4 ms·

Not working at all is the inevitable (awesome) future of humanity.

by csantini 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago
I wouldn't bet on that.
- csantini 11y ago
  Me neather, short term. But in the long run Capitalism will not want humans, we're too expensive. It also really makes no sense to work, I think this will become increasingly more evident. Note: Marx wouldn't agree with me. He would say that the rich will still have the means of production (automation), so the poor will still do stupid jobs to get paid that little to afford the products made by automation. It's basically like it now, but I hope this will change. There is no startup that can fix this. We need to collectively own the automation to not work.
  - alextgordon 11y ago
    You're describing a depression, though. High unemployment -> less demand -> fewer jobs -> repeat.
  - 31reasons 11y ago
    Internet provides you access to unlimited amount of information that basically allows people to create their own automation solutions. Why do you have to depend on rich to provide it ? The whole idea of Rich and Poor is based on Scarcity of goods. When we enter the era of full automation, we will be able to convert Energy into any form of product without human intervention. Energy + AI = Products.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      > The whole idea of Rich and Poor is based on Scarcity of goods. No, actually, it's based on ownership of the means of production.
      - 31reasons 11y ago
        True only in the absence of strong AI.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - zo1 11y ago
        No, actually, he was just talking about the concept of "rich and poor", nothing at all to do with Marx's theories about owning the means of production. The concept of rich and poor relies on the fact that the poor can afford less goods than the rich because of scarcity. I.e. in that simplistic scenario, if there was no scarcity, the concept of "poor" wouldn't exist because they'd have access to as much resources at the rich. Though we are heading into a utopian-level discussion at that point.
        31reasons 11y ago
        Thank you.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    Marx would probably have agreed with you, but see it as the reason for why a revolution is inevitable, and at the same time the criteria for what would make the success of a socialist revolution possible. From The German Ideology, part I, section A (Marx, 1845): "This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,” and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism." Basically his assumption was that it will never be possible or politically tenable under capitalism to change the system to channel enough capital back to the general population (e.g. lets say via taxes to fund basic income to a level equivalent to lost incomes) to allow people to continue to consume enough to allow manufacturers to continue to grow, and that the result would be ever greater cycles of economic crashes until the contradiction of capacity to create wealth coupled with unemployment and/or underpayment gets great enough to cause people to rise up against it.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Capitalism will not want humans, we're too expensive. I'm worried that, on current history, this is more likely to be ""solved"" by genocide than leisure.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  We could have the Star Trek future. We're probably going to get the Judge Dredd one.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Let's not lose hope before we've even started. Star Trek future needs to be made.
andrewbalitsky 11y ago
I would dispute the awesomeness of no work at all. We're not well equipped for total leisure. To paraphrase Tal Ben-Shahar, "we're built for the climb, not the summit" ( check the book "Flow" or google "Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi" for a scientific explanation as to exactly why )
- eCa 11y ago
  But climbs you don't get payed for can be just as (or more) rewarding/challenging.
  - andrewbalitsky 11y ago
    Of course. So I would hope that the future holds this different sort of work. Not 'no work' at all.
- rmc 11y ago
  If work was so great, the rich would keep it for themselves.

Not working at all is the inevitable (awesome) future of humanity.

jacquesm 11y ago

I wouldn't bet on that.

csantini 11y ago
Me neather, short term. But in the long run Capitalism will not want humans, we're too expensive. It also really makes no sense to work, I think this will become increasingly more evident. Note: Marx wouldn't agree with me. He would say that the rich will still have the means of production (automation), so the poor will still do stupid jobs to get paid that little to afford the products made by automation. It's basically like it now, but I hope this will change. There is no startup that can fix this. We need to collectively own the automation to not work.
- alextgordon 11y ago
  You're describing a depression, though. High unemployment -> less demand -> fewer jobs -> repeat.
- 31reasons 11y ago
  Internet provides you access to unlimited amount of information that basically allows people to create their own automation solutions. Why do you have to depend on rich to provide it ? The whole idea of Rich and Poor is based on Scarcity of goods. When we enter the era of full automation, we will be able to convert Energy into any form of product without human intervention. Energy + AI = Products.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    > The whole idea of Rich and Poor is based on Scarcity of goods. No, actually, it's based on ownership of the means of production.
    - 31reasons 11y ago
      True only in the absence of strong AI.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - zo1 11y ago
      No, actually, he was just talking about the concept of "rich and poor", nothing at all to do with Marx's theories about owning the means of production. The concept of rich and poor relies on the fact that the poor can afford less goods than the rich because of scarcity. I.e. in that simplistic scenario, if there was no scarcity, the concept of "poor" wouldn't exist because they'd have access to as much resources at the rich. Though we are heading into a utopian-level discussion at that point.
      - 31reasons 11y ago
        Thank you.
- vidarh 11y ago
  Marx would probably have agreed with you, but see it as the reason for why a revolution is inevitable, and at the same time the criteria for what would make the success of a socialist revolution possible. From The German Ideology, part I, section A (Marx, 1845): "This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,” and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism." Basically his assumption was that it will never be possible or politically tenable under capitalism to change the system to channel enough capital back to the general population (e.g. lets say via taxes to fund basic income to a level equivalent to lost incomes) to allow people to continue to consume enough to allow manufacturers to continue to grow, and that the result would be ever greater cycles of economic crashes until the contradiction of capacity to create wealth coupled with unemployment and/or underpayment gets great enough to cause people to rise up against it.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Capitalism will not want humans, we're too expensive. I'm worried that, on current history, this is more likely to be ""solved"" by genocide than leisure.
rodgerd 11y ago
We could have the Star Trek future. We're probably going to get the Judge Dredd one.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Let's not lose hope before we've even started. Star Trek future needs to be made.

andrewbalitsky 11y ago

I would dispute the awesomeness of no work at all. We're not well equipped for total leisure. To paraphrase Tal Ben-Shahar, "we're built for the climb, not the summit" ( check the book "Flow" or google "Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi" for a scientific explanation as to exactly why )

eCa 11y ago
But climbs you don't get payed for can be just as (or more) rewarding/challenging.
- andrewbalitsky 11y ago
  Of course. So I would hope that the future holds this different sort of work. Not 'no work' at all.
rmc 11y ago
If work was so great, the rich would keep it for themselves.