“The knowledge capital between our ears” . . . it seems to me that desire is the spark that generates the growth of the imagination. And sacrifice blocks desire. If we are truly desiring beings and neuroscience seems to indicate that we are, then how do we manifest our true being but by seeking pleasure in doing. Toil is at one end of the spectrum and play at the other. It seems logical to seek as much play as possible to limit toil. And here enters communing, not as a moral imperative, but as a pleasurable one. It’s called radical hedonism. An extend essay on this concept can be found in this book: Jobs, Jive, & Joy: An Argument for the Utopian Spirit
Saito refers to Marx’s calls to make labor attractive and reduce work hours. We have a desire to contribute to others, and this is frustrated when we feel our jobs are bullshit, as a high percentage of sales and marketing people feel, for example. But not so much nurses and teachers. Workplace democracy fosters meaningful work. And not having surplus siphoned off by capitalists allows reduced hours, Can we break down the division between toil and pleasure through creativity? An artist toils over their work, but also takes pleasure in it. Perhaps AI can take over more rote work and allow humans to work more at caring and creativity, assuming we can share the benefits of AI and not have them siphoned off.
How does 'degrowth' communism handle the knowledge capital between our ears? We might limit energy sources and redesign commodities with zero waste, but the capital between our ears? We want it to grow toward infinity. That is the only way we will be able to make all the rest sustainable.
Saito does call for the end of intellectual property monopolies. In general, degrowth is about reduced material throughput, and welcomes gains in terms of quality and low-material, non-material activities. So I am sure the author would have no argument with your proposition.
“The knowledge capital between our ears” . . . it seems to me that desire is the spark that generates the growth of the imagination. And sacrifice blocks desire. If we are truly desiring beings and neuroscience seems to indicate that we are, then how do we manifest our true being but by seeking pleasure in doing. Toil is at one end of the spectrum and play at the other. It seems logical to seek as much play as possible to limit toil. And here enters communing, not as a moral imperative, but as a pleasurable one. It’s called radical hedonism. An extend essay on this concept can be found in this book: Jobs, Jive, & Joy: An Argument for the Utopian Spirit
Saito refers to Marx’s calls to make labor attractive and reduce work hours. We have a desire to contribute to others, and this is frustrated when we feel our jobs are bullshit, as a high percentage of sales and marketing people feel, for example. But not so much nurses and teachers. Workplace democracy fosters meaningful work. And not having surplus siphoned off by capitalists allows reduced hours, Can we break down the division between toil and pleasure through creativity? An artist toils over their work, but also takes pleasure in it. Perhaps AI can take over more rote work and allow humans to work more at caring and creativity, assuming we can share the benefits of AI and not have them siphoned off.
How does 'degrowth' communism handle the knowledge capital between our ears? We might limit energy sources and redesign commodities with zero waste, but the capital between our ears? We want it to grow toward infinity. That is the only way we will be able to make all the rest sustainable.
Saito does call for the end of intellectual property monopolies. In general, degrowth is about reduced material throughput, and welcomes gains in terms of quality and low-material, non-material activities. So I am sure the author would have no argument with your proposition.