6 ms·

I've said this before and I'll say it again, not because I believe it's the right answer but because it's the answer that makes the most sense to me. Why are w

I've said this before and I'll say it again, not because I believe it's the right answer but because it's the answer that makes the most sense to me. Why are we so dead set on letting the human experience be about working ourselves to death? Fearing that robots will take over a job is definitely scary, but I can't understand why we can't make the mental shift that these robots could bring us into utopia (not ignoring that they could deliver us into chaos either). We live in a world where our value is based on our career. If robots are going to start automating lots of jobs, we need to make a mental shift that the value of a human doesn't come from their career. The shared myth of currency must learn to get its value from other things. Our society has to learn that a person is more valuable than their 9-5 career.

muninn_ 10y ago
The reason is that our governments are giant, corrupt pieces of shit and people in power will not let people live a good life without 'contributing'. When a robot takes my job, I just don't have a job and then fuck me. That's the reality.
- dasil003 10y ago
  It's not just the government that thinks that. This belief is deeply ingrained in a lot of cultures, particularly American culture. The first psychological leap is much larger than the necessary societal changes.
  - ydt 10y ago
    I totally agree. Capitalism should be the means for generating enough wealth for everyone to eventually no longer have to spend their lives toiling away. Unfortunately, it's been perverted (especially in the U.S.) into a religion of sorts. It's treated as a moral framework, an end rather that a means to an end. We no longer pursue capitalism in order to achieve goals, capitalism has become the goal. Wealth is seen as an indicator of righteousness and life success and lack of wealth must be due to personal shortcomings. Nothing sums this up more in the U.S., in my opinion, than the surge in popularity of the prosperity gospel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
marknutter 10y ago
What does the value of a human come from, then?
- aleksei 10y ago
  From their interactions with other people.
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    So introverts are less valuable? This is just substituting one kind of contribution for another. What if someone wants to live in the mountains by themselves, away from people? Google Carthusian monks.
- Frondo 10y ago
  If that could be answered satisfactorily on a message board...we'd have had a very different human history for the last 5,000 years ;) I mean, there's no provable source for the value of a human. Nothing in nature you can point to and say "that's it, that's why a human has value". I say, and my politics reflect this, that all people have intrinsic value. They're born with it, they have it til they die. Because of that, they should have access to food, shelter, medical care. No matter how much work they do or how much stuff they make. Other people say a person is only as valuable as how much they work. (and I respond, screw that, it leads to a lot of suffering!)
  - marknutter 10y ago
    I agree that humans have intrinsic value, but I don't see how providing them with free food, shelter, and medical care follows from that presupposition. Would that not require other humans to provide those things for free? Are their lives not as intrinsically valuable, or are you comfortable with enslaving a portion of the population to ensure these needs are taken care of?
    - Frondo 10y ago
      I don't consider it enslavement, any more than I consider a parent's obligation to feed and clothe their child enslavement. I understand that the libertarian perspective says it is OK to let your offspring starve to death (Thank you, Mises, for clearing that up for us!), but I don't think that system of thinking is a valid or useful way to arrange society. (Neither, it seems, does any society on earth, since no one has ever attempted such a thing.) I think we're all obligated to one another, and slavery is something quite different from that. I also don't like the libertarian attempt at redefining common words to make ordinary things sound baaaaad, like "taxation is theft!!" (it isn't) or "taking care of others is slavery!!" (it isn't). I think that's a cheap rhetorical trick, and doesn't get us any farther in any kind of discussion.
shams93 10y ago
Exactly one reason I think we have seen a drop in productivity is the demand for extreme unpaid overtime, if you work 80-100 hours a week but only get paid for 40 that's doing serious damage to both the workers health and finance. But in the growing technology field 100 hours work for 40 hours pay if often the norm. I've seen the 9-5 devolve into an 18 hours a day for 8 hours pay situation.
Bartweiss 10y ago
This sounds good, but I think people are quite sensible when they refuse to accept it. Broadly, people right now are sustaining themselves via their own efforts - if your boss quits paying you, you can take your work elsewhere. It's a mutually beneficial exchange, so there's no reason to think anyone is going to cancel it unless they get a better alternative. (The situation for capital is a bit more complex, but the argument carries.) The utopian logic of automation suggests that people will be provided benefits without mutually-beneficial exchange - which threatens the outcome where someone else can say "you know, I'd be wealthier if I quit supplying you with food". For someone currently limited to working 28 hours per week so that their employer can avoid giving them health care, this is a terrifying proposition. They're painfully aware that the people most likely to own the robots have a track record of choosing personal wealth over the well-being of employees (or even the companies they own - Sears is not explainable by pointing to ruthlessly efficient capitalism). That person might not be comfortable right now, but they're not living on charity either, and precedent suggests that living on charity is a terrible place to be. Obviously none of this is inevitable; even the existing logic requires support and agreements. Labor and capital can't be exercised freely without someone around preventing slavery, robbery, and appropriation - reliable systems can be built. But right now I think its unfair to suggest that people are valuing themselves by their careers as an emotional matter. The reality is that the emotional reaction to unemployment is largely driven by the practical fear of being rendered optional.
- selimthegrim 10y ago
  Lampert is a well known ideologue/Randroid (regarding Sears)
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    Precisely. You can pitch Sears as "Lampert lined his own pockets with buybacks, then tried to salvage the damage done" or "Lampert was a moron who implemented bad policies". The truth appears to be some combination - he seemed to genuinely think stock buybacks were better than capital investment, and thought his lean-and-mean interbranch competition would produce savings. What you can't do is argue that Sears is the product of actually efficient markets. Lampert selected for brutal, Randian techniques even when they were far less rewarding than taking a decent, eusocial approach. It's like cargo cult capitalism - he saw that sometimes successful businesses harm people, and decided that if he just harmed enough people he'd have a successful business.
gthtjtkt 10y ago
That's a nice thought, and Keynes had the same one almost 80 years ago[1]. Unfortunately, capitalism disagrees. As long as we have capitalism + greed, the owners of the automation will reap the benefits while everyone else struggles to make a living. [1] http://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/432122637/keynes-predicted-we-would-be-working-15-hour-weeks-why-was-he-so-wrong http://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/432122637/keynes-predicted-we-...
- amelius 10y ago
  > the owners of the automation will reap the benefits while everyone else struggles to make a living Those people are reaping these benefits because of decades/centuries of publicly funded science. So they don't have a very strong basis for claiming their surplus wealth.
vinhboy 10y ago
Your comment is music to my ears. I can think of like a million other things I would rather do than work (and I actually really enjoy working). Build the app I always wanted, learn assembly, travel, backpack, garden, volunteer, read etc... Or just freaking sleeping in... jeebus, that would be nice. But from what I hear about "real America". There is a huge value placed on "working with your hands". It's a pride thing. That's at least my stereotypical understanding anyways. I don't really know.
st3v3r 10y ago
Quite frankly, I look at Congress, I look at people like Paul Ryan, and I see a complete inability to look at things like that. I see people who feel that if you are not working, you should be punished. And in seeing that, I see a Congress that would be unwilling to make the shifts needed if the robots take more and more of our jobs. I love the ideal that, if labor is automated, that we would be able to spend that time and energy on things that would better society. Making art, scientific research, all that good stuff. But, before anyone can do any of that, they need their basic needs to be met. They need food, shelter, and clothing. Currently, the only way to get that is to work. If we take away the basic jobs that millions, if not billions of people are doing, and our leaders don't want to invest in the basic income idea, they're not going to be able to meet those basic needs or go on to those higher pursuits.
ancarda 10y ago
Work can provide opportunities that you can't (or can't easily) get outside that. So for example, it's been a dream of mine all my life to move to the USA. Currently I'm trying to find a job there. In a world full of robots doing my job, how can I ever be sponsored for a VISA? I can't self sponsor as I don't really meet any of the criteria for self sponsorship. Perhaps I could marry but I wouldn't do that just for a green card, that's dishonest and I won't do that. Maybe in the UBI utopia, people will be able to move to other countries just by asking. I'm not holding my breath though.
gukov 10y ago
>Why are we so dead set on letting the human experience be about working ourselves to death? Because every living organism is designed to work itself to death and we're no exception.
pbae 10y ago
The problem with robots comes from the fact that you don't own the robot that replaces your job. When I write a script to make a job that took one hour take one minute, I benefit from that. When someone else creates software that does my job for cheaper, I might be out of a job. We don't yet have a mechanism for sharing the wealth gains with people whose labor is obviated by technology.

muninn_ 10y ago

The reason is that our governments are giant, corrupt pieces of shit and people in power will not let people live a good life without 'contributing'. When a robot takes my job, I just don't have a job and then fuck me. That's the reality.

dasil003 10y ago
It's not just the government that thinks that. This belief is deeply ingrained in a lot of cultures, particularly American culture. The first psychological leap is much larger than the necessary societal changes.
- ydt 10y ago
  I totally agree. Capitalism should be the means for generating enough wealth for everyone to eventually no longer have to spend their lives toiling away. Unfortunately, it's been perverted (especially in the U.S.) into a religion of sorts. It's treated as a moral framework, an end rather that a means to an end. We no longer pursue capitalism in order to achieve goals, capitalism has become the goal. Wealth is seen as an indicator of righteousness and life success and lack of wealth must be due to personal shortcomings. Nothing sums this up more in the U.S., in my opinion, than the surge in popularity of the prosperity gospel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

marknutter 10y ago

What does the value of a human come from, then?

aleksei 10y ago
From their interactions with other people.
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  So introverts are less valuable? This is just substituting one kind of contribution for another. What if someone wants to live in the mountains by themselves, away from people? Google Carthusian monks.
Frondo 10y ago
If that could be answered satisfactorily on a message board...we'd have had a very different human history for the last 5,000 years ;) I mean, there's no provable source for the value of a human. Nothing in nature you can point to and say "that's it, that's why a human has value". I say, and my politics reflect this, that all people have intrinsic value. They're born with it, they have it til they die. Because of that, they should have access to food, shelter, medical care. No matter how much work they do or how much stuff they make. Other people say a person is only as valuable as how much they work. (and I respond, screw that, it leads to a lot of suffering!)
- marknutter 10y ago
  I agree that humans have intrinsic value, but I don't see how providing them with free food, shelter, and medical care follows from that presupposition. Would that not require other humans to provide those things for free? Are their lives not as intrinsically valuable, or are you comfortable with enslaving a portion of the population to ensure these needs are taken care of?
  - Frondo 10y ago
    I don't consider it enslavement, any more than I consider a parent's obligation to feed and clothe their child enslavement. I understand that the libertarian perspective says it is OK to let your offspring starve to death (Thank you, Mises, for clearing that up for us!), but I don't think that system of thinking is a valid or useful way to arrange society. (Neither, it seems, does any society on earth, since no one has ever attempted such a thing.) I think we're all obligated to one another, and slavery is something quite different from that. I also don't like the libertarian attempt at redefining common words to make ordinary things sound baaaaad, like "taxation is theft!!" (it isn't) or "taking care of others is slavery!!" (it isn't). I think that's a cheap rhetorical trick, and doesn't get us any farther in any kind of discussion.

shams93 10y ago

Exactly one reason I think we have seen a drop in productivity is the demand for extreme unpaid overtime, if you work 80-100 hours a week but only get paid for 40 that's doing serious damage to both the workers health and finance. But in the growing technology field 100 hours work for 40 hours pay if often the norm. I've seen the 9-5 devolve into an 18 hours a day for 8 hours pay situation.

Bartweiss 10y ago

This sounds good, but I think people are quite sensible when they refuse to accept it. Broadly, people right now are sustaining themselves via their own efforts - if your boss quits paying you, you can take your work elsewhere. It's a mutually beneficial exchange, so there's no reason to think anyone is going to cancel it unless they get a better alternative. (The situation for capital is a bit more complex, but the argument carries.) The utopian logic of automation suggests that people will be provided benefits without mutually-beneficial exchange - which threatens the outcome where someone else can say "you know, I'd be wealthier if I quit supplying you with food". For someone currently limited to working 28 hours per week so that their employer can avoid giving them health care, this is a terrifying proposition. They're painfully aware that the people most likely to own the robots have a track record of choosing personal wealth over the well-being of employees (or even the companies they own - Sears is not explainable by pointing to ruthlessly efficient capitalism). That person might not be comfortable right now, but they're not living on charity either, and precedent suggests that living on charity is a terrible place to be. Obviously none of this is inevitable; even the existing logic requires support and agreements. Labor and capital can't be exercised freely without someone around preventing slavery, robbery, and appropriation - reliable systems can be built. But right now I think its unfair to suggest that people are valuing themselves by their careers as an emotional matter. The reality is that the emotional reaction to unemployment is largely driven by the practical fear of being rendered optional.

selimthegrim 10y ago
Lampert is a well known ideologue/Randroid (regarding Sears)
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Precisely. You can pitch Sears as "Lampert lined his own pockets with buybacks, then tried to salvage the damage done" or "Lampert was a moron who implemented bad policies". The truth appears to be some combination - he seemed to genuinely think stock buybacks were better than capital investment, and thought his lean-and-mean interbranch competition would produce savings. What you can't do is argue that Sears is the product of actually efficient markets. Lampert selected for brutal, Randian techniques even when they were far less rewarding than taking a decent, eusocial approach. It's like cargo cult capitalism - he saw that sometimes successful businesses harm people, and decided that if he just harmed enough people he'd have a successful business.

gthtjtkt 10y ago

That's a nice thought, and Keynes had the same one almost 80 years ago[1]. Unfortunately, capitalism disagrees. As long as we have capitalism + greed, the owners of the automation will reap the benefits while everyone else struggles to make a living. [1] http://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/432122637/keynes-predicted-we-would-be-working-15-hour-weeks-why-was-he-so-wrong http://www.npr.org/2015/08/13/432122637/keynes-predicted-we-...

amelius 10y ago
> the owners of the automation will reap the benefits while everyone else struggles to make a living Those people are reaping these benefits because of decades/centuries of publicly funded science. So they don't have a very strong basis for claiming their surplus wealth.

vinhboy 10y ago

Your comment is music to my ears. I can think of like a million other things I would rather do than work (and I actually really enjoy working). Build the app I always wanted, learn assembly, travel, backpack, garden, volunteer, read etc... Or just freaking sleeping in... jeebus, that would be nice. But from what I hear about "real America". There is a huge value placed on "working with your hands". It's a pride thing. That's at least my stereotypical understanding anyways. I don't really know.

st3v3r 10y ago

Quite frankly, I look at Congress, I look at people like Paul Ryan, and I see a complete inability to look at things like that. I see people who feel that if you are not working, you should be punished. And in seeing that, I see a Congress that would be unwilling to make the shifts needed if the robots take more and more of our jobs. I love the ideal that, if labor is automated, that we would be able to spend that time and energy on things that would better society. Making art, scientific research, all that good stuff. But, before anyone can do any of that, they need their basic needs to be met. They need food, shelter, and clothing. Currently, the only way to get that is to work. If we take away the basic jobs that millions, if not billions of people are doing, and our leaders don't want to invest in the basic income idea, they're not going to be able to meet those basic needs or go on to those higher pursuits.

ancarda 10y ago

Work can provide opportunities that you can't (or can't easily) get outside that. So for example, it's been a dream of mine all my life to move to the USA. Currently I'm trying to find a job there. In a world full of robots doing my job, how can I ever be sponsored for a VISA? I can't self sponsor as I don't really meet any of the criteria for self sponsorship. Perhaps I could marry but I wouldn't do that just for a green card, that's dishonest and I won't do that. Maybe in the UBI utopia, people will be able to move to other countries just by asking. I'm not holding my breath though.

gukov 10y ago

>Why are we so dead set on letting the human experience be about working ourselves to death? Because every living organism is designed to work itself to death and we're no exception.

pbae 10y ago

The problem with robots comes from the fact that you don't own the robot that replaces your job. When I write a script to make a job that took one hour take one minute, I benefit from that. When someone else creates software that does my job for cheaper, I might be out of a job. We don't yet have a mechanism for sharing the wealth gains with people whose labor is obviated by technology.