Q

This reality

Sometimes I’m hit with a pang at how fundamentally fucked up beyond repair the world is.

It’s bone-chilling that we live in an already dystopic world and have been for centuries. In which our basic survival and needs are shackled to a man-made construct: money. More entrenched than ever, and as a result with power more dangerously consolidated than ever.

Is it not completely illogical and horrifying that work that brings the most, and most direct, value to our lives, such as shit shovelling and trash collection, for health, hygiene, standard of living, are paid the least?

And the most useless – or most times malignant – work are most highly compensated? For instance any work that makes people spend more, manufacture more, without any positive impact to our well-being, health, survival, or propagation. Beyond a few seconds of dopamine boost. Not only is it a harm to humankind but also the soil we are rooted to. The earth that gave us life.

Is it not depressing that 99% of us work tirelessly for ONLY, and I stand by this ONLY, the benefit and luxury of the undeserving 1%? I say undeserving because all deserves basic necessities, but NO one person deserves a $2 million piece of accessory, especially at the expense of many, many other’s suffering, but they do.

I strongly believe no one person should be a billionaire. Or a multi-millionaure. There should be a universal cap on one’s personal wealth, for what one person could need or use so much? Just a tiny fraction of their assets brings about a larger than proportional benefit to individuals, and then a ripple effect to the rest of society.

When I’m feeling shallow and unthinking, I tell myself I ‘love money’, it’s fine, what’s the point of fighting a system I can never change, why not just work within in and make the best of a futile situation.

Other days I’m in shock that we let humanity spiral to this state. When such a mood strikes and come face to face with the bleak reality, I question where most of my efforts are expended.

In my ideal world there is no consumerism. We live to live: eat what we need, socialize, reproduce, have a community, simple entertainment through art and music.

Currency is but trade of skills. A baker’s loaf for a weaver’s basket. The way it was before the first shekels changed hands.

It is also in a bout of these musings that I rethink my ‘love’ for money, struck by the irony that I chase after the one thing that oppresses us all, and start thinking about what I can do that doesn’t perpetuate this rot, but rages back at the machine, even a little. Throwing starfish back into the sea kinda thing.

Ultimately, I’ve not been brave enough to begin on the harder path that aligns with my inner belief. Yet.

,

Published by

qing t

Response

  1. Avatar
    Anonymous

    The first argument says the world is a dystopia, with reasoning that basic survival is fundamentally shackled to the man-made construct of money, which is described as a “bone-chilling” reality. However, it did not provide specific examples or evidence within the text to fully demonstrate the dystopian characteristics beyond this general dependency on money.

    The second argument says that essential work (like sanitation) is undervalued while useless or harmful work (driving consumerism) is overvalued, with reasoning based on contrasting examples and an appeal to the logical value of contributions (health vs. fleeting dopamine/harm). But it failed to provide specific wage data or systematically prove this value/harm assessment applies universally across job types mentioned within the text, relying instead on generalizations.

    The third argument says the 99% work only for the benefit of the 1%, with reasoning based on strong assertion (“ONLY”), examples of extreme luxury contrasted with suffering, and moral judgment (“undeserving”). But it did not provide broader economic analysis within the text to fully substantiate the absolute nature of the claim “only,” relying more on rhetoric and a stark moral example.

    The fourth argument says extreme personal wealth is unnecessary and potentially undeserved, advocating for a wealth cap, with reasoning based on rhetorical questions about need versus excess and the potential social benefit of redistribution. But it failed to engage with potential economic complexities, counterarguments, or implementation details regarding wealth caps within the text.

    The fifth argument says consumerism is harmful to humans and the planet, with reasoning linking it to “malignant” work, fleeting pleasure, and environmental damage. But it did not provide detailed explanation or specific evidence within the text regarding the mechanisms or extent of this harm (e.g., resource depletion statistics, pollution data).

    The sixth argument says the ideal world involves simple living, community, art, and a barter system, with reasoning presenting this as a desirable alternative vision contrasted with the current system and evoking a pre-currency past. But it did not provide exploration of the practical feasibility or logistics of implementing such a barter-based system on a large scale within the text.

    Overall, the article is well-written and effectively conveys a strong sense of personal conviction and moral critique. Its persuasive power seems to depend more on appealing to the reader’s emotions and shared sense of potential injustice rather than on presenting detailed logical analysis or empirical evidence for each claim. Given the format and likely length constraints of a blog post, providing comprehensive analysis for such significant claims is certainly challenging. However, backing up these powerful arguments with more detailed reasoning or data could be something worth exploring in future pieces to strengthen the points further.

    Reply

Leave a comment