Utopian future will not work

a reply to: eNumbra

But in your scenario people would still require compensation for what they are doing. This is not really what the Original Poster laid out in his hypothetical discussion and what I am debating with the other poster.

I see your scenario as possible, but as you already mentioned, it is not utopia, just a robot supported, quasi-socio/capitalistic society.

a reply to: Tranceopticalinclined

Nice to think about it though, isn't it? That's all this thread really is.

It's not politics, weird pedo stuff, Nibiru, chemtrails or anything else that's popular on here at the moment.

It's something different to get the old cogs working.

originally posted by: eNumbra
Automation through robotics and AI has taken over the entirety or vast majority of the labor force. There would still be human doctors, lawyers, politicians, and similar - but to humans, service, manufacturing, and general labor jobs would be dead. The majority of the world simply wouldn't be employable because Robotics would simply be better/cheaper. A world like this would have had to change to accommodate this; basic income and health care would be provided for. If it wasn't, well there are numerous sci-fi movies and novels we could cite - but with the majority of the world unemployed and living in abject poverty a bloody revolution would eventually happen.

With all basic needs provided for (shelter, health, and nourishment) people would be free to pursue what interests them, whether it's designing new Robotics, creating art, exploring the world (or other worlds) or any of the other, you know, those aspirations that people have now but don't always have the time for.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your idea: you said certain jobs would still be humans, so those with a qualification will still have to work (nurses, doctors, etc). But those with jobs that don't need years of university will be free to do what they please as they will be provided for?

Please explain that properly as it does not sound very utopic to me personally.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: eNumbra

But in your scenario people would still require compensation for what they are doing. This is not really what the Original Poster laid out in his hypothetical discussion and what I am debating with the other poster.

I see your scenario as possible, but as you already mentioned, it is not utopia, just a robot supported, quasi-socio/capitalistic society.

If we go to the simpler(see: Actual) definition of utopia being a "perfect world" it fits - and is probably the closest we'd ever get at that. IMO that was the issue with this whole thread - OP wrongly reassigns utopia to that of a money-less society wherein there is no work to be done. The reality is there is always work to be done. More issues I saw cropped up later where you yourself argued you don't mind being charitable but wouldn't dedicate your life to it - in an utopian system, there simply wouldn't exist the necessity for charity at that level if at all.

Though many may see money-less society as utopia, they're taking the shorter view that money is the root of our society's problems, whereby we know the love of the accumulation of that money is closer to the truth, and it's a product of certain human mindsets. I may be a dreamer, but I recognize the difference between the realistic and the pipe.

OP rigidly redefined Utopia into a single vision of that wider definition and shot that definition down.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: eNumbra

which would bring me to a question I asked myself when I first read the OP. (The hell was even the point of this thread The unobtainable is unobtainable. yeah, thanks Plato.

Why not? I find the subject interesting, regardless of obtainability.

The original post simply struck me as redundant - my immediate thought was simply "no #"; at which point it seemed like you were simply tooting your own horn for an insightful shower-thought.

That's probably on me, I've thought about this topic enough that I often think "oh how cute" when I hear other's musing on it. But that's on me.

a reply to: eNumbra

That is a fair enough assessment and I tend to agree with most of it, I was mostly arguing the premise as laid out in the Original Post. Have a good one.

a reply to: eNumbra

I actually agree. It's very redundant. The reason it's redundant is because there is no and will be no consensus on what a utopia is.

originally posted by: Agartha
Please explain that properly as it does not sound very utopic to me personally.

Automation will take time to take over every job.

Eventually, AI may do everything for us - but first it will take the menial, and work its way up as long as it's cheaper to use automated labor. People would in all likely-hood still be compensated additionally for work performed - so nobody who sits around all day and doesn't contribute would have the same living as those who spent years in universities, but basic human needs would be met. Suffering would be lessened because it would no longer cost you just to exist.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm looking at this in a different way.

As long as this world, this planet, this solar system continues to operate as it has and under the conditions it has for so long, it's a closed, self-defeating loop.

Utopia = complete Liberty which means to me I can come and go from this planet as I please, or not come here at all. I can go wherever I want in creation and am no longer physically enslaved on this planet and blocked from the rest of creation. My statement doesn't address only the physical parts of creation, it encompasses all of creation.

originally posted by: eNumbra
Automation will take time to take over every job.

Eventually, AI may do everything for us - but first it will take the menial, and work its way up as long as it's cheaper to use automated labor. People would in all likely-hood still be compensated additionally for work performed - so nobody who sits around all day and doesn't contribute would have the same living as those who spent years in universities, but basic human needs would be met. Suffering would be lessened because it would no longer cost you just to exist.

The scenario above is not much different than our world now,really: those who had worked hard to get qualifications get rewarded more for the job they do. Those who don't work (or don't want to) get benefits/welfare which gives them food, shelter and health care.

a reply to: tweetie

That sounds like a utopia for 1. What about everyone else? What about the people who don't like heights or are afraid of flying (I'm assuming you're on about space travel and possible sone metaphysical stuffs)?

See the issue (that I purposely didn't put in the OP)? Utopia for 1 isn't utopia for all.

a reply to: TerryDon79

"See the issue (that I purposely didn't put in the OP)? Utopia for 1 isn't utopia for all."

Unless of course we are all part of or share a group consciousness, then that one utopia could indeed facilitate all of our needs and/or requirements without us ever even releasing.

There is rather a lot humanity has to learn about our own consciousness in relation to how we perceive reality that we just don't fully understand or even have the tools to address the questions.

But we are getting there, we are learning how to build those necessary tools, and the pace of said technology and knowledge is somewhat quickening.

a reply to: andy06shake

That would mean giving up individuality.

I'm sorry, but no thanks.

Individuality is what makes people who they are and how we as a species advance. Take that away and we will be stagnant. Stagnant species don't advance.

originally posted by: Agartha
Those who don't work (or don't want to) get benefits/welfare which gives them food, shelter and health care.

I've been on unemployment.

Don't you dare compare the benefits provided in current society to providing a basic standard of living.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Or our notion of Individuality, just like freewill, is an illusion of sorts?



"Stagnant species don't advance"

I think its really weird what we consider advancement, for all our technological prowess and the information age in which we live we are still basically the same animal we were 100,000 years ago. We certainly follow the same paradigm.

a reply to: eNumbra

That's exactly what benefits are here in the UK.

You get your shelter paid (in Scotland. England is bit weird with how they do their housing benefit). You get money every fortnight for food, water, gas and electricity (and any other bills).

It's a basic living benefit.

a reply to: andy06shake

I'd rather not go down those lines. I'm not spiritual in any way so it's not something I feel I can truly debate about.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Science is not exactly spirituality, although both are rather/or can be rather more synonymous than we ever stop to consider.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah, but the topic of group consciousness is more about spirituality explained with science.

Plus, for me, not being an individual would be literal hell. I like being me

a reply to: TerryDon79

Some religious such as Gnosticism promote the notion that this verse actually is hell.

originally posted by: eNumbra

I've been on unemployment.

Don't you dare compare the benefits provided in current society to providing a basic standard of living.

I don't know where you live but unemployed people in the Uk even get their rents paid (Edit: I see Terrydon already replied to that).

But even if they are not the same, I still think it's unfair that those who do not aspire to work hard for a qualification can choose to live well being idle, whilst others like me will only get an additional compensation for working hard. It's not only unfair, it's also very much what's happening right now.

I would love for world poverty to end, and I don't mind working to pay for those who are unable to work (due to illness, disability, etc). But to know that Johnny next door is lazy and chooses to be idle all day and yet he gets all he needs for, that's not utopic at all.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
That would mean giving up individuality.

I'm sorry, but no thanks.

Exactly..... what a boring world that would be. I'm not saying we live in a perfect world, far from it and I would also love it for poverty/war/suffering to end. But at least now we can all keep our individuality, which makes us stand up from the rest. I could never be part of a society where everybody have to think and act the same. I worked too hard to get where I am which also defines who I am in many way.s