5 ms·

Let's extrapolate from present trends. More robotics and automation means people will work fewer hours but still have disposable income. Medical advances mean p

by lutusp 13y ago

Let's extrapolate from present trends. More robotics and automation means people will work fewer hours but still have disposable income. Medical advances mean people will live longer, healthier lives. Conclusion? There's going to be a lot of energetic, healthy people with time on their hands -- even more than at present. So there will be many future opportunities in the areas of entertainment, computer games and travel. Also, on the medical front, because psychiatry and psychology are in the midst of a historic meltdown, in the future society will increasingly look to neuroscience for guidance about the issues that psychiatrists and psychologists are mishandling right now. My favorite example showing what the possibilities may be, is the story of a severely depressed woman who didn't respond to the available anti-depression drugs and was finally institutionalized, her life essentially over. But a new procedure has come out of brain research (not mind research) called deep brain stimulation, that shows great promise for addressing depression's cause, rather than its symptoms (the present treatment approach). In this specific case, after electrodes were put in place, the neurosurgeon threw a switch that began stimulation of a location of present neurological research called "area 25" that seems to play a role in depression. The woman's depression lifted instantly -- instantly -- something that no other treatment had been able to accomplish. This is still very experimental, and the procedure is still too risky for everyday use, but if it matures and is made safe, it will revolutionize the treatment of depression. It will also accelerate the present trend away from psychiatry and psychology toward neuroscience. Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/magazine/02depression.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/magazine/02depression.html...

tspike 13y ago
I disagree about people working fewer hours. Work that used to be performed by humans has already been automated to a large degree. Rather than a uniform reduction in hours, the result appears to be a swelling class of unemployed and increasing hours worked by those who are employed. Those who have time do not have money and vice versa.
- lutusp 13y ago
  Yes, that's true, I wasn't extrapolating from present conditions, in which people really do work long hours, in many cases much longer than they need to. I was just imagining that people might suddenly realize they could have a lot more free time than they do now, without a serious decline in standard of living. But current events certainly argue against this idea -- if anything, on average people are working more hours now that they did in the past.
- BjoernKW 13y ago
  That's one of the main (first world, admittedly) problems of our time caused by stupid, backward work ethics (long hours == good; work efficiently so you can go home early == bad) and increasing life style expenses accompanying increasing income. These two aspects make sure the majority of people stays unfree and hence doesn't have enough time at their hands for useful work or projects. I'd say if we can manage to solve this problem we unleash tremendous potential for improving the human condition and life for everyone.
- 31reasons 13y ago
  You are absolutely right. 40 hours/week is the standard that was set more than 100 years ago and is long due for an update. As long as there are groups of people competing against each other to get the bigger part of the pie, it will continue this way until there is a big movement similar to the following: From wiki: "The eight-hour day movement or 40-hour week movement, also known as the short-time movement, had its origins in the Industrial Revolution in Britain, where industrial production in large factories transformed working life. The use of child labour was common. The working day could range from 10 to 16 hours for six days a week" We now need a 4-hour day movement. :)
- touristtam 13y ago
  Need to tackle wealth distribution first. Because that tale of a world mostly free of work has been told so many time, it is not funny anymore. That one man can earn more money in a day that some of us can in a year, makes the horde of consumer a salesman wet dream. Let's face it, we have a finite individual capital, that is kept as low as possible, and still continue to create more wealth as a society.
mapist 13y ago
Clinical psychiatry and psychology are areas of neuroscience these days, so I don't quite understand the "historic meltdown" point, any references on that?
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Clinical psychiatry and psychology are areas of neuroscience these days ... Quote false. To a greater degree than in the past, psychiatry and psychology are moving away from science, not toward it. The situation has gotten so extreme and frankly embarrassing for those who want to see more science in mental health, that the director of the NIMH has decided to drop support for the new DSM (DSM-5), arguing that the mentally ill "deserve better": http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... Quote: " While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity." There's more. The editor of the previous DSM, DSM-IV, Allen Frances, watched the process that led to DSM-5 with increasing amazement and dismay. He now strongly recommends that professionals avoid the DSM entirely -- he recommends that people not teach it or use it: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/psychiatry-allen-frances-saving-normal-dsm-5-controversy http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/psychiatry-allen... How important is this? The DSM is to psychiatry and psychology what the Standard Model is to physics -- to a large extent it defines the field and it is the leading reference for theory and practice. And it has gotten so embarrassing that the most influential psychiatrist in the country (the NIMH director) is abandoning it, choosing to move in a more scientific direction. > ... so I don't quite understand the "historic meltdown" point, any references on that? See above. And read what others are saying: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/03/01/100301crat_atlarge_menand http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/03/01/100... Quote: "[Psychiatrist and writer] Greenberg is repeating a common criticism of contemporary psychiatry, which is that the profession is creating ever more expansive criteria for mental illness that end up labelling as sick people who are just different—a phenomenon that has consequences for the insurance system, the justice system, the administration of social welfare, and the cost of health care." Believe me when I tell you, I could produce scores of similar criticisms from within the field, by people who are mental health professionals but who are incensed by what's happening to the field. I have to say that anyone in the field of mental health who doesn't see fundamental changes coming, hasn't been keeping up with current events.
kamaal 13y ago
>>There's going to be a lot of energetic, healthy people with time on their hands -- even more than at present. To some extent its correct. But by and large there will be a lot of energetic, healthy people who will want to make more money with that extra time on their hands.

by lutusp 13y ago

tspike 13y ago

I disagree about people working fewer hours. Work that used to be performed by humans has already been automated to a large degree. Rather than a uniform reduction in hours, the result appears to be a swelling class of unemployed and increasing hours worked by those who are employed. Those who have time do not have money and vice versa.

lutusp 13y ago
Yes, that's true, I wasn't extrapolating from present conditions, in which people really do work long hours, in many cases much longer than they need to. I was just imagining that people might suddenly realize they could have a lot more free time than they do now, without a serious decline in standard of living. But current events certainly argue against this idea -- if anything, on average people are working more hours now that they did in the past.
BjoernKW 13y ago
That's one of the main (first world, admittedly) problems of our time caused by stupid, backward work ethics (long hours == good; work efficiently so you can go home early == bad) and increasing life style expenses accompanying increasing income. These two aspects make sure the majority of people stays unfree and hence doesn't have enough time at their hands for useful work or projects. I'd say if we can manage to solve this problem we unleash tremendous potential for improving the human condition and life for everyone.
31reasons 13y ago
You are absolutely right. 40 hours/week is the standard that was set more than 100 years ago and is long due for an update. As long as there are groups of people competing against each other to get the bigger part of the pie, it will continue this way until there is a big movement similar to the following: From wiki: "The eight-hour day movement or 40-hour week movement, also known as the short-time movement, had its origins in the Industrial Revolution in Britain, where industrial production in large factories transformed working life. The use of child labour was common. The working day could range from 10 to 16 hours for six days a week" We now need a 4-hour day movement. :)
touristtam 13y ago
Need to tackle wealth distribution first. Because that tale of a world mostly free of work has been told so many time, it is not funny anymore. That one man can earn more money in a day that some of us can in a year, makes the horde of consumer a salesman wet dream. Let's face it, we have a finite individual capital, that is kept as low as possible, and still continue to create more wealth as a society.

mapist 13y ago

Clinical psychiatry and psychology are areas of neuroscience these days, so I don't quite understand the "historic meltdown" point, any references on that?

lutusp 13y ago
> Clinical psychiatry and psychology are areas of neuroscience these days ... Quote false. To a greater degree than in the past, psychiatry and psychology are moving away from science, not toward it. The situation has gotten so extreme and frankly embarrassing for those who want to see more science in mental health, that the director of the NIMH has decided to drop support for the new DSM (DSM-5), arguing that the mentally ill "deserve better": http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... Quote: " While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity." There's more. The editor of the previous DSM, DSM-IV, Allen Frances, watched the process that led to DSM-5 with increasing amazement and dismay. He now strongly recommends that professionals avoid the DSM entirely -- he recommends that people not teach it or use it: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/psychiatry-allen-frances-saving-normal-dsm-5-controversy http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/psychiatry-allen... How important is this? The DSM is to psychiatry and psychology what the Standard Model is to physics -- to a large extent it defines the field and it is the leading reference for theory and practice. And it has gotten so embarrassing that the most influential psychiatrist in the country (the NIMH director) is abandoning it, choosing to move in a more scientific direction. > ... so I don't quite understand the "historic meltdown" point, any references on that? See above. And read what others are saying: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/03/01/100301crat_atlarge_menand http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/03/01/100... Quote: "[Psychiatrist and writer] Greenberg is repeating a common criticism of contemporary psychiatry, which is that the profession is creating ever more expansive criteria for mental illness that end up labelling as sick people who are just different—a phenomenon that has consequences for the insurance system, the justice system, the administration of social welfare, and the cost of health care." Believe me when I tell you, I could produce scores of similar criticisms from within the field, by people who are mental health professionals but who are incensed by what's happening to the field. I have to say that anyone in the field of mental health who doesn't see fundamental changes coming, hasn't been keeping up with current events.

kamaal 13y ago

>>There's going to be a lot of energetic, healthy people with time on their hands -- even more than at present. To some extent its correct. But by and large there will be a lot of energetic, healthy people who will want to make more money with that extra time on their hands.