5 ms·

We need a society where every person is needed and wanted. We need it more than any dumb technical advance that lessens the need for people, like robots deliver

We need a society where every person is needed and wanted. We need it more than any dumb technical advance that lessens the need for people, like robots delivering pizza or whatever. That will take some heavy thinking, though, and I feel that we haven't even started.

douche 11y ago
A lot of us that are building the dumb technical advances that lessen the need for people don't particularly like people, in the general case. I suspect we'll continue to do so.
- omarchowdhury 11y ago
  If you don't like people, then it's really that you don't like yourself, douche. You came out of a people. You depend on people, your existence is not happening in a vacuum.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - gammafactor 11y ago
    Amazing piece of logic here, "you came out of people -> you depend on people" and "you must like people" is implied. I hate that I have to depend on people. I find them unreliable at best. Which is why a lot of us are working to improve the primitive societies we currently live in in order to REMOVE that dependency. I'd rather depend on algorithms (and in fact I do, more and more every single day that passes) than anything as primitive as people.
    - omarchowdhury 11y ago
      Liking and disliking are not the only choices. I'm saying to see the world the way it is. Also, would you say your refuge in algorithms is your way of trying to control your reality? Algorithms are straight forward and predictable, unlike people. Thoughts?
      - oldmanjay 11y ago
        I have one thought, which is that no one really needs you saving them via insulting HN comments.
        omarchowdhury 11y ago
        And that I am trying to save anyone is your own extrapolation.
        oldmanjay 11y ago
        okay, fine. then what you are doing is something even less useful, and I should have no one really needs you lecturing them for no reason via insulting HN comments. do you feel better now that your output has been properly characterized?
        omarchowdhury 11y ago
        What exactly was insulting? His name is douche. Also, newsflash: you're lecturing me. Don't fight fire with fire.
      - gammafactor 11y ago
        Don't assume things about me (this is another tendency that "people" have :-) From an early age, I found contemporary "people" uninteresting to extremely dull. I had to force myself to socialize with them in order not to become a premature social pariah. It's a lot easier these days. I'm mostly talking about your average human by the way, not the sum total of humanity. To give you an example, I enjoy Nietzsche's (another social pariah) writing enormously but I find Nietzsche-the-person mostly uninteresting and boring. This is the outlook I have on life. I'd rather spend my time reading all the treasures we have from the past and trying to understand them, than indulge in pointless socializing. I don't see myself as weird or crazy. I think I'm simply way ahead of the curve here. Give it 30-40-60 years, human relationships will have degenerated to a degree that far surpasses mine. When robots can fulfill your every "human" desire (food, sex, companionship) and you are free to do whatever you want with the rest of your time are you going to keep wasting this precious commodity in pursuit of other, "human" relationships or will you finally be able to fully devote yourself to whatever it is that you know, deep down, is your true calling in life? This is of course assuming that your true calling in life is not "other people" or in other words, current social conditioning or consensus reality. This is when that conditioning will fully break down and society will have advanced a step on the evolutionary ladder.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      Algorithms are much more primitive than people by definition. You seem to have intended to convey the opposite, a preference for relying on primitives over complicated persons.
      - ams6110 11y ago
        More primitive, in the sense of less complex, yes. But also more reliable. Algorithms do what they do, and never anything else.
      - gammafactor 11y ago
        I'm chinese and was using primitive in an evolutionary sense. Wrong choice of word, I agree with you.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- cousin_it 11y ago
  Fair enough, but our work doesn't just impact us...
sridca 11y ago
> We need a society where every person is needed and wanted. I'd rather live in a society where every person was self-sufficiently mirthful, with people-interaction being little more than the cherry on top of sundae. This is what individualism was originally meant to be, but people continue to undermine the power of instinctual passions (acknowledging something is the first step to eradicating it).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cousin_it 11y ago
  Unfortunately, "we will satisfy people's desires by changing their desires" isn't a very attractive pitch.
  - sridca 11y ago
    I think you did not understand the full import of my comment. So let me clarify. Your ask is for a society where every person is "needed and wanted". In other words, every person's (social) desires/ needs/ wants are to be fulfilled on a consistent basis. Given that Mother Nature is discriminative, this is simply impractical unless every one is forced (ala. communism) to equitably dish out attention/love regardless of the likability/attractiveness of the other person. In response I stated that I'd rather live in a society where every person was self-sufficiently mirthful. By that I meant - where every person is content/ happy/ delighted on their own company. Everyone exhibits a "cheerful enjoyment of life; an exultation of spirit."[1] In such a society, people continue to interact with one another as usual - but such interactions would simply be a bonus-fun. There would be no "needs" and "desires" to be fulfilled by establishing a connection/bond with the other person (interactions happen freely without any demands/bonds/expectations; love becomes obsolete). I finished off that comment by effectively saying that the very first step people need to take, to be on the path to being in such a mirthful society, is to acknowledge the role instinctual passions play in those "needs" and "wants" ... such as, for instance, how the underlying passions of nurture/ fear/ desire (regardless of culture) underpin the various social desires/ anxieties of needing-to-belong/ seeking-approval/ fearing-ostracization/ suffering-loneliness (varies somewhat by culture). Therefore, my comment is about first acknowledging, and then minimizing to the point of finally eradicating those desires than satisfying or changing them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joie_de_vivre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joie_de_vivre
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tony_f 11y ago
What would be the implications of such a society? Just because someone is needed and wanted does not neccesarily mean that they feel fulfilled. These "dumb" technical advances do alleviate the need for people. However, they do so with tasks or jobs that are often repetitive and mindless. Sure, more complex occupations don't ensure fulfillment, but they engage the mind in a way that it's arguably easier to find fulfillment. In this way this technology moves us forward to a society where we purse roles that optimize our sense of fulfillment. But, there are caveats to this as it assumes that everyone can find a form of income with their own set of circumstances. Technology empowers, but who and how we empower is the puzzle we need to solve.
- cousin_it 11y ago
  I think for most people, the need for intellectual fulfillment at work is much less important than the need to be needed.

douche 11y ago

A lot of us that are building the dumb technical advances that lessen the need for people don't particularly like people, in the general case. I suspect we'll continue to do so.

omarchowdhury 11y ago
If you don't like people, then it's really that you don't like yourself, douche. You came out of a people. You depend on people, your existence is not happening in a vacuum.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gammafactor 11y ago
  Amazing piece of logic here, "you came out of people -> you depend on people" and "you must like people" is implied. I hate that I have to depend on people. I find them unreliable at best. Which is why a lot of us are working to improve the primitive societies we currently live in in order to REMOVE that dependency. I'd rather depend on algorithms (and in fact I do, more and more every single day that passes) than anything as primitive as people.
  - omarchowdhury 11y ago
    Liking and disliking are not the only choices. I'm saying to see the world the way it is. Also, would you say your refuge in algorithms is your way of trying to control your reality? Algorithms are straight forward and predictable, unlike people. Thoughts?
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      I have one thought, which is that no one really needs you saving them via insulting HN comments.
      - omarchowdhury 11y ago
        And that I am trying to save anyone is your own extrapolation.
        oldmanjay 11y ago
        okay, fine. then what you are doing is something even less useful, and I should have no one really needs you lecturing them for no reason via insulting HN comments. do you feel better now that your output has been properly characterized?
        omarchowdhury 11y ago
        What exactly was insulting? His name is douche. Also, newsflash: you're lecturing me. Don't fight fire with fire.
    - gammafactor 11y ago
      Don't assume things about me (this is another tendency that "people" have :-) From an early age, I found contemporary "people" uninteresting to extremely dull. I had to force myself to socialize with them in order not to become a premature social pariah. It's a lot easier these days. I'm mostly talking about your average human by the way, not the sum total of humanity. To give you an example, I enjoy Nietzsche's (another social pariah) writing enormously but I find Nietzsche-the-person mostly uninteresting and boring. This is the outlook I have on life. I'd rather spend my time reading all the treasures we have from the past and trying to understand them, than indulge in pointless socializing. I don't see myself as weird or crazy. I think I'm simply way ahead of the curve here. Give it 30-40-60 years, human relationships will have degenerated to a degree that far surpasses mine. When robots can fulfill your every "human" desire (food, sex, companionship) and you are free to do whatever you want with the rest of your time are you going to keep wasting this precious commodity in pursuit of other, "human" relationships or will you finally be able to fully devote yourself to whatever it is that you know, deep down, is your true calling in life? This is of course assuming that your true calling in life is not "other people" or in other words, current social conditioning or consensus reality. This is when that conditioning will fully break down and society will have advanced a step on the evolutionary ladder.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Algorithms are much more primitive than people by definition. You seem to have intended to convey the opposite, a preference for relying on primitives over complicated persons.
    - ams6110 11y ago
      More primitive, in the sense of less complex, yes. But also more reliable. Algorithms do what they do, and never anything else.
    - gammafactor 11y ago
      I'm chinese and was using primitive in an evolutionary sense. Wrong choice of word, I agree with you.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
cousin_it 11y ago
Fair enough, but our work doesn't just impact us...

sridca 11y ago

> We need a society where every person is needed and wanted. I'd rather live in a society where every person was self-sufficiently mirthful, with people-interaction being little more than the cherry on top of sundae. This is what individualism was originally meant to be, but people continue to undermine the power of instinctual passions (acknowledging something is the first step to eradicating it).

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cousin_it 11y ago
Unfortunately, "we will satisfy people's desires by changing their desires" isn't a very attractive pitch.
- sridca 11y ago
  I think you did not understand the full import of my comment. So let me clarify. Your ask is for a society where every person is "needed and wanted". In other words, every person's (social) desires/ needs/ wants are to be fulfilled on a consistent basis. Given that Mother Nature is discriminative, this is simply impractical unless every one is forced (ala. communism) to equitably dish out attention/love regardless of the likability/attractiveness of the other person. In response I stated that I'd rather live in a society where every person was self-sufficiently mirthful. By that I meant - where every person is content/ happy/ delighted on their own company. Everyone exhibits a "cheerful enjoyment of life; an exultation of spirit."[1] In such a society, people continue to interact with one another as usual - but such interactions would simply be a bonus-fun. There would be no "needs" and "desires" to be fulfilled by establishing a connection/bond with the other person (interactions happen freely without any demands/bonds/expectations; love becomes obsolete). I finished off that comment by effectively saying that the very first step people need to take, to be on the path to being in such a mirthful society, is to acknowledge the role instinctual passions play in those "needs" and "wants" ... such as, for instance, how the underlying passions of nurture/ fear/ desire (regardless of culture) underpin the various social desires/ anxieties of needing-to-belong/ seeking-approval/ fearing-ostracization/ suffering-loneliness (varies somewhat by culture). Therefore, my comment is about first acknowledging, and then minimizing to the point of finally eradicating those desires than satisfying or changing them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joie_de_vivre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joie_de_vivre

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tony_f 11y ago

What would be the implications of such a society? Just because someone is needed and wanted does not neccesarily mean that they feel fulfilled. These "dumb" technical advances do alleviate the need for people. However, they do so with tasks or jobs that are often repetitive and mindless. Sure, more complex occupations don't ensure fulfillment, but they engage the mind in a way that it's arguably easier to find fulfillment. In this way this technology moves us forward to a society where we purse roles that optimize our sense of fulfillment. But, there are caveats to this as it assumes that everyone can find a form of income with their own set of circumstances. Technology empowers, but who and how we empower is the puzzle we need to solve.

cousin_it 11y ago
I think for most people, the need for intellectual fulfillment at work is much less important than the need to be needed.