As I write this, it is now more than a half-year into the Great Pandemic of 2020. These days people are getting more comfortable with the pandemic lifestyle. But let's rewind a few months, back when western governments enacted their first lockdown policies, and the average person suddenly realized the enormity of changes coming for their lifestyles. For them, it seemed apocalyptic, as we suddenly started to categorize day-jobs as either "essential" or "non-essential".

Almost everyone agreed that employees in the healthcare and agriculture sectors (including distribution at grocery stores) were essential.

What they seemed to have a harder time agreeing upon, was whether their own professions were non-essential.

What a surprise. Who would have thought that in our culture, where a person's identity is perceived mostly as their profession, humans would naturally be sensitive to the word "non-essential" being applied to their profession?

As one from the art industry, this was particularly noticeable. My peers on social media would share posts such as:

To those asshats who continue to spew the bullshit that the arts aren't real jobs or that it's not essential to human kind... did you stare at a wall throughout your entire quarantine? Or did you watch Netflix, read books, play video games, consume media, peruse online ads, online stores and menus? Even the damn wall you gawked at was painted, you turd. This collective experience has proven one thing, beyond a doubt- the arts are essential. You cannot go through life without consuming it and you cannot truly live a full life without it. Medicine will work to keep you alive, but what are you living for?

To be clear, the author of this quote is a great friend of mine. If you're reading this, forgive me for singling out your post as an example. I hope you can trust that I have something worthwhile to say and read on. And let me know if this was a productive conversation :-)

And no doubt, this is not limited to the art industry; I know that somewhere in the accounting social media circles, accountants are writing similar posts about their own profession.

I mean, there's multiple points raised in this example. The first part posits the thesis that art has significant value, and hence that people who say "arts aren't real jobs" are wrong. I think only trolls would argue with this.

Later on, a related point is made: "the arts are essential"

To this I say: "for what definition of essential?"

Because what I think happened here is that the lockdown policies are using one definition of "essential", but sometimes people hear this and start talking about a different use of the word "essential". This is probably an easy mistake to make for those who aren't constantly thinking about differentiating the-map-and-the-territory.

1. The former definition is easy, for the same reason that most people don't need someone to explain to them why doctors and grocery workers qualify as essential. A job is essential if, without it, we would expect to survive for no longer than a few days.


2. The latter definition is why people get defensive about this word. In this second definition, a job is essential if it is "real". Let's use this term to differentiate the two. A job is "real" if, without it, society is worse, barring some major re-imagining of major institutions that we don't want to get into at the moment.
   
   A job is "not real" if society is no worse without it, indefinitely, with very little changes required. Many of these non-real jobs do not create real value, but are simply rent-seeking roles. Or in simple but blunt terms, they are parasites on society. Of course no one would want their job to be called parasitic. And in this case, art is not parasitic but creates real value.

But lo! These definitions are not the same! And I hereby argue that art is in a class of jobs that fall into the latter but not former. Or, using the terminology here, "non-essential, but real". And more importantly: anything that falls into this category is not less important than "essential jobs" in the first definition.

You see, if you separate out the definitions into "essential" and "real", then what is "essential" a measure of? It's a measure of urgency. Without art, you might live a sad life. Without food, it will be a lot sadder a lot quicker. It shouldn't be controversial to say that one would need to know food is on the table before worrying about enjoying art.

And what is "real" a measure of? It's a measure of something humans value. A job producing art is certainly real, if someone is willing to pay to enjoy it, such as subscribing for Netflix. Of course, most essential jobs are also real, because their value is both urgent and obvious.

Are we clear on that now? Good.

At this point you might be wondering, "Okay, it's nice that you resolved an argument based on semantics. How is that something important enough to write about?"

Well here's the thing: jobs that create "real" value, but are non-urgent and thus "non-essential", are both indicators of, and requirements for, a highly developed, prosperous, and enjoyable society. They're a shining beacon of civilization.

We can only have valuable but non-urgent professions if our standard of living is already high enough that most people don't worry about the lower tiers of Maslow's hierarchy. It means we are collectively wise enough to look ahead and invest into something that isn't just about what's for dinner tomorrow.

To be non-essential is to be a part of work that is uniquely of human-level intelligence. All living things are concerned with the essential needs for their life, but humans are the only ones building an inter-generational pool of culture and knowledge. It should be obvious by now that non-essential isn't only limited to art. Science would be mostly non-essential. If a really bad pandemic comes along (I mean, way worse than the current one; a literal existential threat to human civilization), basically any science that isn't directly combating the pathogen is going to be "non-essential". What good would a cure for cancer be in that situation, when society as we know it wouldn't exist in the next few weeks? So with people like artists and scientists, don't worry about being labeled a "non-essential"; I think you're in great company.

And you don't have to be making never-before-seen art, or discovering never-before-known science, in order to participate in this Great Work. Because this Great Work can only be done with the efficiency of deep specialization, we absolutely need jobs that support them. The accountant saves you time so you don't have to re-learn what they learned already. The physical trainer saves you from wasting your lifetime figuring out what other humans have learned about their bodies throughout history. These may not be urgent in the face of an apocalyptic pandemic, but as we have just seen, not many good things are.

So when someone labels your job "non-essential" by the lockdown definition, you should be proud. Because that means you are a shining beacon of human civilization. A profession only made possible by human ingenuity at manipulating nature, and a profession that plays its part in contributing to the altar of greatness that is sapient existence. Provided of course, that you don't starve to death tomorrow.