5 ms·

I believe you are grouping "those who don't have the skills or abilities" as one unit. Seems like a very large container to be making decisions about. Let's ex

I believe you are grouping "those who don't have the skills or abilities" as one unit. Seems like a very large container to be making decisions about. Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them. Suppose you graduate from college with a degree in repairing fax machines. Fax machines are quickly disappearing. Should you: 1) Continue to learn about fax machines while the rest of society pays for your food, shelter, and health care. After all, it's not for us to judge what you do with your life. 2) Expect fax machines to be mandated by law so that you and the other fax machine experts can have a job, or 3) Expect things to change. Try to match your own skills and desires with whatever most people want. That is, try to fit yourself into the society and world you find yourself in and not expect the world to change for you. (Whether or not the rest of us support you during this time is irrelevant, except in terms of whether it helps or hinders the change you need to make) I believe this is the same set of alternatives you have offered, only looking at it from the individual level instead of as some hypothetical external observer.

Ensorceled 12y ago
4) Realize that repairing fax machines is pretty much your intellectual limit and now that fax machines are disappearing you don't have the mental capacity to learn how to fix self driving cars. You are now in the group "those who don't have the skills or abilities". 4) is what is actually happening now. The "bar" is constantly being raised.
sooheon 12y ago
You seem to have intentionally misrepresented options 1 and 3. The society originally described includes in option 1 supporting the fax repair man while he dives into founding a startup, starting a homely little cliffside cafe, busking on the streets or whatever else. It does not mandate that the recipient of the support continue to pursue a dead end against all evidence and logic.
- jungsoo 12y ago
  That is assuming the fax repairman has the motivation to do all of those things you have mentioned. Considering that life ideally leads to a comfortable retirement for most individuals (i.e.: doing nothing and spending one's days leisurely is the ultimate goal as opposed to creating value for society). I think it is safe to say that most people, given the opportunity, will opt for this "lazy" style of life. Now I'm not saying this is inherently a bad thing. When technology and automation improves to the point where laborers are made obsolete, could society potentially adopt an egalitarian system where through taxation, society can afford to let the laborers live in complacency with a satisfying slice of the pie, while the more ambitious (those who continue to push through with scientific and technological advancements) are rewarded with an even bigger piece of the pie? With increasing advancements, will society reach a point where there's more than enough pie for everyone?
  - OvidNaso 12y ago
    "I think it is safe to say that most people, given the opportunity, will opt for this "lazy" style of life." This seems to be the one "fact" that makes all the difference in the entire debate. My question is, how come all of history shows man's drive to explore, build, conquer, discover, organize, etc...yet you conclude the "safe" bet is the oppisite?
totony 12y ago
I don't want to sound rude or heartless, but, about "Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them", I am curious as to why one would choose to support them, if they serve no purpose to society?
- sgift 12y ago
  If we go down that line of thought let's skip waiting till they die and allow execution of people who serve no purpose to society. I know whole industries full of people who could be removed ... what a joy. Or not?!
  - totony 12y ago
    I don't think that we have the right to play god on people's life. What I was saying is very different, I am saying that, as a society, it is peculiar that we would choose to support those people. Ignoring them is not the same as taking their life.
- Hytosys 12y ago
  I think to say that humans must serve a purpose in society based on their ability to make money is dangerously utilitarian. As it stands, I'd guess at least 20% of adults in America (shot in the dark) do not make any money and rely on others for food and shelter. These people are kept out of harm, and their safe mental state keeps other people out of harm. They can offer community service, familial or household care, and plenty of other things that do not profit them any cash. Most importantly, these people are spouses, parents, children, and grandchildren. They offer emotion and humility. I know it seems like I'm doing my best to assert your rudeness or heartlessness, but I'm just trying to raise the point that one's monetary value is not wholly representative of their value in society.
  - totony 12y ago
    I wasn't asserting that money is the determining factor in asserting one's purpose. I was relating to the parent's point that some people cannot learn to function in society. These people couldn't offer things such as community service and some of them might be so separated from society from their handicap as to not have any one caring for them except the government agencies in charge of them.

Ensorceled 12y ago

4) Realize that repairing fax machines is pretty much your intellectual limit and now that fax machines are disappearing you don't have the mental capacity to learn how to fix self driving cars. You are now in the group "those who don't have the skills or abilities". 4) is what is actually happening now. The "bar" is constantly being raised.

sooheon 12y ago

You seem to have intentionally misrepresented options 1 and 3. The society originally described includes in option 1 supporting the fax repair man while he dives into founding a startup, starting a homely little cliffside cafe, busking on the streets or whatever else. It does not mandate that the recipient of the support continue to pursue a dead end against all evidence and logic.

jungsoo 12y ago
That is assuming the fax repairman has the motivation to do all of those things you have mentioned. Considering that life ideally leads to a comfortable retirement for most individuals (i.e.: doing nothing and spending one's days leisurely is the ultimate goal as opposed to creating value for society). I think it is safe to say that most people, given the opportunity, will opt for this "lazy" style of life. Now I'm not saying this is inherently a bad thing. When technology and automation improves to the point where laborers are made obsolete, could society potentially adopt an egalitarian system where through taxation, society can afford to let the laborers live in complacency with a satisfying slice of the pie, while the more ambitious (those who continue to push through with scientific and technological advancements) are rewarded with an even bigger piece of the pie? With increasing advancements, will society reach a point where there's more than enough pie for everyone?
- OvidNaso 12y ago
  "I think it is safe to say that most people, given the opportunity, will opt for this "lazy" style of life." This seems to be the one "fact" that makes all the difference in the entire debate. My question is, how come all of history shows man's drive to explore, build, conquer, discover, organize, etc...yet you conclude the "safe" bet is the oppisite?

totony 12y ago

I don't want to sound rude or heartless, but, about "Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them", I am curious as to why one would choose to support them, if they serve no purpose to society?

sgift 12y ago
If we go down that line of thought let's skip waiting till they die and allow execution of people who serve no purpose to society. I know whole industries full of people who could be removed ... what a joy. Or not?!
- totony 12y ago
  I don't think that we have the right to play god on people's life. What I was saying is very different, I am saying that, as a society, it is peculiar that we would choose to support those people. Ignoring them is not the same as taking their life.
Hytosys 12y ago
I think to say that humans must serve a purpose in society based on their ability to make money is dangerously utilitarian. As it stands, I'd guess at least 20% of adults in America (shot in the dark) do not make any money and rely on others for food and shelter. These people are kept out of harm, and their safe mental state keeps other people out of harm. They can offer community service, familial or household care, and plenty of other things that do not profit them any cash. Most importantly, these people are spouses, parents, children, and grandchildren. They offer emotion and humility. I know it seems like I'm doing my best to assert your rudeness or heartlessness, but I'm just trying to raise the point that one's monetary value is not wholly representative of their value in society.
- totony 12y ago
  I wasn't asserting that money is the determining factor in asserting one's purpose. I was relating to the parent's point that some people cannot learn to function in society. These people couldn't offer things such as community service and some of them might be so separated from society from their handicap as to not have any one caring for them except the government agencies in charge of them.