> people having more and more leisure time is a bad thing? What could possibly make you think this is the end result? In the past 50 years, productivity acros

> people having more and more leisure time is a bad thing? What could possibly make you think this is the end result? In the past 50 years, productivity across the whole economy has went up over an order of magnitude. People in the 70s were working 40 hours a week - are you now working 4 hours? We don't have precedent for this, is my point. The solution to lost work is make people work something else. My point is what happens when there is no something else for those people to work? Will we have leisure? Who will pay for uncapable people to have leisure? This sounds like UBI. > all work being done by technology and all people having all of their time to spend on fun activities Maybe in the end, but what happens before that? Like, say, 25% of people are "smart" enough to still work a job, what happens to the 75%? Or even 90% of people work but 10% can't, do we just like... kill those 10% or? We haven't really figured this out.