Five Popular Posts Of The Month

Friday, November 20, 2020

Why Do People Have To Work? (part II)

Cont. from

I ended the first part of my explanation with these statements:


“In order to make a living one has to be able to satisfy someone else’s needs for – well, something, anything: cooking, delivering food, writing a code, etc.


If one cannot do anything – one does not deserve to live.


If no one needs anything from you - you are worthless.

If someone can be useful to one but a very rich person, or to poor but many persons, that someone climbs up the social ladder.


Otherwise, ...”


It is time to finish the last statement.


If you are useful to one but a very rich person, or to poor but many persons, then you will climb the social ladder. Otherwise, you will die in poverty.


This is just the current state of affairs.


This is the current social and economic rule.


There is one exception from this rule – a person who was born rich, who got sufficient inheritance and was smart enough not to waist it. But that’s that.


For everyone else, the rule says: “If you are useful to one but a very rich person, or to poor but many persons, then you will climb the social ladder. Otherwise, you will die in poverty.”.


In order to have a good living you need to be needed by people whose combined wealth is large enough to pay you good money.


Now we can ask two questions:


1. Is this fair?




2. Can we live by a different rule?


The answer to the first question depends on a personal history of cultural growth and developed life philosophy. But if we all would follow an idea that all people are created equal, we would have to state that the rule is not fair. As I described in part I, we are who we are and what we are and where we are mostly due to a vast set of random factors. Because of that not all people are created equal. Socially and economically disadvantaged people cannot be blamed for being  disadvantaged, it’s not their fault. And hence there is no ideological or philosophical reason to punish those people by keeping them in poverty. The only reason for keeping huge part of a human population in poverty is, well, was, not enough resources to provide everyone with good living. But with the current technological advances that time is in the past. Nowadays, the humanity has resources to feed and give home to everyone – if only those resource would have been used.


There are political forces that do not want share available resource to all people because as long as they control those resources they control those people. But that is a different conversation.


If one believes that the current economic and social state of affairs I not fair, one needs to answer “Yes” to the second question.


“Yes We Can!” live by a different rule.


But – what rule would that be?


This is my version of the new rule, it has three parts:


1. All people have the same right for having a decent life.

2. The purpose of a government, the mission of a government is to establish political conditions that would lead to establishing fair economic conditions that would lead to establishing decent standards of living for all citizens.

3. The number one criterion of the quality of governmental work is how many citizens live in decent conditions that provide healthy and emotionally positive (a.k.a. happy) life.


Well, technically, “healthy” includes “mentally healthy”, i.e. “happy”, but I think that “happiness” still should be explicitly stated as the part of the measure of the work of a government.


If we accept this new rule, then we have to make a conclusion, that, in general, in order to have a healthy and happy life people should not be required to work.


The rule does NOT have such a requirement as a requirement to work.


That means, that under the new rule, people do NOT have to work!


Why do people have to work NOW? => Because otherwise they will die from starvation, or will have a very bad, unhealthy/unhappy life.


But if the government takes care of good living conditions for everyone, then people do NOT have to work anymore.


Pure logic.


BTW: this logic is not new in anyway (I don’t want to pretend I am the first who said it).


And, of course, it has been heavily criticized.


The #1 counter argument is – if people do not have to work, then they will not work, and then since no one will work, the whole economy will collapse, and the society will fall into chaos.


Every argument is based on some assumptions.


The #1 counter argument is based on the assumption that all humans are intrinsically lazy.


Ask some big-fish CEO or an entrepreneur why dose he/she work? “I don’t work because I want money, I work because I love creating new things, products, practices, connections, …” –  you name it. And he/she always thinks “because I am so so special! But everyone else is lazy ignorant people who are lucky to have a job.”


Of course, as we know now, there is nothing special about any of those big-fish rich and famous – he/she is just lucky, and everyone else is just not so lucky (re-read part I).


I do not believe that humans are intrinsically lazy.


I have been teaching for decades and have taught thousands of people of different age, gender, profession, culture. And I know that people are not lazy, there is no natural tendency for laziness, and if someone does not want to act, it is not because someone is lazy, but because he or she has no motive to act.


Most people (parents, teachers, bosses, politicians, administrators, friends, psychologists) confuse laziness with the lack of motivation.


Intrinsically, by nature, most people are prompted to act – just look at infants, look at toddlers. However, if born and grew up in a wrong culture (bad luck) some people do not have developed internal motives to grow – as a person, as a professional. That is not their fault. And there are many examples that when placed in a right culture, people start thriving (Anton Makarenko).


Hence, the most important parameter that affects who people act (hence work) is the culture they grew up in.


The lack of motivation is the sign of the wrong culture one grew up in.


It’s not about people, per se, it is about culture they grow up in.


With the right culture, all people would definitely have internal motivation to grow – as a person and as a professional.


With the right culture, all people would work even if they did not have to.


The answer to question “why do people have to work?” is “because many of them grew up in a wrong culture”.


Change the culture – and even if all people will have a good decent life without need for work, they will work – to realize/fulfill their natural intrinsic potential – because that feels really good (if you know what I mean – I do).


Now we have to answer two more questions:


1. What is the right culture?




2. How should the right culture be developed?


The answer to the first question begs a new publication.


The answer to the second question though is “trivial” – the right culture should be developed via right public education.


That, of course, moves us to questions like “what is wrong with the current public education?”, “why the dismal state of public education has been there for decades without any significant improvement despite billions of dollars spent on a so-called education reform?”, and other addressed in multiple posts on the matters.


Homework: why humans are intrinsically naturally active, not lazy?

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |



Because otherwise humans would die out long time ago, there would be no humanity, because there is no survival without being active, survival and especially procreation demands activity. 


Dr. Valentin Voroshilov

Tuesday, November 17, 2020

American suicide, or “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”


I am writing here about legalization of drugs in America.


Or, rather, about how it’s being done.


I want to say upfront, I am against bringing criminal charges to people who consume drugs just because they consumed a drug.


The law does not prohibit consuming alcohol and does not even set any limit on how much can be consumed. But if a drank person or a person who wants to become drunk brings some damage or harm, then the law punishes him or her.


The exactly same legal approach has to be used to ALL drugs.


On December 5, 1933, consumption of alcohol became decriminalized.


And now America needs to decriminalize consumption of all drugs, starting from marijuana.


One may say – but that is exactly what is happening right now!


Twenty-six states, 2 territories, and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational cannabis. One state (Oregon) legalized the use of hard drugs.


The problem is when the Prohibition ended, no one was promoting drinking as a good life style.


On the contrary, many media outlets and media personalities present smoking marijuana as a cool activity, natural for, and even expected from “cool people”.


There is a huge difference between “decriminalization” and “promotion”.


I completely understand the reasons why many left-leaning Americans want to decriminalize consumption of marijuana. The number one is that marijuana has been used to oppress/suppress African Americans and other non-white Americans. Even though the level of consumption is very much the same for white and non-white Americans, the level of criminal punishment is much higher for non-white population.


That is true. Although, technically, these facts are NOT related to consumption of marijuana per se, they are directly related to the way the police and the criminal system work. Instead of decriminalization of drugs politicians could have been initiating the police reform. For example, making sure that all events of the illegal position – for non-white and white Americans, equally – would be prosecuted in exactly same manner. Or, by enlisting more non-white policemen and making those policemen to patrol predominantly white neighborhoods.


But I also understand the reality. I know that my suggestions are not realistic. That is why I have no objection to decriminalization of consumption of drugs.


But I have a strong objection to promoting that consumption – in any way (starting from movies).


On the contrary, the process of the decriminalization of consumption of drugs must be happening in parallel with the process of  an active denouncement of any drug consumption. Money needs to flow into the support and promotion of anti-drug movements.


“Using is a danger for your health!”


“Using is not cool!”




Unfortunately, what I see today is the opposite of that.


In result, I see (or rather feel, i.e. smell) a greatly increased number of people smoking marijuana – even while driving.


Smoking marijuana has to be regulated as smoking in general, because it affects other people, too. When someone drinks, it does not affect the health of other (unless the drunk is driving, or psychotic). But fumes travel in all directions, and a smoker puts in danger people around him or her.


But most importantly, drugs represent a threat for the health of the nation as a whole.


Without strong counter influence, more and more people, especially young people will be at risk of damaging their health. Young people will begin using drugs at an earlier age. And their children will have more health issues, including mental issues. Schools will have more and more intellectually disadvantaged students. Clinics will have more and more people with a poor health condition. The whole society will experience more and more strain.


As I wrote, I know the reasons for the strong push to support the legalization of marijuana.


And I believe that the number one is money.


There are people who have a lot of money and look for the ways to make even more. They want to open another venue for their investments. Marijuana can become a billion-dollar business. And those people do not care about any negative effect legalization of marijuana may have on the society. In fact, they have a strong interest in promoting marijuana as much as possible.


Hence, it is the people who care about the future of the country who have to step up.


Or America will be slowly killing herself.