Asakiyume mita

I think you're so right about Hiramasa's speech: it does describe what it feels like in depression--and I think it's good that you mentioned that, because there's a difference between having a busy, satisfying life and deciding to cut out an annoyance so you can focus on other things more fully and having a life that feels disordered and overwhelming and trying to solve the problem by cutting out one thing after another. In the latter case, often [but not always! This is the problem with generalizations and observations; they don't apply to every single situation or person] the problem isn't the things, it's the mental state.

My problem in this entry is I'm trying to touch on too much at once. On one hand, there's the problem--in depression--of trying to solve things by making your life very small. You will eliminate your life before you eliminate the problem. On another, there's the issue of things being pushed as conveniences when really the "burden" that they're lifting isn't necessarily a burden. If you like chopping vegetables or kneading dough, then having those tasks taken away from you isn't really a gift--unless it lets you do something you enjoy even more. And even then, we want a life filled with many things. We don't want to eat only one favorite food, or see only one favorite person, or do only one favorite activity--we want, and need, a mix.

And then on a third hand, there's the problem of labor in the workplace, where, I would say, the issue isn't as much the nature of any sort of work, but rather, how human laborers are treated and the choices they have. Any work--even dangerous work, even repetitive work--can be done with goodwill **if your needs as a person are met** (i.e., if you have enough time to rest, if you are able to take breaks, if you're not expected to work inhumanly long or fast, and if you're fairly compensated for your work) and, crucially, if you have a choice. If you have no choice (either because you're enslaved in actual fact or because conditions mean that you have no real choice to do something else), then it's no good. But you can put in all the labor-saving equipment you want--"hey, you don't have to stoop to pick strawberries now! Hey, you don't have to break these rocks with a pick-ax anymore"--and if you still treat workers as a resource to be used up--if you still require long hours, inhuman speeds, and don't pay well, then you still get exhausted, destroyed people... just exhausted in a call center or exhausted tending the machines that pick the strawberries.

And with the AI, it just gets to the point of ridiculousness. What are we here for if we're going to turn over the work of being human--of seeking knowledge, of sharing knowledge, of expressing our feelings--to machines? I think meaning can be found in any activity: it's not the activity; it's what we bring to it. But we have to let ourselves have activities! We can't do *nothing*. And that's what it feels like we're headed to. As if corporate entities and the very rich want to have all labor and all endeavors be automated (because it's cheaper), and they want humanity to be merely consumers. But we can't just consume: we need to **do**. We need to **make**. That's speaking philosophically, but also pragmatically: if the purpose of corporations and the very rich is to further enrich themselves--if they want people to BUY things--then people need to have an opportunity to EARN. But they can't if there's nothing left for them to do.

*cough* ... thank you for letting me stick another whole entry in a comment...