Let us assume that, in the future, technology advances to the point that most manual labour, data processing, and customer service can effectively be done by robots. Let us assume that, in this future, it is possible for everyone to live in relative luxury with only 1% of the population doing anything we would consider to be "work".... 2%, if they're all part-time.
Do you think that artificial scarcity or redundant busywork would have to be created? Note, I'm not assuming that we have to keep capitalism, as we understand it, going. I am asking for a defense, if any, for the concept of requiring people to work when we do not actually require people to work.
The necessity of work.
Re: The necessity of work.
Nope. People don't need work. What people need is to feel needed, but that can be covered by things they enjoy doing. Most people would probably become artists and writers and so on, and happily spend their days by showing each other their work and admiring each other for it. The 2% or people who need to keep the whole technology going would be those who are enthusiastic about inventing new things and solving technical problems.
Of course, people also need to move, but nowadays most people already do that as a hobby. We would keep professional sports, as people like to be admired for something they're good at, same as with art.
Of course, people also need to move, but nowadays most people already do that as a hobby. We would keep professional sports, as people like to be admired for something they're good at, same as with art.
Re: The necessity of work.
I'm not sure I'd strictly say it was necessary to have work. A lot of people do enjoy having some purpose in their life and there's some benefit to ensuring certain violent personalities have something to do with their day.
I imagine though that voluntary social organizations will be somewhat saturated with offers and a limited number of people will be able to join. Your local furry society only has so many fur suits and such, only so many leaders ready to handle new recruits.
If anything, I'd probably imagine the involuntary/ voluntary work would work best as a sport. Robots, unless humanform, can't replace humans in terms of attractiveness. People would probably prefer seeing humans around as front people for those sports and if someone is violent tiring them out means they're less able to do crimes.
I imagine though that voluntary social organizations will be somewhat saturated with offers and a limited number of people will be able to join. Your local furry society only has so many fur suits and such, only so many leaders ready to handle new recruits.
If anything, I'd probably imagine the involuntary/ voluntary work would work best as a sport. Robots, unless humanform, can't replace humans in terms of attractiveness. People would probably prefer seeing humans around as front people for those sports and if someone is violent tiring them out means they're less able to do crimes.
-
Deepbluediver
- Posts: 909
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:50 pm
Re: The necessity of work.
I would probably say yes, under certain circumstances.
In my experience, people who mature and live under a scenario in which they have to earn something in order to maintain their place have a better overall personality than people who get a 100% free ride. Society has an obligation, so long as it can afford it, to not let it's citizens starve or be homeless. In return, those citizens have an obligation to each other to not become a blight or a leech on society.
It doesn't have to be a lot of work, but it has to be something, and frankly if it's dull, boring, disgusting, or otherwise unpleasant, all the better to encourage them to find something better to do with their time.
Anyone who refuses to put forth even a the tiniest bit of effort will be moved to a facility to care for them- a kind of jail-lite. They will be taken care of, but their freedoms may be somewhat curtailed. Essentially, if they want the lack of responsibility of a child, then they also get the lack of privileges that goes with it. Of course, they will be released as soon as they are willing to work towards their own upkeep.
Essentially, I don't want people to entirely loose any sense of appreciation for what they have. If you can find a different way to instill it in people, then fine. Maybe make everyone between the ages of 12 and 16 live on a farm with primitive conditions, so they look forward to rejoining the rest of society. Whatever it takes.
In my experience, people who mature and live under a scenario in which they have to earn something in order to maintain their place have a better overall personality than people who get a 100% free ride. Society has an obligation, so long as it can afford it, to not let it's citizens starve or be homeless. In return, those citizens have an obligation to each other to not become a blight or a leech on society.
It doesn't have to be a lot of work, but it has to be something, and frankly if it's dull, boring, disgusting, or otherwise unpleasant, all the better to encourage them to find something better to do with their time.
Anyone who refuses to put forth even a the tiniest bit of effort will be moved to a facility to care for them- a kind of jail-lite. They will be taken care of, but their freedoms may be somewhat curtailed. Essentially, if they want the lack of responsibility of a child, then they also get the lack of privileges that goes with it. Of course, they will be released as soon as they are willing to work towards their own upkeep.
Essentially, I don't want people to entirely loose any sense of appreciation for what they have. If you can find a different way to instill it in people, then fine. Maybe make everyone between the ages of 12 and 16 live on a farm with primitive conditions, so they look forward to rejoining the rest of society. Whatever it takes.
Re: The necessity of work.
How about just educating them?
No need to invent busy work. Learning is challenging enough, and can't be replaced by robots. (or at least not replaced by robots in a way that doesn't also replace anything work would do for you)
No need to invent busy work. Learning is challenging enough, and can't be replaced by robots. (or at least not replaced by robots in a way that doesn't also replace anything work would do for you)
-
Deepbluediver
- Posts: 909
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:50 pm
Re: The necessity of work.
If it is effective, then sure, but there's some things that you simply can't substitute reading about in a book for real-world experience. Basically, I'm not trying to make a philosophical argument here but a historical-based one. People tend to be better overall when they have had to work for something than when it is just given to them. That's my opinion and belief.MysticWav wrote:How about just educating them?
No need to invent busy work. Learning is challenging enough, and can't be replaced by robots. (or at least not replaced by robots in a way that doesn't also replace anything work would do for you)
You could also make the argument that learning is it's own form of work, and if someone was furthering their education with the goal or achieving something, then that would qualify.
So I'm trying to find a way to maintain that sense of having earned something in an environment where it's not actually necessary to exert the slightest effort to maintain your own life. I don't want us all to end up like the folks in Wall-E. Having a "work requirement" seems to be one effective method- if you can come up with something else, by all means I'd love to hear about it.
Re: The necessity of work.
We kind of have artificial scarcity now. Every industry has plenty of middle men and women, plenty of whom are superfluous. Actually, as part of SSC's cyber monday product recommendations, there's a company called Dollar Shave Club. You pay $6 per month, and get a fresh razor every month, or something to that effect. Dollar Shave Club is just buying razors from somebody else called Dorco; buying directly from Dorco costs 3/4 what it costs to buy from Dollar Shave Club, going buy 1 razor per month. The only real difference is that with Dorco you buy them in bundles, rather than getting a razor once a month.
An entire company is dedicated to rationing you razors, and charging you extra for it. You don't get much more superfluous than that.
An entire company is dedicated to rationing you razors, and charging you extra for it. You don't get much more superfluous than that.
Re: The necessity of work.
Capitalism both produces artificial food scarcity in some places of the world, and superfluous work in others. I once worked in a callcenter that was about selling things on the phone - things no one wanted to buy. This is capitalism: If money can be made doing it, then it will be done, regardless of whether it creates any real worth (which both this and the Dollar Shave Club doesn't).crayzz wrote:We kind of have artificial scarcity now. Every industry has plenty of middle men and women, plenty of whom are superfluous. Actually, as part of SSC's cyber monday product recommendations, there's a company called Dollar Shave Club. You pay $6 per month, and get a fresh razor every month, or something to that effect. Dollar Shave Club is just buying razors from somebody else called Dorco; buying directly from Dorco costs 3/4 what it costs to buy from Dollar Shave Club, going buy 1 razor per month. The only real difference is that with Dorco you buy them in bundles, rather than getting a razor once a month.
An entire company is dedicated to rationing you razors, and charging you extra for it. You don't get much more superfluous than that.
In a world where no one has to work, people would only do things that create real worth - at least according to some definitions. Videos of cats playing piano or similarly silly stuff are STILL more useful than some of the things where the demand has to be artificially created.
Re: The necessity of work.
A society without work could exist, but it probably wouldn't be a progression from our current society. Our economy is built on certain assumptions, such as the notion that a trade is an exchange of value between A and B. If A gives B something but gets nothing in return, that is called "charity" and classical economics says there's no reason to do that. Classical economics accepts that charity is a real thing, but can't explain why it happens. But for the 99% of non-workers to be able to feed themselves, they either need to produce something of value and sell it (in which case they're basically just workers) or accept charity. Classical economics can't handle this situation.
Keynsian economics says that work is good and unemployment is bad, that it's worth creating busywork (as long as you can afford to pay a salary) just to keep people employed. I oversimplify slightly - but that's an answer, at least.
Anyway, what I'm saying is we've built a lot of infrastructure on a certain definition of what money is, what the economy is, what value is, and what work is. In order to get away with 1% employment, our society first needs to un-learn those definitions.
Keynsian economics says that work is good and unemployment is bad, that it's worth creating busywork (as long as you can afford to pay a salary) just to keep people employed. I oversimplify slightly - but that's an answer, at least.
Anyway, what I'm saying is we've built a lot of infrastructure on a certain definition of what money is, what the economy is, what value is, and what work is. In order to get away with 1% employment, our society first needs to un-learn those definitions.
... in bed.
Re: The necessity of work.
Well, education can be busy work. Lots of people enjoy university, I'd imagine a welfare society of the future might have a lot of free education to waste people's time.MysticWav wrote:How about just educating them?
No need to invent busy work. Learning is challenging enough, and can't be replaced by robots. (or at least not replaced by robots in a way that doesn't also replace anything work would do for you)
Edit. Maybe you could get a degree in webcomic analysis.