4 ms·

There just aren't the 'creative intellectual' jobs, though. Universities can churn out scientists, journalists, artists, designers, programmers and so on. But i

There just aren't the 'creative intellectual' jobs, though. Universities can churn out scientists, journalists, artists, designers, programmers and so on. But if we're all creating, who is consuming? We already have a surplus of people with creative industries degrees (especially media-related, TV, film and so on) who work in call centres, checkouts and other unrelated jobs because the demand isn't there for their skills. We don't need thousands of new radio producers every year, but we have them coming off the end of the university conveyor belt. I don't know what the answer is, but I see a quite scary future if these jobs which have provided a low, but livable, income for millions are eliminated. We can't all be at the top of the tree.

moocow01 15y ago
Good points... I think its a social problem that we in the US have been failing at especially during the last few decades. Right now we have this dynamic in society where the all the spoils go to the 'winners' even though everyone is contributing in some form (usually by means of competition). This ends up encouraging somewhat of a macro-trend where everyone works very very hard to beat off others to get a piece of the pie but most inevitably end up failing to get wealthy and live 'luxuriously'. As a result of this feast or famine attitude, people end up getting over devoted to work and labor while ignoring many other very important aspects of life (in the sense of actually living)... culture, child-rearing, fun, relaxation, etc. (- note that these are the descriptors of 'luxury') I think as a society we shouldn't be looking at automation as "Oh my god that machine is going to eat those people's jobs" - we should be looking at it as "Wow, we collectively don't have to do that crap anymore" Similarly to how somebody looks at a Roomba and says goodbye to pushing a vacuum around for an hour. But what fucks this all up - the distribution of money. Because the way distribution of money works in America, we look at it as those cashiers are now going to starve and die. MBA thinking has morphed us into thinking life is about production and consumption (full stop). Its not (full stop). The majority of the population is relatively starved of the 'other things' in life and we should be reevaluating how automation can help us all focus on the things that make real life a better experience. Unfortunately were too busy all miserably hoarding money from each other like a bunch of dumb apes. So back to your question about excess creative production - we shouldn't care about who consumes it in an idealistic scenario. If people genuinely enjoy the creative process, they should be doing it because they enjoy it and hopefully that can be more afforded by automation.
- axefrog 15y ago
  The flow of money is a very important point I think, and I think the global elite who are somewhat dependent on the existing world economic structure are going to ultimately see it forcibly evolved into something new over time. If nearly everything "dumb" can be automated in the future, there will simply not be the practical requirement for everyone to have a job and that leaves the existing structure as a relic of an obsolete past. Society will have to come up with new ways to think about the majority of its citizen's roles within itself.

moocow01 15y ago

Good points... I think its a social problem that we in the US have been failing at especially during the last few decades. Right now we have this dynamic in society where the all the spoils go to the 'winners' even though everyone is contributing in some form (usually by means of competition). This ends up encouraging somewhat of a macro-trend where everyone works very very hard to beat off others to get a piece of the pie but most inevitably end up failing to get wealthy and live 'luxuriously'. As a result of this feast or famine attitude, people end up getting over devoted to work and labor while ignoring many other very important aspects of life (in the sense of actually living)... culture, child-rearing, fun, relaxation, etc. (- note that these are the descriptors of 'luxury') I think as a society we shouldn't be looking at automation as "Oh my god that machine is going to eat those people's jobs" - we should be looking at it as "Wow, we collectively don't have to do that crap anymore" Similarly to how somebody looks at a Roomba and says goodbye to pushing a vacuum around for an hour. But what fucks this all up - the distribution of money. Because the way distribution of money works in America, we look at it as those cashiers are now going to starve and die. MBA thinking has morphed us into thinking life is about production and consumption (full stop). Its not (full stop). The majority of the population is relatively starved of the 'other things' in life and we should be reevaluating how automation can help us all focus on the things that make real life a better experience. Unfortunately were too busy all miserably hoarding money from each other like a bunch of dumb apes. So back to your question about excess creative production - we shouldn't care about who consumes it in an idealistic scenario. If people genuinely enjoy the creative process, they should be doing it because they enjoy it and hopefully that can be more afforded by automation.

axefrog 15y ago
The flow of money is a very important point I think, and I think the global elite who are somewhat dependent on the existing world economic structure are going to ultimately see it forcibly evolved into something new over time. If nearly everything "dumb" can be automated in the future, there will simply not be the practical requirement for everyone to have a job and that leaves the existing structure as a relic of an obsolete past. Society will have to come up with new ways to think about the majority of its citizen's roles within itself.