
The World Belongs to Those Who Create - sophiaellis
https://www.sophiaellis.co/blog/the-world-belongs-to-those-who-create-vs-those-who-consume
======
ldp01
There's truth to this post but overall I think it's pretty naive.

In a capitalist system the world belongs to those who own and have spare
capital to invest vs. those who rent.

Being very good at creating things is a potential pathway from renter to
owner, but so is being very good at maintaining things, or managing people,
etc. Anything which you can be paid a lot of money for will do.

~~~
winter_blue
I think the author point was about what would bring the greatest self-
fullfillment. It's not necessarily money.

You could be an author or an artist or something else, and have far more
fulfillment in life than making 10x working at a job that you're good at but
that doesn't bring you as much fulfillment.

~~~
ldp01
Fair enough, but I think it's a simplification of how life really works for
most people.

For the average person, the choice to become a successful artist isn't a trade
off between more money and more satisfaction. If they fail to become
successful they will significantly lose out in terms of life's more basic
needs, because they won't have enough money.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I would love to agree with OP. But I don't think
human society is there yet.

~~~
infiniteparamtr
I don't think that a failed artist would lose out on basic needs because of
money. The average, economically entrenched observer would see a "successful
artist" as one getting paid for their efforts.

I see a successful artist as someone who is creative enough to acquire basic
needs, comforts, and actualization with little or no money - be it through
bartering or learning to create for themselves.

Success can also come in the form of making statements about society through
their medium(s) of choice, and ideally changing the outlook an audience.

In this regard, religion and arts were the first forms of software engineering
- by the modification of the observers perspective.

Of course there is also aesthetic art, which is beautiful for us to admire
because it is proof of the capacity of another humans attention to detail.
These works usually don't seek to comment on the state of culture.

~~~
ldp01
> I don't think that a failed artist would lose out on basic needs because of
> money.

How many former humanities students do you know?

If success just means being happy with yourself then sure, go for it. However
this is a retreat from what OP stated: "The World Belongs to Those Who Create
VS Those Who Don't".

If we are restricting ourselves specifically to artists then, for an average
person, becoming a materially successful artist requires capital investment
and an appetite for risk (or a lack of understanding of the risks). The
capital investment will most likely come from parents in the form of
education, food, security, etc.

Becoming a successful artist without any of that support sounds like a
horrible all-or-nothing proposition with no fall back position. (You have no
capital if you fail because you didn't hedge your bets with a steadier/less
fulfilling career).

------
syphilis2
"We are strangers in this world, and the body is the tomb of the soul, and yet
we must not seek to escape by self-murder; for we are the chattels of God who
is our herdsman, and without his command we have no right to make our escape.
In this life, there are three kinds of men, just as there are three sorts of
people who come to the Olympic Games. The lowest class is made up of those who
come to buy and sell, the next above them are those who compete. Best of all,
however, are those who come simply to look on. The greatest purification of
all is, therefore, disinterested science, and it is the man who devotes
himself to that, the true philosopher, who has most effectually released
himself from the 'wheel of birth.'" Burnet on the Pythagorean ethic, Early
Greek Philosophy

The author of the article is very engrossed in modern values. Don't let her
adamance that creators control the world frighten you into churning away at
something like knitting block chain encoded socks, or worse writing horror
novels. The world is beyond the control of any creator anyway, even Mark
Zuckerberg if you'll believe me. I think a lot of people find, after years of
creating or struggling to create, it's best (or just good) to consume and
contemplate without regret.

~~~
AstralStorm
The latter is a path to doom if followed by a civilisation though. Consumption
and contemplation do not bring change and that which does not adapt will
perish sooner or later.

~~~
Singletoned
That which DOES adapt will also perish sooner or later.

~~~
AstralStorm
More likely later than otherwise.

The change and adaptations have to be moderated and applied in diverse
amounts. No single strategy or philosophy is perfect, but we shouldn't allow a
few that are short term beneficial to someone to overly dominate and quash the
rest. It is the reason for freedom of speech and other hard won modern
freedoms.

This includes allegedly noxious viewpoints. If anything, they serve as a
vaccine and a reminder.

(Until the society can remember and recall them in detail at will. Probably
not in our lifetimes.)

------
icanhackit
_We’ve delegated the larger part of our days on earth to consuming what
someone else has created._ [...] _I told him my favorite example of those who
“figure it out” are rappers who are criticized for being talentless but still
rake in millions. Who cares if they’re talentless (by someone’s standards)? At
least they are still CREATING something! Lil Wayne_ [...] _has released 1,747
songs_

So the idea is make lots of stuff, but avoid consuming all of the stuff that
other people create...though should everyone follow this ideology it would be
infeasible to make content prolifically because it relies on consumption to
drive the next creation.

Is there a middle ground, like practice your creativity prolifically but only
publish your best so that the world is inspiring rather than a mire of half
thought-out, tepid excrement? Maybe all of this shit clogging up the TV and
internet is what leaves the masses drooling on themselves.

~~~
closeparen
One of my favorite lessons from Ira Glass's lecture circuit: ideas come from
other ideas. The first step to producing high quality content is surrounding
yourself with high quality content.

~~~
roceasta
Exactly. Writers must read 1000s of books, singers must listen to 1000s of
songs, and so on. Even for those who don't create additional content, it's
impossible to 'consume' culture without creative engagement. Nobody can pour
content into his head:

[http://www.jfallen.org/wordpress/2015/04/12/the-bucket-or-
th...](http://www.jfallen.org/wordpress/2015/04/12/the-bucket-or-the-
searchlight/)

------
winter_blue
This post really resonated with me, deeply. I've been having almost exactly
the same thoughts that the author has had, lately.

I think a lot of us underestimate how essential creative self-expression is to
our well being. I've come to the realization that I don't want to just live a
regular life, working and consuming, but rather I want to contribute something
creative, of my own creation, to the world. Deep inside, I think most people
will find their greatest joy in building and creating new things (out of love
(and not just as a means of survival)).

~~~
jrs235
Everyone desires to be [a] god. What does a god have the power to do? Create.
Naturally everyone wants to create things. When we can't or aren't allowed to
create we return towards the other power gods have: the power to destroy. We
all want to feel in control. One way to feel that is to create things the
other way is to destroy things.

~~~
rdiddly
And _destroy_ is one of the synonyms of _consume_.

~~~
humanrebar
Some things aren't destroyed when they are consumed. A digital recording
doesn't disappear when listened to. A book is fine after it's read.

~~~
kqr
Well, depends on how charitably you choose to interpret "destroy". Not all
books are worth a second read.

------
emerged
There's no doubt that incredible amounts of time are "wasted" by all of our
quick dopamine hit apps and sites. These are the new opiate of the masses.

It seems to be something we are all aware of, and we talk of unplugging. Some
do, here and there. It's a constant struggle. The new cigarette / snack food.
Just as hard to quit - but we should all at least try.

~~~
jopsen
Haven't most people always been wasting most of their time?

Before it was TV, Radio, gossip magazines, books, you name it.

Do we know?

~~~
dredmorbius
The distractions weren't driven by vast, A/B-tested, AI-assisted,
institutional machines with the resources of major nation-states.

In 1817, your primary distractions would mostly have involved _hauling_ :
bringing water, food, wood, and materials into a home, and hauling the waste
products out. The metaphor was buckets and baskets, not pipes.

There might have been some home-craft production, or farming. But those were
not idle pursuits.

Entertainment was something _done_ rather than _consumed_ : people _told
stories_ or _read to one another_ (if they could), or _played music_ (or dice
or cards -- considered vices).

And the primary information conduit was a weekly sermon or service.

------
dredmorbius
History demonstrates otherwise.

The world belongs to those who can extract, or create rent-extracting systems
and networks.

"Creators" probably the _least_ well-served of any labour cateogory, relative
to their contribution.

Straight-up wage labour is also under-served, and often below the point of
sustenance, but it's the _contribution_ ratio I'm looking at.

In _A Farewell to Alms_ , Gregory Clark (UC Davis) lists the inventors
responsible for the first Industrial Revolution. Of eight or so inventors, 3-4
died in poverty, another 3-4 survived only on _other_ activities, or through
legislative compensation. Only one or two actually profited by the work
they're known for.

[http://www.worldcat.org/title/farewell-to-alms-a-brief-
econo...](http://www.worldcat.org/title/farewell-to-alms-a-brief-economic-
history-of-the-world/oclc/767762001)

Vaclav Smil points out that the diesel engine and gas turbine are the two
prime movers most responsible for all modern power production (either motive
or electrical). Otto Diesel committed suicide after financial ruin. Parsons,
inventor of the gas turbine, did relatively well, but failed to be recognised
for the vast bulk of benefit for his work, which was posthumous.

Creativity is fun, it's intellectually rewarding. Don't think for a moment
that market economies offer remunerative compensation with anything resembling
consistency, rationality, or proportionality.

------
ak39
This is spot on. I share this worldview too.

Here are my thoughts I try to live by:

1\. Know the type of person you are:

We are all creatives and contributors at our core. We all measure our self-
worth by how much we give instead of how much we take. This is part of our
natural human wiring - to want to belong deservingly to a village of
individuals who pull their own weight. So, if you are not creating in your
natural sphere of strengths, or you don't feel you're contributing to feel
worthy of your own esteem you need to sit down and think. Fix this
immediately.

2\. Be prolific:

To be good at whatever you're creating or contributing, you have to be
prolific. Genuine quality comes only through quantity. A shit ton of it. Keep
hacking, keep swimming, keep sucking.

3\. Judge progress, not outcomes:

Judge your own evolution. Have I done better than yesterday? Do I suck less
than last year? Yeah? You are golden. The dangers of comparing your own
outcomes with someone else's is that you betray and cheapen your own timeline,
your own history, your hard struggles and the victories over your own
debilitating handicaps. Appreciating your history as the backdrop of every
milestone is the essence of healthy self-esteem.

Just keep swimming.

~~~
candiodari
Can you give a few examples, other than apps, that one could make and
reasonably sell ?

Maybe it's just me but I don't see any real opportunity in this.

~~~
yetihehe
\- Grow vegetables \- Make tools \- Make cakes \- Build houses \- Build
machines \- Create gardens

There are many possibilities, you could earn reasonable money from any of
above examples starting from small business and not needing to learn that much
before you start.

~~~
candiodari
How would you make money from any of those ? I do not have a lot of area
available, and a storefront is entirely out of the question.

Especially cupcakes sounds interesting, as I'm quite confident I could
automate that.

~~~
yetihehe

      - Grow vegetables - sell them on local small markets. As you wrote, this requires some area, but you could try indoor farming in your basement.
      - Make tools - you could sell them online as artisanal tools or just make good quality hand tools and after advertising on some local fairs you WILL have clients.
      - Make cakes - this really requires a storefront but I'm sure you will find some programs to accelerate small business or something. I don't know where you live but in Poland it is rather easy to start such business as unemployed, you just need to write sensible businessplan.
      - Build houses - yep, this one requires some investment in tools and advertising, but some advertisements on craigslist or something like local small ads pages should be enough.
      - Build machines - this requires more investment and technical acumen. I've included this as a possibility.
      - Create gardens - garden designers almost don't require investment, you just need some design skills. Start as employee/apprentice with some near design firm and get experience, then you can open your own business.
    

This is not tutorial how to create, this is only listing of example venues for
making money from creating. You should find some venue usable to you by
yourself.

------
TACIXAT
Great post. I just disabled my Facebook account. It was my most visited and
least enjoyed site. It is really refreshing to not be constantly opening it.
This article really helped frame how I'm feeling about it. I think it's time
to cut more consumption out of my life to free up time for making things. I
have so many ideas. I don't need to be consuming video game content for hours
a day.

~~~
k_sh
I did this a few weeks ago, and I feel less stressed as a result.

If you're trying to spend more time creating things, I suggest you give The
War of Art[1] by Steven Pressfield a read. It put words to a gnawing feeling
I've felt since my late teenage years, but never knew how to confront.

[1]: [https://www.amazon.com/War-Art-Winning-Creative-
Battle/dp/15...](https://www.amazon.com/War-Art-Winning-Creative-
Battle/dp/1501260626)

------
godot
While I agree with the overall point of the author, one thing not pointed out
is that she is comparing the greats of the past (or current) to the average
person. These people are/were great, not the least because they spent that
much time at their work that they produce. To put it another way, there were
many more (vast majority even?) people from the past, before technology, who
spent their time just as unproductively as the average person nowadays. They
may not be consuming content on the internet, but they could just be chatting
in person, watching the sceneries, or more likely just doing labor work.
Preparing food or doing laundry could be a whole day of work when you don't
have technology.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't wonder where all the time went for
the modern individual compared to the times before technology. Do spend time
more productively and create stuff, which is good.

------
whipoodle
If you enjoy creating things, that's great. But I am not quite convinced of
the inherent good of creating, being a "maker", etc. This can often be quite a
consumptive activity, actually, depending on what you make.

Edit: on further thought, I feel I should stress that the world belongs to us
all.

------
happy-go-lucky
I think the author is wondering why everyone is not a creator or making an
effort at becoming one. IMO the world is never meant to be a place exclusively
for creators.

> And the smaller part creating for someone else to make money to continue to
> consumer what someone else is creating.

So, unbeknownst to yourself, you’re saying the world belongs to _someone else_
, not the creators, and this contradicts with the title of your blog post.
Moreover, on one’s own, one cannot create all things that one wants or needs
to consume. It would be supernatural. Since time immemorial, people have been
creating things for others to consume and consuming what others have been
creating. The world is fueled by mutual reliance.

> _Why is this an issue_?

It’s not unusual for people in marketing to create an issue out of nowhere :)

------
nnd
It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?

The only meaningful thing to do in this world is to create, there is nothing
else.

~~~
thesmallestcat
I'd like my creations to be consumed...

~~~
tluyben2
That is something I struggled with: do I like creating or do I like others to
consume my creations more? And, if the latter, do I like that more because
that is how I make money? I concluded after many years (I am 42) that I like
creating. I need consumption of it because I might need money but for me to be
happy, only creating would suffice.

~~~
thesmallestcat
My point was more that creation can't exist without consumption. It's also
damn near impossible to not be a consumer. I agree that it's important to
focus on creation, but I disagree with the "consumption is evil" mantra that
comes out of these discussions at times.

~~~
tluyben2
Ah yes, I agree with you. It is needed. And there is not all too much wrong
with it either. The evil probably comes from the pointless consumption? Not
sure if we can live without that or where useful ends and pointless begins.

------
marzipan
It's a false dichotomy. Creating by copying and referencing is quite trivial
now. We do it all the time and think nothing of it.

Creating original designs, giving them a lot of thought and attention,
responding to feedback, and changing workflow as a result, that's still hard.
And there are a lot of ways in which you can come up with an innovative spin
on old stuff - presentation, cataloging, filtering, recommending, explaining -
that isn't "creative output" in the sense we are romanticizing, but provides
the same kinds of effect on knowledge.

------
sharemywin
the problem is the definition of make and create and what has value has
changed.

10 thousand years ago people celebrated when a big kill was brought home from
the hunt.

5000 years ago people celebrated the seasonal harvests.

100 years ago you put in a good days work at a factory turning a screw but you
helped make a car.

today if it's not novel or unique it's not celebrated or valued.

~~~
winter_blue
Thousands of years ago, people made art, they wrote poems, came up with
wonderful stories and mythology. Every culture has some form of human
creativity. Whether art, music, or stories and poems passed down through
generations. Creativity is a defining characteristic of human beings. To be
creative is to be human.

~~~
nnd
Well, that's what I thought about as well until recently. But the recent
advancements in AI make me questions if creativity is truly unique to humans.

~~~
xaedes
as AI sprung out of humanity it will always have a grain of humanity in
itself. AI doing "creative" things is doing it because we like to watch it
doing that.

But still I dont think there is so much special and unique to humans

------
brad0
Great write up! I wish I had have known this when I was younger.

If you feel this way start by working on small projects to completion.
Everyone starts somewhere.

------
mannanali413
I think that any individual, who does some work creating/building a
product/feature goes will identify themselves with the ideas presented in this
article. However, the world actually belongs those who can get others to
create and build. These usually are the people who have access to capital and
use it to generate more capital.

------
traviswingo
This could possibly be the most impactful thing many of us, here, have read
(consumed) recently. Bookmarked.

------
codeisawesome
How about a slight shift in thinking? "Self-fulfilment belongs to those who
create"... and perhaps try to think "the world belongs to everyone" instead.

Agree with the overall intention of the post though.

------
stephengillie
If you sleep 6 hours instead of 8, you gain about a day every 2 weeks.

~~~
adjkant
You can also achieve the same thing by sleeping less frequently, but that
doesn't work well if you care about being awake at the same time as others
always. But right now I have a spare week and will gain an extra day of time
this week.

~~~
stephengillie
Do you mean the 28 hour day? [https://xkcd.com/320/](https://xkcd.com/320/)

I tried that for exactly 6 days. And went slightly crazy - days were so long
that I was splitting them into an A-part and a B-part, just to keep events
separate in memory. I wonder if that's what that's what the MIB feels like, in
their 37-hour day. [a]

If you can't get a truly flexible schedule for this, 4x10s will kinda work.

[a]
[http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0119654/quotes](http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0119654/quotes)

------
hyko
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is not a fact.

------
kleer001
Well, then that's a real shame then for people without creative impulses and
or skills.

------
blizkreeg
Create more, but responsibly.

