlines of philosophical things, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy tend to be better resources:
If everything you did was for others, then this discussion (and many like it) wouldn't even make sense.
You wouldn't "get burned out", "lose purpose", "get stressed out", "worry about competition", "procrastinate", or "lack motivation".
If your work, your art, or just your day-to-day activities were focused on delivering value to others, you'd be too busy having a ball and rejoicing in outcomes to worry about all this other stuff. And anyone who tells you otherwise (but we gotta eat first!), still doesn't get it.
Thanks, OP, for reminding us that as soon as we're not so full of ourselves, and understand our role as conduits of energy, the sooner everything else flows so nicely.
What? No. Doctors and nurses get burned out all the time. So do cops and EMTs. Just because you've dedicated your life to serving others doesn't mean that constantly being on the line to help others can't burn you out. In some ways it can even be more stressful, because when you're only out to help yourself, you can justify easing back every now and then to reduce the pressure. When you're helping others, it's harder to do that because of the feeling that you're failing them in their moment of need.
> But what if you had so much money that you couldn't possibly want any more?
There's such a deeply narcissistic undercurrent here.
If you ever find yourself having too money money, what that means is you have too few people who you are using your resources to help.
Being rich shouldn't be, "Well, I've got a yacht and a motorcycle, I guess I'm good!" It should be, "Ah I finally have enough to help X. If only I could get more and help Y as well." You aren't rich enough until the whole world is rich with you.
I don't read it as narcissistic either, but I do think it's written in a way that acknowledges and then pushes aside the narcissism present in the world. It seemed like a downright practical way to cut to his point without being misunderstood.
This is a little like arguing that someone else's meaning of life is incorrect. There are different philosophies, and those that argue being able to recognize you have enough is important have been accused of being selfish. I remember a conversation where someone was appalled that that was how Pope John Paul essentially wrote off Buddhism in one of his books.
The author is the real deal in the sense that he did choose to decide he had enough, and set up a foundation to support music education and began advocating for entrepreneurship.[1] Maybe the reality is that Derek Sivers does not believe that he could as effectively manage a larger foundation as he can manage a smaller foundation like the one he set up. You might not make the same decisions as he did. I wouldn't, and I disagree with the extent to which he seems to have taken "mo' money, mo' problems" to heart. However, you could also say that his quality of life is maximized by him being the one who makes those calls, which may be a suitable localized goal, maximizing global benefit more than if he were striving to his limit in supporting more ambitious goals.
I completely agree with your stance but we both know x % of the rich ones aren't like, say, Gates, but rather the contrary. They try to find ways to lose less (taxes and whatnot) and gain more then they already have.
I know it's not the point of your comment, but I really hate when people complain about rich people wanting to pay less taxes. They already pay far far more than everyone else, in total amount, percent of income, and even percent of income relative to total income. By wide margins.
And to use Gates as an example, I'd much rather have him spending his money than the government spending his money. He's better at it, and does more good with it.
They already pay far far more than everyone else, in total amount, percent of income, and even percent of income relative to total income. By wide margins
well I think the are morally obliged to pay more anyway - which is the spirit of the OP's idea. It's not like the government completely wastes every single tax penny. And even if they would, the more you have the more you can miss.
Furthermore, not only does this depend on the country you live in, I know from first hand experience tax avoidance is real, and mainly with richer people because they can pay others to do it for them. Now if they try to avoid taxes n order to give that money to the poor, I'm all good with it. But chances are they don't, in which case I'd rather let the government have it instead of it resting on the bank or being used to buy an environmental disaster like a speedboat :P
306 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 273 ms ] thread[1] http://blog.pmarca.com/2014/03/18/when-carl-icahn-ran-a-comp...
The book does a great job describing the evolution of this man's philosophy on living outside of the money system and what it has done for him. If at all interested I highly recommend it. Instead of trying to accumulate so much money you can't imagine needing more a healthy alternative might be to focus on reducing your need for money.
The Man Who Quit Money is an account of how one man learned to live, sanely and happily, without earning, receiving, or spending a single cent. Suelo doesn't pay taxes, or accept food stamps or welfare. He lives in caves in the Utah canyonlands, forages wild foods and gourmet discards. He no longer even carries an I.D. Yet he manages to amply fulfill not only the basic human needs-for shelter, food, and warmth-but, to an enviable degree, the universal desires for companionship, purpose, and spiritual engagement.
How did he find companionship in the Utah canyonlands? Does he have a girlfriend who shares the same lifestyle? Or is this more of a "the trees and animals are his friends" sort of thing?
Also: "And although he lives in a cave, he is not a hermit: he is relentlessly social, remains close with friends and family, and engages in discussions with strangers via the website he maintains from the public library."
And consumerism is?
If you chose to not live with money, you can be happy, but you are only very very restricted in what you do.
You can live in the woods for sure, but you will never be able to have a family except they all want to live in the woods, you will never be able to give you child an education if it wants to, you'll never be able to be a scientist again, nor solving problems for other people, you can only solve problems for yourself.
For me personally, that's not something to strive for.
I have not reached that point.. yet (I hope I will, rather sooner than later), but supposing I did reached that point, let's say, yesterday, oh boy, there are soooo many things that I would love to be doing.
For instance, after maybe going on a shopping spree for all those things that I've always wanted (truly not that many or that extravagant), for example setting up a very nice NAS + Media Center for my house, getting a swimming pool maybe, a laptop upgrade (mine is past 7 years of daily use...) and maybe stuff for my girlfriend/wife, I would then spend a few months travelling (not the whole world mind you, maybe 4-5 2-month trips or so). But aside from inane things and materialistic desires...
I would love to do a few things (besides spending time with family/friends) that would make up my "daily life", meaning I would like to do this as a form of retirement.
- Study without worrying if I'm going to be able to maintain the scholarship for example. Just get a Physics degree and maybe a chemistry one. - Put an animal shelter and then replicate if successful, i.e. put a LOT of shelters throughout my country. - My most desired idea: To develop what I call an "Idea Lab", which is something I'm sure a lot of other people have thought of. What about using my bottomless bucket of money to fund really neat and cool ideas that a lot of normal folks have, and having a staff of engineers, mathematicians, and in general all types of scientists and makers, to make these ideas come to life. Ideas that should help other people like water purification tools/processes, clean energy generation, etc.
I think those are the 3 things that would very easily consume my life if I had no need for money. I would love for example to donate to my college a building or two, computers, maybe pay lecture for really cool guys to inspire students, etc.
In short, I do actually dream on becoming wealthy enough not to care about my survival so I could help others around me. First family and friends and then my immediate community. And finally, if I actually become like ultra-rich, I would just DIE to put my own space company and help, even if a tiny bit, to get humanity out of this planet and unto the stars. In that regard I think something like Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace would absolutely rock!
But of course, like someone else mentioned before, that's what I say I will do in my hypothetically perfect world. But I like to think that I won't deviate much from the general idea.... of course only time will tell.
PS: Now that I think of it, I would certainly look at putting libraries around my hometown for example. Real libraries (like with books and maybe even classrooms or something). What about putting some type of "online university", that's basically a building with the necessary tools to let people study coursers from Coursera and the like? and maybe even have "TA's" that would help you out if you got stuck. I think that could go a long way to help people bootstrap themselves out of poverty, like one other poster commented before. So no giving away free money, but the opportunity to make something for yourself. Which coming in from a third world country, let me tell you how satisfactory it is to see someone that had everything against them, succeed and be a happy person.
...and of course I would like a pony that shits rainbows... but like my dad likes to say "the cool thing about imagination is that it's free, so why dream small?"
Some of the weirdest things I've done that I never would have seen coming: - paint. I literally rent a warehouse so I can paint on massive canvases. Been doing it for years now, I don't show off my work, I have no need to be an artist I have a need to be creative - work a 9-5 mega corp job. I know this sounds like a bummer to most of the HN world. But it keeps me active. Gives me a place to be and a regular schedule and a network of friend. Where I live 5 days a week there is nobody my age that isn't at work. Without a job, my natural habit it to be nocturnal and I don't live in on of the few cities where that is reasonably possible. - code for fun and not the profit. I've coded since ~97, that's when I was in high school. Before that, I wasn't a typical kid that was coding back then. I was semi-popular bully/pothead/dropout kid that just wanted to party all the time. But I always liked math so my counselors would force me towards computers. That changed everything for me. I never saw it coming but now recognize that was the most pivotal part of my life
Point is, speculating on what you will want to do with your time in the future assuming two of the biggest variables in our society were removed or became inapplicable to you is like guessing what the price of bitcoin will be in 3 years. You can guess, and probably make a solid case to defend your guess but more than likely three years from now you will be proved wrong.
Either way I agree with your message and agree that you should strive for this thought process. Always chase a passion and always look for new ones. Too much focus on money and fame will likely not fulfill you in the long run.
I'm very interested to hear other people's thoughts.
Very lucky. May I ask how?
I'd love to get your thoughts. Please feel free to shoot me an email if you have ideas about how I might pursue this.
My ultimate goal would be financial freedom to work on cool apps full time .. something with A.I. in it, but really delivers graphically as well, as I enjoy challenging both the algorithmic side of my brain with AI and the spatial side of my brain with 3D programming, and I really really enjoy squeezing the last inch out of hardware!
Just lost my job though, so I'm pushing to launch my app this month ASAP, but might have to go back to making cat websites for a few months :(
It will be interesting though to see how your interest in making apps for the sake of it is impacted by the fact that you're now making them for money. That, of course, intersects with the premise of the article.
I think the idea of following one's passion as a means of obtaining financial security is generally oversold (though clearly not impossible). As soon as you add the financial factor, the enjoyment can be sucked out of it. For one, you're not doing it in the way you might if not for the need to monetize. Secondly, you find yourself doing all kinds of stuff that are decidedly not your passion (administrivia, marketing, etc.)
Anyway, good luck!
"Non-profit" likely doesn't mean what you think it does. e.g. The NFL is a non-profit.
Contributing to free/open software is a good one.
But also there are so many pseudo-business projects that are worth doing, and not commercializing. You know like when people say, "People love it, but we're trying to figure out how to monetize it." Wouldn't it be nice to not monetize it, and just leave it as a cool thing that exists? Closer to art than commerce.
Claiming that it's only one or the other is simply creating a false dichotomy.
Just to be clear, we are talking about source code itself that is art, right? Of course, source code can be written to create art. It's a tool, after all.
Don't get so caught up with the language.
It's all about the mentality.
I suppose it's a bit like wordworking. Sure, most things serve some purpose, but I think that - ignoring costs - it's more pleasant for everyone involved if the end result is pleasing to look at and well built.
It's nice to have the free time to do projects and ventures for the cool factor and betterment of others.
(Recommend Lessig & campaign finance reform if in the US... single biggest issue.)
Still, I always wonder, what if any amazing things are technically feasible right now, that nobody is doing because there's no clear business plan?
My friend Tom always asks me, when I'm suggesting rolling our own whatever (software) "Joe, we CAN do anything. What SHOULD we do?" meaning how should we spend our limited time and effort most productively. And the free market is a great measure of what's productive.
That's a false dichotomy. Did Stallman write gcc and emacs for himself? Did Linus have a Linux business plan?
It is also possible to view Stallman as having written gcc and emacs so that he could live according to his own moral views with regards to software. That other people benefit from these pieces of software seems to be an altruistic component of Stallman's ethical worldview but ultimately a side effect of Stallman's personal goal of not needing to touch proprietary software. If Stallman was willing to compromise on his moral convictions, it is likely that neither gcc nor emacs would exist as they do today.
It requires a very different way of thinking and looking at things. Money is a metric often used to measure success. Even in non-profits people start to get "metric driven", but I feel that somehow belittles my efforts.
Truth be told, money is work + luck. The only metric that I like to look at is, am I doing what I can. Random dehumanizing metrics be damned, you can't measure everything!
It does. There's lot of psychology research on this, intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation, etc. Have a look at Alfie Kohn's books, like Punished by Rewards.
Perhaps most people who get a few million do exactly this.
But surely it's weird that people make 10 M and don't just do whatever they want. Honestly, what point does money after that?
People like Gates, Jobs, Brin and Page might be the outliers because they keep going even after obtaining enough wealth for a lifetime.
Or perhaps it's only if you have the drive to make that kind of money that got them going anyway.
For example we have something called Thirukkural which i feel covers anything that would ever need to be written about managing your life and i see no reason for any more new MB concepts.
The other option (very very interesting and may be fulfilling) is that try changing the country , given that you say you dont attention and i think you are either capable of making lot of money or already have money. Then setup an corporate empire in our country (India) and drive politics to the better side (you can be in the backgound orchestrating). I think India is the largest country with large population which will fall in love for good governance and reasonable life of course the current scenario is changing the slightly due to west model being copied but it is not yet too late to change it.
People often ask me for feedback on their business ideas.
Often, one of the first questions is, "Why are you doing this? Is this just for the money?"
Usually you can tell when that's the case.
To use an example, suppose you're disgusted by homelessness and want to solve it. Realistically this is something that requires political influence and a large amount of money, not just to float yourself, as trying to solve this problem is unlikely to pay well, but also to develop solutions. So you say to yourself, I'm going to spend the next 5-10 years of my life trying to fill these gaps. Part of this plan may likely involve becoming a "successful" entrepreneur, as the typical job is unlikely to provide you with these resources either.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to admit that our pursuits are often stepping stones to achieving more later on.
We long for the past or we hope for the future and in doing so, we rush through the now. Stop. Breath. Be human. Life is more than your job. You job is impermanent. You are impermanent. Your health or the people you love may be gone tomorrow.
We can't say where we will end up in life. No one knows this for certain. Being responsible and planning for the future are good things. Taking good care of yourself financially, mentally, physically and emotionally are all important now and for the future.
Life happens while we make plans. Many times, life interferes with our plans. That's OK. That doesn't mean we should stop planning. Understanding that we cannot predict or control the future will transform our suffering.
We can live now and plan for our future and have peace inside as well.
That said, humans are pretty horrific, when it comes down to it. Not that many creatures do the things to their own species that humans do as often as we do with as much enthusiasm.
Occasionally my wife and I talk about my quitting work, and us moving to Thailand (her native country). Her vision of my ideal life there is that I wouldn't have to work, and could sit around doing my pet projects without any time or money constraints.
That always strikes me as dangerous. Those projects I want to work on didn't jump into my head unbidden. The ideas arose from years of coming to grips with real-world problems that don't have entirely satisfactory solutions. If I untether myself from the work that led to the ideas I want to pursue, then where will the next ideas come from? And how will I know whether they are worth pursuing?
To me, having side projects that seem worth doing, especially from the point of being useful to others (Sivers' way of distinguishing what he means by "not just relaxing"), requires their being grounded in real-world projects. And one measure of the worth of real-world projects, like it or not, is that people are willing to pay to get them done.
I can sympathize. My wife and I have ties to South America. Food and shelter are way way cheaper down there. The voices in my head make compelling arguments for making the move. What stops me is the kids. Don't see much of a future for them in South America vs growing up in SV.
Problem with most of south america is infrastructure and security. These are things that here in the states we take for granted.
Excellent insight. One of the issues with the retired leisure lifestyle is that your scope narrows and you don't have very many interesting problems to work on. ("steak or lobster?", "Gstaad or Monaco?")
That's really up to you. No one is stopping rich people from going into scientific research or philanthropy (for an example, look at Bill Gates).
Whereas taking on actual challenges - as BG has done - provides things against which to struggle, and stimulates creativity.
You're right that it's a conscious choice. Choosing the "easy way" means that you aren't likely to be as creative and productive as if you take on complex challenges.
Can't you always dive back into industry when you're past your current crop of ideas?
More likely for me, I think, is that I would develop interest in some other problem area, and just dig in to the new domain. For example, I'm always struck when I hear about the sorts of medical problems that hit people from my wife's village. I don't know anything about medicine, but it feels to me like a focused data collection project could lead to a significant improvement health outcomes.
It may be partially due to my training as a researcher keeping my eyes open to it, but it is a pretty rare month that goes by where I don't run into an interesting problem I could easily spend a year or two working productively on. Many of them don't come out of my current work or even during my work time.
The idea of running out of "good ideas" is unfathomable to me, honestly. Running out of time is very easy to imagine, though.
After college, I worked for a 'prestigious' consulting firm and found immediate success in the perspective of my peers. Truthfully, I enjoyed it. That feeling faded quickly and the cubicle walls closed in and 13 months later I quit.
With no plan or direction, I moved back with my parents, who did not charge me rent and bought much of my food. In other words, I had nearly zero expenses with a stock pile of cash from my prior employer. I relaxed for 2 months before realizing that I could pretty much live this content life for like 25 years. $20k goes a long way with no expenses.
I started spending my time building websites for friends and found the work fascinating and completely rewarding. It's that curiosity and fulfillment that I seek out in everything I do. I have since created a life for myself and the $20k in savings is long gone so money still drives me.
But at least I know what motivates me. I know what I'd do if I could do anything and that is an incredible gift.
Then you'd be focusing on self-actualisation. Lucky you.
I am fortunate enough to be in this position. In my 50s, in good health, and I don't have to work if I don't want to. I've always dreamed of being in this situation and now I am. So what am I doing with my time?
- Still enjoying not having to get up and go to work, and not having to work for idiot managers. Sometimes I waste whole days going nothing (thanks, 2048). I worked in startups for 25 years, and have been mulling over my "pattern": I meet a charismatic founder, get seduced, work my ass off. That's a lot less attractive now. The getting seduced part depended, in part, on the golden carrot. (But only in part.)
- Exercising a lot more.
- Working on my pet projects, with a degree of urgency that varies over time. I don't need these projects to pay the bills, or to be loved and used. I get my jollies out of writing the software.
- Consulting, but being very selective about the projects I pick. They have to be interesting, and hopefully related to my pet projects. I've had some success here.
- Learning to play piano. (Would have been so much easier if I didn't stop when I was a child.)
- Enjoying more time with my wife.
- Getting back to teaching (software, of course).
Here's the "problem": At my age, (and due in large part to my temperament), I'm still not thinking very far outside the box. I can afford to do lots of new things, but I'm having some trouble figuring out which ones to actually do. Why?
- Software: I've always written software. I always will. I need to make time for other things.
- Inertia: I tend to do what I know, and expand out from there gradually. I seem to be incapable of ravenously seeking out novelty.
- Need ideas: After many years of working very hard, putting job and family first, those are the things I tend to think about.
- Need to say yes more: Except for the teenager living at home, I can go someplace warm and windy and windsurf for a week, anytime I want to. Not sure why I don't. I'm starting to say yes to more impulsive things, but it definitely goes against the grain.
- Frittering time away on small projects: I took on too many, so for a while, I had no time for anything else. I'm in a lull now, so I'm again contemplating how I want to spend my time.
I spent several months crossing the US and there were only two destinations locked in - the arrival airport and the departure airport. I'd have a general idea of what I was doing the next day, but it wasn't unusual to decide in the morning to go in a different direction. It was fantastic freedom of movement, and I saw things I'd've never seen otherwise. I could travel on my whims.
Travelling with others has pros and cons - more people means more to keep happy, but also more shared experiences and memories. But however you do it, keep the ability to make spontaneous changes.
What would you do then, if you didn't need the money, and didn't need the attention?
Yes, we need money to live. We need attention to live, too.
What's interesting to me about that bit above is that it's presented in this sort of homiletic style, as if it's the distillation of experience down to some obvious and unquestionable core, but it's pernicious in that it's pure ideology.
"[W]hen you're ready to be useful to others again," does so much work in this regard. It frames entrepreneurship as a service that is situated within a matrix of rational choices and utilitarian moral justification. We do these things because they're legitimately useful, they just happen to make us filthy rich. This wealth, however serendipitous and embarrassing it might be, is also justified by the actual utility it provides. Zuckerberg is wealthy because Facebook is an unquestionable force for good.
The author continues, framing entrepreneurs as, at worst, misguided persons who move from being accidentally useful to being purposefully useful; Persons temporarily blinded by their universal needs for attention and money. Never mind the problem of defining exactly how much attention and money one needs--to say nothing of security and nutrition, arguably up for purchase, or love, validation, and a sense of growth, arguably not up for purchase--to...live? Survive? Get by? Flourish? Never mind all that, once that's taken care of, entrepreneurs like the author can now get back to their innately good core of, from the author's tagline, "mak[ing] useful things, and shar[ing] what [we] learn."
Look, fundamentally, entrepreneurs exist to get rich. The "problems" they "solve" are chosen for their profitability, and the rhetoric about utility is just a way to colonize the discourse and deflect attention from the obvious avarice of it all. On the level of manipulation, the level of stopping the hoi polloi from rising up and strangling you, it makes sense; Anyone too stupid to see they're, for example, making their personal lives worse with Facebook so that Zuckerberg can sell ads, isn't going to have the discretion or wisdom to run an economy after any misguided revolt, no matter how apparently justified.
As a means for understanding our own motivations and desires, our relationships to the game of Capitalism, these are the guilt-addled ramblings of emotionally crippled narcissists. Basic self-awareness demands that we do better.
What do the rest of us do?
Even an atheist must admit that there's a certain satisfaction that comes from helping other people (even anonymously) that really has no limit.
Go out and help make the world a better place - not out of a hope for reward or recognition... just for fun. It's addictive.
I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
I awoke and saw that life was service.
I acted and behold, service was joy.
My point is that the absence of (expected) outward recognition or reward for altruistic behavior (by a supernatural or spiritual being) does not preclude someone from experiencing the joy that comes through service. And no, I personally don't classify that joy as a selfish reward, but rather a natural consequence built in to the human brain. Whether put there by God or developed via natural forces/evolution as a mechanism to protect life (we feel satisfaction in helping other animals - not just our own species), it doesn't matter; the fact is, it's a part of our nature and can hardly be discredited in any moral debate.
One problem I encountered was people just not "getting it." And I don't mean random strangers, I mean potential clients. It's oddly difficult to tell people "I make enough money to support my lifestyle working 25 hours a week and I like to save the rest of my time for other projects that interest me." They expect you to be "doing more" or see you as lazy, after all why not make the most money you can possibly make at all times? When in fact I think I'm far less lazy than most people, I put a ton of effort into coding, educating myself, going the extra mile, working on projects for fun, reading technical books, going to talks. I'm also very serious about my pursuits beyond my programming "day job." And yet I've found it difficult to convey that, and that clients consider me unserious because I was intentionally working less than 40 hours a week even if they are looking for someone for a part time role.
If they're asking you "how much do you work," you can reply: "Considering my other commitments, I can give you 25 hours per week." They don't need to know what your other commitments are, and they'll probably be content to assume those commitments consist of other freelancing gigs.
My clients don't know any details about each other. They know I have multiple clients, but they don't know each other's identities, how many there are, or how much time I give to each.
One of the best skills you can develop as a freelancer is to read between the lines when doing client development. Some clients say they want a freelancer, but what they really want is a full-time, remote employee. They won't necessarily know that about themselves, and if they don't, they won't articulate it directly. So you need to get good at sussing things out.
Taking a pseudo-freelance, client-demands-full-time gig and trying to compress it into ~10 hours a week is a recipe for disaster. You won't please the client, you'll drive yourself insane, and you'll end up resenting the work.
The biggest favor you can do for yourself is to discriminate ahead of time. Determine which sorts of jobs, and which sorts of clients, fit with your model. Accept the ones that do; turn down the ones that don't. (Don't be afraid to refer someone who doesn't fit your model to a freelancer you know who is a better fit. It's just a good-karma thing.)
If I were to hire a contractor to do work for me, I would require exclusivity for the duration of the contract and not because I want a certain number of hours necessarily. Being a developer I know that the delivered value is not directly related to the number of hours, I really do and in fact I'm skeptical of the value delivered by people claiming to work long hours.
No, I would want exclusivity because focus is important and people (especially developers) cannot focus on multiple things at the same time, unless we're talking about things that the contractor is very specialized in, has done those things repeatedly and has a track record to show for it. For CRUD stuff for example, I wouldn't care. But for new, more difficult, more challenging problems that require focus and inspiration, then I would require exclusivity. On the types of problems that I currently work on, for example, I cannot focus on multiple things on the same day, or even the same week. Sometimes if I get distracted by conversations that are unrelated to what I'm working on, my whole day is fucked because then I have to remember the context I was in and I'm already tired and out of my zone and I can't get back anymore, ending up staring at the laptop with a stupid look on my face. I have days in which I notify everybody that I need to get work done and don't want to be interrupted, unless there's an emergency.
Sometimes I envy devops, or CRUD developers, or other types of freelancers that can rely on experience to place themselves on autopilot or that can deliver value in a short amount of time. For example devops get paid mostly for being on-call, which means they can get calls at 12 o'clock at night, but can also mean that they don't have much to do all day and thus can serve multiple clients at the same time.
And note that I'm not comparing the difficulty of the job here, but about the types of gigs on which you can rely on experience or on short amounts of focus to deliver value. Or who knows, maybe I don't have enough experience and some day I'll be able to place myself on autopilot.
That's the big distinction. You're imagining yourself as the client, but I'm imagining the thought process of clients such as I've actually had. In my personal experience, clients are almost always never developers. And they do conflate hours worked with value delivered. I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule, but for what it's worth, I've never encountered one.
You could say something like this: "I'm generally not able to disclose details about other projects. But I can tell you that their effect on my availability will be..."
That's only the case if you have literally no other projects. If you have even one other project, it's not the slightest bit misleading. All I recommended saying is that you don't disclose details about your other work. That statement implies nothing about the volume of the other work, except that it's non-zero.
"I aim for about 25 hours/week of client work so I have plenty of time for professional development and personal projects where I can focus on learning instead of delivering the best results for my clients."
If phrased right, you can make it sound like you're already an expert at what you're doing for them, which is why you don't necessarily learn as much from it, so it's important to spend time honing your skills in new areas so you can expand your offerings.
Literally, I am billing < 20 hours a week, and unless I become disabled and/or get dementia/Alzheimers, I feel that I will like doing what I am doing in some form or other forever.
I've done a lot of different things in my life, and this _is_ having it nice. It's far nicer than the "retirements" of many of my friends in their 70s, though I will grant it is not as plush or completely free of pressure as my parents' retirements as school teachers/administrators.
I'm also travelling in SE Asia so my outgoings are very low. I didn't realise how cheap it was here. I'm bringing in nearly 5x (before tax) of what I'm spending.
I said "pay me 3/5ths of the salary you just offered me and I'll work 3 days a week". I also offered to keep this arrangement flexible so that I could work in stretches of varying lengths if needed.
This did not go over well. People were actually offended by this proposition and it went nowhere.
As a founder myself, I understand the desire to only hire people that will give you their full heart and soul. But, I'm also a practical person and if someone's skills are valuable to me, then they are very likely still valuable in part.
In fact, when it comes to a product/engineering position, I think the employer would come out on top in such a scenario. They still get access to the person's brain and all of their knowledge and ideas. For someone that's being offered high compensation, their knowledge and ideas are probably a big part of the reason why.
Not only that but I think this is the key to fix the economy! Think about it: if people could accept salary cuts for less work we would have more jobs and could transition to an eventual post-scarcity economy smoothly.
Creative workers don't output more than 25 quality hours a week anyway.
If I am willing to work 3/5 days a week for 3/5 of the pay, do I also only get 3/5 of the health care coverage and 3/5 of the vacation time of my 5/5 peers?
We obviously don't have the same healthcare situation as you, but surely it's just part of the negotiation? If 5 days a week is worth a $100k salary and $10k healthcare (don't ask me if that healthcare cost is 10x too high or 10x too low... but that doesn't matter) then 3 days a week is work $60k salary plus $6k healthcare. So offer that person $54k and healthcare. Or $66k and no healthcare. Simple enough, surely?
This is key. Most employers don't realise what a great deal this is. They are paying much less for probably the same amount of output. The person might even be more productive because they are more rested and can think better.
Unfortunately leadership didn’t like the idea; were afraid of others doing the same. So instead of biting the bullet they lost me.
Arranging part-time conditions can be a slightly bumpy process: as stated above, management is often initially offended that you don't want to dedicate your life to their company, but framing your request correctly can smooth over most bumps.
When requesting a part-time arrangement I usually present it quite honestly: referring to a need for work/life balance, but also referring to the learning outcomes from pursuing challenging projects and the positive impacts they will have on my experience and capacity at work.
At the end of the day most managers realise that they are faced with either agreeing or facing the inevitable lose of an employee, but the decision can be made easier for them if you highlight the positive outcomes for your performance at work.
Incidentally, when I've described my part-time work schedule to friends and family, the universal response has been amazement and jealousy. The desire for a better work/life balance is such a common thing that I'm curious as to why so few people pursue better arrangements...?
But working with a few of these guys I found they are usually the best employees. They tend to bring energy and innovation to everything they do and generally better than a corporate drone who really does just want to cash paychecks for the rest of their life. At least in my area of marketing where one needs to look for innovation. Also they didn't exit after 6 months as building side businesses takes time and don't all succeed. For me know I'd take side projects as a plus on a CV but I suspect many people will hold to that first instinct I felt.
My one day off is for my own projects, and it has also become special time I can spend with my wife (I was able to convince her to do the same thing at her job).
I can't imagine going back to a full work week. All I can imagine doing is taking another day for my own projects when I can support it financially.
He found it hard to grasp that my plan was to do absolutely nothing. In fact, I told him my plan was to go watch TV for a while.
I was by no means rich but I had enough money to keep me going for a few months and this was during the Boom. It wouldn't take more than a couple of days to find a job when I was ready for one.
If you're living paycheck to paycheck and have big responsibilities (kids, a mortgage, etc) it can be inconceivable that you're willing/able to not play the game of trying to always acquire as much money as possible.
2.) Enable people to educate themselves. Public libraries were essential in building the mindset and providing the place and materials for me to drag myself out of poverty.
Completely off-topic from the OA, but do you have any plans on this front? Plans, hopeless dreams, crazy ambitions, etc.
One of the primary ways that stoics find tranquility is by "wanting what you already have" instead of "wanting what you don't have." Easier said than done, so they offer some tools to help, inluding negative visualization (imagining life without things you care about), only worrying about things you have control over, and occasionally denying yourself pleasures.
I'm not doing the subject justice, but here's an easy to read book that condenses a lot of their ideas and applies them to modern life: http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/01953.... And of course Wikipdeia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
Also, check out the upcoming book 'The Obstacle is the Way' by Ryan Holiday - http://www.amazon.com/The-Obstacle-Is-Way-Timeless/dp/159184...
I'm not a big fan of Guide to the Good Life either -- mostly because I think it takes a very profound (and by no means simple or obvious) set of ideas and reduces it to a kind of intellectual fad diet.
For something weightier, you might look at the works of Pierre Hadot (Philosophy as a Way of Life and What is Ancient Philosophy?), both of which contain excellent discussions of stoicism.
However, he does a good job of giving a basic introduction and framing for Stoic concepts. I think it's easier to digest the Romans (particularly the concise and acerbic style of Epictetus) if you are somewhat familiar with the subject. I got much, much more from Epictetus than I did from Irvine, but he is, I think, a valuable on-ramp.
I'm also not sure what the big deal is with Marcus Aurelius. Compared with The Enchiridion and even Seneca's letters, it's haphazard and dull. I'll give it another shot once I'm done with all of Seneca's letters.
Personally, I would start with Irvine, then the George Long translation of The Enchiridion (it's more poetic than the Carter translation, IMO). I'm about half way through Seneca's Letters, and while enjoyable, he takes a long time to cover the same insights as Epictetus.
(aside: on my 3rd or 4th reading of The Enchiridion, I wrote brief notes on each part, which you can find at http://thiscodinglife.com/dissecting-epictetus/intro)
I had the same initial reaction with Marcus, but honestly it might be because I didn't have the right translation (pick Gregory Hays's!!) and not enough background on the man. I would highly recommend watching this short series that mentions both Epictetus and Marcus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLD09Qa3kMk I truly think you'll see the Meditations in a different way after watching this. Also, Pierre Hadot has a very good (but scholarly) analysis on it in The Inner Citadel.
And for Epictetus, I always introduce him with the story of the Vietnam prisoner of war James Stockdale who in a way relied on stoic principles to endure the tortures he was inflicted. He wrote and lectured about the lessons there, Google him around.
This book was my first introduction to stoicism. I loved the book and idea behind stoicism. I meant to find more but had forgotten about it. Thanks for the book suggestion.
"What if Money Was No Object" - https://youtu.be/C_sbcSRMsOc
If you're looking for something longer and more in-depth, the late David Foster Wallace's talk on a similar subject is incredibly sincere and motivating:
"This Is Water" - http://youtu.be/dexIA_OfLzg
It's probably not realistic to see a humanities degree as a meal ticket, but it can be an excellent foundation for the "real world". Getting the degree teaches you to research and to learn. Those are marketable skills you can apply to many jobs. Unless you want a career in academia, in many cases the humanities degrees aren't likely going to lead you to a job in your field of study, but they will prepare you. You just need to figure out where to apply your skills.
I never really cared about languages before programming, but after learning it, then logic, semantics, ontology I think about other human languages a lot. I'm curious about your point of view coming from the opposite direction.
Hopefully our posts encourage him to weigh in.
For my second year of University, I studied in Germany (rather than Canada0, which made things really hard for me. To translate my Latin texts I translated from Latin to English and then worked out how to translate the English to German.
I had a really great professor who taught us not only how to break down words to find their meanings, but he also made no bones about the fact that the key to translating is knowing when to make a good guess.
Once you can get by with Greek and Latin, you can pick up a lot of other bits of languages fairly easily. Sometimes it's by knowing root words. Sometimes it's because you've gotten good at guessing.
A lot of those skills apply directly to reading someone else's code and trying to make sense of it. I find that if you can learn to decipher a foreign, natural language, you may just do alright with languages that machines understand.
With the economy in the state that it is, it's a lot harder to beat the odds. Just getting an interview with a not-directly-applicable major seems to be flat out impossible.
After many years of watching people dear to me struggle, I'm starting to feel bad telling them that they just need to market themselves better, find a way to bypass the recruitment process and think outside the box. I've come to realize that they really got the raw end of the deal, and instead of any sympathy, they get told that they just need to try harder.
Having said that, the team lead at my $work has an M.A. in Music Composition. Having the coding skills will get you the job, but there's nothing to say that a Humanities degree can't prepare you for getting the skills.
So forgetting all the messy business of day-to-day life, just running around with pointy weapons and fighting zombies seems appealing.
But what if I lived without that expectation? Maybe I would be happier? Maybe take better care of myself, my communities, my surroundings, the things I currently have instead of pining for the things I want? I don't know. Maybe not. Maybe live more in the present instead of fretting about the distant future and things I have no control over? Maybe not.
There are an awful lot of people on the Earth who live without the resources I have and, I could argue, are happier than me, have less overall stress, have more leisure time, are in better physical shape, and so on. And I'm not trying to romanticize it. I also understand that many people in that condition are miserable.
But overall life satisfaction is relative, isn't it, and largely a state of mind?
Again, the myth of the extremely happy have-nots. This is coming up regularly on HN, and it's based largely on ignorance. People who have much less than you are not more happy. Access to resources, energy, improves quality of life in every way, and increases relative happiness as well. If that were not the case, then nobody in the lesser developed world would want to have a car, to eat more stuff, to have more money to spend and send their kids to school. But actually, they do, because they strive for more stuff that will make them more happy.
It's probably got to do with publicity given to those who voluntarily give up wealth and chose the path of poverty.
Poverty affects humans at a very basic level; their cognition is impaired, their day-to-day life to a very minute detail is controlled by lack of money. And some of the things that we take for granted (for instance potable water) is struggle for them. Those with money can't even imagine what it is like to be poor, day in day out and for years on end with very little hope in sight.
I was not aware of all these until I read a terrific book, "The Poor Economics". It was really an eye opener for me and because of which I'm more empathetic towards poor today instead of just saying they are happier or blaming them for their poverty.
One reason I think this theme resonates here is that software people are location independent in a way few other industries are. If you can work from anywhere being somewhere where your core living expenses are $200 makes sense. Siver's questions becomes real - what then ?
1. Place zombie on treadmill surrounded by a cage. 2. Hook treadmill up to generator. 3. Read a book in front of zombie. 4. Electricity!
Guns, ammo, food, water etc. will become valuable commodities. Natural bartering will lead to money again.
It was basically when Eastern spirituality first wove its way into the American consciousness.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivekananda_at_the_Parliament_o...
ps: it's a bit looking at the finger pointing to the moon but anyway. pps: thanks for the links
An important note: the clinical definition of Attention-Deficit Disorder is exactly "being unable to feel motivated, except under conditions of stress/fear/pain."
A common self-medicating strategy for people unaware they have ADD, is to invite unhappiness and stress in order to derive motivation from it. If the only thing that can get you to start working on a project is the feeling of a looming deadline, you may want to get yourself checked.
Neurotransmitter imbalances (e.g. clinical depression, AD[H]D, anxiety disorders, etc.) are not diseases. This doesn't mean that people who have them are okay; it just means that thinking of them in terms of what you normally associate with the label 'disease' will lead your thoughts astray.
Instead, neurotransmitter imbalances are genetic impairments. Like, say, nearsightedness.
As with nearsightedness, neurotransmitter imbalances are just annoying natural features of some people's bodies. As with nearsightedness, it kind of sucks to be those people, but they don't generally know what they're missing, because they've always been that way.
But, as with nearsightedness, prosthetics have been invented that "even the playing field" between those with and without the impairment. And, as with nearsightedness, it's readily apparent to those who use the prosthetic that they were impaired, because they now have access to experiences that they may have heard unimpaired people speaking of, but never previously got to experience for themselves.
(And, as with nearsightedness, this has caused the genetic defects responsible for the impairment to spread rapidly through the population; because the impairment is no longer a disadvantage, there's no longer any evolutionary pressure to protect the genetic code responsible from mutating.)
Try imagining telling someone with nearsightedness that they should just learn to cope with everything being fuzzy, instead of getting glasses. Imagine condemning the boom in contact-lens sales as "overmedication." It seems ridiculous, right?
ADHD is fuzzily defined and overdiagnosed. People can be different from one another. "Curing" someone from being active and unfocused has uncomfortable implications.
> And, as with nearsightedness, it's readily apparent to those who use the prosthetic that they were impaired, because they now have access to experiences that they may have heard unimpaired people speaking of, but never previously got to experience for themselves.
The human body requires its internal chemicals to be maintained within certain ranges for various features to function. Each of these features is relevant to what would be called "the human experience"--things that are built into the generalized human utility-function to want, as terminal values.
When you have a neurotransmitter imbalance to a degree that it becomes an impairment, it is so because it disables some of these features, and therefore bars one's access to these terminal values.
In AD(H)D, the feature that gets impaired is the "sense of intrinsic motivation" generated by the dopamine system. The terminal values one loses access to are the feelings of striving, accomplishment, or pride in one's work; and, in more extreme cases, the feeling to hope that one will be able to improve one's lot in life by one's own hand. (When you know you can't motivate yourself to get a job, being jobless is a lot more depressing.)
When you apply the appropriate prosthetic to the impairment--combined dopamine agonist/reuptake inhibitors, in this case--you gain access to this feature, and through it, the terminal values you were barred from.
As with putting on glasses, if you have the impairment (everything is blurry), then it is very, very obvious that when everything comes into focus, that this is the way things were "meant" to be--not from some moral imperative, but just because the rest of your body was built to rely on this feature that was previously broken.
With glasses, this means you suddenly stop bumping into things, and don't find yourself moving closer to people to see them. With normalized dopamine levels, this means you suddenly feel able to make yourself accomplish things you've always wanted to accomplish.
If your dopamine is set to the correct range for your body, this doesn't "make you into a robot" or any of the things people talk about with various neuroaffective drugs. Inasmuch as that was ever true in clinical settings, it was from failure to identify the neurotransmitter which is in imbalance (i.e. treating a norepinephrine production deficiency with dopamine agonists).
---
And now, a rant:
Inasmuch as AD(H)D treatment is made out to be a problem in pop-culture, though, it does indeed come from "overdiagnosis"--if you give a drug to boost a neurotransmitter into a reference range to someone who is not impaired, you will of course boost that neurotransmitter out of the reference range it was already in. People who can see fine already will find glasses quite harmful to their vision.
"Overdiagnosis" is a very strong word for what happens with AD(H)D, though. Population studies have been done, with random samples of adults brought in off the street given strict evaluations to test for AD(H)D--and as much as 3% of the population has scored far into the "impaired" range. (This is, coincidentally-enough, about the same percentage we see for all the other neurotransmitter-reference-range problems, e.g. clinical depression, giving merit to the genetic-drift hypothesis.) This number is far higher than the number of people actually diagnosed with AD(H)D. The stigma behind "overdiagnosis" has lead to underdiagnosis.
The real problem, of course, is parents wanting to treat their children for neurotransmitter imbalances at all. Children do not have stable neurotransmitter reference ranges. Their brains produce random spurts of neurotransmitters at random times, just like their bodies produce random spurts of growth in random body parts. (This is why children have ...
Diagnosing this chemical imbalances has got to be quite hard, if each person has a different profile. Furthermore, most people aren't even tested for it.
It's not an easy problem to solve, and parental pressure for drugs that calm an extrovert kid certainly don't help.
1) honest love for oneself; a belief that bettering oneself is not a completely selfish goal, but actually helps everyone and everything else in your life that you care about (insofar as you interact with them)
2) an honest belief that energy spent on self-improvement is effective; if I try to change myself in this way or that and am unsuccessful, it makes the next attempt much harder to get started.
just my two cents.
You could make a plausible argument that self-improvement allows one to accomplish more for others, and use this to connect self-improvement with moral obligations to the community. And you could simply have a deeply ingrained desire for self-improvement (Maslow's Hierarchy seems to suggest that this is a fundamental human need). However, I think it's good to acknowledge that this idea -- that we should improve ourselves -- is not prima facie necessary; it's simply another human desire.
Many people often feel that something's wrong with life or something is missing. A little voice in their heads comes up and says "maybe if I had X that'd fix it", or "maybe if I was Y I'd be happy". In fact, I'm coming to realise (as all the books I've read over the years have been saying) that it's the thinking that is the whole problem. In fact it's not a case of just intellectually accepting this idea that's important. We can go deeper.
Where does the voice come from? What is this thing called "I" that is blindly followed? It would appear it is just another thought. The mind is just a stream of thoughts and "I" is just another one. It has no substance, no reality.
It seems that the only thing that does exist is the present, so just ignore the past and future. The more you are able to ignore the voice in your head (and it's much easier when you see it has no reality) the more you start to tingle, literally. You (well I don't know about you, but I) feel amazing. Satisfied and replete.
So to conclude, what I was getting at was that maintaining the belief that you need to "improve" somehow, or be "better" just adds more fuel to the fire and keeps the mind spinning, distracting us from the present and ever experiencing that fulfilling feeling.
Sounds very much like Taoist teachings as well. Desire, in its many forms, never results in happiness.
But would this not require, in some sense, the desire for contentment? I suppose this is just a semantic issue; somehow our usage of "desire" excludes this case (perhaps because it is so fundamental).
Contentment, on the other hand, is something more like "the lack of any particular goal currently requiring you to think, plan, or expend energy."
Basically, they're at odds: when you have a desire, you are by definition discontented.
I made a conscious decision to work from home and comfortable places because I realized that commuting two hours a day was destroying my health. Very few projects would be worth that sacrifice to me (although I realize that many are out there).
I made a choice to eat mindfully and properly in every meal unless I have something else of extreme urgency. I find very few things are worth interrupting a meal. There's at least one hour of every day you can enjoy tremendously, and many people lose complete sight of that.
I am not disagreeing with your premise, but the truth is that most people's desires, in my opinion, seem to be highly misplaced, given that not many people out there are actually working towards a goal so noble that it's worth the rest of the sacrifices in their lives. Having shorter vacations, less time for relaxation and pursuing hobbies is worth it if you're engaged on projects that give tremendous satisfaction and make a difference.
We're not in ancient Rome anymore.
I don't see any reason for modern humans to be stoic. It seems like a great way to stagnate. When you can't change your environment, it makes sense to change your mind to accept your environment. When you can, self-modification is harmful. It lets you accept things you could change if you worked to to change them.
Stoicism seems to be at odds with a personal drive towards self-improvement. It doesn't seem relevant to modern environments where this improvement is possible.
For instance, I work with Enterprise Software but not with cars. Perhaps being Stoic towards my material possessions( such as liking my Honda and stop looking at the Maserati I don't need) while still driving towards improvements in the areas that matter, such as my relationships (family, friends, strangers) and career (software, etc)?
Yes, Stoicism teaches you that you don't have (at least ultimate) control over the world. But it does emphasize that you have control over yourself. You internalize your goals: Instead of "winning the tennis championship" it's "be the best player I can possibly be despite circumstance".
Since 'improvement' is so often a subjective quality the stoics may perhaps suggest you rebase what you consider to be self improvement.
What if one could find a way of being happy regardless of 'self improvement' drives?
If happiness is the objective and you can be happy without changing your environment, even if changing the environment is trivial, what's the difference?
We don't have the resources to keep all modern humans in the manner to which those in developed countries have become accustomed.
There are some things you really cannot change. We can change more than we used to, but not everything. Stoicism helps.
And we also change things we don't need to change. We chase after things that bring us no happiness. By allowing you to be happy with what you have, stoicism lets you seek those things that truly matter.
I think "changing the things you can" (as Niebuhr once put it) is precisely the second half of the stoic idea. In fact, not changing things that by rights should be changed runs contrary to virtue, which the stoics held as the chief -- and indeed, the only -- true good.
My mind keeps coming up with generalizations all the time. For example, "the more space you have for your family, the less valuable time together you spend". Needless, useless generalizations like this about just about everything. So I've formed a mental habit of just pausing and asking "really?" .. and soon these just go poof.
In other words, I automatically question the validity of any concept I construct. This way, I'm free to stick to one temporarily and have no qualms about abandoning concepts that aren't valid for me.
The nice thing about Derek's post is that he's just posing the question and leaving it to the reader to ruminate on what answer would mean to them. The skill to pick up here is to ask these kinds of questions ... like all the time.
Growing up, my family never had much, and I always had to make due with simple activities. Luckily enough I got immersed in the Internet at a young age, because I was able to inherit outdated computers, but never had the fancy toys or gadgets or games that my friends did. I had to find ways to entertain myself with very little, and since then my interests have always revolved around a very small subset of simple, low-fidelity activities. Drawing (materials are universal), weightlifting (free-weights only), programming (self explanatory).. Things that I know could never really be taken from me.
As I'm preparing to graduate college, I've told friends and family that I never want to own a car, or a house. I haven't owned a bed in two years. The only major purchases I want are a decent laptop, which I consider a necessity for a software developer, and books. I want the tools I need to live and grow my skills and intellect.
In that sense, I probably take the modern translation of stoicism too far. But then again, I'm easily fulfilled.
Incidentally, if you're moved to get broad outlines of philosophical things, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy tend to be better resources:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicism/
Again?
You just nailed the problem.
If everything you did was for others, then this discussion (and many like it) wouldn't even make sense.
You wouldn't "get burned out", "lose purpose", "get stressed out", "worry about competition", "procrastinate", or "lack motivation".
If your work, your art, or just your day-to-day activities were focused on delivering value to others, you'd be too busy having a ball and rejoicing in outcomes to worry about all this other stuff. And anyone who tells you otherwise (but we gotta eat first!), still doesn't get it.
Thanks, OP, for reminding us that as soon as we're not so full of ourselves, and understand our role as conduits of energy, the sooner everything else flows so nicely.
There's such a deeply narcissistic undercurrent here.
If you ever find yourself having too money money, what that means is you have too few people who you are using your resources to help.
Being rich shouldn't be, "Well, I've got a yacht and a motorcycle, I guess I'm good!" It should be, "Ah I finally have enough to help X. If only I could get more and help Y as well." You aren't rich enough until the whole world is rich with you.
The author is the real deal in the sense that he did choose to decide he had enough, and set up a foundation to support music education and began advocating for entrepreneurship.[1] Maybe the reality is that Derek Sivers does not believe that he could as effectively manage a larger foundation as he can manage a smaller foundation like the one he set up. You might not make the same decisions as he did. I wouldn't, and I disagree with the extent to which he seems to have taken "mo' money, mo' problems" to heart. However, you could also say that his quality of life is maximized by him being the one who makes those calls, which may be a suitable localized goal, maximizing global benefit more than if he were striving to his limit in supporting more ambitious goals.
[1] https://sivers.org/trust
According to you, anyway.
I completely agree with your stance but we both know x % of the rich ones aren't like, say, Gates, but rather the contrary. They try to find ways to lose less (taxes and whatnot) and gain more then they already have.
Reality isn't ideal. But thankfully, we can all be perfectly ideal in our own totally hypothetical idealizations.
And to use Gates as an example, I'd much rather have him spending his money than the government spending his money. He's better at it, and does more good with it.
well I think the are morally obliged to pay more anyway - which is the spirit of the OP's idea. It's not like the government completely wastes every single tax penny. And even if they would, the more you have the more you can miss.
Furthermore, not only does this depend on the country you live in, I know from first hand experience tax avoidance is real, and mainly with richer people because they can pay others to do it for them. Now if they try to avoid taxes n order to give that money to the poor, I'm all good with it. But chances are they don't, in which case I'd rather let the government have it instead of it resting on the bank or being used to buy an environmental disaster like a speedboat :P