Generative vs. Extractive Systems
Dec. 4th, 2021 03:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithThis article talks about generative vs. extractive economics, but the concept goes farther.
Generative systems make as much or more as they use up. Extractive systems only take out, they don't make more. Generative systems tend to work better and are more sustainable. Some things, you can make a lot more of safely, like composting waste to make topsoil. Other things, you want to keep in balance, because too much causes trouble -- like deer eating every green thing in sight if there aren't enough predators. Extractive systems always end in some kind of collapse if they don't quit taking before they hit the hard limits. This makes them generally inadvisable. Add people, and they also start fights including many wars.
So in the long term, generative systems can be sustainable provided they don't outgrow the carrying capacity. Extractive systems are not sustainable, although sometimes a crash can be avoided by switching to a steady state or growth dynamic.
Some examples ...
Generative economics: small local businesses, hour exchanges, gift economies, microloans, fair trade, cooperatives, Heifer International, etc. These approaches turn investments into burgeoning growth that enriches everyone involved. They don't prey on anyone.
Extractive economics: chainstores, global megacorps, fossil fuel mining, wage slavery, etc. Those in power suck resources out of their victims, often doing a lot of damage that locals are stuck with but doesn't affect those who caused the problem. When it's just money, eventually it collapses naturally and some other economy will rise from the ashes. But do it to natural resources and you wind up with very permanent problems like beheaded mountain ranges.
Generative politics: healthy democracy, egalitarianism, participatory decision-making, etc. Everyone is involved in making choices so they share in good or bad results. This tends to produce good leaders because they learn by doing, and better ideas get passed around more.
Extractive politics: colonialism, most monarchies, oppression in general. Those in power feed on those without it. Colonialism is the most glaring example, where invaders move in, kill or enslave people, and take whatever they want giving little or nothing in return. Not only is this horrible in the moment, it leaves problems that go on for centuries.
Generative agriculture -- food forests, polycultures, permaculture, biodynamics, some organic farms, many traditional practices, etc. These approaches frequently focus on building good soil to produce harvests. Manure and compost add complex nutrients. Everything inedible gets recycled if at all possible. So these systems often put more in than the harvests take out, improving the system over time. It's most spectacular with food forests, which can go from barren ground to a smorgasbord in just a few years.
Extractive agriculture -- conventional agriculture, monocropping, slash-and-burn, etc. It takes and takes by harvesting crops. It doesn't generate more resources in the farm itself. It puts in only a few limited things to replenish what's taken out, the key nutrients for plant growth. So vitamins and trace elements can diminish over time.
Either humans relearn to give more than take, as our ancestors did, or the species is going to crash spectacularly.
Generative systems make as much or more as they use up. Extractive systems only take out, they don't make more. Generative systems tend to work better and are more sustainable. Some things, you can make a lot more of safely, like composting waste to make topsoil. Other things, you want to keep in balance, because too much causes trouble -- like deer eating every green thing in sight if there aren't enough predators. Extractive systems always end in some kind of collapse if they don't quit taking before they hit the hard limits. This makes them generally inadvisable. Add people, and they also start fights including many wars.
So in the long term, generative systems can be sustainable provided they don't outgrow the carrying capacity. Extractive systems are not sustainable, although sometimes a crash can be avoided by switching to a steady state or growth dynamic.
Some examples ...
Generative economics: small local businesses, hour exchanges, gift economies, microloans, fair trade, cooperatives, Heifer International, etc. These approaches turn investments into burgeoning growth that enriches everyone involved. They don't prey on anyone.
Extractive economics: chainstores, global megacorps, fossil fuel mining, wage slavery, etc. Those in power suck resources out of their victims, often doing a lot of damage that locals are stuck with but doesn't affect those who caused the problem. When it's just money, eventually it collapses naturally and some other economy will rise from the ashes. But do it to natural resources and you wind up with very permanent problems like beheaded mountain ranges.
Generative politics: healthy democracy, egalitarianism, participatory decision-making, etc. Everyone is involved in making choices so they share in good or bad results. This tends to produce good leaders because they learn by doing, and better ideas get passed around more.
Extractive politics: colonialism, most monarchies, oppression in general. Those in power feed on those without it. Colonialism is the most glaring example, where invaders move in, kill or enslave people, and take whatever they want giving little or nothing in return. Not only is this horrible in the moment, it leaves problems that go on for centuries.
Generative agriculture -- food forests, polycultures, permaculture, biodynamics, some organic farms, many traditional practices, etc. These approaches frequently focus on building good soil to produce harvests. Manure and compost add complex nutrients. Everything inedible gets recycled if at all possible. So these systems often put more in than the harvests take out, improving the system over time. It's most spectacular with food forests, which can go from barren ground to a smorgasbord in just a few years.
Extractive agriculture -- conventional agriculture, monocropping, slash-and-burn, etc. It takes and takes by harvesting crops. It doesn't generate more resources in the farm itself. It puts in only a few limited things to replenish what's taken out, the key nutrients for plant growth. So vitamins and trace elements can diminish over time.
Either humans relearn to give more than take, as our ancestors did, or the species is going to crash spectacularly.
Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-04 06:29 pm (UTC)That's anthropogenic climate change and its secondary effect in a nutshell, isn't it? And so many of the folks who could do something about it are too invested in gorging from the trough of How Things Are Now to contemplate anything beyond making sure their next meal arrives -- until it doesn't, and they can't make it happen. And by then it will be too late.
Re: Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-04 09:31 pm (UTC)...No, I will not kill myself to fix a problem just because you finally agree that something is wrong. You have the power, you decided not to use it because 'its not that big a deal,' so now you can deal with it. (Mumblegrumble.)
Re: Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-04 10:12 pm (UTC)Honestly, I think this should be listed as one of the main causes of civilization collapse. The other stuff, like political unrest and climate changes, can often be surmounted if people get creative with solutions. I mean, people managed to live in the Arctic and the Outback, that says a lot for human ability to withstand harsh conditions. But you can't fix stupid.
>> ...No, I will not kill myself to fix a problem just because you finally agree that something is wrong. You have the power, you decided not to use it because 'its not that big a deal,' so now you can deal with it. (Mumblegrumble.) <<
When things collapse because people refused to fix things, I will most certainly say "I told you so" and refuse to clean up their mess for them.
Re: Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-05 01:37 am (UTC)And relationships, hopes, dreams, neighborhoods, safety nets, morals ...
>>But you can't fix stupid.<<
Technically one can compensate for limitations in skillset or knowledge... but not if the limitations are not /percieved/ and /acknowledged/.
>>When things collapse because people refused to fix things, I will most certainly say "I told you so" and refuse to clean up their mess for them.<<
Oh, sometimes people insist the problems are your fault even when everything is falling apart...
Side note, it is maddening to have to coax someone through basic skills after everything's gone kerflooey (and that's the /only/ time they'll be receptive to learning, otherwise one might as well not bother).
Re: Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-05 06:02 am (UTC)Sadly so.
>>Technically one can compensate for limitations in skillset or knowledge... but not if the limitations are not /percieved/ and /acknowledged/.<<
Exactly. You can fix ignorance. Gaps can be filled. You can't fix stupid because they insist they're right.
>>Oh, sometimes people insist the problems are your fault even when everything is falling apart...<<
They do, but you don't have to agree with them. You can keep pointing out who decided to do things, and that you warned people not to cause problems but they ignored you.
>> Side note, it is maddening to have to coax someone through basic skills after everything's gone kerflooey (and that's the /only/ time they'll be receptive to learning, otherwise one might as well not bother).<<
That is true. But it's how things like addiction recovery normally work. Windows of opportunity are limited. And this society does not teach much about how to use imprint vulnerability for good -- the examples given are typically about brainwashing.
If your job requires working with narrow windows of opportunity, and that aggravates you, it might be best to look for a less aggravating job.
Re: Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-05 11:27 pm (UTC)Social issue, not employment issue.
Re: Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-05 02:18 am (UTC)True.
>> And so many of the folks who could do something about it are too invested in gorging from the trough of How Things Are Now to contemplate anything beyond making sure their next meal arrives -- until it doesn't, and they can't make it happen. And by then it will be too late. <<
That is a common cause of civilization collapse. Look at Easter Island, or the many places that fell due to salinification. Anyone familiar with history can spot this. I often compare America to the old Roman Empire. Recently I saw someone else make a devastatingly apt comparison to interbellum Germany. O_O
Re: Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-05 02:33 am (UTC)À la Santayana's well-known "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it!" Which I would rephrase as, "History shows that these actions have caused civilizations to collapse in these manners due to these causes. What makes you think the same fate does not await this civilization, and what actions are you undertaking to divert it from collapse due to those already-understood causes?"
>> Recently I saw someone else make a devastatingly apt comparison to interbellum Germany. <<
Very true. Right down to the initially failing coup efforts of nationalist supremacist authoritarian elements. It's not clear that we've learned enough to prevent the next attempt, from those who learned from the failure of their first attempt, from succeeding.
Re: Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-05 02:37 am (UTC)O.O
Re: Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-05 02:43 am (UTC)Because we're Special!
Yeah, that's what every one of the past civilizations thought too. They weren't. This isn't either.
>>It's not clear that we've learned enough to prevent the next attempt, from those who learned from the failure of their first attempt, from succeeding.<<
Based on the current conditions, and especially the actions alleged to be fighting racism or other discrimination that actually make matters worse, I don't think people have learned. Or rather, the people who have learned are not in positions to use their knowledge to prevent those problems from recurring, while the people in power either don't know or don't care.
Re: Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-05 03:39 am (UTC)Re: Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-05 05:03 am (UTC)* Learn survival skills to meet basic needs. These will be useful in ordinary disasters or mishaps as well as slow or fast collapse of civilization.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/46-survival-skills-to-keep-you-entertained-in-backyard-and-alive-in-backcountry
https://thesurvivalmom.com/32-survival-skills-your-child-should-know-and-be-able-to-do-asap
https://geekprepper.com/basic-essential-survival-skills
https://www.survivalsullivan.com/the-survival-skills-megalist
https://urbansurvivalsite.com/20-skills-you-can-trade-after-teotwawki
Also, I'll throw in one that men won't list, but is supremely valuable: know how to make tampons and menstrual pads from cloth or other materials.
https://www.backdoorsurvival.com/how-to-prep-for-feminine-hygiene-needs
https://theecofriendlyfamily.com/mama-cloth-plus-free-patterns
* Network with other people if at all possible. Family, friends, and neighbors increase resiliences and survivability.
https://www.strongtowns.org/
http://ghdc.generationsofhope.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Intentional-Neighboring.pdf
* Intentional communities are especially robust. While cohousing can be in urban or suburban areas, most communities are rural. They are much closer to self-sufficiency than typical towns. If you can't join one, try to identify ones nearby and make friends with them.
https://www.ic.org
https://www.ic.org/directory
* Do you have Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite, or other Anabaptist communities nearby? They tend to preserve traditional lifestyles that will be much less impacted by upheavals. Also their stores carry many valuable tools and supplies such as canning equipment, oil lamps, hand-cranked tools, and so on. If you have milk goats, someone there probably has a buck to service them.
Support and protect these people, make friends with them, and they are more likely to treat you as an ally after the shit hits the fan. Wear modest clothes when visiting these communities. It's easier to talk with them when they're not staring at the floor to ignore your naked legs and arms. If your group includes a bearded man, consider appointing him your speaker to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Anabaptist_churches
https://visittheamish.com/find-an-amish-community-near-where-you-live
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/hutterite-colonies-in-north-america
https://www.mennoniteusa.org/who-are-mennonites/find-a-church
* Look at the types of trouble and where they are likely to strike, so you can be somewhere else. Think about what troubles you could handle, or not. If you can't swim, flooding might be really scary, but if you are a swimmer and boater it is less so. There is some sort of disaster almost everywhere, but some places stack 3-4 types. Try to avoid the stacks.
Remember that climate change is an increasing problem. The southern areas will become uninhabitable before the northern ones.
In general, cities are deathtraps, the bigger the worse. In a small town or rural area you have close access to opportunities to hunt, gather, or grow your own food and there will be fewer enemies.
https://dynastypreppers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/US_Nuclear_Power_Plants_and_Seismic_Hazards_Risk_Map.gif
http://barrydisasterresponse.org/wp-content/uploads/disaster-map.jpg
https://i.redd.it/qxf51fuy2ka01.jpg
http://macminicolo.net/i_mini/citysafe.jpg
* It is helpful to have discreet places to hide your valuables (food, tampons, fuel, weapons, etc.) in case of mayhem. Better if this can also serve as a place to hide you from enemies or protect you from violent weather. Depending on your locale, a cellar or root cellar may be good, or you may prefer a concrete-block interior room. For flimsy homes like trailers, a storm porch is awesome. Throw a rug over the hatch and most people will never know it's there.
Officially built shelters are expensive. However, some cheap supplies make quite good ones, like concrete blocks. Several types of alternative building also excel for this, such as earthbags.
* Physical fitness is an asset. The healthier you are, the better your chance of survival. Being able to outrun enemies, hunt down prey, or do heavy labor will improve survival chances.
* It is very helpful to stock essential nonperishable tools and supplies, not just food but home repair stuff, blankets, etc.
https://rurallivingtoday.com/prepping/planning-food-storage-survival
https://www.thisoldhouse.com/tools/21018652/best-tools-for-your-home-tool-kit
https://www.outofmilk.com/ideas/household-essentials-shopping-list
Also think about substitutes. If you cannot get an exact item, what else can you use to do that job?
* Conventional agriculture is destroying the world, so work around it and undermine it.
If you can, buy organic, raise your own food, support regenerative agriculture methods.
One simple thing anyone can do: reduce or eliminate eating beef, as beef cows are the biggest problem. Eating more plant foods also helps.
Support your local farmers. They'll be feeding you if the shit hits the fan.
Prefer heritage, open-pollinated crops and heritage or landrace livestock. These are self-replicating and do not have the fussiness of modern commercial ones.
A food forest takes several years to develop, so if you want one, start as soon as possible. Annual-perennial permaculture goes faster but still takes a few years to get going really well.
* Think about downshifting. Can you make do with less? Less housing, fewer clothes, one less vehicle? Saving cash is questionable, but saving money to invest in capital equipment is more reliable.
* A bicycle or other human-powered conveyance is very useful if fuel is expensive or unavailable. City tires are more efficient on pavement, while it lasts. Rugged wider tires are needed for travel in rough terrain.
* If you have the time and energy, pester other people to stop sawing off the branch we're standing on. Some towns have managed to improve their situation considerably.
Re: Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-06 05:18 am (UTC)No-sew pattern I found (but haven't used). Could probably be used for other fabrics, though some might need filler on the inside.
https://becomingkindred.com/2013/11/10/20131110lpsjrmwg3gakf5uvm9xktjbttx9fyk/
Also, one can use an (old but clean) sock in a pinch. Presumably one you won't mind tossing out after...
>>A food forest takes several years to develop,...<<
“The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.” - Chinese Proverb
>>A bicycle or other human-powered conveyance...<<
Good backup if your car dies, too.
Re: Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-05 05:47 pm (UTC)My opinion based on my observation is that right now there are too many people with power who do know and do care, but they care more about maintaining their own power than the catastrophic damage to the country and its standing in the world that a coup would create. Witness the continuing kowtowing to the most recent ex-president, reviled by more than half the population, who survived two attempts to remove him from office using the mechanisms provided for that by dint of nearly unanimous support from his cadre of toadies, and faces criminal prosecution. I would laugh at the over-the-top, Gilbert-and-Sullivanesque nature of the man were it not the future of my own country at stake. Oh wait, I do laugh -- many times when his latest antics get featured in the night's Colbert monologue. Maybe if enough of the country laughs at the clown, he'll get so mad he explodes and takes out the scheme he's the figurehead for in the process.
Re: Yeah...
Date: 2021-12-06 05:24 am (UTC)If you took out Alexander the Great, Empress Theodora or Temujin, their empires would crumble, because they were successful leaders.
If you took out Hitler...well, many things might be different. But we still would have had another war, maybe with different battle lines or timing, but eventually... the culture was there, the problems were there, and the situation would have gotten that bad.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-12-04 09:28 pm (UTC)The problem is that our society values growth of accumulated wealth over growth of anything else - so stimulus to the rich 'grows' by being stored and gaining interest, while stimulus to the poor is 'wasted' because it 'disappears.' (I read the basic concept...somewhere, but am not quite sure where. So it is not an original thought.)
>>When it's just money, eventually it collapses naturally and some other economy will rise from the ashes.<<
I think we may be on the verge of this happening now.
>>Either humans relearn to give more than take, as our ancestors did...<<
I saw a snippet of a documentary the other day discussing this - specifically the Kalahari bushmen (I think) vs. modern Americans.
I think it may also apply to stuff like emotional labor - many people are happy to receive it, but do not value it enough to return it. And then the person giving it will burn out if they cannot get it anywhere else. And the taker will leave, or complain about their whoever they are... being 'broken.'
Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-04 10:25 pm (UTC)Exactly.
>> so stimulus to the rich 'grows' by being stored and gaining interest, while stimulus to the poor is 'wasted' because it 'disappears.' (I read the basic concept...somewhere, but am not quite sure where. So it is not an original thought.) <<
That's the belief side. The concrete economic side is that poor people spending money is more helpful because it boosts circulation instead of just sitting there.
Consider that capitalist and gift economomies define "wealth" and "poverty" in opposite ways. Capitalism defines being rich based on how much you have. Gift economy defines it by how much you give away. Hence the phrase "the gift must move."
>>I think we may be on the verge of this happening now.<<
Oh yeah, there's a shadow economy of barter for people who don't have money. You always have your skills. If you can cook, babysit, mow grass, have a car to drive, etc. then you can get shit done.
There is never a shortage of stuff that needs doing, and rarely a shortage of people who need work. The problem we have is that America is shitty about connecting these things.
>> I saw a snippet of a documentary the other day discussing this - specifically the Kalahari bushmen (I think) vs. modern Americans. <<
When you have a hair-thin margin of survival, you damn well learn to walk lightly, or you die and become a cautionary tale.
>> I think it may also apply to stuff like emotional labor - many people are happy to receive it, but do not value it enough to return it.<<
Absolutely. I like the Relationship Bank Account model. This is why I don't accept unequal relationships. If there's not some reasonable exchange of give-and-take, then one person is parasitizing the other, and that's not okay.
>> And then the person giving it will burn out if they cannot get it anywhere else. And the taker will leave, or complain about their whoever they are... being 'broken.'<<
Well yes, if you keep kicking the vending machine, eventually it will break and stop dispensing things. Dumbass.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-05 01:27 am (UTC)Yeah, no-one ever says that dragons are moral for hoarding gold...
>>Consider that capitalist and gift economomies define "wealth" and "poverty" in opposite ways.<<
One day I'll write a story using this as a concept.
...and including people acting as 'accountants' for folks acting outside their usual economy.
>>Oh yeah, there's a shadow economy of barter...<<
Also look at all the labor movement stuff going on lately. And the fact that a lot of the economy (and society) uses tactics that I recognize as forms of slavery, manipulation or abuse.
>>When you have a hair-thin margin of survival, you damn well learn to walk lightly, or you die and become a cautionary tale.<<
"If you lie to yourself about the environment, it kills you." - Little Fuzzy
>>This is why I don't accept unequal relationships. If there's not some reasonable exchange of give-and-take, then one person is parasitizing the other, and that's not okay.<<
As I see it, a starter relationship should have roughly equal levels of permissions, responsibilities, commitments, etc.
'Customized' relationships with widely divergent responsibilities, divided labor etc* can be done, but they should be discussed first (and consensual), not just something you 'fall into' or assume.
*I.e. a homemaker and a breadwinner, a copper digger and gold digger, one person acting as an agreed-upon mentor for the other...
>>Well yes, if you keep kicking the vending machine, eventually it will break and stop dispensing things. Dumbass.<<
The usual way that seems to play out is the kickee gets fed up and the kicker goes "Well, I'm just not good at that,"/"Well I'm not looking for more work." :P
Someday I'd like to see something where "I'm not good at Emotional Labor" is entirely factual (i.e. the person gets hives at dealing with emotions, is indifferent to social-emotional niceties until reminded, and similar).
However, unlike the usual "I'm bad at it = it's worthless" the person appreciates the benefits and is willing to be walked through the process by friends/partners, and its played seriously.
Also, the relationships assume that distribution of emotional labor - so the person can resolve a crisis by calling someone else in, then receiving delegated tasks like "clean up the broken glass," "go order xyz at the pizza place," or "please get rid of the mutant rats living in the attic, and if you can clean the mutant goo off the floor this time that would be great."
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-05 01:50 am (UTC)Hence why I developed A Conflagration of Dragons, based on the number of uber-rich and their behavior, crossed with observations about the effects of dragons in fantasy scenarios.
>>One day I'll write a story using this as a concept.
...and including people acting as 'accountants' for folks acting outside their usual economy.<<
Do it do it do iiiiit!
>>Also look at all the labor movement stuff going on lately.<<
I really hope that takes off. All the people boohooing about the worker shortage? Cry me a river, bitches. You might try paying them enough to live on, and not sexually harassing them.
>> And the fact that a lot of the economy (and society) uses tactics that I recognize as forms of slavery, manipulation or abuse.<<
Yeah. It's toxic in general.
>>"If you lie to yourself about the environment, it kills you." - Little Fuzzy<<
No shit.
>> As I see it, a starter relationship should have roughly equal levels of permissions, responsibilities, commitments, etc. <<
At least, that's the easiest way to start a relationship. Some relationships start with a favor or a rescue. I think that what matters is both people enjoy the interaction and feel they're getting something from it. They don't necessarily have to be getting the same things.
>> 'Customized' relationships with widely divergent responsibilities, divided labor etc* can be done, but they should be discussed first (and consensual), not just something you 'fall into' or assume.
*I.e. a homemaker and a breadwinner, a copper digger and gold digger, one person acting as an agreed-upon mentor for the other... <<
Well reasoned.
>> The usual way that seems to play out is the kickee gets fed up and the kicker goes "Well, I'm just not good at that,"/"Well I'm not looking for more work." :P <<
If the kickee has the power to walk away, they should do so. If not, they are being abused.
>> Someday I'd like to see something where "I'm not good at Emotional Labor" is entirely factual (i.e. the person gets hives at dealing with emotions, is indifferent to social-emotional niceties until reminded, and similar). <<
It's often factual. In fact it's the norm with some neurovariant people.
Everyone has things they're good at and things they're not. Ideally, relationships allow people to compensate for each other's strengths and weaknesses. The key is that each person should contribute roughly equal amounts of energy, in whatever form.
Frex, my partner has a low startle threshold and can't deal with pests. I on the other hand respond to a moving pest with an attack action. So, I deal with all the pest control work. I am bad at many types of emotional labor. He is generally good at that stuff. In the interest of getting it done competently, he handles that. Both of these jobs have times when they are inconvenient or gross, but each of us is good at handling the types of responsibilities we have selected.
Now, another aspect of this issue is that society rarely teaches emotional labor, because so little of it is valued. This is how guys wind up next to a crying girlfriend going "Uh ... uh ..." instead of "Aw, gee, what's wrong? Here's a tissues. Let's go sit in a quiet corner." They do not know what to do with a crying girl, because nobody taught them. It's hardly fair to blame people for not knowing what they weren't taught.
If they aren't willing to learn, that's a different problem. Some people, even if they take classes, will remain bad at some emotional labor, just as is true of every other skill. But most people probably have some category(s) they are good at. I'm good at validating people's right to rest, personal choices, and hobbies for instance. Apparently this isn't all that common.
>> However, unlike the usual "I'm bad at it = it's worthless" the person appreciates the benefits and is willing to be walked through the process by friends/partners, and its played seriously. <<
I think that's the real problem: emotional labor is devalued. I make a point of expressing appreciation for things like emotional labor and housework, because it sucks to be taken for granted. And when I slay things, my partner goes, "Hail the mighty hunter!"
>> Also, the relationships assume that distribution of emotional labor - so the person can resolve a crisis by calling someone else in, then receiving delegated tasks like "clean up the broken glass," "go order xyz at the pizza place," or "please get rid of the mutant rats living in the attic, and if you can clean the mutant goo off the floor this time that would be great." <<
People need to understand their own strengths and weaknesses, and other people's different ones, so that chores can be divided effectively and fairly. This is something that mainstream culture does not teach, or even tolerate very well. But if we tried to divide things by crotch shape, almost nothing would get done well. 0_o So we divided stuff by ability and interest, which works fine.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-05 02:53 am (UTC)I have the "You don't get to say no to the people who pay your bills" conversation again, I may very well point out that the person is advocating slavery.
>>At least, that's the easiest way to start a relationship. Some relationships start with a favor or a rescue. I think that what matters is both people enjoy the interaction and feel they're getting something from it. They don't necessarily have to be getting the same things.<<
My default setting include roughly equal intimacy settings - in practice, this means if someone, say, goes through my stuff, they should have no problem if I do the same to their stuff and if they do, they're a jerk. (I do not make a habit of going through people's things without permission.)
>>If the kickee has the power to walk away, they should do so. If not, they are being abused.
<<
Some forms of this are ubiquitous in society - to the point where I am surprised when people who have the power to misbehave condemn such behavior.
>>It's often factual. In fact it's the norm with some neurovariant people.
Everyone has things they're good at and things they're not. Ideally, relationships allow people to compensate for each other's strengths and weaknesses. The key is that each person should contribute roughly equal amounts of energy, in whatever form.<<
Yeah, it's just I've usually seen it presented as a joke in media (i.e. Sheldon Cooper), vs the practical way to solve the problem in Real Life (teaching kids or cultural transplants).
>>Now, another aspect of this issue is that society rarely teaches emotional labor, because so little of it is valued. This is how guys wind up next to a crying girlfriend going "Uh ... uh ..." instead of "Aw, gee, what's wrong? Here's a tissues. Let's go sit in a quiet corner." They do not know what to do with a crying girl, because nobody taught them. It's hardly fair to blame people for not knowing what they weren't taught.<<
Easyish patch: if there are competent Emotional Labor people nearby get one of them. (I had to do this for a problem once in college.) If it is an ongoing issue set this up in advance.
I can, however, be annoyed that someone's response to my wanting them to have what I consider to be child-level skills is a very frustrated "Well, I'm no good at that!" ...after I have done emotional labor for them. Not a great situation, and not a practical solution, but very annoying. Ditto for cases where you put up clear (to you) warnings that people ignore...before complaining about the consequences. ("Why do you need to keep a snake pit on the property?" "Because you don't want to hire a professional to get rid of them...and for heaven's sake, pay attention to the signs that say not to walk through the snake pit, we're running out of antivenom!")
And I have explained basic emotional labor to someone using shared religious context (seriously!) I still find it annoying having to wait for stuff to blow up before folks will listen...
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-05 03:11 am (UTC)Also rape. Any version of "you don't get to say no" is rapey. America is a very rape-friendly society, exceeded only by a few places like South Africa.
>> My default setting include roughly equal intimacy settings - in practice, this means if someone, say, goes through my stuff, they should have no problem if I do the same to their stuff and if they do, they're a jerk. (I do not make a habit of going through people's things without permission.) <<
I do it with conversations. If someone asks prying questions of me, I say no. If they claim this is rude, I lob across their boundaries, like "Do you enjoy anal sex?" They shriek in outrage. I say, "You have declared this a boundary-free conversation. If I don't get boundaries, you don't get boundaries. Would you like to reinstate boundaries now?" They're usually too busy making wet-hen noises to say yes. I get bored and walk away. Yeah. Don't get into a blurting contest with a bard.
>>Some forms of this are ubiquitous in society - to the point where I am surprised when people who have the power to misbehave condemn such behavior.<<
Painfully true.
>>Yeah, it's just I've usually seen it presented as a joke in media (i.e. Sheldon Cooper), vs the practical way to solve the problem in Real Life (teaching kids or cultural transplants).<<
I agree that this is common and also a problem.
Like Mr. Mom jokes. People get really uncomfortable when I point out, "If a man makes a baby, he's responsible for it. Not only should he be helping routinely, he's the one who has to take over if his wife gets sick or otherwise can't mother for a while. Or dies. So what advantage is there in MOCKING MEN for childcare? That just increases the chance of mayhem when they have to do it."
>>Easyish patch: if there are competent Emotional Labor people nearby get one of them. (I had to do this for a problem once in college.) If it is an ongoing issue set this up in advance.<<
Good idea.
>> I can, however, be annoyed that someone's response to my wanting them to have what I consider to be child-level skills is a very frustrated "Well, I'm no good at that!" ...after I have done emotional labor for them. Not a great situation, and not a practical solution, but very annoying. <<
Of course you can be annoyed. But consider:
* Is the person genuinely bad at that? If so, pushing them to do it would likely result in bad outcomes.
* If genuinely bad, is it due to lack of learning opportunities? This is the easiest to fix by teaching relevant skills at a non-urgent time.
* If genuinely bad, and a lack of capacity, then it will be necessary to find some other way to get things done, and the person should find other means of contributing. It is not okay to shut someone out of society for being bad at something, which routinely happens to women who are bad at emotional labor.
* Are they lying? This is a different problem.
* Are they being a dick by not respecting the work and/or trying to mooch off other people? Also a different problem.
>> Ditto for cases where you put up clear (to you) warnings that people ignore...before complaining about the consequences. ("Why do you need to keep a snake pit on the property?" "Because you don't want to hire a professional to get rid of them...and for heaven's sake, pay attention to the signs that say not to walk through the snake pit, we're running out of antivenom!") <<
I agree, that's annoying.
Remember that responsibility and authority have to balance. Authority without responsibility invites corruption; responsibility without authority is abuse. If you don't have the authority to get things done, then it's not your responsibility. People can lie that it is, and they can blame you, but that doesn't actually make it your fault. Blame the deciders. At least your conscience will be clear.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-05 04:15 am (UTC)Could point that one out too. I can also ask why someone would want a relationship where someone they love is expected to 'grin and bear it' for so-called bonding activities. Wouldn't you want to know if you are hurting your partner / kids / friend?
The ability to say no is my rule of thumb for figuring out who counts as a person in any given society.
>>Like Mr. Mom jokes.<<
I'm reminded of the comeback "He's their father. It's called parenting, not babysitting."
>>Of course you can be annoyed...<<
Thank you for validating my emotions.
>>But consider:
>>* Is the person genuinely bad at that? If so, pushing them to do it would likely result in bad outcomes.
* If genuinely bad, is it due to lack of learning opportunities? This is the easiest to fix by teaching relevant skills at a non-urgent time.<<
I think I've usually seen it in some combination of personality mismatch, gender socialization, and high-stress context (i.e. flailing attempts at being helpful...which may involve unhelpful-in-context behavior patterns).
As for personalities...driven people and engineers are terrible at slowing down enough to pick up on gossamer threads of emotion.
Furthermore, I find the _assumption_ that I am obligated to teach basic social skills to people at least twice my age annoying, in the "I am not your mother!" sort of annoyance. Yeah, I know that might not be a very helpful feeling.
>>* If genuinely bad, and a lack of capacity, then it will be necessary to find some other way to get things done, and the person should find other means of contributing. It is not okay to shut someone out of society for being bad at something, which routinely happens to women who are bad at emotional labor.<<
I consider myself to be bad at emotional labor /for someone of my gender/. I am still far above average from an overall cultural standpoint.
I will also add another question here re: unable: Are the attempts at contributing mostly helpful or mostly unhelpful? If the attempts at helping are constantly causing/adding to trouble STOP. (Or at minimum try something very different!)
If you don't stop don't complain when the same undesirable outcome occurs...or when something breaks and now you've got a worse problem.
And I think it is okay to avoid people when their help is making things worse. (Not shunning, more of a a "I do not want to talk about this with you," thing).
>>* Are they lying? This is a different problem.<<
...I actually don't think I know anyone who can do emotional labor, and then consistently says they can't. (Out of spoons today is a different thing.) If anything, I might have met some folks who think they're doing emotional labor (and, granted, they might be very good at some emotional labor skills) but what they're doing comes across as meddling / helpiness / controlling behavior instead.
>>* Are they being a dick by not respecting the work and/or trying to mooch off other people? Also a different problem.<<
If people do this accidentally, just jokingly charge them for it ("Okay, gimme twenty bucks!") A jerk will get mad, a good person will apologize or hang around to help.
>>If you don't have the authority to get things done, then it's not your responsibility.<<
I may have to use this argument for a separate issue if it comes up again...
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-05 05:33 am (UTC)And if they say no, DANGER!
>> The ability to say no is my rule of thumb for figuring out who counts as a person in any given society. <<
Note that children aren't full persons. They don't own their body. They can't give or refuse consent. Molestation is only about violating the rights of the adult who owns the child's body or other powerful adults. If the adults in power are pleased by the violation, the child has no recourse. For example, male genital mutilation or forced sexual exams of abuse survivors.
>> I'm reminded of the comeback "He's their father. It's called parenting, not babysitting." <<
Nailed it.
>>Thank you for validating my emotions.<<
All emotions are valid. Negative emotions warn that something is going awry. But they don't necessarily tell you what to fix or how. You have to think about that part.
>>I think I've usually seen it in some combination of personality mismatch, gender socialization, and high-stress context (i.e. flailing attempts at being helpful...which may involve unhelpful-in-context behavior patterns).<<
It is rarely possible to problem-solve in a crisis. But if these are people you see regularly, then at a quiet time, you can encourage them to learn crisis skills. If they refuse, then you are entirely justified in benching them during a crisis or refusing to clean up their future messes.
Most importantly: watch for people who genuinely want to help but don't know how. They are the easiest to boost into effectiveness. Point them to resources such as books or community classes where they can learn things like first aid or building safety.
>>As for personalities...driven people and engineers are terrible at slowing down enough to pick up on gossamer threads of emotion.<<
Driven people, good luck with.
Engineers: you have to activate their problem-solving track.
"I don't know body language." --> "Read a book or take a class to learn more. This will prevent problems and save you time."
"I can't see body language." --> "Some people just have a hard time seeing it. Let's find you a buddy who can help with that, and you can swap one of your skills like programming their phone."
>> Furthermore, I find the _assumption_ that I am obligated to teach basic social skills to people at least twice my age annoying, in the "I am not your mother!" sort of annoyance. <<
That annoyance often indicates that people are trying to take advantage of you. If this is the case, feel free to tell them to fuck off.
But it can also indicate that this society does a shitty job of educating people. If this is the case, you must decide whether or not to try solving that problem or wash your hands of it.
>> Yeah, I know that might not be a very helpful feeling.<<
It's helpful in telling you that something is wrong. You have to figure out what is wrong, and how you want to address it. Just flailing in irritation will accomplish nothing. If you want not to be annoyed, you could look for ways to avoid those people or situations. If you want to make the world a better place, sort for the uneducated ones and try to level them up.
>>I consider myself to be bad at emotional labor /for someone of my gender/. I am still far above average from an overall cultural standpoint.<<
I know that feel. People mistake me for a woman because of how my body looks. This in no way makes me remotely competent at or tolerant of girltalk.
>>I will also add another question here re: unable: Are the attempts at contributing mostly helpful or mostly unhelpful? If the attempts at helping are constantly causing/adding to trouble STOP. (Or at minimum try something very different!)<<
Teach people that staying out of the way in a crisis is always an acceptable way to help, if you don't have the skills or energy to solve it. And if they do that, thank them for staying out of your hair while you fixed it.
In a group situation (e.g. a class, a club, a workplace) talk about emergency plans. What will you do if there is a fire? Someone has a heart attack? It is hailing golfballs? Someone gets a phone call about a death in the family? What emergency skills do people have? Who has physical or emotional first aid training? Who is good at giving or taking directions? How good are your teamwork skills? Where is the first aid kit or fire extinguisher in a building?
Make plans. Designate people to handle different problems based on skills. Those without skills should be asked whether they want to skill up or sit out. Then hold them to that.
>> If you don't stop don't complain when the same undesirable outcome occurs...or when something breaks and now you've got a worse problem.<<
Nailed it.
>> And I think it is okay to avoid people when their help is making things worse. (Not shunning, more of a a "I do not want to talk about this with you," thing).<<
It is absolutely okay to avoid them, provided you're not being paid to deal with idiots. You aren't their doormat.
To this day, my automatic response to most mooching is "Do your own fucking homework!" And yet I'll spend an hour looking up references for a friend whom I value, because that relationship has fair exchange.
>> ...I actually don't think I know anyone who can do emotional labor, and then consistently says they can't.<<
Yay!
>> (Out of spoons today is a different thing.) <<
Regarding that: watch for slow processing. If they can't answer a "Can you...?" question quickly, they may be too low on spoons to do something that they normally could. Never presume on anyone's time or assistance unless it is their job.
>> If anything, I might have met some folks who think they're doing emotional labor (and, granted, they might be very good at some emotional labor skills) but what they're doing comes across as meddling / helpiness / controlling behavior instead.<<
That's common, because it's so rarely taught. Most people just pick it up on the fly, which is a good way to learn bad habits. And a lot of people really have no respect for any of the many they consider lesser: women, children, the poor, the disabled, people of color, etc. A good approach can be, "Here we do ..." and describe what will actually work. If they aren't willing to help, bench them.
>>If people do this accidentally, just jokingly charge them for it ("Okay, gimme twenty bucks!") A jerk will get mad, a good person will apologize or hang around to help.<<
Oh, I've done that, and not as a joke. It's your time. Unless they're your employer, they're not paying for it. If they want you to do something for them, you can demand payment in favors, cash, or whatever else you like.
There's a price list of several emotional labor services in this post.
>>I may have to use this argument for a separate issue if it comes up again...<<
Use it every time the topic comes up, or you'll wind up with imbalances. If someone wants you to do something, make sure that includes the authority and resources to make it happen, or they'll blame you for it not happening. If they don't want to give those things, don't accept the responsibility. "I'm sorry, but without a budget it won't be possible to do that."
These are also very helpful:
https://uncommonchick.com/20-ways-to-say-no
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-06 02:56 am (UTC)Its a rule of thumb, and indicates on a gradient scale. Think of it like a video game: One is more of a person if one's stats are 'better' than whoever they're up against.
And the rule lets me know that I am sometimes a person in my culture, Muggles are never-really-people-but-not-quite-things in the HP universe, and AIs are almost-never-people in the stories they appear in.
>>But it can also indicate...<<
Probably this. But people trying to teach me social skills while lacking basics themselves...blegh. Best case scenario is an ongoing miscommunication.
"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." - Grey's law
>>To this day, my automatic response to most mooching is "Do your own fucking homework!" And yet I'll spend an hour looking up references for a friend whom I value, because that relationship has fair exchange.<<
Appreciation is important.
>>Never presume on anyone's time or assistance unless it is their job.<<
Even if it is someone's job, you may not want to presume. Someone may be on break, have other work to do...or just not want to be treated like a Non-Player Character instead of an actual person.
Plus, asking nicely and being polite makes you look good...and (when everyone else is a jerk) often gets better service.
>>A good approach can be, "Here we do ..." and describe what will actually work.<<
Unfortunately that only works in a functional group culture, or when you are the Authority.
>>Oh, I've done that, and not as a joke.<<
Usually when I do it I'm trying to 'clown' someone I have a functional relationship with back into polite behavior. I may have played it seriously at times. And I've also 'charged' people for saying things I find insulting/really annoying. YMMV.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-06 03:15 am (UTC)Pecking order.
>> And the rule lets me know that I am sometimes a person in my culture, Muggles are never-really-people-but-not-quite-things in the HP universe, and AIs are almost-never-people in the stories they appear in.<<
Yep.
>> Probably this. But people trying to teach me social skills while lacking basics themselves...blegh. Best case scenario is an ongoing miscommunication. <<
Yyyyeah. That's not good.
However, it's not always their fault. Social skills are rarely taught explicitly in this culture. When they are, it tends to be downright abusive. The stuff aimed at autistic people is just vicious. I think the only really good examples I've seen are some of the older etiquette books, and cotillion clubs.
>> "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." - Grey's law <<
Agreed.
>> Even if it is someone's job, you may not want to presume. Someone may be on break, have other work to do...or just not want to be treated like a Non-Player Character instead of an actual person. <<
That's also true.
I note that several studies indicate one cause of falling social skills is in fact video games. Players pick up the habit of NPC interactions and use it in real life. I've seen it. It can be jarring.
>> Plus, asking nicely and being polite makes you look good...and (when everyone else is a jerk) often gets better service.<<
True.
>>Unfortunately that only works in a functional group culture, or when you are the Authority.<<
It works better in those contexts, but can work between coworkers or when trying to improve corporate climate. Consider the variant, "Corporate policy is ..." Unless the person is high enough to set that policy, it's hard to argue with.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-06 05:06 am (UTC)The Golden Rule is a good starting point, as is "What would the world be like if everyone did x?"
Possibly one of the best lessons I ever heard was a male friend's explanation for 'why we don't say that to women' : "Don't call women X, they don't like it." (Alas, that explanation will not work for me in many contexts; as I lack the demographic stats to wield it effectively.)
And if you're not sure, people, just ask!
>>Players pick up the habit of NPC interactions and use it in real life.<<
You can tell which customers have worked retail. They're the ones that see you ("Oel ngati kame.")
One day I should write a story with all the wacky nonsense of working in retail...including an NPC AI...who is treated as 'one of us' and taken to events by the other workers, (like when the military taking their bomb squad robot fishing.)
>>Consider the variant, "Corporate policy is ..." <<
I've occasionally defused unhappy customers by pointing out that I agree with their complaint... and would they like to fill out this survey? (Sometimes with a side note of ''please tell us what we're doing right, too.')
And I recently pointed out to someone that if they don't want me to treat them like X, I could reasonably expect them to not treat me like X. They were mad that I was being 'uppity,' I think, but they couldn't refute the argument or complain about the tone so...
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-06 05:54 am (UTC)Y'know, that would make a good satire of modern life. Instead of elves being The Beautiful Elite and humans being...human, try:
- Dragons as the billionaires and trillionares, who live long enough to pull defacto Compound Intrest Time Travel Gambits...though the younger ones /inherit/, dahling. Also, some of the less ethical ones have been known to kidnap or eat people, which...yeah. People pretend it doesn't happen.
- Elves as 'managers' in the modern sense, and 'old retainers' in the traditional. Lower than dragons but higher than anyone else.
- Humans as humans - explosive breeders, voraciously omnivorous, Jack-of-all trades. We do the work, but we are completely disposable and replaceable.
- Not sure if dwarves would be included - maybe they're artists, looked down upon but kept around for their skills? Or a white collar / blue collar delineation of labor with the humans?
- Orcs are not evil, though they may be percieved as such, but are in universe unpersons. No-one else likes them, or sticks up for them.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-06 06:40 am (UTC)Your ideas tend to be more interesting and original than most of what gets officially published nowadays. Please write out your ideas. They are awesome. I say this as an editor as well as a reader. Even if your technical skill is patchy, that's fixable with practice. It's the idea generation that can't really be taught.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-06 03:41 pm (UTC)I can add it to my list of things to write out. I have another that might be an original-ish take on 'AI rebellion and takeover,' and yes, both of these are inspired by original events.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-06 03:42 pm (UTC)Sorry, glitchy brain.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-06 08:39 pm (UTC)Re: Thoughts
Date: 2021-12-07 05:39 am (UTC):)
And as for the ideas, the ones I've seen a million times might be good for relaxing, but they're not very fun to play with!