This article's conclusion is kind of a let-down, but I think the thrust of it touches on part of what bothers me about the Bay Area entrepreneur scene: the strangely myopic focus on "business" as the primary mechanism for "creating."<p>If we can accept that there are profitable companies which aren't socially productive or inspiring, shouldn't it follow that there are potentially a myriad of possible projects which might be amazing and worthwhile things to build, even if they obviously won't turn a profit?<p>I can understand needing to sustain your own existence, but I'm always curious why "entrepreneurs" who've made enough to live comfortably (and even to endow their children) continue focus their productive energy on building companies measured by financial success, rather than exploring other creative possibilities.
Author fails to mention:<p>1. That "capitalism" does not produce anything. It is people who produce for each other.<p>2. Who to decide what's needed for <i>particular</i> human's flourishing?<p>3. Who to decide how exactly, at what costs "schools should aim to produce self-determining agents"?<p>Capitalism is defined by property ownership, it does not have any inherent rules how to profit. And profits, after all, are not monetary, but subjective. You are earning money being software developer, not carpenter because probably it fulfills your life better this way, with lesser regard of the amount earned.<p>Truth is nobody can authoritatively answer what is good for other people. But if everybody respects each other's property, it is possible to see how for each pair of exchanging persons both parties profit. Even "useless" speculators are doing social good by equalizing prices making calculations and predictions easier (unless they participate in Fed's money printing, which is not a feature of capitalism, but simple robbery).
The point that we are consumers first and producers second is a very good one. We absolutely need to accept that jobs are a cost, not a benefit.<p>But the article goes way off the rails towards the middle:<p><i>"But capitalism as such is not interested in quality of life. It is essentially a system for producing things to sell at a profit, the greater the better."</i><p>This is silly. Insofar as capitalism makes normative claims, the claims are merely that people should be able to do as they wish with their own property. It also makes the positive claim that allowing people to do this will typically increase utility for all market agents.<p>I'm also not sure what the heck he is talking about in the conclusion - people without a liberal education are unable to make their own choices about what to buy? Huh?
I encourage you to read the essay referenced in the article: <a href="http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html</a> (In Praise of Idleness, by Bertrand Russel)<p>A true eye opener.
I used to program as my leisure activity. Now it's my job. Why does my day job feel like work? I have less freedom to play! When I programmed at home, i'd use the technology I wanted, i'd try new things. At work, i'm more rigorous. I do what works, not what's fun.
The article is a great example of over-thinking things that should be really simple.<p>Whatever you are doing, you should choose a career you can enjoy. Some people are really picky of what (in their view) constitutes meaningful and fulfilling work. Others may consider any work that generates money to be fulfilling by this definition alone.<p>One person feels they have to solve the world hunger to feel good about themselves. Someone else feels fulfilled just working on better advertising technologies. Yet another person has to start Wikileaks or become a martyr of some kind to feel like they have accomplished something.<p>Stop over-thinking the meaning of life and just find a career that makes you happy! If your work feels like fun you'll be motivated to achieve in whatever path you have chosen.<p>EDIT: To address the comment that definitions of "fulfillment" can change over lifetime, let me repeat the famous quote: "in the long run we are all dead". If you are not enjoying the journey you are probably not very excited about your supposed destination. But I am sure the debates about the "meaning of life" and the "search for the right path, etc" is a way to happiness for many people. Go for it!
If my job is to do what I'd do in my free time anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm not happy if I play games all day, I'm happy when I build something other people want to use. I'm happy when I solve problems. I'm happy when I make something that entertains others.<p>Work is the result of people being unable to find what makes them both happy and productive.
The division between "leisure" and "work" proffered is too coarse and binary.<p>A continuity of work-y-ness makes more sense: the degree to which something qualifies as "work" is proportional to how distal the reward is.<p>Most leisure provides immediate reward for some amount of effort/energy expended, or at the very least provides little reward but demands little, too. But when the only pay-off for one's effort is years away, this is when true work takes place.
Work as in productive activity is a part of who we are, but this world in which people have to deal with the stress and misery and downright inefficiency of a subordinate context is a disaster. And it's not stable. What happened to agricultural commodities in the 1920s-30s (leading to rural poverty and the Depression) is now happening to almost all human labor. The work of unmotivated people is worth almost zero, but most people don't have the social access and trust to get out of the subordinate context and into a motivat<i>ing</i> role.<p>The next 50 years may be really great, or we may see a violent, global class war that kills millions. It depends on how the surplus and resources are distributed.