Debunking the argument from entropy

 Okay, so I know I shouldn't bother, but I got into an argument with an ancap tonight and his entire argument on work came down to this weird...idea about entropy. He seems to argue that because it takes work to survive, and because the universe trends toward entropy, that work is...justified, I guess? It was a very weird argument, and something that makes no sense to me.

So, entropy is a concept in thermodynamics. It states that energy to do work in the universe is finite, and that over time, the amount decreases. Eventually, after all energy is expended, we will reach the heat death of the universe. 

Okay, yeah, but what does this have to do with work, as in, labor to survive? It seems like a complete nonsequitur, among other things. There are many things wrong with this argument.

First of all, the definitions of work are being mixed up. When someone who is anti work talks about work, they're talking about wage labor. They're talking about earning the resources to survive. They're not talking about "work" as in, your body is constantly working just to survive, it's what it does. By this definition, breathing is work. No one is denying that certain biological functions are, by some weird metaphysical definition work, but how does this justify work, the institution as it exists, as in, you need to go to work at walmart and take orders from a boss 8 hours a day to earn currency to survive? It makes no sense.

There are several logical fallacies that apply to this argument. First, it's a non sequitur. It doesn't follow. Second, it's an appeal to nature. Because something is a certain way in the state of nature, because it's natural, that somehow makes it morally justified, even if we can change it. That's fallacious. Third, it's an is ought fallacy, confusing what is, with what ought to be. Just because people work to survive, doesn't mean this is moral, if we can change it. 

The fact is, the institution of work, and the requirement to work, as a means to survive, in the 21st century political economy, is a choice. We could choose more leisure if we wanted. Our entire society is obsessed with work, and work is so ingrained in some peoples' ideologies that they just see it as natural like it's breathing or something. It's wierd. Of course, that's the presumption I want to challenge on this blog. The fact is work is, to some extent, a collective choice. We could all choose to work a lot less collectively, and change our institutions in society to accomplish it. We actively choose not to, and in my opinion, people suffer as a result. 

Just because something is, or seems natural, does not make it moral, especially if it is somehow unpleasant or coercive, and can be changed. Arguments from nature should never be used to hold back society from achieving all it can achieve.