4 ms·

"Being needed" is a poor choice of source of existential happiness and contentment though. Sure, it's an easy and accessible one for the masses with some mental

by simonra 1mo ago

"Being needed" is a poor choice of source of existential happiness and contentment though. Sure, it's an easy and accessible one for the masses with some mental gymnastics around how you view your income generating activities (or by having kids). But it's still dependent on others, as you need them being at hand to impact. See all the needless depression arising from kids moving out, or when people retire and complain about not being needed instead of finding new activities to explore or grow in. As for the fear of human labour not being needed at scale due to me as most others needing an income, I'm optimistic there for two reasons. First, large unfed masses tend to start revolutions, something both governments and the not-working are interested in avoiding. Second, large amounts of young idle people has tended to result in stupid destructive behaviour at scale. So I'm confident there will be created opportunities for paid work for mostly everyone, and the conditions won't be too poor as there would be no profit motive to push people too far. Rather, the people having both the resources, time, and energy to consume, would still be what props up the system (until we can agree on trying something better now that we have excellent tools for guaranteeing transparency and optimising allocation at scale in real time).

bluefirebrand 1mo ago
> "Being needed" is a poor choice of source of existential happiness and contentment though This has nothing to do with existential happiness or contentment It is about existential fear that if I am no longer needed then there's nothing useful I can provide to earn an income. At best I wind up living a destitute existence or homeless, at worst I wind up being executed by murderbots owned by rich people to reduce the risk that I might take action against them > As for the fear of human labour not being needed at scale due to me as most others needing an income, I'm optimistic there for two reasons. First, large unfed masses tend to start revolutions, something both governments and the not-working are interested in avoiding. In the past governments and rich people still needed working people's labor to keep their lifestyles. In a fully automated world that's no longer the case. I am very confident that if the ruling class of society could slaughter all of us and still maintain their lifestyles forever they would in a heartbeat. Foolishly, we are delivering that possibility to them in the form of automation.
- scotty79 1mo ago
  I'm not sure if this brings you hope, but let me try ... What the rich want is not to be content. They want to get richer. And it's terribly hard to extract money from other rich people, because they want to get richer, not poorer too. The easiest way to get richer (and pretty much only feasible way) is to take away the money from the poor. And the best way to do that is to take those suckers' money by giving them products and services that are worth a little bit less than the money you take from them. But if the poor have no money the whole system that served the rich so well breaks. Some of them already see that. There are millionaires advocating higher taxation of millionaires. Because they see what's up. Spontaneously the money flows only one way, from the poor to the rich. And there is less and less money to extract, that could make you wealthier than your peers. But if you tax all rich equally, which is a fair game as it doesn't disadvantage you. And then transfer that money back to the poor, it's a new pool you can compete for with other rich and get wealthier than them if you succeed. Have you seen in the game of the monopoly when the one person gets winning hard, it's natural instinct to borrow money to other players, without collateral, against the rules of the game or even gifting it? Because for the rich the pleasure is in taking not in having. You are sure it all ends up in your pocket anyways, because you see yourself as the best at the game. This flow of money is in play for decades and you can plainly see its effects in economic charts. It can't stay like that regardless of how much more automation we'll have. The strong will need to create a mechanism for funneling resources back to consumers, before they run dry. Employment barely works for that purpose. Without customers there's no business, and without business, getting richer is very, very hard. You might think of yourself as a worker and believe that's your utility. But in reality your utility lies in the fact that you are first and foremost a consumer. And your ability to consume is a vital interest of the rich, even if not all of them realize that yet.

by simonra 1mo ago

bluefirebrand 1mo ago

> "Being needed" is a poor choice of source of existential happiness and contentment though This has nothing to do with existential happiness or contentment It is about existential fear that if I am no longer needed then there's nothing useful I can provide to earn an income. At best I wind up living a destitute existence or homeless, at worst I wind up being executed by murderbots owned by rich people to reduce the risk that I might take action against them > As for the fear of human labour not being needed at scale due to me as most others needing an income, I'm optimistic there for two reasons. First, large unfed masses tend to start revolutions, something both governments and the not-working are interested in avoiding. In the past governments and rich people still needed working people's labor to keep their lifestyles. In a fully automated world that's no longer the case. I am very confident that if the ruling class of society could slaughter all of us and still maintain their lifestyles forever they would in a heartbeat. Foolishly, we are delivering that possibility to them in the form of automation.

scotty79 1mo ago
I'm not sure if this brings you hope, but let me try ... What the rich want is not to be content. They want to get richer. And it's terribly hard to extract money from other rich people, because they want to get richer, not poorer too. The easiest way to get richer (and pretty much only feasible way) is to take away the money from the poor. And the best way to do that is to take those suckers' money by giving them products and services that are worth a little bit less than the money you take from them. But if the poor have no money the whole system that served the rich so well breaks. Some of them already see that. There are millionaires advocating higher taxation of millionaires. Because they see what's up. Spontaneously the money flows only one way, from the poor to the rich. And there is less and less money to extract, that could make you wealthier than your peers. But if you tax all rich equally, which is a fair game as it doesn't disadvantage you. And then transfer that money back to the poor, it's a new pool you can compete for with other rich and get wealthier than them if you succeed. Have you seen in the game of the monopoly when the one person gets winning hard, it's natural instinct to borrow money to other players, without collateral, against the rules of the game or even gifting it? Because for the rich the pleasure is in taking not in having. You are sure it all ends up in your pocket anyways, because you see yourself as the best at the game. This flow of money is in play for decades and you can plainly see its effects in economic charts. It can't stay like that regardless of how much more automation we'll have. The strong will need to create a mechanism for funneling resources back to consumers, before they run dry. Employment barely works for that purpose. Without customers there's no business, and without business, getting richer is very, very hard. You might think of yourself as a worker and believe that's your utility. But in reality your utility lies in the fact that you are first and foremost a consumer. And your ability to consume is a vital interest of the rich, even if not all of them realize that yet.