15 ms·

Yes, work is necessary. Even before money was invented, our ancestors still needed to work for their basic needs. They had to harvest or hunt for food, build th

Yes, work is necessary. Even before money was invented, our ancestors still needed to work for their basic needs. They had to harvest or hunt for food, build their houses and sew their clothing. All of that is work.

boyter 13y ago
I think you may be missing the point. Pretty much all developed countries produce an abundance of these things, and more to the point have automated a lot of it. A lot of jobs that used to be done by many people can now be done by a few.
- bane 13y ago
  It would kinda suck to end up as one of the poor schlubs who has to be one of the "few" who works while everybody else kicks back and screws around all day.
  - gress 13y ago
    Is it different to ending up as one of the "many" who work, while the few kick back and screw around all day?
    - bane 13y ago
      Yes. Because being one of the few layabouts on either end of the bell curve is a blessing, while being one of the few who works for everybody else is easily viewed as a punishment.
      - gress 13y ago
        So it's ok to be poor and stresses as long as everyone else is?
  - Aqueous 13y ago
    Well, in the future I'm thinking about, even the few would have very little to do operating the machinery that performs all of these tasks automatically. When given a choice between being one of the many and being one of the few, I usually choose the few.
  - md224 13y ago
    I would think in a future where work is optional, the goal would be to create a system where choosing to work would still provide you with additional privilege (via more money)... the difference would be at the bottom end of the scale, creating a society where unemployment is a feasible lifestyle if all you really want in a material sense is basic needs (food, shelter, clothes) plus healthcare. Feasibility of that system is another question altogether. I'm just saying I think in an ideal world, there would still be motivation to contribute to society (in a capitalist sense); it just wouldn't be a hard requirement for maintaining your dignity.
    - bane 13y ago
      I think many people in this thread have a very self-informed and naive view of what a society made up of people with unlimited free time would do with that time -- it wouldn't be self-actualizing. I know where this idea comes from, I think it's very tempting as well. I was fascinated with the society described in the Culture books. But the harsh reality is that most people would not go in the direction that's hoped.
      - md224 13y ago
        I know this thread is a day old, which in Internet time is ancient history, but in case you see this: You seem to be making the basic assumption that "self-actualizing" should be the goal of all human beings, rather than something more general like "being satisfied with one's life." It's possible that you believe the former is a prerequisite for the latter, and I can't refute or confirm that hypothesis. Personally, my goal for the lives of citizens living in a work-optional utopia would be something along the lines of Sen's capability approach to welfare economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach). As long as everyone has the opportunity to be the kind of person they want to be, and as long as they don't negatively affect the freedom and welfare of others (e.g. you can't aspire to be a car thief or serial killer), then however they choose to live is fine with me, self-actualized or not.
        bane 13y ago
gnaritas 13y ago
We aren't our ancestors, and this is an unprecedented time in human history as we transition to the age of automation. Work has always been necessary thus far, that's going to change soon.
- dnautics 13y ago
  it's already unnecessary. Look at how many people are employed in the service or entertainment industry. We have people who can earn a living travelling around the world teaching obscure dance styles. This is not 'work' in the way that you mean, but it is definitely 'work' in the economic sense; it is one person engaging in a trade of their skills for another person's money. What automation will do is to free up individuals to do these sorts of exchange which would have been impossible with a less efficient use of resources; what economics does is makes sure as many people as possible are doing this 'new work' not just for S&G, but also in the service of others.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    I agree in a sense, but so far that kind of work is a small minority of the work work you know I'm talking about. Eventually I'd expect to see most work people do be this kind of art/cultural entertainment work rather than work work. Manual labor is dying and not being replaced and most such laborers couldn't feed themselves on any other skills they have.

boyter 13y ago

I think you may be missing the point. Pretty much all developed countries produce an abundance of these things, and more to the point have automated a lot of it. A lot of jobs that used to be done by many people can now be done by a few.

bane 13y ago
It would kinda suck to end up as one of the poor schlubs who has to be one of the "few" who works while everybody else kicks back and screws around all day.
- gress 13y ago
  Is it different to ending up as one of the "many" who work, while the few kick back and screw around all day?
  - bane 13y ago
    Yes. Because being one of the few layabouts on either end of the bell curve is a blessing, while being one of the few who works for everybody else is easily viewed as a punishment.
    - gress 13y ago
      So it's ok to be poor and stresses as long as everyone else is?
- Aqueous 13y ago
  Well, in the future I'm thinking about, even the few would have very little to do operating the machinery that performs all of these tasks automatically. When given a choice between being one of the many and being one of the few, I usually choose the few.
- md224 13y ago
  I would think in a future where work is optional, the goal would be to create a system where choosing to work would still provide you with additional privilege (via more money)... the difference would be at the bottom end of the scale, creating a society where unemployment is a feasible lifestyle if all you really want in a material sense is basic needs (food, shelter, clothes) plus healthcare. Feasibility of that system is another question altogether. I'm just saying I think in an ideal world, there would still be motivation to contribute to society (in a capitalist sense); it just wouldn't be a hard requirement for maintaining your dignity.
  - bane 13y ago
    I think many people in this thread have a very self-informed and naive view of what a society made up of people with unlimited free time would do with that time -- it wouldn't be self-actualizing. I know where this idea comes from, I think it's very tempting as well. I was fascinated with the society described in the Culture books. But the harsh reality is that most people would not go in the direction that's hoped.
    - md224 13y ago
      I know this thread is a day old, which in Internet time is ancient history, but in case you see this: You seem to be making the basic assumption that "self-actualizing" should be the goal of all human beings, rather than something more general like "being satisfied with one's life." It's possible that you believe the former is a prerequisite for the latter, and I can't refute or confirm that hypothesis. Personally, my goal for the lives of citizens living in a work-optional utopia would be something along the lines of Sen's capability approach to welfare economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach). As long as everyone has the opportunity to be the kind of person they want to be, and as long as they don't negatively affect the freedom and welfare of others (e.g. you can't aspire to be a car thief or serial killer), then however they choose to live is fine with me, self-actualized or not.
      - bane 13y ago

gnaritas 13y ago

We aren't our ancestors, and this is an unprecedented time in human history as we transition to the age of automation. Work has always been necessary thus far, that's going to change soon.

dnautics 13y ago
it's already unnecessary. Look at how many people are employed in the service or entertainment industry. We have people who can earn a living travelling around the world teaching obscure dance styles. This is not 'work' in the way that you mean, but it is definitely 'work' in the economic sense; it is one person engaging in a trade of their skills for another person's money. What automation will do is to free up individuals to do these sorts of exchange which would have been impossible with a less efficient use of resources; what economics does is makes sure as many people as possible are doing this 'new work' not just for S&G, but also in the service of others.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  I agree in a sense, but so far that kind of work is a small minority of the work work you know I'm talking about. Eventually I'd expect to see most work people do be this kind of art/cultural entertainment work rather than work work. Manual labor is dying and not being replaced and most such laborers couldn't feed themselves on any other skills they have.