4 ms·

2/3 of all jobs are widely accepted to add no value to society[1] 2/3 of all consumption is accepted to add no incremental happiness[2] 2/3 of all CO2 emissio

2/3 of all jobs are widely accepted to add no value to society[1] 2/3 of all consumption is accepted to add no incremental happiness[2] 2/3 of all CO2 emissions can be eliminated through careful lifestyle management and community design.[3] These quantities do not seem coincidental and they point to a better way of doing things. You're not wrong, there's no incentive currently to 'pay us back'. But collectively we are working three times as much as necessary so we can afford things that don't make us happy, and there is no way to sustain that state of affairs beyond the next hundred years or so. Scamming or strong-arming the ruling class into paying most of us for work that doesn't add value may be in our best interest in the short term, but for the long term we need to start acknowledging that it's not in anyone's interest that this state of affairs continue. [1]Bullshit Jobs, the book [2]the Financial-independence-retire-early (FIRE) community [3]studies I came across in my degree on sustainable energy engineering

literallyWTF 5y ago
Leave it to HN to argue that getting rid of jobs will reduce the carbon footprint of corporations. I mean you’re not wrong, once we purge a large chunk of the population, since ya know, they’ll have no way to provide for themselves, we will have a much greener planet.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  Are you for paying people to do work that doesn't add value and consuming crap that doesn't make us happy? Because I said nothing about 'purging' or any solutions at all for that matter. I just pointed out that these three problems are in an important way just one problem. I'd actually seriously like to know, do you want people to have to do work that doesn't add value?
  - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
    I think what he's saying is that we will probably never build safety nets strong enough to provide for those who had their jobs automated away. They will be condemned to a miserable life of poverty, provided with just enough to keep them from rioting on the streets. Source: I used to be on SSI disability. This is income for those that are so disabled they are never expected to be capable of working. The average SSI payment is something like $585 / mo. Well below the poverty line and any dignified existence. If this is how we treat our most vulnerable, how will we treat those who have simply been automated out of a job?
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      That may or may not be true, depending on any number of factors. But that the current state of affairs is neither desirable nor possible as a long-term steady state seems to me self-evident. And yet to my great surprise, this has turned out to be one of the most controversial things I've ever said on HN.
- slaymaker1907 5y ago
  That is a pretty bad faith interpretation of the original argument. You are assuming (incorrectly IMO) that the only purpose of people is to do work. While work is important, I think humans are inherently valuable, even if they don't produce anything else of value besides themselves. Instead of creating fake work for these people to do, I'd rather they just be provided for without doing fake work that accelerates us towards apocalypse.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

literallyWTF 5y ago

Leave it to HN to argue that getting rid of jobs will reduce the carbon footprint of corporations. I mean you’re not wrong, once we purge a large chunk of the population, since ya know, they’ll have no way to provide for themselves, we will have a much greener planet.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
Are you for paying people to do work that doesn't add value and consuming crap that doesn't make us happy? Because I said nothing about 'purging' or any solutions at all for that matter. I just pointed out that these three problems are in an important way just one problem. I'd actually seriously like to know, do you want people to have to do work that doesn't add value?
- wing-_-nuts 5y ago
  I think what he's saying is that we will probably never build safety nets strong enough to provide for those who had their jobs automated away. They will be condemned to a miserable life of poverty, provided with just enough to keep them from rioting on the streets. Source: I used to be on SSI disability. This is income for those that are so disabled they are never expected to be capable of working. The average SSI payment is something like $585 / mo. Well below the poverty line and any dignified existence. If this is how we treat our most vulnerable, how will we treat those who have simply been automated out of a job?
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    That may or may not be true, depending on any number of factors. But that the current state of affairs is neither desirable nor possible as a long-term steady state seems to me self-evident. And yet to my great surprise, this has turned out to be one of the most controversial things I've ever said on HN.
slaymaker1907 5y ago
That is a pretty bad faith interpretation of the original argument. You are assuming (incorrectly IMO) that the only purpose of people is to do work. While work is important, I think humans are inherently valuable, even if they don't produce anything else of value besides themselves. Instead of creating fake work for these people to do, I'd rather they just be provided for without doing fake work that accelerates us towards apocalypse.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]