Sadly video games seem to be the only source of agency for a great number of people. Our lives seem to be more and more constrained without any authentic choice available to us and in response we retreat to artificial environments.
This. This whole article made me realize many things about why some of my friends made the choice to sit home, play games, and live on welfare benefits, instead of pursuing education and career. I guess this "strategy" allows them to reach all the human needs with minimal effort. Why would they do anything else, if that makes them happy? Even if it only makes them just enough happy to keep on going, its still an easier choice for them than a traditiotal career. The effort one needs to put on satisfying the needs through working are on a totally different scale. Very interesting.
Finland. You can get a cheap flat from the municipality(at least in the city of Espoo), then rent assistance from the state, and then you visit the welfare office (Kela) sometimes and tell that you are out of money, and they'll give you some. Id guess you have like 300e to spend per month for food, and you live in the outskirts of the city in a 20square meter flat, but hey, at least you can play your games as much as you want. Not the life id want, but some of my old friends with whom I still occasionally play games online have chosen that path. I've read that the number of young adults (mainly males) who are living outside the normal society is already as high as 30,000 in Finland, but I don't know for fact if they are all as extreme as some of the people I know.
I think when he referred to "authentic choice", to be about the choice of being normal and boring.
Right now we have lots of choice, but not meaningful ones.
For example: a medieval peasant was "fated" to die peasant, and do peasant things...
Yet, that medieval peasant, had a great probability of being able to complete life cycle, of being born, be someone's apprentice, date, have fun and mess around, sometimes with lots of free time, work hard, marry, have kids, and eventually die.
Right now there are millions of millenials, even ones already old enough to be grandparents if they were in medieval era, that can't have kids, can't have jobs that sustain themselves, and are forced to live with their parents.
Is life more confortable, with TV, games, modern medicine, and truckloads of information?
Sure yes, from that perspective life never been better, we are the apex of civilization.
But is that truly important? When people have even a instinct that drives them to want to marry and have kids, what is the point of the future when all you can do is stay unemployed in your parents home and have only fleeting relationships?
Is the modern amount of boatloads of sex with random stranger pleasurable?
Yes, a lot.
But... is it useful? Is it a choice that most of the population actually wants, even if they don't know in their 18s?
We have now lots of choices, except the choice that was the default for most of human history: have a boring job, marry, have kids, see the kids have boring jobs themselves, and die.
It wouldn't surprise me if the future got rid even of the "die" part, maybe when someone discover immortality they might make it mandatory, people would of course agree that being immortal is awesome and great... but that doesn't mean it would be actually better.
"We have now lots of choices, except the choice that was the default for most of human history: have a boring job, marry, have kids, see the kids have boring jobs themselves, and die."
Really? I'd say we have an easier time accomplishing this than a medieval peasant - if we wanted. I'd buy it if you told me people chose not to live this way - but i don't think it is any more difficult to live this way.
How you are supposed to have a boring job, if you can't find a job?
In many countries youth unemployment (not occupation, but actual unemployment) is 10%+ sometimes it reaches 50%.
How you can marry, if you have no money to do that, and the law is against you? (with harsh penalties for divorce, but at the same time divorce is easy and encouraged, making marriage inherently overly risky).
How you can have kids, without money even to feed yourself?
I know plenty, plenty, plenty people with 25+ of age, that don't own anything, no car, no house, not even a bike, how these people can even consider having kids? Who will take care of them? Orphanages? The state somehow?
Youth unemployment is no higher now than it has been historically in most Western countries (eg: [1][2]). Across the whole Euro area youth unemployment is almost exactly what it was during the 1990's[3]. It's true that that rate was higher a few years ago though.
It's pretty easy to be sucked into a "things are bad" narrative, but plenty of people get married at much worse poverty levels (especially historically).
I was comparing "now" with medieval era... 1990 isn't exactly that far back.
Also, if you look at your links and click "max", although things have improved since 2010, they aren't that good, specially when you consider also other factors.
For example, the percentage of youth forced to live with parents keeps increasing:
Also, although now everyone is "wealthier" because random stuff noone needs is cheaper, living costs keep rising, for example health care costs, housing costs, and in many places food costs have been rising faster than both inflation, and income.
Brazil for example is having constant strikes since about 10 years ago, even during economic boom, with people upset with food costs, frequently strikers instead of demanding higher wages, they instead demanded more food-related benefits.
Food prices in Brazil rose 173% in the last 10 years, while inflation was 122% and wages rose 68%.
And yes, it is easy to get sucked into "things are bad", when they are. At least to me, and almost every single friend I know.
English kept their children at home "till the age of seven or nine at the utmost" but then "put them out, both males and females, to hard service in the houses of other people, binding them generally for another seven or nine years"... most parents waved goodbye to them at about 14... Illiterate servants had no means of communicating with their parents, and the difficulties of travel meant that even if children were only sent 20 miles (32 km) away they could feel completely isolated... adolescents were a useful source of cheap labour for their masters. In 1350, the Black Death had reduced Europe's population by roughly half, so hired labour was expensive.[1]
Doesn't sound too awesome to me.
"In many countries, there are large amounts of fatherless children, for example black children in US was about 73% of them being fatherless."
And in Iceland over 70% of children are born to single parents[2]. I'm not sure what your point is - this isn't necessarily bad unless you are making a value judgement here?
This is such a good response, it's something I've thought about so much lately, especially with all this talk of human replacement due to robots etc. I sometimes wonder if modern societies feel superior to others because of technology and scientific studies. Like the more of it we have the happier we will be.
> even ones already old enough to be grandparents if they were in medieval era, that can't have kids, can't have jobs that sustain themselves, and are forced to live with their parents.
Putting aside the obvious hit aginst the western preoccupation with living alone (really? what is so terrible about living with your parents, and was this the case culturally in the west 600 years ago?).....
Children are relatively inexpensive. What is difficult is having children, giving them 'the best' as far as your social group is concerned, and also doing all the things you enjoy doing as a single person.
If you make sacrifices you can give your children the best. It's what our parents did. It's what our grandparents did. It may be little talked about, but it is reality... They gave up having bigger houses like we demand today in order to have 3 children.
They gave up having empowering fun jobs in order to have stable ones that provided for their children.
I will use myself as example, but 80% of my friends are in the same boat.
I am 29. My income is zero, my net worth is negative (in great part because student loans) and interest is making thr debt deeper.
Some days my family, even with my grandparents here and helping with their money had to eat only potatoes or corn, because we couldn't afford protein.
Mind you, everyone is very educated, even my grandma have a degree, despite it being uncommon for her demographics group, my sister did a 6 month post-graduate stint on MIT.
Yet, sometimes we are forced to skip buying medicine we absolutely need.
How would you raise children in that environment? children is cheap how? How you save money when you are already using clothes with holes because lack of money to buy new ones?
> And supposing that we are playing more and more video games why is that sad?
No more or less sad that some upperclass Victorian types reading more and more novels. Or even before that, some medieval upper clerics overindulging in rich foods.
Doing it sparingly is good, - the well earned prize after a long day of hard work, perhaps. Doing it more is even better, - meaning you are actually successful at your more productive pursuits and can spare the time/resources to indulge. But doing it "more and more" implies an unhealthy detachment from both your responsibilities and all other goodies the rest of the world has to offer.
