One of the primary ways that stoics find tranquility is by "wanting what you already have" instead of "wanting what you don't have." Easier said than done, so they offer some tools to help, inluding negative visualization (imagining life without things you care about), only worrying about things you have control over, and occasionally denying yourself pleasures.

I'm not doing the subject justice, but here's an easy to read book that condenses a lot of their ideas and applies them to modern life: http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/01953.... And of course Wikipdeia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

"What if Money Was No Object" - https://youtu.be/C_sbcSRMsOc

If you're looking for something longer and more in-depth, the late David Foster Wallace's talk on a similar subject is incredibly sincere and motivating:

"This Is Water" - http://youtu.be/dexIA_OfLzg

But what if I lived without that expectation? Maybe I would be happier? Maybe take better care of myself, my communities, my surroundings, the things I currently have instead of pining for the things I want? I don't know. Maybe not. Maybe live more in the present instead of fretting about the distant future and things I have no control over? Maybe not.

There are an awful lot of people on the Earth who live without the resources I have and, I could argue, are happier than me, have less overall stress, have more leisure time, are in better physical shape, and so on. And I'm not trying to romanticize it. I also understand that many people in that condition are miserable.

But overall life satisfaction is relative, isn't it, and largely a state of mind?

Again, the myth of the extremely happy have-nots. This is coming up regularly on HN, and it's based largely on ignorance. People who have much less than you are not more happy. Access to resources, energy, improves quality of life in every way, and increases relative happiness as well. If that were not the case, then nobody in the lesser developed world would want to have a car, to eat more stuff, to have more money to spend and send their kids to school. But actually, they do, because they strive for more stuff that will make them more happy.

One reason I think this theme resonates here is that software people are location independent in a way few other industries are. If you can work from anywhere being somewhere where your core living expenses are $200 makes sense. Siver's questions becomes real - what then ?

It's probably got to do with publicity given to those who voluntarily give up wealth and chose the path of poverty.

Poverty affects humans at a very basic level; their cognition is impaired, their day-to-day life to a very minute detail is controlled by lack of money. And some of the things that we take for granted (for instance potable water) is struggle for them. Those with money can't even imagine what it is like to be poor, day in day out and for years on end with very little hope in sight.

I was not aware of all these until I read a terrific book, "The Poor Economics". It was really an eye opener for me and because of which I'm more empathetic towards poor today instead of just saying they are happier or blaming them for their poverty.

1. Place zombie on treadmill surrounded by a cage. 2. Hook treadmill up to generator. 3. Read a book in front of zombie. 4. Electricity!

So forgetting all the messy business of day-to-day life, just running around with pointy weapons and fighting zombies seems appealing.

Guns, ammo, food, water etc. will become valuable commodities. Natural bartering will lead to money again.

It's probably not realistic to see a humanities degree as a meal ticket, but it can be an excellent foundation for the "real world". Getting the degree teaches you to research and to learn. Those are marketable skills you can apply to many jobs. Unless you want a career in academia, in many cases the humanities degrees aren't likely going to lead you to a job in your field of study, but they will prepare you. You just need to figure out where to apply your skills.

I never really cared about languages before programming, but after learning it, then logic, semantics, ontology I think about other human languages a lot. I'm curious about your point of view coming from the opposite direction.

For my second year of University, I studied in Germany (rather than Canada0, which made things really hard for me. To translate my Latin texts I translated from Latin to English and then worked out how to translate the English to German.

I had a really great professor who taught us not only how to break down words to find their meanings, but he also made no bones about the fact that the key to translating is knowing when to make a good guess.

Once you can get by with Greek and Latin, you can pick up a lot of other bits of languages fairly easily. Sometimes it's by knowing root words. Sometimes it's because you've gotten good at guessing.

A lot of those skills apply directly to reading someone else's code and trying to make sense of it. I find that if you can learn to decipher a foreign, natural language, you may just do alright with languages that machines understand.

Hopefully our posts encourage him to weigh in.

With the economy in the state that it is, it's a lot harder to beat the odds. Just getting an interview with a not-directly-applicable major seems to be flat out impossible.

After many years of watching people dear to me struggle, I'm starting to feel bad telling them that they just need to market themselves better, find a way to bypass the recruitment process and think outside the box. I've come to realize that they really got the raw end of the deal, and instead of any sympathy, they get told that they just need to try harder.

Having said that, the team lead at my $work has an M.A. in Music Composition. Having the coding skills will get you the job, but there's nothing to say that a Humanities degree can't prepare you for getting the skills.

It was basically when Eastern spirituality first wove its way into the American consciousness.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivekananda_at_the_Parliament_o...

ps: it's a bit looking at the finger pointing to the moon but anyway. pps: thanks for the links

Also, check out the upcoming book 'The Obstacle is the Way' by Ryan Holiday - http://www.amazon.com/The-Obstacle-Is-Way-Timeless/dp/159184...

However, he does a good job of giving a basic introduction and framing for Stoic concepts. I think it's easier to digest the Romans (particularly the concise and acerbic style of Epictetus) if you are somewhat familiar with the subject. I got much, much more from Epictetus than I did from Irvine, but he is, I think, a valuable on-ramp.

I'm also not sure what the big deal is with Marcus Aurelius. Compared with The Enchiridion and even Seneca's letters, it's haphazard and dull. I'll give it another shot once I'm done with all of Seneca's letters.

Personally, I would start with Irvine, then the George Long translation of The Enchiridion (it's more poetic than the Carter translation, IMO). I'm about half way through Seneca's Letters, and while enjoyable, he takes a long time to cover the same insights as Epictetus.

(aside: on my 3rd or 4th reading of The Enchiridion, I wrote brief notes on each part, which you can find at http://thiscodinglife.com/dissecting-epictetus/intro)

I had the same initial reaction with Marcus, but honestly it might be because I didn't have the right translation (pick Gregory Hays's!!) and not enough background on the man. I would highly recommend watching this short series that mentions both Epictetus and Marcus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLD09Qa3kMk I truly think you'll see the Meditations in a different way after watching this. Also, Pierre Hadot has a very good (but scholarly) analysis on it in The Inner Citadel.

And for Epictetus, I always introduce him with the story of the Vietnam prisoner of war James Stockdale who in a way relied on stoic principles to endure the tortures he was inflicted. He wrote and lectured about the lessons there, Google him around.

I'm not a big fan of Guide to the Good Life either -- mostly because I think it takes a very profound (and by no means simple or obvious) set of ideas and reduces it to a kind of intellectual fad diet.

For something weightier, you might look at the works of Pierre Hadot (Philosophy as a Way of Life and What is Ancient Philosophy?), both of which contain excellent discussions of stoicism.

Growing up, my family never had much, and I always had to make due with simple activities. Luckily enough I got immersed in the Internet at a young age, because I was able to inherit outdated computers, but never had the fancy toys or gadgets or games that my friends did. I had to find ways to entertain myself with very little, and since then my interests have always revolved around a very small subset of simple, low-fidelity activities. Drawing (materials are universal), weightlifting (free-weights only), programming (self explanatory).. Things that I know could never really be taken from me.

As I'm preparing to graduate college, I've told friends and family that I never want to own a car, or a house. I haven't owned a bed in two years. The only major purchases I want are a decent laptop, which I consider a necessity for a software developer, and books. I want the tools I need to live and grow my skills and intellect.

In that sense, I probably take the modern translation of stoicism too far. But then again, I'm easily fulfilled.

We're not in ancient Rome anymore.

I don't see any reason for modern humans to be stoic. It seems like a great way to stagnate. When you can't change your environment, it makes sense to change your mind to accept your environment. When you can, self-modification is harmful. It lets you accept things you could change if you worked to to change them.

Stoicism seems to be at odds with a personal drive towards self-improvement. It doesn't seem relevant to modern environments where this improvement is possible.

Yes, Stoicism teaches you that you don't have (at least ultimate) control over the world. But it does emphasize that you have control over yourself. You internalize your goals: Instead of "winning the tennis championship" it's "be the best player I can possibly be despite circumstance".

There are some things you really cannot change. We can change more than we used to, but not everything. Stoicism helps.

And we also change things we don't need to change. We chase after things that bring us no happiness. By allowing you to be happy with what you have, stoicism lets you seek those things that truly matter.

For instance, I work with Enterprise Software but not with cars. Perhaps being Stoic towards my material possessions( such as liking my Honda and stop looking at the Maserati I don't need) while still driving towards improvements in the areas that matter, such as my relationships (family, friends, strangers) and career (software, etc)?

We don't have the resources to keep all modern humans in the manner to which those in developed countries have become accustomed.

Since 'improvement' is so often a subjective quality the stoics may perhaps suggest you rebase what you consider to be self improvement.

What if one could find a way of being happy regardless of 'self improvement' drives?

If happiness is the objective and you can be happy without changing your environment, even if changing the environment is trivial, what's the difference?

My mind keeps coming up with generalizations all the time. For example, "the more space you have for your family, the less valuable time together you spend". Needless, useless generalizations like this about just about everything. So I've formed a mental habit of just pausing and asking "really?" .. and soon these just go poof.

In other words, I automatically question the validity of any concept I construct. This way, I'm free to stick to one temporarily and have no qualms about abandoning concepts that aren't valid for me.

The nice thing about Derek's post is that he's just posing the question and leaving it to the reader to ruminate on what answer would mean to them. The skill to pick up here is to ask these kinds of questions ... like all the time.

I think "changing the things you can" (as Niebuhr once put it) is precisely the second half of the stoic idea. In fact, not changing things that by rights should be changed runs contrary to virtue, which the stoics held as the chief -- and indeed, the only -- true good.

This book was my first introduction to stoicism. I loved the book and idea behind stoicism. I meant to find more but had forgotten about it. Thanks for the book suggestion.

1) honest love for oneself; a belief that bettering oneself is not a completely selfish goal, but actually helps everyone and everything else in your life that you care about (insofar as you interact with them)

2) an honest belief that energy spent on self-improvement is effective; if I try to change myself in this way or that and am unsuccessful, it makes the next attempt much harder to get started.

just my two cents.

You could make a plausible argument that self-improvement allows one to accomplish more for others, and use this to connect self-improvement with moral obligations to the community. And you could simply have a deeply ingrained desire for self-improvement (Maslow's Hierarchy seems to suggest that this is a fundamental human need). However, I think it's good to acknowledge that this idea -- that we should improve ourselves -- is not prima facie necessary; it's simply another human desire.

Many people often feel that something's wrong with life or something is missing. A little voice in their heads comes up and says "maybe if I had X that'd fix it", or "maybe if I was Y I'd be happy". In fact, I'm coming to realise (as all the books I've read over the years have been saying) that it's the thinking that is the whole problem. In fact it's not a case of just intellectually accepting this idea that's important. We can go deeper.

Where does the voice come from? What is this thing called "I" that is blindly followed? It would appear it is just another thought. The mind is just a stream of thoughts and "I" is just another one. It has no substance, no reality.

It seems that the only thing that does exist is the present, so just ignore the past and future. The more you are able to ignore the voice in your head (and it's much easier when you see it has no reality) the more you start to tingle, literally. You (well I don't know about you, but I) feel amazing. Satisfied and replete.

So to conclude, what I was getting at was that maintaining the belief that you need to "improve" somehow, or be "better" just adds more fuel to the fire and keeps the mind spinning, distracting us from the present and ever experiencing that fulfilling feeling.

An important note: the clinical definition of Attention-Deficit Disorder is exactly "being unable to feel motivated, except under conditions of stress/fear/pain."

A common self-medicating strategy for people unaware they have ADD, is to invite unhappiness and stress in order to derive motivation from it. If the only thing that can get you to start working on a project is the feeling of a looming deadline, you may want to get yourself checked.

Neurotransmitter imbalances (e.g. clinical depression, AD[H]D, anxiety disorders, etc.) are not diseases. This doesn't mean that people who have them are okay; it just means that thinking of them in terms of what you normally associate with the label 'disease' will lead your thoughts astray.

Instead, neurotransmitter imbalances are genetic impairments. Like, say, nearsightedness.

As with nearsightedness, neurotransmitter imbalances are just annoying natural features of some people's bodies. As with nearsightedness, it kind of sucks to be those people, but they don't generally know what they're missing, because they've always been that way.

But, as with nearsightedness, prosthetics have been invented that "even the playing field" between those with and without the impairment. And, as with nearsightedness, it's readily apparent to those who use the prosthetic that they were impaired, because they now have access to experiences that they may have heard unimpaired people speaking of, but never previously got to experience for themselves.

(And, as with nearsightedness, this has caused the genetic defects responsible for the impairment to spread rapidly through the population; because the impairment is no longer a disadvantage, there's no longer any evolutionary pressure to protect the genetic code responsible from mutating.)

Try imagining telling someone with nearsightedness that they should just learn to cope with everything being fuzzy, instead of getting glasses. Imagine condemning the boom in contact-lens sales as "overmedication." It seems ridiculous, right?

ADHD is fuzzily defined and overdiagnosed. People can be different from one another. "Curing" someone from being active and unfocused has uncomfortable implications.

> And, as with nearsightedness, it's readily apparent to those who use the prosthetic that they were impaired, because they now have access to experiences that they may have heard unimpaired people speaking of, but never previously got to experience for themselves.

The human body requires its internal chemicals to be maintained within certain ranges for various features to function. Each of these features is relevant to what would be called "the human experience"--things that are built into the generalized human utility-function to want, as terminal values.

When you have a neurotransmitter imbalance to a degree that it becomes an impairment, it is so because it disables some of these features, and therefore bars one's access to these terminal values.

In AD(H)D, the feature that gets impaired is the "sense of intrinsic motivation" generated by the dopamine system. The terminal values one loses access to are the feelings of striving, accomplishment, or pride in one's work; and, in more extreme cases, the feeling to hope that one will be able to improve one's lot in life by one's own hand. (When you know you can't motivate yourself to get a job, being jobless is a lot more depressing.)

When you apply the appropriate prosthetic to the impairment--combined dopamine agonist/reuptake inhibitors, in this case--you gain access to this feature, and through it, the terminal values you were barred from.

As with putting on glasses, if you have the impairment (everything is blurry), then it is very, very obvious that when everything comes into focus, that this is the way things were "meant" to be--not from some moral imperative, but just because the rest of your body was built to rely on this feature that was previously broken.

With glasses, this means you suddenly stop bumping into things, and don't find yourself moving closer to people to see them. With normalized dopamine levels, this means you suddenly feel able to make yourself accomplish things you've always wanted to accomplish.

If your dopamine is set to the correct range for your body, this doesn't "make you into a robot" or any of the things people talk about with various neuroaffective drugs. Inasmuch as that was ever true in clinical settings, it was from failure to identify the neurotransmitter which is in imbalance (i.e. treating a norepinephrine production deficiency with dopamine agonists).

---

And now, a rant:

Inasmuch as AD(H)D treatment is made out to be a problem in pop-culture, though, it does indeed come from "overdiagnosis"--if you give a drug to boost a neurotransmitter into a reference range to someone who is not impaired, you will of course boost that neurotransmitter out of the reference range it was already in. People who can see fine already will find glasses quite harmful to their vision.

"Overdiagnosis" is a very strong word for what happens with AD(H)D, though. Population studies have been done, with random samples of adults brought in off the street given strict evaluations to test for AD(H)D--and as much as 3% of the population has scored far into the "impaired" range. (This is, coincidentally-enough, about the same percentage we see for all the other neurotransmitter-reference-range problems, e.g. clinical depression, giving merit to the genetic-drift hypothesis.) This number is far higher than the number of people actually diagnosed with AD(H)D. The stigma behind "overdiagnosis" has lead to underdiagnosis.

The real problem, of course, is parents wanting to treat their children for neurotransmitter imbalances at all. Children do not have stable neurotransmitter reference ranges. Their brains produce random spurts of neurotransmitters at random times, just like their bodies produce random spurts of growth in random body parts. (This is why children have such vivid nightmares and fantasies: random spurts of serotonin will induce visual and auditory hallucinations, much as are found during an LSD trip; coupled with random spurts of adrenaline, these hallucinations can be quite stressful. It is also why they may not "feel tired" after being awake for many hours: due to random spurts of acetylcholine, their bodies can be effectively self-caffeinating. You can surmise how this applies to each other neurotransmitter as well.)

AD(H)D is not a "childhood disease", any more than nearsightedness is. Both impairments tend to first reveal themselves, oddly-enough, when one is first asked in childhood to sit and stare at a blackboard--but this doesn't imply that the problem goes away when the blackboard does. In fact, it usually gets worse--but there is no longer a set of parents being sent report cards to indicate a problem which they might get it into their heads to "fix."

So, when I say "get checked for AD(H)D," I'm intending that advice for adults. Children might certainly have AD(H)D already--if you have a neurotransmitter imbalance, it's almost always present from a very young age--but the rampage of random neurotransmitter releases during development will moot any sort of prosthetic, just like (no, not glasses this time!) a bone- or skull-plate to fix a break would be inadvisable for a child: their bones haven't finished growing or forming, and the plate would soon harm instead of help.

Having said that, school systems must be designed around the fact that children will have various neurochemical imbalances--whether temporarily due to growth, or permanently, due to genetic problems--and around the fact that it is improper to expect the child to be treated for these before their neurology stabilizes. Grade-school must be an environment where a child is given the resources to succeed despite neurochemical imbalances. This calls for a radical restructuring, much moreso than the "radical" ideas one sees proffered on education around HN.

Diagnosing this chemical imbalances has got to be quite hard, if each person has a different profile. Furthermore, most people aren't even tested for it.

It's not an easy problem to solve, and parental pressure for drugs that calm an extrovert kid certainly don't help.

Sounds very much like Taoist teachings as well. Desire, in its many forms, never results in happiness.

I made a conscious decision to work from home and comfortable places because I realized that commuting two hours a day was destroying my health. Very few projects would be worth that sacrifice to me (although I realize that many are out there).

I made a choice to eat mindfully and properly in every meal unless I have something else of extreme urgency. I find very few things are worth interrupting a meal. There's at least one hour of every day you can enjoy tremendously, and many people lose complete sight of that.

I am not disagreeing with your premise, but the truth is that most people's desires, in my opinion, seem to be highly misplaced, given that not many people out there are actually working towards a goal so noble that it's worth the rest of the sacrifices in their lives. Having shorter vacations, less time for relaxation and pursuing hobbies is worth it if you're engaged on projects that give tremendous satisfaction and make a difference.

But would this not require, in some sense, the desire for contentment? I suppose this is just a semantic issue; somehow our usage of "desire" excludes this case (perhaps because it is so fundamental).

Contentment, on the other hand, is something more like "the lack of any particular goal currently requiring you to think, plan, or expend energy."

Basically, they're at odds: when you have a desire, you are by definition discontented.

Incidentally, if you're moved to get broad outlines of philosophical things, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy tend to be better resources:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicism/

One problem I encountered was people just not "getting it." And I don't mean random strangers, I mean potential clients. It's oddly difficult to tell people "I make enough money to support my lifestyle working 25 hours a week and I like to save the rest of my time for other projects that interest me." They expect you to be "doing more" or see you as lazy, after all why not make the most money you can possibly make at all times? When in fact I think I'm far less lazy than most people, I put a ton of effort into coding, educating myself, going the extra mile, working on projects for fun, reading technical books, going to talks. I'm also very serious about my pursuits beyond my programming "day job." And yet I've found it difficult to convey that, and that clients consider me unserious because I was intentionally working less than 40 hours a week even if they are looking for someone for a part time role.

I said "pay me 3/5ths of the salary you just offered me and I'll work 3 days a week". I also offered to keep this arrangement flexible so that I could work in stretches of varying lengths if needed.

This did not go over well. People were actually offended by this proposition and it went nowhere.

As a founder myself, I understand the desire to only hire people that will give you their full heart and soul. But, I'm also a practical person and if someone's skills are valuable to me, then they are very likely still valuable in part.

In fact, when it comes to a product/engineering position, I think the employer would come out on top in such a scenario. They still get access to the person's brain and all of their knowledge and ideas. For someone that's being offered high compensation, their knowledge and ideas are probably a big part of the reason why.

Not only that but I think this is the key to fix the economy! Think about it: if people could accept salary cuts for less work we would have more jobs and could transition to an eventual post-scarcity economy smoothly.

Creative workers don't output more than 25 quality hours a week anyway.

If I am willing to work 3/5 days a week for 3/5 of the pay, do I also only get 3/5 of the health care coverage and 3/5 of the vacation time of my 5/5 peers?

We obviously don't have the same healthcare situation as you, but surely it's just part of the negotiation? If 5 days a week is worth a $100k salary and $10k healthcare (don't ask me if that healthcare cost is 10x too high or 10x too low... but that doesn't matter) then 3 days a week is work $60k salary plus $6k healthcare. So offer that person $54k and healthcare. Or $66k and no healthcare. Simple enough, surely?

This is key. Most employers don't realise what a great deal this is. They are paying much less for probably the same amount of output. The person might even be more productive because they are more rested and can think better.

Arranging part-time conditions can be a slightly bumpy process: as stated above, management is often initially offended that you don't want to dedicate your life to their company, but framing your request correctly can smooth over most bumps.

When requesting a part-time arrangement I usually present it quite honestly: referring to a need for work/life balance, but also referring to the learning outcomes from pursuing challenging projects and the positive impacts they will have on my experience and capacity at work.

At the end of the day most managers realise that they are faced with either agreeing or facing the inevitable lose of an employee, but the decision can be made easier for them if you highlight the positive outcomes for your performance at work.

Incidentally, when I've described my part-time work schedule to friends and family, the universal response has been amazement and jealousy. The desire for a better work/life balance is such a common thing that I'm curious as to why so few people pursue better arrangements...?

But working with a few of these guys I found they are usually the best employees. They tend to bring energy and innovation to everything they do and generally better than a corporate drone who really does just want to cash paychecks for the rest of their life. At least in my area of marketing where one needs to look for innovation. Also they didn't exit after 6 months as building side businesses takes time and don't all succeed. For me know I'd take side projects as a plus on a CV but I suspect many people will hold to that first instinct I felt.

Unfortunately leadership didn’t like the idea; were afraid of others doing the same. So instead of biting the bullet they lost me.

My one day off is for my own projects, and it has also become special time I can spend with my wife (I was able to convince her to do the same thing at her job).

I can't imagine going back to a full work week. All I can imagine doing is taking another day for my own projects when I can support it financially.

If they're asking you "how much do you work," you can reply: "Considering my other commitments, I can give you 25 hours per week." They don't need to know what your other commitments are, and they'll probably be content to assume those commitments consist of other freelancing gigs.

My clients don't know any details about each other. They know I have multiple clients, but they don't know each other's identities, how many there are, or how much time I give to each.

"I aim for about 25 hours/week of client work so I have plenty of time for professional development and personal projects where I can focus on learning instead of delivering the best results for my clients."

If phrased right, you can make it sound like you're already an expert at what you're doing for them, which is why you don't necessarily learn as much from it, so it's important to spend time honing your skills in new areas so you can expand your offerings.

You could say something like this: "I'm generally not able to disclose details about other projects. But I can tell you that their effect on my availability will be..."

That's only the case if you have literally no other projects. If you have even one other project, it's not the slightest bit misleading. All I recommended saying is that you don't disclose details about your other work. That statement implies nothing about the volume of the other work, except that it's non-zero.

One of the best skills you can develop as a freelancer is to read between the lines when doing client development. Some clients say they want a freelancer, but what they really want is a full-time, remote employee. They won't necessarily know that about themselves, and if they don't, they won't articulate it directly. So you need to get good at sussing things out.

Taking a pseudo-freelance, client-demands-full-time gig and trying to compress it into ~10 hours a week is a recipe for disaster. You won't please the client, you'll drive yourself insane, and you'll end up resenting the work.

The biggest favor you can do for yourself is to discriminate ahead of time. Determine which sorts of jobs, and which sorts of clients, fit with your model. Accept the ones that do; turn down the ones that don't. (Don't be afraid to refer someone who doesn't fit your model to a freelancer you know who is a better fit. It's just a good-karma thing.)

If I were to hire a contractor to do work for me, I would require exclusivity for the duration of the contract and not because I want a certain number of hours necessarily. Being a developer I know that the delivered value is not directly related to the number of hours, I really do and in fact I'm skeptical of the value delivered by people claiming to work long hours.

No, I would want exclusivity because focus is important and people (especially developers) cannot focus on multiple things at the same time, unless we're talking about things that the contractor is very specialized in, has done those things repeatedly and has a track record to show for it. For CRUD stuff for example, I wouldn't care. But for new, more difficult, more challenging problems that require focus and inspiration, then I would require exclusivity. On the types of problems that I currently work on, for example, I cannot focus on multiple things on the same day, or even the same week. Sometimes if I get distracted by conversations that are unrelated to what I'm working on, my whole day is fucked because then I have to remember the context I was in and I'm already tired and out of my zone and I can't get back anymore, ending up staring at the laptop with a stupid look on my face. I have days in which I notify everybody that I need to get work done and don't want to be interrupted, unless there's an emergency.

Sometimes I envy devops, or CRUD developers, or other types of freelancers that can rely on experience to place themselves on autopilot or that can deliver value in a short amount of time. For example devops get paid mostly for being on-call, which means they can get calls at 12 o'clock at night, but can also mean that they don't have much to do all day and thus can serve multiple clients at the same time.

And note that I'm not comparing the difficulty of the job here, but about the types of gigs on which you can rely on experience or on short amounts of focus to deliver value. Or who knows, maybe I don't have enough experience and some day I'll be able to place myself on autopilot.

That's the big distinction. You're imagining yourself as the client, but I'm imagining the thought process of clients such as I've actually had. In my personal experience, clients are almost always never developers. And they do conflate hours worked with value delivered. I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule, but for what it's worth, I've never encountered one.

He found it hard to grasp that my plan was to do absolutely nothing. In fact, I told him my plan was to go watch TV for a while.

I was by no means rich but I had enough money to keep me going for a few months and this was during the Boom. It wouldn't take more than a couple of days to find a job when I was ready for one.

If you're living paycheck to paycheck and have big responsibilities (kids, a mortgage, etc) it can be inconceivable that you're willing/able to not play the game of trying to always acquire as much money as possible.

Literally, I am billing < 20 hours a week, and unless I become disabled and/or get dementia/Alzheimers, I feel that I will like doing what I am doing in some form or other forever.

I've done a lot of different things in my life, and this _is_ having it nice. It's far nicer than the "retirements" of many of my friends in their 70s, though I will grant it is not as plush or completely free of pressure as my parents' retirements as school teachers/administrators.

I'm also travelling in SE Asia so my outgoings are very low. I didn't realise how cheap it was here. I'm bringing in nearly 5x (before tax) of what I'm spending.

Occasionally my wife and I talk about my quitting work, and us moving to Thailand (her native country). Her vision of my ideal life there is that I wouldn't have to work, and could sit around doing my pet projects without any time or money constraints.

That always strikes me as dangerous. Those projects I want to work on didn't jump into my head unbidden. The ideas arose from years of coming to grips with real-world problems that don't have entirely satisfactory solutions. If I untether myself from the work that led to the ideas I want to pursue, then where will the next ideas come from? And how will I know whether they are worth pursuing?

To me, having side projects that seem worth doing, especially from the point of being useful to others (Sivers' way of distinguishing what he means by "not just relaxing"), requires their being grounded in real-world projects. And one measure of the worth of real-world projects, like it or not, is that people are willing to pay to get them done.

Excellent insight. One of the issues with the retired leisure lifestyle is that your scope narrows and you don't have very many interesting problems to work on. ("steak or lobster?", "Gstaad or Monaco?")

That's really up to you. No one is stopping rich people from going into scientific research or philanthropy (for an example, look at Bill Gates).

Whereas taking on actual challenges - as BG has done - provides things against which to struggle, and stimulates creativity.

You're right that it's a conscious choice. Choosing the "easy way" means that you aren't likely to be as creative and productive as if you take on complex challenges.

I can sympathize. My wife and I have ties to South America. Food and shelter are way way cheaper down there. The voices in my head make compelling arguments for making the move. What stops me is the kids. Don't see much of a future for them in South America vs growing up in SV.

Problem with most of south america is infrastructure and security. These are things that here in the states we take for granted.

Can't you always dive back into industry when you're past your current crop of ideas?

More likely for me, I think, is that I would develop interest in some other problem area, and just dig in to the new domain. For example, I'm always struck when I hear about the sorts of medical problems that hit people from my wife's village. I don't know anything about medicine, but it feels to me like a focused data collection project could lead to a significant improvement health outcomes.

It may be partially due to my training as a researcher keeping my eyes open to it, but it is a pretty rare month that goes by where I don't run into an interesting problem I could easily spend a year or two working productively on. Many of them don't come out of my current work or even during my work time.

The idea of running out of "good ideas" is unfathomable to me, honestly. Running out of time is very easy to imagine, though.

The book does a great job describing the evolution of this man's philosophy on living outside of the money system and what it has done for him. If at all interested I highly recommend it. Instead of trying to accumulate so much money you can't imagine needing more a healthy alternative might be to focus on reducing your need for money.

The Man Who Quit Money is an account of how one man learned to live, sanely and happily, without earning, receiving, or spending a single cent. Suelo doesn't pay taxes, or accept food stamps or welfare. He lives in caves in the Utah canyonlands, forages wild foods and gourmet discards. He no longer even carries an I.D. Yet he manages to amply fulfill not only the basic human needs-for shelter, food, and warmth-but, to an enviable degree, the universal desires for companionship, purpose, and spiritual engagement.

How did he find companionship in the Utah canyonlands? Does he have a girlfriend who shares the same lifestyle? Or is this more of a "the trees and animals are his friends" sort of thing?

And consumerism is?

Also: "And although he lives in a cave, he is not a hermit: he is relentlessly social, remains close with friends and family, and engages in discussions with strangers via the website he maintains from the public library."

If you chose to not live with money, you can be happy, but you are only very very restricted in what you do.

You can live in the woods for sure, but you will never be able to have a family except they all want to live in the woods, you will never be able to give you child an education if it wants to, you'll never be able to be a scientist again, nor solving problems for other people, you can only solve problems for yourself.

For me personally, that's not something to strive for.

There's such a deeply narcissistic undercurrent here.

If you ever find yourself having too money money, what that means is you have too few people who you are using your resources to help.

Being rich shouldn't be, "Well, I've got a yacht and a motorcycle, I guess I'm good!" It should be, "Ah I finally have enough to help X. If only I could get more and help Y as well." You aren't rich enough until the whole world is rich with you.

The author is the real deal in the sense that he did choose to decide he had enough, and set up a foundation to support music education and began advocating for entrepreneurship.[1] Maybe the reality is that Derek Sivers does not believe that he could as effectively manage a larger foundation as he can manage a smaller foundation like the one he set up. You might not make the same decisions as he did. I wouldn't, and I disagree with the extent to which he seems to have taken "mo' money, mo' problems" to heart. However, you could also say that his quality of life is maximized by him being the one who makes those calls, which may be a suitable localized goal, maximizing global benefit more than if he were striving to his limit in supporting more ambitious goals.

[1] https://sivers.org/trust

I completely agree with your stance but we both know x % of the rich ones aren't like, say, Gates, but rather the contrary. They try to find ways to lose less (taxes and whatnot) and gain more then they already have.

And to use Gates as an example, I'd much rather have him spending his money than the government spending his money. He's better at it, and does more good with it.

well I think the are morally obliged to pay more anyway - which is the spirit of the OP's idea. It's not like the government completely wastes every single tax penny. And even if they would, the more you have the more you can miss.

Furthermore, not only does this depend on the country you live in, I know from first hand experience tax avoidance is real, and mainly with richer people because they can pay others to do it for them. Now if they try to avoid taxes n order to give that money to the poor, I'm all good with it. But chances are they don't, in which case I'd rather let the government have it instead of it resting on the bank or being used to buy an environmental disaster like a speedboat :P

Reality isn't ideal. But thankfully, we can all be perfectly ideal in our own totally hypothetical idealizations.

According to you, anyway.

Do I have lots of money making money not important/critical? Does everyone also not have to worry about money? Do my kids/family also have the same "money free" existence as me? Am I able to travel without incurring any cost? If I do have tons of money, am I allowed to spend it on other people/causes?

I don't need attention so that's not a concern, but the money issue is too complicated to simply take it out of the equation for me.

If I ignore my practical brain ... my priorities would be my kids, my wife, my immediate family and community in that order.

Spending time with my kids, making sure they have everything they need, most of what they want, and simply loving them (without being distracted by providing for them) would be the easiest and most gratifying part of not having to worry about money.

However being super-rich wouldn't solve any of these issues for me as I would feel a great burdon to help those in need. If my family was taken care of, the logically extends to my community, and those around the world most in need (similar to Gates) What a nightmare to know that you have more money than anyone and are in the best position (besides governments) to help people. I don't know how Bill sleeps at night.

And we don't (have to) have them either. Its voluntary. There was a great book "Your money or your life" which like those others referenced here, talked about how the pursuit of money becomes a lifestyle, instead of enabling one. Lots to think about there.

You'd be surprised. In fact, I'd say quite the opposite: poor people in developing countries are even more concerned with appearances and expectations (for example, I have heard a lot of stories about people who can barely afford rent/food, but they drive a BMW or own a smartphone).

Anecdotally I spent time in one of the poorest counties in Florida but never saw so many "normal" people with expensive cars, jewelry etc.

The want to appear to be rich is strong if you are surrounded by it.

I can't say the same would be true in a society where all were relatively equal or didn't wear their wealth on their sleeve.

Again anecdotally I find the differences within regions of the US intriguing. I'm from New England where there is clearly a lot of upper middle class people, but you don't see them flaunting their wealth. Other regions of the US (to remain nameless) however seem to be much more concerned with showing off their wealth. I think many factors play into this, not just the region but culture, upbringing and the media.

However, I think even upper class people flaunt wealth, but in different and subtler ways. One example of this (for the super rich) are art collections (such as paintings).

But in our community showing off is not respected much. We wanted to look like everybody else, or even less than average, so we would not find folks hesitant to accept us.

I try to put myself into uncomfortable situations that I know will have the potential to enrich my life. I try to balance my need to "plan ahead" with the realization that "living in the moment" is far more enriching (but also dangerous at it can negatively effect tomorrow). What good is a mountain of money if you never get to spend it? If I ignore the need to make money how will I be able to enjoy my life tomorrow if I can't provide the basic essentials to myself and my family?

I also try to minimize the need to be "happy" and instead look to fulfillment as the measure of "success". IMHO it's not right to say the ultimate goal in life is to be happy, because for many, happiness never comes but they are still able to lead a meaningful life.

I'm very interested to hear other people's thoughts.

Contributing to free/open software is a good one.

But also there are so many pseudo-business projects that are worth doing, and not commercializing. You know like when people say, "People love it, but we're trying to figure out how to monetize it." Wouldn't it be nice to not monetize it, and just leave it as a cool thing that exists? Closer to art than commerce.

For example we have something called Thirukkural which i feel covers anything that would ever need to be written about managing your life and i see no reason for any more new MB concepts.

The other option (very very interesting and may be fulfilling) is that try changing the country , given that you say you dont attention and i think you are either capable of making lot of money or already have money. Then setup an corporate empire in our country (India) and drive politics to the better side (you can be in the backgound orchestrating). I think India is the largest country with large population which will fall in love for good governance and reasonable life of course the current scenario is changing the slightly due to west model being copied but it is not yet too late to change it.

It requires a very different way of thinking and looking at things. Money is a metric often used to measure success. Even in non-profits people start to get "metric driven", but I feel that somehow belittles my efforts.

Truth be told, money is work + luck. The only metric that I like to look at is, am I doing what I can. Random dehumanizing metrics be damned, you can't measure everything!

It does. There's lot of psychology research on this, intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation, etc. Have a look at Alfie Kohn's books, like Punished by Rewards.

Perhaps most people who get a few million do exactly this.

But surely it's weird that people make 10 M and don't just do whatever they want. Honestly, what point does money after that?

People like Gates, Jobs, Brin and Page might be the outliers because they keep going even after obtaining enough wealth for a lifetime.

Or perhaps it's only if you have the drive to make that kind of money that got them going anyway.

Don't get so caught up with the language.

It's all about the mentality.

I suppose it's a bit like wordworking. Sure, most things serve some purpose, but I think that - ignoring costs - it's more pleasant for everyone involved if the end result is pleasing to look at and well built.

Claiming that it's only one or the other is simply creating a false dichotomy.

Just to be clear, we are talking about source code itself that is art, right? Of course, source code can be written to create art. It's a tool, after all.

It's nice to have the free time to do projects and ventures for the cool factor and betterment of others.

(Recommend Lessig & campaign finance reform if in the US... single biggest issue.)

Still, I always wonder, what if any amazing things are technically feasible right now, that nobody is doing because there's no clear business plan?

My friend Tom always asks me, when I'm suggesting rolling our own whatever (software) "Joe, we CAN do anything. What SHOULD we do?" meaning how should we spend our limited time and effort most productively. And the free market is a great measure of what's productive.

That's a false dichotomy. Did Stallman write gcc and emacs for himself? Did Linus have a Linux business plan?

It is also possible to view Stallman as having written gcc and emacs so that he could live according to his own moral views with regards to software. That other people benefit from these pieces of software seems to be an altruistic component of Stallman's ethical worldview but ultimately a side effect of Stallman's personal goal of not needing to touch proprietary software. If Stallman was willing to compromise on his moral convictions, it is likely that neither gcc nor emacs would exist as they do today.

My ultimate goal would be financial freedom to work on cool apps full time .. something with A.I. in it, but really delivers graphically as well, as I enjoy challenging both the algorithmic side of my brain with AI and the spatial side of my brain with 3D programming, and I really really enjoy squeezing the last inch out of hardware!

Just lost my job though, so I'm pushing to launch my app this month ASAP, but might have to go back to making cat websites for a few months :(

It will be interesting though to see how your interest in making apps for the sake of it is impacted by the fact that you're now making them for money. That, of course, intersects with the premise of the article.

I think the idea of following one's passion as a means of obtaining financial security is generally oversold (though clearly not impossible). As soon as you add the financial factor, the enjoyment can be sucked out of it. For one, you're not doing it in the way you might if not for the need to monetize. Secondly, you find yourself doing all kinds of stuff that are decidedly not your passion (administrivia, marketing, etc.)

Anyway, good luck!

"Non-profit" likely doesn't mean what you think it does. e.g. The NFL is a non-profit.

Very lucky. May I ask how?

I'd love to get your thoughts. Please feel free to shoot me an email if you have ideas about how I might pursue this.

But when it is about survival, when you don't have a cushion, an infrastructure that will provide for you, this sort of thing isn't an option, the rhetoric is really a sophistry. What one can glean from this is what many have already considered.

Make enough money, satiate yourself so that it's no longer a need, and then you really do have the freedom to pick and choose and do what you want. It is a rare sort of situation and person that can do this from the beginning to the end of their lives.

Work comes out of a necessity, for many of us it is not something you simply change your mind on, and you're suddenly free from the burden.

EDIT: spacing, wording

I personally don't need piles of money. I could make 20% of what I'm making now, do what I love to do, and not feel strained. (Actually, I lived on much-much less.)

But I have a family to support, children to educate, etc, and this requires a lot of money. So yes, I'm looking for ways to make more money, like 10x, or even 100x of what I'm making now.

Also, unlike food, money does not cease to be useful in quantities you yourself cannot consume. I bet Bill Gates does not spend a million of his riches a day. The Gates Foundation possibly spends more, though—hopefully in a way Mr. Gates finds personally satisfying.

You must have a very large family to support/lot of college tuition to pay off.

Also, having 50-100 your yearly incomes invested effectively retires you and your family: you don't have to work for money any more and can pursue what you love. Exactly as the original article suggests.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/01/in-the-name-of-love/

Check your privilege.

Is this sentence used as anything other than a snub anymore?

Your point isn't worthless, but it reads like "wake up sheeple" posts of yesteryear. The writing is emotionally charged and confrontational as if you have something new to say. You're just reminding everyone of a world incongruity they came to grips with by adolescence. I'm not saying they are (or should be) fine with it, I'm saying your post is cliche and not helping.

You don't have to stop fighting the good fight, just consider how you're doing it. Or ignore me and post a link to a wiki page titled "tone argument" because your self-satisfaction for participating in a cause is more important to you than your efficacy at it.

(Have I mentioned recently that I'm still homeless? Just wondering.)

Then you'd be focusing on self-actualisation. Lucky you.

I am fortunate enough to be in this position. In my 50s, in good health, and I don't have to work if I don't want to. I've always dreamed of being in this situation and now I am. So what am I doing with my time?

- Still enjoying not having to get up and go to work, and not having to work for idiot managers. Sometimes I waste whole days going nothing (thanks, 2048). I worked in startups for 25 years, and have been mulling over my "pattern": I meet a charismatic founder, get seduced, work my ass off. That's a lot less attractive now. The getting seduced part depended, in part, on the golden carrot. (But only in part.)

- Exercising a lot more.

- Working on my pet projects, with a degree of urgency that varies over time. I don't need these projects to pay the bills, or to be loved and used. I get my jollies out of writing the software.

- Consulting, but being very selective about the projects I pick. They have to be interesting, and hopefully related to my pet projects. I've had some success here.

- Learning to play piano. (Would have been so much easier if I didn't stop when I was a child.)

- Enjoying more time with my wife.

- Getting back to teaching (software, of course).

Here's the "problem": At my age, (and due in large part to my temperament), I'm still not thinking very far outside the box. I can afford to do lots of new things, but I'm having some trouble figuring out which ones to actually do. Why?

- Software: I've always written software. I always will. I need to make time for other things.

- Inertia: I tend to do what I know, and expand out from there gradually. I seem to be incapable of ravenously seeking out novelty.

- Need ideas: After many years of working very hard, putting job and family first, those are the things I tend to think about.

- Need to say yes more: Except for the teenager living at home, I can go someplace warm and windy and windsurf for a week, anytime I want to. Not sure why I don't. I'm starting to say yes to more impulsive things, but it definitely goes against the grain.

- Frittering time away on small projects: I took on too many, so for a while, I had no time for anything else. I'm in a lull now, so I'm again contemplating how I want to spend my time.

I spent several months crossing the US and there were only two destinations locked in - the arrival airport and the departure airport. I'd have a general idea of what I was doing the next day, but it wasn't unusual to decide in the morning to go in a different direction. It was fantastic freedom of movement, and I saw things I'd've never seen otherwise. I could travel on my whims.

Travelling with others has pros and cons - more people means more to keep happy, but also more shared experiences and memories. But however you do it, keep the ability to make spontaneous changes.

Money is a tool, a form of power. You can desire power in order to accomplish things, or simply for the love of power.

Attention is something most people crave, and while it can provide a positive feedback loop of activity, it is not an end in and of itself.

But that's not all there is to life. There is experience, exploration & discovery, the act of creation, enrichment of the mind and body (knowledge and skill), service. Power can be used in order to accomplish these feats, and attention may result, but please keep them in their place lest they take ownership of you! A life spent pursuing them will soon leave you feeling empty.

Money is also a simplifier of trade. I write software, my dentist fixes teeth. When I get a cavity and my dentist puts a filling, I don't pay him/her by giving them code, I give them dollars instead.

Do I have power over my dentist, since I can choose to not give them money? Sure, but then he/she will also not fix my cavities.

Some of the weirdest things I've done that I never would have seen coming: - paint. I literally rent a warehouse so I can paint on massive canvases. Been doing it for years now, I don't show off my work, I have no need to be an artist I have a need to be creative - work a 9-5 mega corp job. I know this sounds like a bummer to most of the HN world. But it keeps me active. Gives me a place to be and a regular schedule and a network of friend. Where I live 5 days a week there is nobody my age that isn't at work. Without a job, my natural habit it to be nocturnal and I don't live in on of the few cities where that is reasonably possible. - code for fun and not the profit. I've coded since ~97, that's when I was in high school. Before that, I wasn't a typical kid that was coding back then. I was semi-popular bully/pothead/dropout kid that just wanted to party all the time. But I always liked math so my counselors would force me towards computers. That changed everything for me. I never saw it coming but now recognize that was the most pivotal part of my life

Point is, speculating on what you will want to do with your time in the future assuming two of the biggest variables in our society were removed or became inapplicable to you is like guessing what the price of bitcoin will be in 3 years. You can guess, and probably make a solid case to defend your guess but more than likely three years from now you will be proved wrong.

Either way I agree with your message and agree that you should strive for this thought process. Always chase a passion and always look for new ones. Too much focus on money and fame will likely not fulfill you in the long run.

I have not reached that point.. yet (I hope I will, rather sooner than later), but supposing I did reached that point, let's say, yesterday, oh boy, there are soooo many things that I would love to be doing.

For instance, after maybe going on a shopping spree for all those things that I've always wanted (truly not that many or that extravagant), for example setting up a very nice NAS + Media Center for my house, getting a swimming pool maybe, a laptop upgrade (mine is past 7 years of daily use...) and maybe stuff for my girlfriend/wife, I would then spend a few months travelling (not the whole world mind you, maybe 4-5 2-month trips or so). But aside from inane things and materialistic desires...

I would love to do a few things (besides spending time with family/friends) that would make up my "daily life", meaning I would like to do this as a form of retirement.

- Study without worrying if I'm going to be able to maintain the scholarship for example. Just get a Physics degree and maybe a chemistry one. - Put an animal shelter and then replicate if successful, i.e. put a LOT of shelters throughout my country. - My most desired idea: To develop what I call an "Idea Lab", which is something I'm sure a lot of other people have thought of. What about using my bottomless bucket of money to fund really neat and cool ideas that a lot of normal folks have, and having a staff of engineers, mathematicians, and in general all types of scientists and makers, to make these ideas come to life. Ideas that should help other people like water purification tools/processes, clean energy generation, etc.

I think those are the 3 things that would very easily consume my life if I had no need for money. I would love for example to donate to my college a building or two, computers, maybe pay lecture for really cool guys to inspire students, etc.

In short, I do actually dream on becoming wealthy enough not to care about my survival so I could help others around me. First family and friends and then my immediate community. And finally, if I actually become like ultra-rich, I would just DIE to put my own space company and help, even if a tiny bit, to get humanity out of this planet and unto the stars. In that regard I think something like Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace would absolutely rock!

But of course, like someone else mentioned before, that's what I say I will do in my hypothetically perfect world. But I like to think that I won't deviate much from the general idea.... of course only time will tell.

PS: Now that I think of it, I would certainly look at putting libraries around my hometown for example. Real libraries (like with books and maybe even classrooms or something). What about putting some type of "online university", that's basically a building with the necessary tools to let people study coursers from Coursera and the like? and maybe even have "TA's" that would help you out if you got stuck. I think that could go a long way to help people bootstrap themselves out of poverty, like one other poster commented before. So no giving away free money, but the opportunity to make something for yourself. Which coming in from a third world country, let me tell you how satisfactory it is to see someone that had everything against them, succeed and be a happy person.

...and of course I would like a pony that shits rainbows... but like my dad likes to say "the cool thing about imagination is that it's free, so why dream small?"

That said, humans are pretty horrific, when it comes down to it. Not that many creatures do the things to their own species that humans do as often as we do with as much enthusiasm.

2.) Enable people to educate themselves. Public libraries were essential in building the mindset and providing the place and materials for me to drag myself out of poverty.

Completely off-topic from the OA, but do you have any plans on this front? Plans, hopeless dreams, crazy ambitions, etc.

I was at a point in my life where I seriously had to ask myself this question quite seriously. After much grief, I'm in a very happy place now. Not necessarily pleasurable, but happy. I help startups get launched, dreams turn to reality & I get to flex my geek muscles studying neuroscience and designing software that challenges me.

I realize that I am amongst the very lucky few. I recall the seriously hollow feeling. Being surrounded by stuff. I am fortunate enough to have friends (some billionaires) who surprisingly have not only dealt with this but have figured out some pretty awesome ways to live life without being an over the top Rap Star consumer. (which I unfortunately succumbed to for a while).

I have fewer cars, and other useless toys, but it's wonderful being free. Doing things because you want to and doing things to be happy (again not to be confused with pleasure). To be honest, it really doesn't take much to get there. You don't even have to be a millionaire.

Here's to doing... and realizing that the journey is the reward! Cheers to my fellow HNers looking beyond the bounds of modernism or most -isms.

After college, I worked for a 'prestigious' consulting firm and found immediate success in the perspective of my peers. Truthfully, I enjoyed it. That feeling faded quickly and the cubicle walls closed in and 13 months later I quit.

With no plan or direction, I moved back with my parents, who did not charge me rent and bought much of my food. In other words, I had nearly zero expenses with a stock pile of cash from my prior employer. I relaxed for 2 months before realizing that I could pretty much live this content life for like 25 years. $20k goes a long way with no expenses.

I started spending my time building websites for friends and found the work fascinating and completely rewarding. It's that curiosity and fulfillment that I seek out in everything I do. I have since created a life for myself and the $20k in savings is long gone so money still drives me.

But at least I know what motivates me. I know what I'd do if I could do anything and that is an incredible gift.

Yes, we need money to live. We need attention to live, too.

What's interesting to me about that bit above is that it's presented in this sort of homiletic style, as if it's the distillation of experience down to some obvious and unquestionable core, but it's pernicious in that it's pure ideology.

"[W]hen you're ready to be useful to others again," does so much work in this regard. It frames entrepreneurship as a service that is situated within a matrix of rational choices and utilitarian moral justification. We do these things because they're legitimately useful, they just happen to make us filthy rich. This wealth, however serendipitous and embarrassing it might be, is also justified by the actual utility it provides. Zuckerberg is wealthy because Facebook is an unquestionable force for good.

The author continues, framing entrepreneurs as, at worst, misguided persons who move from being accidentally useful to being purposefully useful; Persons temporarily blinded by their universal needs for attention and money. Never mind the problem of defining exactly how much attention and money one needs--to say nothing of security and nutrition, arguably up for purchase, or love, validation, and a sense of growth, arguably not up for purchase--to...live? Survive? Get by? Flourish? Never mind all that, once that's taken care of, entrepreneurs like the author can now get back to their innately good core of, from the author's tagline, "mak[ing] useful things, and shar[ing] what [we] learn."

Look, fundamentally, entrepreneurs exist to get rich. The "problems" they "solve" are chosen for their profitability, and the rhetoric about utility is just a way to colonize the discourse and deflect attention from the obvious avarice of it all. On the level of manipulation, the level of stopping the hoi polloi from rising up and strangling you, it makes sense; Anyone too stupid to see they're, for example, making their personal lives worse with Facebook so that Zuckerberg can sell ads, isn't going to have the discretion or wisdom to run an economy after any misguided revolt, no matter how apparently justified.

As a means for understanding our own motivations and desires, our relationships to the game of Capitalism, these are the guilt-addled ramblings of emotionally crippled narcissists. Basic self-awareness demands that we do better.

What do the rest of us do?

Again?

You just nailed the problem.

If everything you did was for others, then this discussion (and many like it) wouldn't even make sense.

You wouldn't "get burned out", "lose purpose", "get stressed out", "worry about competition", "procrastinate", or "lack motivation".

If your work, your art, or just your day-to-day activities were focused on delivering value to others, you'd be too busy having a ball and rejoicing in outcomes to worry about all this other stuff. And anyone who tells you otherwise (but we gotta eat first!), still doesn't get it.

Thanks, OP, for reminding us that as soon as we're not so full of ourselves, and understand our role as conduits of energy, the sooner everything else flows so nicely.

To use an example, suppose you're disgusted by homelessness and want to solve it. Realistically this is something that requires political influence and a large amount of money, not just to float yourself, as trying to solve this problem is unlikely to pay well, but also to develop solutions. So you say to yourself, I'm going to spend the next 5-10 years of my life trying to fill these gaps. Part of this plan may likely involve becoming a "successful" entrepreneur, as the typical job is unlikely to provide you with these resources either.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to admit that our pursuits are often stepping stones to achieving more later on.

People often ask me for feedback on their business ideas.

Often, one of the first questions is, "Why are you doing this? Is this just for the money?"

Usually you can tell when that's the case.

We long for the past or we hope for the future and in doing so, we rush through the now. Stop. Breath. Be human. Life is more than your job. You job is impermanent. You are impermanent. Your health or the people you love may be gone tomorrow.

We can't say where we will end up in life. No one knows this for certain. Being responsible and planning for the future are good things. Taking good care of yourself financially, mentally, physically and emotionally are all important now and for the future.

Life happens while we make plans. Many times, life interferes with our plans. That's OK. That doesn't mean we should stop planning. Understanding that we cannot predict or control the future will transform our suffering.

We can live now and plan for our future and have peace inside as well.

Specifically, I would spend multiple weeks/months in:

1. Death Valley (friends and I already spend a week or so a year hear for the last several years) - we always find something new; plus literature leads to additional areas to explore 2. Highway 49, the gold country. A lot of the sierras have been built up, but there is a lot of history along Hwy 49 still to be uncovered and shared. Throw in sightseeing with tramping, appropriately timed folk songs, a lot could be learned -- for recent concerns, I would coordinate w/ those in Nevada City helping w/ the recently deceased folk hero Utah Phillips 3. Exploring rural Big Sur/Fort Hunter Liggett. This is my current back door. Big Sur is where we go to get away, but during the high season it is over run. There are nuggets to explore, but we have missed them during the crush.

These are just three very CA oriented segments. Specifics on any of which you can send me a PM about.

I've often wondered what's going on in this situation because it's not always due to literally being 'full'. If you could package up that feeling (hormones, chemicals, whatever's causing it) and sell it in pill form, you would be the richest person on the planet..

Is this not quite literally what drugs are? And I don't just mean illegal drugs but stuff like Xanax.

From my current point of view, which will no doubt change, stoicism kind of seems pointless insofar as people, for at least the past couple hundred years, have had an intrinsic desire/need to feel important. It's what motivates us to do ANYTHING, not just start a universe-changing company, or achieve lofty goals in open source, or to become rich, but it motivates our everyday interactions with people we encounter for any reason. Dale Carnegie has a nice discussion of this phenomenon in 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'.

For me, that's exactly why I'm starting a company instead of going somewhere like Google. I'm not in it to hit the jackpot, I'm in it to make a lasting impact on the world and the way that we use technology. At this stage (early), it feels like I'm actually trying something useful. I feel like I have a purpose, and it's a more satisfying source of motivation than a potential jackpot.

I'd be interested to see Elon Musk weigh in on this. Hitting the financial jackpot seems very far from his mind. He said himself, his goal is to die as a resident of Mars, and the rest is just trying to pay the bills so he can fund his dream.

Even an atheist must admit that there's a certain satisfaction that comes from helping other people (even anonymously) that really has no limit.

Go out and help make the world a better place - not out of a hope for reward or recognition... just for fun. It's addictive.

I slept and dreamt that life was joy.

I awoke and saw that life was service.

I acted and behold, service was joy.

My point is that the absence of (expected) outward recognition or reward for altruistic behavior (by a supernatural or spiritual being) does not preclude someone from experiencing the joy that comes through service. And no, I personally don't classify that joy as a selfish reward, but rather a natural consequence built in to the human brain. Whether put there by God or developed via natural forces/evolution as a mechanism to protect life (we feel satisfaction in helping other animals - not just our own species), it doesn't matter; the fact is, it's a part of our nature and can hardly be discredited in any moral debate.

When you're dealing with these issues, stoicism is highly recommended.

BTW, on the target page you can read hacker reviews from most of the other major sites, my review, and a bunch of other stuff. The site was a project I completed so that I didn't have to describe the same books over and over again on HN (So apologies for not diving into a huge amount of detail here) :)

http://hn-books.com/Books/A-Guide-to-the-Good-Life-The-Ancie...