3 ms·

My god it’s so true. I’m a robotics engineer and I’m an advocate of what I call “reduce the human cost of living to zero” through automation and democratic arra

My god it’s so true. I’m a robotics engineer and I’m an advocate of what I call “reduce the human cost of living to zero” through automation and democratic arrangements. The idea being that we can make it cost very little for society to support non-working people, such that work is not compulsory for survival. It’s similar to a basic income but it’s universal basic services where we try to get the marginal cost to zero (we can IMO make it cheaper than a basic income). I get so many people telling me “but people would be miserable, they need work to be happy and have purpose.” UGH YES I agree, but I never said I would ban employment! I just want people to be able to take a year off now and then, or work half time, or volunteer or do non-capitalist work and be fine. People seem to think that if we weren’t desperate for employment we’d just sit around bored all the time. That’s not what wealthy people do! Human beings are far too creative to just sit around and do nothing. Eliminating compulsory work is about increasing freedom. We’re smart enough to find something good to do with that freedom.

hutzlibu 7y ago
Well, but sadly it is true for people who have been in chains for years, that they don't know what to do anymore(except drinking and watching TV), when suddenly there is no one around anymore to tell them what to do. Lots of people quickly degrade after retirement. You can also see that effect already in schools. Currently there is school vacation and you see lots of groups of bored teenagers hanging around. There is something very wrong with a "free society", when most of its people don't know what to do with their free time except to kill it. (The very concept of timekilling is disturbing as well) But yes. I am 100% behind the idea of robotic basic income! People can learn again, that there is more to live than mindless huzzling and consuming.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  Agreed. I’ve found that most people don’t spend time thinking about the ideal society. So when you talk about an ideal society and you describe one aspect of it, they imagine you’re talking about a society where everything is the same except that one aspect. They have a very hard time imagining what the world would be like if many things were different.
- teddyh 7y ago
  > they don't know what to do anymore It might take a generation for people to adjust, like Clay Shirky describes at the start of his talk “Gin, Television, and Social Surplus” from 2008: I was recently reminded of some reading I did in college, way back in the last century, by a British historian arguing that the critical technology, for the early phase of the industrial revolution, was gin. The transformation from rural to urban life was so sudden, and so wrenching, that the only thing society could do to manage was to drink itself into a stupor for a generation. The stories from that era are amazing—there were gin pushcarts working their way through the streets of London. And it wasn't until society woke up from that collective bender that we actually started to get the institutional structures that we associate with the industrial revolution today. Things like public libraries and museums, increasingly broad education for children, elected leaders—a lot of things we like—didn't happen until having all of those people together stopped seeming like a crisis and started seeming like an asset. It wasn't until people started thinking of this as a vast civic surplus, one they could design for rather than just dissipate, that we started to get what we think of now as an industrial society.
  - vidarh 7y ago
    But it also wasn't a civic surplus until people actually got the money and time to make use of it. The fight for the 8 hour working day took more than half a century and had a price steeped in blood. Getting wages above survival level likewise.
briandear 7y ago
> we can make it cost very little for society to support non-working people, such that work is not compulsory for survival. If we are supporting people that legitimately can’t work, sure. But supporting people that can work, but don’t — that’s where I have a problem because my willingness to work, even in jobs I might not like gets punished through taxes. Why do I have a personal responsibility to support others that are unwilling to support themselves. We are talking about grown adults, if they have nothing to contribute to society, why would we subsidize that? Some layabout watching Judge Judy all day gets a free pass while the guy working on a hot roof all day is supposed to pay for that? Who is going to be a janitor if they don’t have to? Producing something of value to society is part of being a part of a society. People have a responsibility to take care of themselves. They might need some temporary help now and then, but making dependency a permanent state is a great way to ensure that government has ultimate control of your life.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  But we already have existing data that says that people who are given free money don't just become unemployed, and the only people who do take the free money to be unemployed are parents and teenagers who are trying to parent and study respectively. I think personally that sounds amazing. If someone wants to watch Judge Judy all day, every day, for months chances are they have a mental illness and need to be treated the same way as someone whose back is thrown out needs to be treated. People will take jobs for the similar reasons we take jobs now- we want money, and take higher paying jobs to afford nicer things. In a world where bases are covered, luxuries will definitely be a better carrot than the stick of homelessness.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  I won’t force you to support them. I WANT to support others because I feel good doing so. At normal jobs I’m just helping some billionaire get richer (my last job I worked indirectly for a billionaire). I would way rather work day in and day out to support regular people like me. And since you brought it up, I find your attitude disturbing. “Why should I have to help other people” is kind of a gross question. You don’t want to help other people? Doesn’t that make you selfish? Again I’m not saying I will force you to help, but why are you against the idea of helping others anyway? I see that you mention government. I didn’t mention government. I said society could provide for everyone. We can do that without the government.
petre 7y ago
Somebody would have to build and fix those robots. I'm not worried. Plus I don't expect robots to create meaningful art and literature. Compulsory work can be boring, or stressful or dangerous. Like what those kids in Bangladesh are doing, dissasembling ships. I'd much rather the dissasembly was done by spider metal cutting robots.

hutzlibu 7y ago

Well, but sadly it is true for people who have been in chains for years, that they don't know what to do anymore(except drinking and watching TV), when suddenly there is no one around anymore to tell them what to do. Lots of people quickly degrade after retirement. You can also see that effect already in schools. Currently there is school vacation and you see lots of groups of bored teenagers hanging around. There is something very wrong with a "free society", when most of its people don't know what to do with their free time except to kill it. (The very concept of timekilling is disturbing as well) But yes. I am 100% behind the idea of robotic basic income! People can learn again, that there is more to live than mindless huzzling and consuming.

TaylorAlexander 7y ago
Agreed. I’ve found that most people don’t spend time thinking about the ideal society. So when you talk about an ideal society and you describe one aspect of it, they imagine you’re talking about a society where everything is the same except that one aspect. They have a very hard time imagining what the world would be like if many things were different.
teddyh 7y ago
> they don't know what to do anymore It might take a generation for people to adjust, like Clay Shirky describes at the start of his talk “Gin, Television, and Social Surplus” from 2008: I was recently reminded of some reading I did in college, way back in the last century, by a British historian arguing that the critical technology, for the early phase of the industrial revolution, was gin. The transformation from rural to urban life was so sudden, and so wrenching, that the only thing society could do to manage was to drink itself into a stupor for a generation. The stories from that era are amazing—there were gin pushcarts working their way through the streets of London. And it wasn't until society woke up from that collective bender that we actually started to get the institutional structures that we associate with the industrial revolution today. Things like public libraries and museums, increasingly broad education for children, elected leaders—a lot of things we like—didn't happen until having all of those people together stopped seeming like a crisis and started seeming like an asset. It wasn't until people started thinking of this as a vast civic surplus, one they could design for rather than just dissipate, that we started to get what we think of now as an industrial society.
- vidarh 7y ago
  But it also wasn't a civic surplus until people actually got the money and time to make use of it. The fight for the 8 hour working day took more than half a century and had a price steeped in blood. Getting wages above survival level likewise.

briandear 7y ago

> we can make it cost very little for society to support non-working people, such that work is not compulsory for survival. If we are supporting people that legitimately can’t work, sure. But supporting people that can work, but don’t — that’s where I have a problem because my willingness to work, even in jobs I might not like gets punished through taxes. Why do I have a personal responsibility to support others that are unwilling to support themselves. We are talking about grown adults, if they have nothing to contribute to society, why would we subsidize that? Some layabout watching Judge Judy all day gets a free pass while the guy working on a hot roof all day is supposed to pay for that? Who is going to be a janitor if they don’t have to? Producing something of value to society is part of being a part of a society. People have a responsibility to take care of themselves. They might need some temporary help now and then, but making dependency a permanent state is a great way to ensure that government has ultimate control of your life.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
But we already have existing data that says that people who are given free money don't just become unemployed, and the only people who do take the free money to be unemployed are parents and teenagers who are trying to parent and study respectively. I think personally that sounds amazing. If someone wants to watch Judge Judy all day, every day, for months chances are they have a mental illness and need to be treated the same way as someone whose back is thrown out needs to be treated. People will take jobs for the similar reasons we take jobs now- we want money, and take higher paying jobs to afford nicer things. In a world where bases are covered, luxuries will definitely be a better carrot than the stick of homelessness.
TaylorAlexander 7y ago
I won’t force you to support them. I WANT to support others because I feel good doing so. At normal jobs I’m just helping some billionaire get richer (my last job I worked indirectly for a billionaire). I would way rather work day in and day out to support regular people like me. And since you brought it up, I find your attitude disturbing. “Why should I have to help other people” is kind of a gross question. You don’t want to help other people? Doesn’t that make you selfish? Again I’m not saying I will force you to help, but why are you against the idea of helping others anyway? I see that you mention government. I didn’t mention government. I said society could provide for everyone. We can do that without the government.

petre 7y ago

Somebody would have to build and fix those robots. I'm not worried. Plus I don't expect robots to create meaningful art and literature. Compulsory work can be boring, or stressful or dangerous. Like what those kids in Bangladesh are doing, dissasembling ships. I'd much rather the dissasembly was done by spider metal cutting robots.