Our Civilization does'nt need us all to work. Now what?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Xeven

It isn't about stuff.

Some things are skills that no robot can really replicate nor ever will be able to. Which would you rather have doing surgery on your brain for example: a programmed robot or a human?

Who is better to make food or bake cakes? A programmed robot which is constrained by the parameters plugged into it, or a human who can experiment and innovate and create new dishes?

Will robots create new medical treatments and drugs? Design new cars? Open up new technologies?

Somehow I doubt it.

And why should the people who can do these things be constrained to carry the burden of the rest of the human race? What is the impetus to design, create, innovate? Sure people have a passion, but they also need to reward.

There will always be jobs as you point out.

The problem is there being more humans than jobs.

a reply to: crazyewok

Musical chairs? That's easy. If they are in a chair, everyone standing is a mooch. If they are left standing, everyone in a chair is a target.

That's the future they play for.

Just point out im not anti capitalism. It has served us well so far (well better than other models ).
But I am sceptical it will survive the singularity.



history shows a trend that a society that does not evolve and stays static will die.

There is a reason Britain is one of the oldest if not oldest continueing societys since 1066 and that because it been willing to change from feudalism to a mechintile system to laize fare captilism and finally to a system of mostly captilism with a very light sprinkling of socialism.

a reply to: Xeven

I like working. I like being able to provide for my family. I like that I am responsible for providing for my family and me. Why wouldn't anyone WANT to work?

originally posted by: theantediluvian

What you're effectively saying is that labor supply increases labor demand and that's obviously not true.

I did not say that at all and you are misconstruing what I posted.

I stated that even if everyone had the same or similar jobs there would be persons who did them better than others and could DEMAND higher wages or a better salary.

I suppose you might be trying to make a point that other sectors of the economy will magically compensate for falling labor demand in others but what are you basing that opinion on?

While I tend to shun Marx he postulated that a future robotic utopia, where human labor is minimized, humans would develop alternate exchanges which are as of yet undefined.

I'm of the opinion that the key to continuing capitalism for the forseeable future without conditions devolving to the point of revolution might lay in decreasing the standard work week proportionate to the decrease in labor demand owing to factors like automation and computerization. I could be wrong, France's mixed results in doing this haven't been particularly inspiring but there's definitely things to be learned there.

That is also discussed by Marx who felt future labor times would continue to drop as robotic efficiencies rose.

I also feel a concurrent decrease in wages due to decreased labor times would ultimately drive the price of goods and services down as well. If robots are producing nearly everything at ultra-low costs then a race to the bottom develops between producers to appeal to a broader and broader market.

There's also a lot of support among some economists for some sort of basic income. I certainly don't have all the answers and neither does anyone else — even the most learned and brilliant economists on the planet disagree with one another constantly. What's clear to me though is that a lot of people, particularly American libertarians, have completely irrational beliefs about the nature of capitalism; putting an almost religious faith in a mythical "pure capitalism" with "unregulated free markets" that inevitably self-organize and regulate themselves to the benefit of everyone.

While I am a laissez-faire capitalist I do believe some market constraints and monetary disbursement, particularly in some sort of robotic utopian scenarios, would be necessary to achieve a balanced society and economy. People will always create new markets and this would afford others the chance to participate in them.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

That cut and dried huh.

If only it was so simple like that.

Yeah, it is that simple. It has been occurring throughout history and will continue to do so.

If you have some alternate theory to supply and demand I suggest you contact the Nobel Organization and claim your prize.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xeven

I like working. I like being able to provide for my family. I like that I am responsible for providing for my family and me. Why wouldn't anyone WANT to work?

The problem though is what happens if there is no work?

It may not come down to WANTING work but being able to FIND work.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xeven

I like working. I like being able to provide for my family. I like that I am responsible for providing for my family and me. Why wouldn't anyone WANT to work?

The problem though is what happens if there is no work?

It may not come down to WANTING work but being able to FIND work.

People are too used to having things given to them. Create work, develop a market. imho

a reply to: DBCowboy

The problem I see is we may get into a situation were unless you have a PHD or are extremely bright that may not be possible.

In the future we may get to a technological point were entrepreneurship and creating markets may only go so far and still wont fill the hole between humans and jobs available.

a reply to: crazyewok

I think about stone masons or plumbers. Lost skills that are sadly needed despite technological advancements.

My biggest irritation is people's knee jerk response to running to government for solutions that they can find themselves. The more advanced our society becomes,, the lazier we get.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: crazyewok

I think about stone masons or plumbers. Lost skills that are sadly needed despite technological advancements.

My biggest irritation is people's knee jerk response to running to government for solutions that they can find themselves. The more advanced our society becomes,, the lazier we get.

Again im not saying there wont be any jobs.

But will those stone masons and plumbers provide enough jobs either?


Im not suggesting running to the government either, though to be fair im not suggesting avoiding it either.
Quite frankly I dont know what the solution is as I am not a sociologist.

All I know is that technology is going to force more changes on us whether we like it or not and that societys, country's and even people who refuse to be flexible wont survive like any other major social or economic change throughout history.

a reply to: crazyewok

That's Darwinism at it's finest, isn't it? Adapt and survive, or don't and die.

Venus Project. Live our Dreams and contribute out of talents. Should already be living like this as it is.

Capitalism is hanging on by it's fingernails. Something has gotta give.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Capitalism is hanging on by it's fingernails. Something has gotta give.

True in the next 100 years it will likely not be fit for service.

But what is to replace it?


What can provide for all our needs, be stable ,insure feedom yet be somewhat secure from goverment corruption?

Sure capitalism did not even come close to pefect under the above but it was still leaps and bounds above communism or full fledged socialism.

There's a deranged philosophy ingrained in Christianity that work is a virtue. That one must work to eat. It stems from the Protestant work ethic, which has been such a driving in force in the industrialised nations. Work hard so you get into heaven, the devil makes work for idol hands. Etc etc. Even the Chinese were jealous of the Christian work ethic, what better way to get people working their little butts off for fear of not getting into heaven. The ultimate big brother philosophy. The whole idea of technology was to take away the drudgery of manual labour. That's why a tractor and combine harvester can do the work of large groups toiling the land in a fraction of the time. We generally have the technology to replace all manual labour, we just don't have the will to do it because of the fear people might not have to go to work. There will always be someone who wants more than they need.

The Protestant work ethic (or the Puritan work ethic) is a concept in theology, sociology, economics and history which emphasizes that hard work and frugality are a result of a person's salvation in the Protestant faith,

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Xeven
One of many reasons Capitalism is failing...

There's your first mistake. Prove to me it's specifically capitalism failing? Capitalism is inherently flawed, but aren't all economic systems, or systems in general--which happen to involve humans? It's so easy to blame capitalism for everything under (or around?) the sun. I think the reason people want to blame it's because it doesn't necessarily penalize greed or avarice, but that's what democracy is for. Yet what happens when someone else outperforms yourself fairly and you blame capitalism anyway, isn't that also selfish? Democracy is the means to determine what's fair in the marketplace. Why not use it instead of attacking capitalism?

...is because we can produce everything we need with very few of us. We don't need us all to work. We just don't seem to want to admit that as we progress technologically, that most of us will be jobless. How do we manage that in a world based on Capitalism and competiveness in earning a living?

What about what we want? We need XYZ, but there's so much that's ill-defined. I think it's in fact hard to separate the two. That's why there'll be work and everybody will find something to do. And work isn't just something we need to do, it's oftentimes something we WANT to do.

The rest of your post just seems to be glorifying socialism or is an anti-capitalism agenda and I won't entertain it.

Science fiction writers in the early 20th century said machines would make us lazy and jobless. Didn't really happen. You're saying the same thing. Something tells me it still won't happen that way. People have been talking your talk for AT LEAST 170 years--undoubtedly much longer.

originally posted by: XevenWhat is next for us? Seems like some sort of socialist system is almost going to be forced on us except it will be machines doing the work and most humans will just sit back and be consumers. Are you ready for everyone to have equal stuff?

Ah, just the opposite will happen! We will evolve into an anarchistic ubiquity. And in such an ubiquity we still will do work - but not because we must, but because we can - and like it.

Work, in my opinion, serves two purposes: it gives us something useful to do and it provides money.

Money - the society of the near future will provide a basic income for all. Some people will decide that this basic income is all they need and live off it - and they would live (very) decent lives doing so. They would be able to live in a quite comfortable home, have good meals, fine clothes and would have medical care, education and transportation readily available. You don't need "a job" anymore in an ubiquity. It will be totally up to you if you want to "work" or not. If you don't, some machine will take care that what needs to be done - is done.

Something useful to do - that's the killer, that's what many people need. Even if you give them a basic income of what now is a million a year - and have "the systems" build and produce it all - humans will eventually get bored and will try to do what humans do best: belong, invent, create, improve, discover, discuss and enjoy. But not because they must - because they can and want to. Sure, not all humans: there are now and there will be then - those that simply enjoy doing nothing. The difference being that they are allowed it in the society of the future - even if nobody ever did anything anymore, "the systems" would take care of our needs.

But that won't happen, mark my words, as people simply like to do something that distinguishes them. And liberation from mandatory work will bring back a great diversity to our society. It will be a colourful society indeed!

Some people will relearn old ("economical infeasible") trades: we will have windmillers, blacksmiths, painters, farmers, bakers and carpenters in our future society again. There will be masons that build cathedrals or other great buildings just for fun and to provide a place for people to honour their God, listen to music or educate themselves. There will be bazaars where people offer other people the best food, in return for the honour of providing it. There will be orchestra's playing everywhere. Yes, "the systems" could (and mostly will) deliver anything they can make too, in some form or the other, but human craftsmen will also produce - out of free will - iitems that are made with love and have that individual touch that we humans appreciate so much.

And science will thrive, as will the arts. Not because machines do it - but because humans will be free to study instead of working like slaves, free to create whatever they like for the good and enjoyment of others, or even in some case just for their own pleasure.

And yes, if you think that pushing some button on a conveyer belt is something you'd like to do - you can. If you still need a stupid, boring job - because you like it - well, go ahead. If you like to clean toilets we will simply switch off the cleaning systems in a number of buildings and you can go ahead, why not, it's all about humans in the ubiquity.

Personally, if I'm still around I will probably do what I do now, as I actually LIKE what I do now. But I will not do it on that mandatory 9-5 basis anymore and I may work my windmill more often.

It will be great!

a reply to: ForteanOrg
In your dream worldit does, but not in the real one. In the real one we increase our expectations of what a good life is. Soon people will want much more out of life. They will want to travel to other planets even. This means our society will have to produce ever greater amounts of energy and science. Unless you think free energy is real, we will always struggle to produce it and distribute it and use it for various means. Humans will go all out. They will combine with the machines and the AI. The best of the best will go to the stars or other dimensions or wherever only the best go. Again, unless you believe free energy exists (or perpetual motion), society will STILL have to balance its budget and give unto others what they're accounted for. This means nothing will ever be free, even a basic "free" income. Even homeless people today get limited "free" food/clothes/shelter/etc. But would any sane person consider that an ideal circumstance, even if a homeless person has a living standard of a 17th century king? Not people who've changed their expectations! People don't normally hold old living standards in high regard.

Expectations increase. And nothing is truly free. Conservation of energy doesn't permit that. That's the reason utopia is unlikely. I won't say it's impossible. I won't say it's impossible for us to separate desire from the material. I can't preclude the possibility humans can be satisfied or cooperative no matter their lot in life; great or small.

EDIT: That's where all those productivity improvements went: to higher expectations. We invested the extra production.

And our expectations are tied to progress. We EXPECT greater energy production and finer technologies. That encourages it to keep on. If everybody's expectations were stuck in the 17th century, it would grind to a stop. Research would shrivel. And hence the danger presented by disasters would increase. We may not survive because we didn't research.

So I think we need some higher expectations. How much? I don't know. How much do we need to know and be capable of to survive? Only the eldest civilizations would have a chance of knowing for sure.

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

So capitalism isn't failing it's other issues that cause it to fail?

Hmm sounds like... Communism?

The irony is insane. Communism gets corrupted and everyone wails that it's an unfeasible system that could never possibly succeed. Same thing happens to capitalism but it's not capitalisms fault! It's everything BUT capitalism!!!

And people don't even realize how stupid they sound.

I'm coining a new phrase. Limited Perception Disorder.

Capitalism works for me so it must work for everyone.