Utopian future will not work

a reply to: HarryJoy

People who have billions in the bank would disagree. Money is more important to them than the goods themselves. It's about having the ability to have anything, rather than actually having.

How would people get qualified? Teachers? What if the teachers can't be bothered because they're getting just as much teaching as they are sitting at home?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Yes, I believe people would be happy to do all of that for "nothing". The idea that they wouldn't is rooted in this age of individualism that has been created to feed capitalism and consumerism over the past 100 years.

When you have 90% of your population sitting around doing nothing with 100% leasure time, is it that unreasonable to assume a fair portion of those people would be willing to "pitch" in anywhere from 1 to 10 hours a week simply for the benefit of society? Do you really think 90% of the workforce are leeches, lazy and completely oppose any form of social contribution?

If everyone had a basic income, I would have NO problems spending 10 hours a week cleaning up the streets (polution etc) with 4 of my buddies, at hours of our choice, probably baked out of our minds (assuming legalisation occured hurr durr) with smile on our faces going ear to ear.

From my experience, everyone I know that gets their income from design, cultural work or simply creative work in all it's forms, love what they do. Someone currently designing the newest fashion-trend in shoes won't suddenly hate his job if he didn't get payed for it anymore. And even if he did, there'dd be plenty of people willing to fill his shoes (pun intended) if it means that instead of working 40 hours in a factory, they now have to spend 10 hours a week designing funky shoes, all while maintaining the same, if not better living conditions.


The point I'm trying to make is: All the work that remains after automatisation is going to be of the creative, non-monotone kind. It's the kind of work that people actually like to do. It's stuff like: caring for disabled and elderly people, designing new things, inventing things, upgrading things.

I'm willing to put my hand in fire atleast 50% of the current active workforce would be willing to switch to a system where instead of getting forced to work 40 hours a week, you have to work 10 hours a week and get the remaining 30 hours as free leisure time.

From: US employment

" full-time workers are persons who usually work 35 hours or more per week. In September 2016, about 124.73 million people were employed on a full-time basis. "

If you can say to 110 million of those people: "you don't have to work anymore but you still get payed", I absolutely believe atleast 50 million would be willing to still contribute to society in a part-time (or even less) fasion to keep the system running. All the jobs I've listed of the non-monotous, non-repetitive and creative kind.

People are trying to say that more motivates them than just money and material things. Perhaps for you this is not the case, so it's difficult for you to relate. But rest assured there are plenty of us who are motivated by curiosity and desire to learn, or create, for example. reply to: TerryDon79

a reply to: TerryDon79

It would help me if you define Utopian Future in your view. It's a different strokes for different folks kind of thing.

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: TerryDon79

It would help me if you define Utopian Future in your view. It's a different strokes for different folks kind of thing.

That's the thing. Utopia is different for everyone and is a personal "belief. What's utopia for some, isn't for others. Surely that means that it's not utopia if everyone can't agree?

Speaking about utopia (whichever version) is a nice thought experiment, but totally impractical and unrealistic in almost every case.

Oh great a planet full of hipsters sitting around bragging for eternity about some beer you never heard of while the villigidiot next to them is bragging about some paint brush no one else has discovered yet and the guy next to him practices blind fold vodka tie die coloring that you've never heard of.

Without money people will still brag, just about pointless #.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Well OP this is a most interesting topic!

I think we'll recreate motivation. We'll reverse engineer our brain. So don't assume a future on historical precedence. Selfishness might die. If selfishness goes, the need to be rewarded probably goes too. Without regard to self, reward is little consequence. Only needs matter if selfishness goes.

Performing continuously and selflessly for others uncannily reminds me of a machine. Isn't that what machines do? They perform selflessly and without complaint. They're not slaves because they're not alive.

Another question I ask is what's utopia? For some, freedom to be an individual--and act selfishly--is utopia. For others, equality of opportunity and especially happiness is utopian. A place of peace and enjoyment. But this usually means a reduction in selfishness, or a complete rejection.

A key ingredient in inequality is difference. Remove difference and equality is stronger. Is it even possible to remove all differences?

Is the natural order in the favor of selfishness or selflessness? Nature has examples of both. The real question is which apply to intelligent civilizations? At present, selfishness is apparent, but will it always be?

The problem is, we've gone too far.

Animals in the wild do not have this problem.

The only things any animal should be concerned with is finding food, sleeping and sex. Lots of sex. Everything else is taking it too far and a sign of mental problems.

Being a human is a mental condition that affected our ancestors back when they were still "animals".

We are truly f'ed up now and the only thing that could save us now would be to continue dumbing it down every year until we are truly animals living in caves having sex with everything that moves, and eating whatever we can catch and kill or harvest.

Monies, and for that matter price, are absolutely crucial for our survival as a species. We evolved with markets and monies, be it conch shells or doubloons. What it does is freely organize the distribution of resources. Markets and money are one of the greatest achievements of mankind.

People have grown to hate money because what we he have now is called a fiat currency which isn't market derived but government mandated. Those in charge mess with the fiat for their benefit and they do it at our peril. Think about it: money is a physical representation of the good work we do for society. It entitles us to the benefits of others good work as we see fit (read:freedom). When the federal reserve prints or clicks up a billion dollars they get the benefit of our work without having to do it; in the process they cheapen our labor and enrich themselves.

A step in the right direction would be a government that worked to keep markets as free as possible along with a market derived monetary supply that could not be printed, reproduced or otherwise with some sort of labor to lend it its own intrinsic value. This would slow down governmental violence and promote peace and freedom, since those with the giant weapons wouldnt have a blank check to use them.

Money isn't evil, it is it's bastardization that we should all fear and rally against.

I disagree with your notion people would do nothing.

If food was free, that wouldn't alone qualify for "Utopia" would it?

The truth however is people need to be fed. And if food was free, life would be easier for everyone.

Anything mass produced should be free. A farmer gets to enjoy internet and television and the entertainment industry, I don't see why he needs additional motivation if what he needs is provided.

Also if he quits, why would people collectively starve rather than take up the domain? That part doesn't connect with me.

I also don't see the entertainment people needing food as a motivation for doing what they do. That seems messed up, and there are even proven studies that shows people are more creative when money is taken off the table.

Overall, I don't think people have such simple motivations as just 'money', and the ones that do don't see it as simple as 'achievement'. For many it's just 'food tickets', and wouldn't be necessary.

I think this idea that a "free product" society would fail, is because there is some notion that things would "run out" and people would "quit working". It doesn't seem reasonable to me to make it a 'given' everything is Utopian status, but these issues were not addressed. Production only gets better as things become more automated, same with excavation.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Utopia more or less translates into "impossible perfect future" ... more or less.

OH, the "motivation" factor in your example would probably be the aliens knocking on the door. That's one of the unspoken motivating factors in Star Trek.

It seems there is a conflation of rewards and currency to the point that they are synonyms, and I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Even typing "currency/rewards" as if they are directly equatable seems a misnomer to me. As someone else implied, this perception is probably a large part of the problem. Real world value lies outside of currency as currency is a representation despite our cultural story stating otherwise.

Of course, a state of absolute perfection does not exist, nor is it possible outside of, perhaps, philosophical outlook.

Motivation can be introduced very simply; the improvement of ones quality of life. This can be accomplished through a variety of methods, including the current system.

If we limit the conversation to eliminating currency, we've effectively reduced it to futility. Currency is a useful tool. Like so many things, maybe the issue is in how we use it. We sure do love to blame our tools for our own failings though..

Personally, I think the key is in changing our approach to satisfying natural tendencies like greed, but that seems like it might be outside the scope of this discussion.

To use your farmer example:
There is a bewildering array of "stuff" that goes into producing even a simple crop. The market brings the farmer all these things, with very little input from us. We couldn't even begin to efficiently equip the farmer to make a crop, much less simultaneously distribute the resources needed for the myriad of things that support the people who make the equipment for the farmer.

Misallocation, in one form or another, is why systems fail. Our system, as flawed and corrupt as it is, is still the most efficient way we have ever found to distribute goods and services.

a reply to: imjack

originally posted by: Lithicalus
To use your farmer example:
There is a bewildering array of "stuff" that goes into producing even a simple crop. The market brings the farmer all these things, with very little input from us. We couldn't even begin to efficiently equip the farmer to make a crop, much less simultaneously distribute the resources needed for the myriad of things that support the people who make the equipment for the farmer.

Misallocation, in one form or another, is why systems fail. Our system, as flawed and corrupt as it is, is still the most efficient way we have ever found to distribute goods and services.

a reply to: imjack

My point was that there are more motivations than money, even simple ones. If people don't make food, they will die.

Gotcha.
a reply to: imjack

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Bone75
It won't be Utopia for us, but it will result in Utopia for our kids.

Can you say the same about our current system?

Neither one is going to be Utopia for anyone.

I beg to differ, those of us with stable, gainful employment are drastically outnumbered. Drastically.

Something's about to give.

originally posted by: Bone75
I beg to differ, those of us with stable, gainful employment are drastically outnumbered. Drastically.

Something's about to give.

It certainly is not going to be into a system where a government picked arbitrary number of hours of public work will enable you to then lead a life of not having any needs as they are being filled by the other drones you left behind on retirement.

If no one has to work for anything, then I'd make myself useful and help people.

I'd be the best party planner Morlock ever!

But who will fly the planes and clean the sidewalks, make the electricity and tv's to watch the shows that the actors might show up or not, to entertain you all day?

Even if everything is automated, someone still has to be doing something.

Sure, I'll run that nuke plant 3 days a week (what button should I never push? oh, was it my day to show up yesterday?) and my ex-wife can sub for Paul Bocuse. lol.

OP is correct, motivation. Expecting the whole human race would be altruistic enough to survive and "prosper" without anything in return besides "a job well done" is just a participation trophy and everyone would have one.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Bone75
I beg to differ, those of us with stable, gainful employment are drastically outnumbered. Drastically.

Something's about to give.

It certainly is not going to be into a system where a government picked arbitrary number of hours of public work will enable you to then lead a life of not having any needs as they are being filled by the other drones you left behind on retirement.

You still don't get it. That "arbitrary" number goes down every time we make a technological or systematic improvement that puts people out of work.

The 5,000 day requirement is just a starting point.

originally posted by: Bone75
You still don't get it. That "arbitrary" number goes down every time we make a technological or systematic improvement that puts people out of work.

And it still does not lead to a utopian scenario where everyone is suddenly altruistic and willing to do tasks for no compensation.