You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Right, but our capacity for production would increase, a lot, possibly to where one person would be capable of expending only minimal effort to do what used to be the jobs of multiple people. Many people will become redundant, economically speaking, particularly those who are only capable of doing jobs that become automated. What are they supposed to do? I guess we could have a bunch of people around maintaining a handful of machines each, but... Why would a company over-staff themselves like that? What makes you think we'd go down the route of having a bunch of people do very little rather than having only a few people expend slightly more effort?
Focus on physical fitness. Pursue arts, raise children, do charitable works, visit nursing homes, volunteer, lay around and smoke and fuck all day. Learn new things, read books.
There are a million pursuits out there for people who don't need to be told what to do to do.
We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] cynoclast [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
The whole point of machines is not to make us more productive, but so that we don't have to work as much.
The goal isn't productivity, it's laziness. And as Heinlein said:
[–] FPSFairy ago
Right, but our capacity for production would increase, a lot, possibly to where one person would be capable of expending only minimal effort to do what used to be the jobs of multiple people. Many people will become redundant, economically speaking, particularly those who are only capable of doing jobs that become automated. What are they supposed to do? I guess we could have a bunch of people around maintaining a handful of machines each, but... Why would a company over-staff themselves like that? What makes you think we'd go down the route of having a bunch of people do very little rather than having only a few people expend slightly more effort?
[–] cynoclast [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Focus on physical fitness. Pursue arts, raise children, do charitable works, visit nursing homes, volunteer, lay around and smoke and fuck all day. Learn new things, read books.
There are a million pursuits out there for people who don't need to be told what to do to do.
—Buckminster fuller
[–] Chiefpacman ago (edited ago)
It would be alright if humans never reached that level.
Life will suck when we are spoiled with that.
[–] cynoclast [S] ago
Nothing's stopping you from working anyway. Why restrict others to what you think they should do?