Progress can't ever and never does continue forever. There's always a point of saturation, where there's no more capacity to absorb more "stuff" (in this case, it's "displaced workers").
Yes, yes, Luddites have been saying this for 200 years. These point tell me, though, that the saturation point has finally arrived:
1) The proliferation of highly articulate robots with incredibly accurate sensors,
2) cheap computers,
3) oceans strangled by fiber, and
4) there haven't been any job-creating heavy industry revolutions (as there was when the I.C.E. was made functional) since the airplane overtook the train.
I was thinking more of how it used to be in N. America when hours worked dropped down to 40 a week.
You go to every Union shop in the county and inform them that their hours will be cut 25% so that more people can be employed, and to compensate, their wages will rise by 33% (do the math if you don't believe that's the right math).
The smart ones will fight you because that'll greatly increase the cost of manufacturing -- thus losing market share to lower cost producers, and the rest will fight you because they'll then want to work the extra 10 hours and make the extra money, not giving a flying fuck about anyone who's not in the Union.
What makes you imagine yourself to be the superior to Joe?
Superior in what arena? Certainly not ethically. (Probably average in morality.) Certainly not physically. Definitely intellectually superior to most, in both capacity and curiosity.
All Joe is missing is some spare cash...
Where's it gonna come from? Please lay out how you think the highly-automated post-work society will operate.
1) People (in the mass, statistical sense) need to work (let me rephrase that: they need to stay busy) to maintain social order.
2) The vast majority of people will only stay busy if motivated
3) What's the motivation, especially when the guy is young and stupid and full of energy? (Think of how much trouble the idle, young rich get into, and then multiply that by 10,000,000...)
4) What of the 10s of millions who live in apartments and row houses who don't have garages and "shops" in which to partake of their hobbies?
5) What of the other 6.7Bn people?
The only comments I'm reading (and have seen propounded by sci-fi writers for 40+ years) are, "Well, I've got a hobby and like to do something which only a small fraction of the world's population can afford to do, and an even smaller fraction are interested in doing. Everyone else should be able to do that, too." They are IMNSHO hopelessly out of touch with reality.
Don't forget the respiratory depression (one accidental OD and it's permanent nap time) and tolerance-induced requirement for more and more.
the puritan attitude
Like that oh-so-Evil work ethic?
that drugs are bad and being addicted is really bad unless it's coffee or such.
From personal and familial experience, I can certainly attest that addiction is most certainly bad (if not socially, then physically: one or two missed doses, and "bad[1] things" start to happen).
Of course, we need to re-structure our economy to accommodate that because poverty actually is a bad thing.
Utopianism from a man your age? Really? I'm highly disappointed.
If we actually need everyone to work in order to maintain our current lifestyle
No, people need to work because we evolved in an environment of constant cycles "work hard, then relax". If "work" is removed from the equation, a whole lot of people turn lazy, and society falls apart. otherwise society falls apart
there's no shortage of stuff out there to engage in - from the social, family and exploratory (travel the world, anyone?) to the intellectual (learning, research and the arts).
Call me elitist, but there are just too many people who are so dull and stupid as to only be suitable for bottom rung activities. Without a job, they're good for nothing more than 2 minutes of "fame" on an episode of Cops.
There's enough oil money in some gulf states that no citizen really needs to do much useful work...
And if you look at those countries, the mass of chronically-unemployed citizens who want jobs but feel that menial labor is beneath their dignity is causing serious social problems.
you might prefer, for instance, to spend your time diving off Maui, enjoying fine dining, playing an instrument, etc., ad infinitum.
Joe Budweiser and Abdul Colt 45 aren't going to spend time educating themselves for the sake of education, diving off Maui, enjoying fine dining, playing an instrument, etc., ad infinitum.
They'll just do more drugs (the crack wave has past and meth seems to be receding; what's next? another heroin revival?), be destructive and drive the country into a government-dependent dystopian nightmare, which is pretty much already happening.
(Just because there's no God or Devil, it doesn't mean that the St. Jerome was wrong when he wrote, "the devil finds work for idle hands".)
I've always thought that the current presumption that a job is required and inherently a good thing was an artifact of scarcity of labor. Remove the latter, and the former may well radically change.
Change to what? That having a job is not a good thing?
I know that the absolute worst argument to make when trying to argue for the acceptability of something is to say "Hey, look over there! That situation is worse."
I don't think I'm arguing that restricted civil liberties and a panopticon society are acceptable.
This quote from Orwell about pacifism in 1944 correspondence with a British pacifist is relevant, I think:
You are wrong in thinking that I dislike wholehearted (criticism of state power), though I do think it mistaken. What I object to is the circumspect kind of pacifism which denounces one kind of (state power) while endorsing or avoiding mention of another.
I've substituted "pacifism" and "violence" for references to "state power".
I can't fathom how people can ignore Russia's complete thugocracy while heaping loads of scorn and abuse on what is -- all and all -- a pretty darned free and open society.
Well, I *did* make an assertion.... which I figure raises the saddle maker hackles of technophiles everywhere who believe in never-ending upward progress.
(I think that just like liquids can become saturated with dissolved solids,, human society can -- has -- become oversaturated saturated with automation, and thus -- breaking with the saturation analogy -- there's not enough work for many people to do at a "middle class" wage.
Sure, I might be wrong, but the evidence before me convinces me of the correctness of that assertion.)
Is this the "saddle makers found jobs making cars", thus every bit of manufacturing automation will therefore lead to jobs for the displaced workers defense?
Correct. I'm presuming that a small change in life expectancy will have a negligible impact on world population, and thus can be approximated to be "static".
How in the hell do you equate extending life is a bad idea with contracting life is a good idea? Aren't/. readers supposed to have a higher-than-average level of intelligence?
Slashdot Mirror
the advantage will go to those who figure out how ot make it work,
Three cheer for the Idiocracy!!!!
Progress can't ever and never does continue forever. There's always a point of saturation, where there's no more capacity to absorb more "stuff" (in this case, it's "displaced workers").
Yes, yes, Luddites have been saying this for 200 years. These point tell me, though, that the saturation point has finally arrived:
I was thinking more of how it used to be in N. America when hours worked dropped down to 40 a week.
You go to every Union shop in the county and inform them that their hours will be cut 25% so that more people can be employed, and to compensate, their wages will rise by 33% (do the math if you don't believe that's the right math).
The smart ones will fight you because that'll greatly increase the cost of manufacturing -- thus losing market share to lower cost producers, and the rest will fight you because they'll then want to work the extra 10 hours and make the extra money, not giving a flying fuck about anyone who's not in the Union.
What makes you imagine yourself to be the superior to Joe?
Superior in what arena? Certainly not ethically. (Probably average in morality.) Certainly not physically. Definitely intellectually superior to most, in both capacity and curiosity.
All Joe is missing is some spare cash ...
Where's it gonna come from? Please lay out how you think the highly-automated post-work society will operate.
with a little less work ethic everyone could be working a 30 hour week with low unemployment.
Like in France?
he does have dreams and aspirations
Are they enough to keep him busy for 60 years?
The only comments I'm reading (and have seen propounded by sci-fi writers for 40+ years) are, "Well, I've got a hobby and like to do something which only a small fraction of the world's population can afford to do, and an even smaller fraction are interested in doing. Everyone else should be able to do that, too." They are IMNSHO hopelessly out of touch with reality.
People who are not motivated to do much will not have a problem.
Where will their sustenance and shelter come from? Where will the things they "deserve" (because they see others on TV) come from?
For myself, I enjoy learning and have many hobbies.
You're in your mid-50s and don't realize that you're in an insignificant minority?
Heroin is fairly harmless (causes constipation)
Don't forget the respiratory depression (one accidental OD and it's permanent nap time) and tolerance-induced requirement for more and more.
the puritan attitude
Like that oh-so-Evil work ethic?
that drugs are bad and being addicted is really bad unless it's coffee or such.
From personal and familial experience, I can certainly attest that addiction is most certainly bad (if not socially, then physically: one or two missed doses, and "bad[1] things" start to happen).
[1] Where "badness" depends on the specific drug.
or re-structure the economy to accommodate that.
(Note that I've seen with my own eyes all of which I write here.)
And what will all of the meagerly educated Joe Six-Packs do, who know only how to work with their hands?
You say, "work hard at hobbies", but only a small percentage are motivated beyond beer, fishing/hunting and power tools.
And what of their sons who've never had to work, and are bored shitless? Sex and drugs.
Their equally bored daughters? Sex, drugs & babies.
Either become a luddite
You forgot -- for obvious reasons -- to mention, "mass extermination".
Of course, we need to re-structure our economy to accommodate that because poverty actually is a bad thing.
Utopianism from a man your age? Really? I'm highly disappointed.
If we actually need everyone to work in order to maintain our current lifestyle
No, people need to work because we evolved in an environment of constant cycles "work hard, then relax". If "work" is removed from the equation, a whole lot of people turn lazy, and society falls apart.
otherwise society falls apart
there's no shortage of stuff out there to engage in - from the social, family and exploratory (travel the world, anyone?) to the intellectual (learning, research and the arts).
Call me elitist, but there are just too many people who are so dull and stupid as to only be suitable for bottom rung activities. Without a job, they're good for nothing more than 2 minutes of "fame" on an episode of Cops.
There's enough oil money in some gulf states that no citizen really needs to do much useful work...
And if you look at those countries, the mass of chronically-unemployed citizens who want jobs but feel that menial labor is beneath their dignity is causing serious social problems.
you might prefer, for instance, to spend your time diving off Maui, enjoying fine dining, playing an instrument, etc., ad infinitum.
Joe Budweiser and Abdul Colt 45 aren't going to spend time educating themselves for the sake of education, diving off Maui, enjoying fine dining, playing an instrument, etc., ad infinitum.
They'll just do more drugs (the crack wave has past and meth seems to be receding; what's next? another heroin revival?), be destructive and drive the country into a government-dependent dystopian nightmare, which is pretty much already happening.
(Just because there's no God or Devil, it doesn't mean that the St. Jerome was wrong when he wrote, "the devil finds work for idle hands".)
I've always thought that the current presumption that a job is required and inherently a good thing was an artifact of scarcity of labor. Remove the latter, and the former may well radically change.
Change to what? That having a job is not a good thing?
I know that the absolute worst argument to make when trying to argue for the acceptability of something is to say "Hey, look over there! That situation is worse."
I don't think I'm arguing that restricted civil liberties and a panopticon society are acceptable.
This quote from Orwell about pacifism in 1944 correspondence with a British pacifist is relevant, I think:
You are wrong in thinking that I dislike wholehearted (criticism of state power), though I do think it mistaken. What I object to is the circumspect kind of pacifism which denounces one kind of (state power) while endorsing or avoiding mention of another.
I've substituted "pacifism" and "violence" for references to "state power".
The fact that you ignored pretty darned -- or don't know what it means -- is depressing.
What do you actually know about other countries?
And my postulating the inverse of your original statement drew derision from you.
Only because your logic was W-R-O-N-G. No other fscking reason.
That kind of leaves "static" as your last fallback.,
No, no, no, no, NO!!!!
Just because I can see a different point of view from someone else, does not mean that I believe it or want it.
I got asylum
I can't fathom how people can ignore Russia's complete thugocracy while heaping loads of scorn and abuse on what is -- all and all -- a pretty darned free and open society.
Ah, in that case, the correct response would be along the lines of:
"No, I like things the way they are now."
Wow, you really can't perform logical analysis.
I've made no such indication in these comments that I'm happy with the world at 7 billion. If you think I have, please point it out.
Well, I *did* make an assertion.... which I figure raises the saddle maker hackles of technophiles everywhere who believe in never-ending upward progress.
(I think that just like liquids can become saturated with dissolved solids,, human society can -- has -- become oversaturated saturated with automation, and thus -- breaking with the saturation analogy -- there's not enough work for many people to do at a "middle class" wage.
Sure, I might be wrong, but the evidence before me convinces me of the correctness of that assertion.)
Is this the "saddle makers found jobs making cars", thus every bit of manufacturing automation will therefore lead to jobs for the displaced workers defense?
Correct. I'm presuming that a small change in life expectancy will have a negligible impact on world population, and thus can be approximated to be "static".
You're assuming the binary solution set of "increase" and "decrease" instead of the trinary "increase", "static" and "decrease".
We will level off around 10B.
That's still too many for a highly mechanized world.
How in the hell do you equate extending life is a bad idea with contracting life is a good idea? Aren't /. readers supposed to have a higher-than-average level of intelligence?
fresh water supplies at crisis levels and extreme weather happening more often... worst idea evar!