I've had similar thoughts myself. The problem isn't that machines are going to do jobs people now do, it's that people have been misled to believe their function is to do jobs. Your "job" is to live. Go outside. Have fun. Play with your kids. If we're lucky, someday all these mundane things we have to do now will not need to be done in the future. Your lawnba will cut your grass. Something will crawl up and down your house to paint it.
That said, there's really not a lack of useful work to be done. There's tons to be done in the sciences, for example. Medical research is wide open. There's so much we don't know yet.
We'll have to deal with this someday, but probably not in our lifetimes. At some point, there simply won't be jobs for most people. This sounds great, except that our society is set up fundamentally around the idea of nearly everyone (or at least someone in every family group) having a job. In a future where there's only jobs for 10% of people, but without any changes to how we view work, 90% of everybody won't have any money with which to participate in all the amazing awesomeness of an automated future
This sounds great, except that our society is set up fundamentally around the idea of nearly everyone (or at least someone in every family group) having a job. In a future where there's only jobs for 10% of people, but without any changes to how we view work, 90% of everybody won't have any money with which to participate in all the amazing awesomeness of an automated future
This is excellent. It will force a fundamental reorganization of society. "From each according to ability, to each according to need"
I think we're looking at something fundamentally different, though it does seem kind of like socialism on the surface.
In a true society of plenty, like I think Hatta was talking about, there isn't any real reason for anyone to "work". People can just hang out and do whatever they want. There won't be any real need for central planners, which is one of socialism's biggest flaws.
Its other big flaw, of course, is that people are lazy. If not rewarded for doing a good job, they won't bother. Many won't anyway.
This is excellent. It will force a fundamental reorganization of society. "From each according to ability, to each according to need" will become a workable proposition.
There's a couple of problems with the above:
1) Money is not distributed according to ability. It is and always has been (with a few very notable exceptions) distributed according to the wealthiest parents. It's why death taxes were introduced. 2) The rich won't give up the money without a fight. Unfortunately they have a lot of money to use to fight with - a lot more than you or I.
That said - I wish it would happen in my lifetime too.
But I'm already using it to prop up the corner of my bed, and I assure you, that's a far better use for that book than anything short of running out of firewood on a cold night.
Go back and watch some of the promises made about the introduction of TV. We could all watch educational programming and national symphonies.
And, somehow, we are left with America's Next Person That Can Regurgitate the Latest Pop Song, Getting in Pretend Fights While Repossessing Cars, and Ice Road Truckers in the Himalayas.
I don't think this "work for their own self-fulfillment" will work out like you think it will.
It will force a fundamental reorganization of society.
It won't be the first time corporations took part in the wholesale slaughtering of persons of lower status for profit. Oh, did you think that the shift would be toward a more egalitarian existence? Not likely. Even at this very moment people are easily being manipulated into campaigning against their interests so that the wealthy may maintain their status quo.
The problem isn't that machines are going to do jobs people now do, it's that people have been misled to believe their function is to do jobs. Your "job" is to live. Go outside. Have fun. Play with your kids.
The problem with this, is that currently the only way we can have an inside to go out of, and the only way we can get food to eat.. is to have a job to earn money to buy that stuff. The job of "living" is a great one, but it does not pay..
So, something else has to change as well. Food and shelter and
Great! Now all we have to do is convince people like the Koch brothers to redistribute the majority of their wealth to the sciences and to the people who formerly would have been employed in their factories. So they can "play."
Neither I nor Karl Marx foresee any obstacles to the implementation of this scheme.
In a society of plenty, money is pretty much meaningless.
Actually, we could probably live in that kind of society now if enough people even realized it.
But pretty much everyone believes we live in a world of scarcity, so that's what we've created.
All this really takes is free food, shelter, and clothing for anyone who needs it. Sure, most people would probably just subsist on that. But...would that really be all that much worse than having the unemployed rioting in the streets? People could spend their time
The wealthy aren't wealthy simply because they own money. They're wealthy because they own the factories that produce stuff and the sources of raw materials they use and the banks and financial institutions that fund those factories and mines. This doesn't somehow magically go away just because of automation.
We all tend to think of ourselves as rats in a maze. This corporation owns that, this regulation prohibits this, etc. We forget that our great-great-great-grand rats built the maze. It's not necessarily the right maze, it's just the one we have now. If it becomes effectively free to produce some good, I expect a future society will ask whether it's the right thing to promulgate rules that let one segment of society profit by denying that free thing to another. It would be much like chargi
They might do. Of course, the media environment in which society thinks about those questions will be controlled by a few wealthy individuals with an incentive to maintain the status quo, as will all the means of mass communication like the Internet. Have you watched Fox News recently?
Most of those non-mechanical jobs require more intelligence than most of the population has. You can't just throw people at them. You have to throw very carefully chosen people at them.
That said, there's really not a lack of useful work to be done. There's tons to be done in the sciences, for example. Medical research is wide open.
Ok, then. When Google finally perfects automated driving, and all the truck drivers are thrown out of work, we'll just get them jobs as medical researchers! Problem solved.
Sarcasm aside, I'm in 100% agreement with your first paragraph. But the only way to get there is to forcibly take some of the profits from these automated industries and just give them to dis
Believe me, I understand. I'm not some genius sitting here with the answers, I'm just one of the herd who realizes there's a question. What's it going to be like if/when we move from a scarcity economy to one based on plenty? The premise is just a couple of what ifs. What if we can automate lots of things? What if power becomes close to free? I do realize this has NEVER happened before. In any economy/ecology, the number of consumers rises to consume everything until there's scarcity again. If it ne
How are you going to go outside and have fun if you can't afford food because you don't have a job?
You mention research...but where does the funding come from? Private businesses only fund where they think there is low risk and high yield, which limits the amount of jobs that creates. The government could fund more, but of course the government must get its money from somewhere.
Except that jobs provides the money used to provide the means of sustaining the life one is supposed to go out and enjoy, now that one no longer have a job to spend ones time on...
Measure with a micrometer. Mark with chalk. Cut with an axe.
Not surprising, and basically true (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had similar thoughts myself. The problem isn't that machines are going to do jobs people now do, it's that people have been misled to believe their function is to do jobs. Your "job" is to live. Go outside. Have fun. Play with your kids. If we're lucky, someday all these mundane things we have to do now will not need to be done in the future. Your lawnba will cut your grass. Something will crawl up and down your house to paint it.
That said, there's really not a lack of useful work to be done. There's tons to be done in the sciences, for example. Medical research is wide open. There's so much we don't know yet.
Re: (Score:2)
So, right now, then?
Re: (Score:2)
We'll have to deal with this someday, but probably not in our lifetimes. At some point, there simply won't be jobs for most people. This sounds great, except that our society is set up fundamentally around the idea of nearly everyone (or at least someone in every family group) having a job. In a future where there's only jobs for 10% of people, but without any changes to how we view work, 90% of everybody won't have any money with which to participate in all the amazing awesomeness of an automated future
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds great, except that our society is set up fundamentally around the idea of nearly everyone (or at least someone in every family group) having a job. In a future where there's only jobs for 10% of people, but without any changes to how we view work, 90% of everybody won't have any money with which to participate in all the amazing awesomeness of an automated future
This is excellent. It will force a fundamental reorganization of society. "From each according to ability, to each according to need"
Re: (Score:2)
"From each according to ability, to each according to need" will become a workable proposition. I wish it would come in our lifetimes.
"Socialist!"...oh wait, for once Fox News talking point actually sticks!
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're looking at something fundamentally different, though it does seem kind of like socialism on the surface.
In a true society of plenty, like I think Hatta was talking about, there isn't any real reason for anyone to "work". People can just hang out and do whatever they want. There won't be any real need for central planners, which is one of socialism's biggest flaws.
Its other big flaw, of course, is that people are lazy. If not rewarded for doing a good job, they won't bother. Many won't anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
This is excellent. It will force a fundamental reorganization of society. "From each according to ability, to each according to need" will become a workable proposition.
There's a couple of problems with the above:
1) Money is not distributed according to ability. It is and always has been (with a few very notable exceptions) distributed according to the wealthiest parents. It's why death taxes were introduced.
2) The rich won't give up the money without a fight. Unfortunately they have a lot of money to use to fight with - a lot more than you or I.
That said - I wish it would happen in my lifetime too.
Re: (Score:2)
"From each according to ability, to each according to need" will become a workable proposition. I wish it would come in our lifetimes.
Please read "Atlas Shrugged" and try again
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm already using it to prop up the corner of my bed, and I assure you, that's a far better use for that book than anything short of running out of firewood on a cold night.
Re: (Score:2)
Go back and watch some of the promises made about the introduction of TV. We could all watch educational programming and national symphonies.
And, somehow, we are left with America's Next Person That Can Regurgitate the Latest Pop Song, Getting in Pretend Fights While Repossessing Cars, and Ice Road Truckers in the Himalayas.
I don't think this "work for their own self-fulfillment" will work out like you think it will.
Re: (Score:1)
It will force a fundamental reorganization of society.
It won't be the first time corporations took part in the wholesale slaughtering of persons of lower status for profit. Oh, did you think that the shift would be toward a more egalitarian existence? Not likely. Even at this very moment people are easily being manipulated into campaigning against their interests so that the wealthy may maintain their status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this, is that currently the only way we can have an inside to go out of, and the only way we can get food to eat .. is to have a job to earn money to buy that stuff. The job of "living" is a great one, but it does not pay..
So, something else has to change as well. Food and shelter and
Re: (Score:2)
Great! Now all we have to do is convince people like the Koch brothers to redistribute the majority of their wealth to the sciences and to the people who formerly would have been employed in their factories. So they can "play."
Neither I nor Karl Marx foresee any obstacles to the implementation of this scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
In a society of plenty, money is pretty much meaningless.
Actually, we could probably live in that kind of society now if enough people even realized it.
But pretty much everyone believes we live in a world of scarcity, so that's what we've created.
All this really takes is free food, shelter, and clothing for anyone who needs it. Sure, most people would probably just subsist on that. But...would that really be all that much worse than having the unemployed rioting in the streets? People could spend their time
Re: (Score:2)
The wealthy aren't wealthy simply because they own money. They're wealthy because they own the factories that produce stuff and the sources of raw materials they use and the banks and financial institutions that fund those factories and mines. This doesn't somehow magically go away just because of automation.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it does.
We all tend to think of ourselves as rats in a maze. This corporation owns that, this regulation prohibits this, etc. We forget that our great-great-great-grand rats built the maze. It's not necessarily the right maze, it's just the one we have now. If it becomes effectively free to produce some good, I expect a future society will ask whether it's the right thing to promulgate rules that let one segment of society profit by denying that free thing to another. It would be much like chargi
Re: (Score:2)
They might do. Of course, the media environment in which society thinks about those questions will be controlled by a few wealthy individuals with an incentive to maintain the status quo, as will all the means of mass communication like the Internet. Have you watched Fox News recently?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your lawnba will cut your grass
It's called an Robomow, and yes, it cuts my grass. (I have the iMow version) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_Robotics [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Most of those non-mechanical jobs require more intelligence than most of the population has. You can't just throw people at them. You have to throw very carefully chosen people at them.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, I wonder why everyone is complaining about the cost of tuition going up....
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, then. When Google finally perfects automated driving, and all the truck drivers are thrown out of work, we'll just get them jobs as medical researchers! Problem solved.
Sarcasm aside, I'm in 100% agreement with your first paragraph. But the only way to get there is to forcibly take some of the profits from these automated industries and just give them to dis
Re: (Score:2)
Believe me, I understand. I'm not some genius sitting here with the answers, I'm just one of the herd who realizes there's a question. What's it going to be like if/when we move from a scarcity economy to one based on plenty? The premise is just a couple of what ifs. What if we can automate lots of things? What if power becomes close to free? I do realize this has NEVER happened before. In any economy/ecology, the number of consumers rises to consume everything until there's scarcity again. If it ne
Re: (Score:1)
Fucking off in the park is not going to pay my rent, or put food on my table
Re: (Score:2)
How are you going to go outside and have fun if you can't afford food because you don't have a job?
You mention research...but where does the funding come from? Private businesses only fund where they think there is low risk and high yield, which limits the amount of jobs that creates. The government could fund more, but of course the government must get its money from somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that jobs provides the money used to provide the means of sustaining the life one is supposed to go out and enjoy, now that one no longer have a job to spend ones time on...