job loss and some thoughts...

[zidane1strife]

Again I don't know about this site, but I found this to be an interesting short read...

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9322

Any truth to this?

Regardless...

Ok, now to my thoughts opique

I think once it's possible we should do away with most of what we today call work... and the need to earn a living. It's my belief that people should dedicate themselves to that which they desire to do.

Those who'd like to teach, and have the passion for such a thing, should do so. Artists(be it music, drawing, painting, sculpture, etc.) should be able to dedicate themselves to their art 100% without worrying about their daily bread heheh...

The people that desire to travel, enjoy exotic foods and cultures, and desire the knowledge of different languages, should be able to do so, without worrying about expenses. Those that desire to meditate for months, should be able to do so without any repercussions to their basic needs.

Those who seeketh to play should be able to play, to do so for years, and enjoy a similar lifestyle to that of a member of the highest class. Consciousness should be unbounded from all forms of labor for its sustenance, it should be free to seek that which it desireth.

Making this a reality for everyone, should be the job, duty of the government, should it be made viable in the future. To create a new paradise, to allow people to dedicate themselves to the arts, to the sciences, to their improvement, to their social lives, and to whatever it is they seeketh(within reasonable moral guidelines.).

To hasten this, the government must tighten its fiscal belt, and stop the abuses that are done by those who receive its budget. Inspiration must be provided, and many manhattan esque projects, must be started. To finance this they should hack away at the military budget, and bring it to a more realistic level, and obviously balance things out.


Ps I'd like some comments on the truth of the linked article and your views assuming it's true... Also if anyone begs to differ from my views and their reasons for doing so...

 

[pax]

Cant agree more. We did hash thru this a while back tho. I dont think theres an inifinite range of other income making occupations we can undertake... The turn of the 19th to the 20 th cent saw the 40hr workweek which is amazingly still with us today. In fact its worse... more and more work 2 jobs to make ends meet.

Where 70% of women stayed at home in the early 70 about 80% work outside the home now. Mostly thanks to the rise in consumption of services. But eventually in the current system you'll find an inability to buy what people make. So as structural unemployment rises (offical and unofficial rates) you'll find people not making and not buying.

The collapse in demographics is placating the rise in productivity too but only for a time. As older demographics go from consuming cars and houses and raising kids ect... to more and more consuming health care. Eventually something will cause a serious backlash somewhere if the oil economy doesnt bust before. I see a lot of gross missmanagement in the various transitions we are going thru. From the paranoia on overpopulation to laissez faire capitalism in the oil industry to stagnating work standards Im a bit worried the rollercoaster economy might go off the rails one of these days.

 

[3dcgi]

I don't know if the article is correct, but it does make sense that factories are becoming more efficient as machines do more of the work.

However, I think that zidane1strife's post is idealistic and will never happen. Especially not in my lifetime. There are many jobs that no one would perform given the choice and we are a long way from creating machines and robots that can do these jobs.

Consider a simple job like trash collector. I can't imagine anyone doing this job out of love and it would be very hard to create a machine that comes to people's houses and picks up trash without any human aid. Plus, someone has to create and maintain these machines.

 

[zidane1strife]

Consider a simple job like trash collector. I can't imagine anyone doing this job out of love and it would be very hard to create a machine that comes to people's houses and picks up trash without any human aid. Plus, someone has to create and maintain these machines.

Yes it is difficult to imagine... But look at the improvements in computer algos, small motors, in cheaper more efficient magnets, in computation advances, ever cheaper and more efficient robots. Humanoid robots that can dance, stand up after falling, walk and walk up stairs are already available... and using a fraction of what is currently available in terms of computational resources. To do something like pick up the trash I'd say not even real A.I would be necessary. Only an exponential increase in computation would be needed, along with cheap robotic power, and suitable portable power source... things that could very well be available in the span of a a few decades.

Not to mention, optimizations could also be made in-terms of the vehicles, containers, locations, and devices to signal and ease the job could be done. In addition to all else in order to make it viable. In fact, I've heard there are some factories that can operate more than 24hrs without any human assistance... surely there was transport and work akin to that of picking up the garbage done in those, and it would be far easier and cheaper with exponentially more computer power, and more advanced robotics.

As for what is safe from automation... From what I've heard, even creativity itself has been obtained out of artificial machines...

Is it not viable that a robot equipped with efficient cheap parts, a good power source, far more computing power than is now available, and good code could do such things? Is such a thing not likely to be available within this century? within the first half?

 

[RussSchultz]

Even then, when I was growing up when the trash truck came, it was 1 truck and 5-10 guys. Now its 1 truck and 1 guy, with a cleverly designed truck and trash cans.

 

[MfA]

There is a limit to consumption, but no limit to productivity ... no worries though, if things get bad the powers that be will provide plenty of service jobs to keep the masses sedated. Maybe not an ideal situation, except for the powers that be, but a liveable one nonetheless.

BTW, even if most people could live comfortably off the dole that doesnt mean you couldnt find people to do jobs ... even lousy ones, you would just have to pay them better. Pay would become as much the inverse of job attractiveness as the need for ability, and space would become the commodity for which people would seek money (land will always be scarce even if nothing else is).

 

[3dcgi]

Perhaps the most difficult barrier to this vision will be social. It seems like the capitalistic societies which dominate the modern world economy will need to change significantly. I don't know what will happen by the end of the century, but I'm sure many of today's jobs will be gone or changed. I think most people will still work, but maybe we can at least cut back significantly on the number of hours required.

 

[DemoCoder]

Most of the things you consume on a daily basis now are services, not goods. Just think of the number of times you bring shopping bags full of durable goods home compared to the number of times you pay someone to do something for you (make an expresso, cook you lunch, etc)

Even if 100% of manufacturing was automated, there would still be need for lawyers, doctors, teachers, waiters, musicians, etc

It will take a huge leap in artificial intelligence and robotics before we can start replacing all service sector jobs.

 

[zidane1strife]

Even if 100% of manufacturing was automated, there would still be need for lawyers, doctors, teachers, waiters, musicians, etc

It will take a huge leap in artificial intelligence and robotics before we can start replacing all service sector jobs.

waiters?

 

[Tahir2]

There is nothing better than good, honest work for the soul IMHO of course.

 

[zidane1strife]

There is nothing better than good, honest work for the soul IMHO of course.

Oh, I agree with you... but what I question is not the activity, but the reason for it.

I wouldn't mind spending some time picking up the garbage or cleaning up toilets or mowing the lawn or working in some mine... or doing some repetitive machine suited labor. As long as it is of my own free will, and desire to do so, and under my own schedule, it is ok, and something I can enjoy and cherish.

What I mean is should a mother be forced to work 24-7 to keep her children fed, and with some decent entertainment? Should someone sacrifice their nutritional well being because of financial concerns?

Should people forego traveling, vacationing, the arts, and hobbies, because they can't financially sustain such things?

Or should one work out of pleasure and the desire to do so, and be free to abandon one's labor out of one's own free will?

That is what I mean. There are many people that would commit suicide were their finances to collapse and be faced with the harshness of a poor life. Should this happen, should people be faced with the choice of death or a life that might be of extreme harshness until its very end, just for failing in capitalism(often for circumstances outside their direct control)?

No, my friend I believe the answer is no. People should be free of the worry of financial collapse and even the worry of absence of one's basic needs. A human's freedom should not be bound by their financial success... and in the end that is really what's at stake here... freedom. Freedom to explore the world and to perform the activities that one desires. If it were possible for man to be freed from the cycle of work 'to earn one's daily bread', and to enter the cycle 'to work for the pleasure of one and one's loved ones'... shouldn't it be allowed? wouldn't it be the right thing to do?

Should one really be forced to perform an activity in order to receive the benefits of modern society... or should one only require not violating other's rights in order for one to receive the benefits of society?

 

[RussSchultz]

Should one really be forced to perform an activity in order to receive the benefits of modern society?

Yes.

Otherwise where do the benefits of modern society come from? They do not spring up magically from the ether, but from the pursuit of something better.

If you do not offer a reward for contributing to society, then none will, and society will stagnate.

 

[MfA]

Of course the validity of progress as a cause onto itself is questionable.

 

[epicstruggle]

Should one really be forced to perform an activity in order to receive the benefits of modern society?

Yes.

Otherwise where do the benefits of modern society come from? They do not spring up magically from the ether, but from the pursuit of something better.

If you do not offer a reward for contributing to society, then none will, and society will stagnate.

In conversations ive had over this subject of not having to be "forced to work for money" I always think of the time machine(1960's) movie. Where the elois are clothed and fed by the morlocks and dont have a care in the world. Not pursuing knowledge or for that matter anything else. Which is exactly where this type of society would eventually end up.

This is quite similar (IMO) to the 60's movement, where everything was sex/drugs/rocknroll but not much else.

later,
epic

 

[Tahir2]

Should one really be forced to perform an activity in order to receive the benefits of modern society... or should one only require not violating other's rights in order for one to receive the benefits of society?

Yes both. Not violating someone elses rights is an "activity" and what you would like is a position some have acheived in this world today but even then they are bound and set by rules. Of course some break them and get away with it.

What I mean is should a mother be forced to work 24-7 to keep her children fed, and with some decent entertainment? Should someone sacrifice their nutritional well being because of financial concerns?

That is what welfare is for, to redistribute the essentials and to try and make sure a mother is not needed to work 24/7 to keep her child fed. No one should starve but unfortunately many do. This does not really relate to what you are trying to get out though.

Should people forego traveling, vacationing, the arts, and hobbies, because they can't financially sustain such things?

Yes they should. And they do. What is the alternative? An expensive car, computer, holiday all bought on credit? Some people do choose that option. Should they be able to go on holiday on credit and then find they cannot afford to feed themselves? Hey I'd love to travel the world and learn to play golf (well maybe not golf) and I would love to have some more time to do 'nothing' but I simply cannot afford to do this. Is this right? Yes I believe it is.

Or should one work out of pleasure and the desire to do so, and be free to abandon one's labor out of one's own free will?

If you do not want to work no one is forcing you to do so. You will simply starve because of no welfare and all those holidays you bought on credit.

Should we do away with reward for contributing to society? Should we level the playing field so everyone earns the same amount?

Neither really work - the former would cause no work to be done at all. If we were to work at our own hearts content knowing we are not reliant on gaining sustenance due to our direct rewards gained from work we would simply not work or do any work that would benefit society. We would stop trying to better ourselves. I use the term 'we' loosely - I am talking about the majority here.

Work, rewards, society - it is a part of human nature that one can only be stripped away by killing off human nature.

epicstruggle the movie you are talking about is a Jules de Verne novel. Pretty neat film too, The Time Machine.

 

[zidane1strife]

In conversations ive had over this subject of not having to be "forced to work for money" I always think of the time machine(1960's) movie. Where the elois are clothed and fed by the morlocks and dont have a care in the world. Not pursuing knowledge or for that matter anything else. Which is exactly where this type of society would eventually end up.

This is quite similar (IMO) to the 60's movement, where everything was sex/drugs/rocknroll but not much else.

later,
epic

Really? I'd say I'm not forced to work, and yet I've not stop contributing to society and don't plan to... Do other people who've made it big, stop contributing to society? You've got to realize that there are many who do not need to work for a living, yet they still contribute to society.

So, are you saying we should force people to perform at something(Even if they may loath it, and this may show in the quality of their work.), just for the sake of doing it. Will in the end, humans be like the primitive animals that once hooked to a pleasure inducer will even starve themselves to death with food in front of them? That is can humans not do better, than simply seek pleasure?

I do not think so, most healthy individuals will form part of society and contribute to it out of their own free will, even if it's just from time to time.

Would you say that even if work became unnecessary, we must restrain the freedom of the populace, and force them to engage in something for their own good? That NO ONE will be willing to contribute? Do you believe people work just because they're forced to, and otherwise wouldn't?

So humanity must never truly abolish slavery, and be eternally bound to the will of the many? For in the end isn't that what is implied: "People must be made to serve by force for a portion of their lifetime". I'd say this is a form of partial slavery, and it is needless.

 

[zidane1strife]

That is what welfare is for, to redistribute the essentials and to try and make sure a mother is not needed to work 24/7 to keep her child fed. No one should starve but unfortunately many do. This does not really relate to what you are trying to get out though.

Oh, I don't mean just not to starve. But to, if she desired, be able to study at a Univ. for a few decades, with no prob. Learn as many languages as she can, with no prob. To be able to enjoy entertainment, and the arts, to be able to dedicate herself to her children 24-7 if she so chooses.

That is what I mean, to be able to have the most varied and nutritionally filled diet with no prob. To have the latest greatest in experimental health care available to her, without going bankrupt. To know that if her body fails her as she ages, she can retire with style not interned in some asylum. To know that if she goes into a coma, she won't be sent to the next world early simply do to cost concerns. To be able to see her children enjoy the best healthcare, education, entertainment, that not she, but society can give.

Yes they should. And they do. What is the alternative? An expensive car, computer, holiday all bought on credit? Some people do choose that option. Should they be able to go on holiday on credit and then find they cannot afford to feed themselves? Hey I'd love to travel the world and learn to play golf (well maybe not golf) and I would love to have some more time to do 'nothing' but I simply cannot afford to do this. Is this right? Yes I believe it is.

Do you believe that even if you needed not to do so, you should be forced to. That is do you believe that to enact one's will upon another is made right if one is under the banner of the collective?

If you do not want to work no one is forcing you to do so. You will simply starve because of no welfare and all those holidays you bought on credit.

Should we do away with reward for contributing to society? Should we level the playing field so everyone earns the same amount?

No that is not what I'm saying and that is not viable as you've said.

Work, rewards, society - it is a part of human nature that one can only be stripped away by killing off human nature.

So what will be of humanity shall automatization and space travel be combined and used? Members of a space colony with a new government, could indeed receive the benefits of a nearby society where work was enforced without the need to work themselves. The arts, the science, the languages, and the overall information, could be obtained.

Then shall all be subject to marshall law and persecution, for humans who would make colonies with new laws free from the need of working, would not do so and would stagnate... They must be forced to do that which we command, and we must make sure that should such a future come to be with the passage of a long amount of time... that they must be made to yield. That people who are free from our society, must be assimilated, and forced under our own will, for it is what's best for them, and we must make sure to do so through force shall need be?

Yes, that is an extreme extrapolation, but it is just to give you an example of the logical fallacy of that argument. This is something akin to what was done to the natives of this land.... something akin to all those civilizations who've been submitted to slavery throughout history.

Remember what started this thread, that automation is advancing and that there may come a day when most if not all WORK is no longer necessary... that should such a time come, should people be forced to work? Or should they be allowed to be free to enjoy each other and enjoy their world at their own pacing?

 

[MfA]

Of course at the moment we are not living on a space station ... land is scarce, and it is society which lets you "own" your little piece of it.

But I agree, dont see why people should be forced to work if it isnt necessary anymore. Yeah most people will just laze about as if it is the 60s all over again ... but scientists and artists arent in it for the money now, and they wont be then either. Progress will still be there, society will be carried forward by the same people who carry it forward now. The people who are just along for the ride will simply have to deal with less drudgery.

 

[3dcgi]

I think even the productivity of engineers and scientists would be severely cut back. I see there being a bunch of side projects that rarely get finished. Of course if everything is so self sufficient that people don't need to work we can probably deal with slowing technological progress.

 

[epicstruggle]

zidane1strife, You missed the point of my comment. To clearify, one person does not make a society. The fact that your well off and do not need to work, does not make you lazy, or anything else. But remember the society that is in question is one where _no one_ needs to works. In your personal world, I assume, you must employ many people(directly and indirectly), so how you can compare that to the hypothetical society being discussed in this thread is strange.

later,
epic