14 ms·
Not in the least. A future where the baseline minimum isn't homelessness and suffering in the street simply has not been done before. Remove the need to strug
by csydas 4y ago
Not in the least.
A future where the baseline minimum isn't homelessness and suffering in the street simply has not been done before.
Remove the need to struggle for a basic comfortable life, a new world has a chance to thrive.
The past has the burden of dealing with the fact that the difference between a day-labourer and a wealthy elite is the former has to struggle to meet basic survival and participation in society is eliminated the the basic day-to-day is already met.
Human nature will adjust, just like it did to the industrial revolution, to the digital revolution, and so on. Hundreds of thousands of data entry specialists were replaced by digital automation; even more land-laborers were replaced by farm automation.
The difference with the future I want is that there is a guarantee of a good and basic living, whereas the past had no ability to guarantee this.
Human nature doesn't enter into it; when anyone can travel anywhere, can replicate the same food or goods the wealthy elite currently enjoy exclusively, there is no practical separation between them. It becomes a non-issue; just like some years ago emoji were a status symbol (remember, you used to need to _pay_ for stupid emojis), they're a standard now.
The world can be better, we see this everywhere even today with municipal and community efforts, with OSS, and so on. It's already here in many spheres, it's just a matter of accepting that there's no harm in a percentage of society taking advantage of such a system.
The points you make have no relevance in a world where you don't need oil workers, arctic fisherman, day laborers, and so on.
- philwelch 4y ago> Remove the need to struggle for a basic comfortable life Literally anyone who was alive during the 19th century would say that we’ve done this already. > The points you make have no relevance in a world where you don't need oil workers, arctic fisherman, day laborers, and so on. My point was that the oil workers and arctic fishermen are already richer than many of the Ivy Leaguers, yet occupy a lower social status because our elite status games are decoupled from material wealth. Making material wealth even less relevant to daily life will only intensify these trends. > Human nature doesn't enter into it; when anyone can travel anywhere, can replicate the same food or goods the wealthy elite currently enjoy exclusively, there is no practical separation between them. No, it just means those luxuries will cease to function as markers of status. It doesn’t mean markers of status will go away. Most markers of elite status have little to do with money because money is already too easy to get.
- rnoises 4y agoYeah, agree, for a lot of people, social status will be always the primary driver. But if ever achieve a society where everybody has all necessities taken care of without needing to work for them, and people (the ones who choose to) only struggle for social status, that, for all practical purposes, is utopia.
- philwelch 4y agoMaybe, but it wouldn’t eliminate class difference one bit.