3 ms·
Yep. Think of it this way: in order to have a functioning consumption economy in any sense, people have to have an economic vote. It becomes their 'job' to sele
by Applejinx 9y ago
Yep. Think of it this way: in order to have a functioning consumption economy in any sense, people have to have an economic vote. It becomes their 'job' to select which things thrive within the market-based system.
This has its own problems, but the ideology isn't really as dependent upon each person serving a necessary role inside the 'production of goods' system as you think. It's as if power was generated only by exercise bicycles hooked to dynamos, and then solar was invented. Or if transportation was powered only by humans and animals such as horses, and then the internal combustion engine was invented. We literally don't even have as many horses living in the world as we used to: no need for 'em. And those that do live, live under generally better conditions, because their labor is worthless and they're valued for other reasons (and in smaller numbers).
The future might look more like that. Steady attrition of humans, and improved conditions… but as pets and exotic animals, not as beasts of labor.
- Applejinx 9y agoAdded thought: the downside of this is obvious. In that robot future, why would we have to give a crap what HUMANS thought of goods and services? Things might evolve to suit what the robots and AIs like, in which case human input is about as useful as asking horses about highways. "This sucks, it makes my hooves hurt!" um, it's kinda not meant for you, Dobbin…