So efficient we all don't need to work to sustain society?

reply to post by Cuervo


actually to me it alreadys seems evil and barbiric. I am not sure how to explain sine I was 12 years old I have evolved I have learned how to shed the ways of the old world to make to room for the new one. Slowly bit by bit I have learned what is important and it is a process that everyone will learn. I only work 25-30 hours a week that is more than enough time accomplish what I need to do this includes college as well. Sure I do not make alot of money but mmoney is only a secondary goal to overall self actualzation.Some people are too over worked to see what I mean. I guess you have to live the lifestyle. Sure I still experience stress and would like to make abou 5k more year so I can live a little easier.
I believe society would soon follow behing with these ideals. Once is more inline with a more enlightened humane approach then the stress due to lack of money or the stress of overworking will be a thing of the past. we need to look to the future not hold onto the old ways. We are no longer in the times of the wild west or the industrial revolution all those things before us happened to set us free.

This thread is now turning towards the direction of how many hours a human can work a week before he can be termed as lazy or productive.

Each human is different in many various ways and circumstances in life. Some do have a choice, while many others have none.

Ultimately, it boils down to the question of being human. Do we live to work, or do we work so that we can live?

If we live only to work, we are no more than robots, of which are not. We are far superior than any robot that man can create, even within the next few thousand or millions of years. We are the product of an Universe of billion years. Some believe we are intelligently designed. Some subscribe to the chaos theory.

But still, no robots existed in either hypothesis.

We humans are far more capable than robots in every aspect of life, regardless of the work station we perform in the diverse roles of employment in societies. And the biggest aspect of life is to be human - to live and love, something no robot is capable of. We are the continuation of a species that may had spanned more than the time period of recorded history, as recent archeological finds had proven, that draws our species further back in time.

Thus, there must be a balance to work and living. If we work 24/7, we will all die out as a species in no time, as some slaves in China did. If we don't work at all, at the low state of technology progress we are in, we too will die out in no time.

But what is that balance? We as a species should thank the enlightened Unions for fighting for our rights in the 1900s, or we this generation would have continued 24/7 in sweatshops as our youthful ancestors did during the industrial revolution, and made the elites indolent and even far more richer than they ever were with hoarded up wealth not shared.

Even for those who subscribe to religion, man was taught to rest on the 7th day, not made to work everyday, and slaves were freed after 7 yrs or every jubilee.

Thus a time for rest was mandatory for mankind. But in today's time when wealth is NOT FAIRLY distributed, many are working 24/7 just to make ends meet, and are even seeking 48/7 if possible.

So where's the balance. Those whom are happy where they are will choose the extremes and be satisfied. But we do not live in shells. We share this world, with 7 billion others and do have the responsibility to ensure at least a standard is set between time for working and living, if we but only are willing to share and distribute such wealth conscionably that no man needs want or be left behind.

reply to post by GaryN

I saw this on ATS a while ago:
1 MILLION pounds of Food on 3 acres. 10,000 fish 500 yards compost

Yeah, and that food will taste like crap. Hydroponics can improve yields considerably, but they are not cheap to set up, and you have to really know what you are wanting to do with that food. If you are just wanting to feed cattle - then you don't have to be too concerned with the flavor. However, when you want to go for human consumption, you have to settle for lower yields and a solution that more accurately represents natural growing conditions.

This also depends upon the crop. Tea, for example, is generally preferred when it comes from high-altitude environments where its growth is stunted by the environment.

I think there is a lot that communities could do to be self sufficient to some degree, but Big Agro doesn't want us to escape their clutches.

This, really isn't it at all. As I said - those hydroponics setups are not cheap. They also require very specialized knowledge of botany to adjust to different crops to really be effective. You may have a 3-acre compound, but you are going to have many workers in that compound running samples and inspecting the crops. Sure - computer automation can reduce the need for some of those jobs - but that increases set-up costs and adds a layer of technical expertise that must be on hand (and computers are absolutely mystifying boxes of magic wonder to most people - even some of the smartest botanists are helpless when an icon disappears from their desktop).

Compare that to having a couple guys maintain some tractors and drive them through fields that are, otherwise, not utilized.

Even your average home garden has much higher per-plant yields than factory farming - but you're talking about much more intensive care and labor by a person to make it that way.

To maintain a small farm large enough to feed me through the year - I would have to devote at least three to four hours a day to it (and that's just being rather basic about it - if you want to get into cataloging the whole affair and pretty much being a student of the symbiotic relationship - then it will be an all-day affair from February to November with sporadic bits of activity in December and January). I could probably produce excess, enough to feed my room mates and a couple of the neighbors - but that's about the extent of it.

You really get an appreciation for how much food you actually eat when you have to wait two months for it to grow and realize that you have to make it last until next year (though effective gardening will encompass much of the planting season starting with your hardy vegetables in the early spring and finishing with them in late fall - you can often plant beets into October in the mid-west; and you'll have multiple plantings of your grains).

By comparison, I can live off of $20/week worth of food - which amounts to about 3-4 hours' worth of work at my current job; or about 30-40 minutes per day (give or take). We'll go ahead and round it to an hour because I sometimes get crazy and get a burger or something (which, in and of itself, ends up costing about an hours' worth of work).

Which is why I always like to break my expenses down in hours of work. It helps to keep things in perspective. One day a week (or so) goes to rent - and so on.

reply to post by TheRedneck


12 hours would be half of the day exactly that is still to much it seems. Maybe it should be 25% working then that math makes more sense. Honestly if people want to work 40 hours, 50 hours per week that is up to them but don't force it on others. People are forced to work so much because of costs of living. We need a lower cost of living for sure.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by GaryN

One of the hardest things to do is argue with success.

It would appear that my knowledge of hydroponics is lacking. This does appear to be a fantastic development. As a matter of fact, I may consider setting up my own hydroponics greenhouse based on these results.

As far as Big Agro goes... remember, I live in a farming community. My uncle (well, actually my cousin now that he is getting older) cultivates about 6000 acres, and that is one family farm among hundreds here. They are far from rich (although not poor either), and they work sunup to sundown, every day to produce food. Big Agro does not produce all the food; they process it. Food still comes from farms and ranches.

Thank you for the heads-up!

TheRedneck

This is exactly what I mean. People who don't know about this aren't ignorant and many (like you) are quite knowledgeable in the field. It's just that there are many advances in agriculture and energy that would put a cramp on the styles of many who enjoy the monopoly they have so it's not exactly advertised as "viable" solutions.

Once you dig a little deeper, you'll be just as frustrated as some of us are.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

Ultimately, it boils down to the question of being human. Do we live to work, or do we work so that we can live?

If we live only to work, we are no more than robots, of which are not. We are far superior than any robot that man can create, even within the next few thousand or millions of years. We are the product of an Universe of billion years. Some believe we are intelligently designed. Some subscribe to the chaos theory.

But still, no robots existed in either hypothesis.

We humans are far more capable than robots in every aspect of life, regardless of the work station we perform in the diverse roles of employment in societies.

I'm quoting this large section for context.

As the resident egomaniac, I like to boast my superiority and my status in the 99 percentile related to metrics of intelligence.

However, I've come to realize that the universe is a little less understanding when it comes to how superior I am. Things like walls obstruct my free passage, for instance. Other walls do not obstruct sound, hot/cold, etc as much as I would like them to. And, perhaps, most interestingly... my body fails to grasp the concept of being a superior being and likes to think it requires things like food, sleep, etc (I am also horribly disappointed that I cannot emit bursts of energy from my body to create and destroy at will).

Most unsettling, however, is my reliance upon inferior processes to supply the needs of my body. For whatever reason, I cannot bask in the sun and munch on dirt - I have to wait for a plant to do that. In some cases, I even have to wait for an animal to eat the plant! It's agonizing.

Further - these processes are not guaranteed. Things like wind, drought, etc tend to destroy plants. Other times, rodents and insects (that are not all that edible or contained well enough to be practically edible) come along and eat the plants. This is most frustrating, and while my rage is strong enough to instantly purge this planet of such beasts; it would also destroy my body to channel such rage into the mortal realm (I suppose it must be some kind of fail-safe... no matter how angry I get about some living things - they continue to live out of spite).

So, what this means is that someone has to come along and tend these plants and ensure that the food-producing voodoo ritual is completed (it's not really voodoo - but it may as well be). He spends his time and effort protecting and tending the plants as they produce food, or tending the animals as they eat plants - that sort of thing. He was really pissed the last time he got hungry, and vowed never to let that happen again.

If I want to partake of some of his efforts... it might be a good idea for me to help him in some fashion. Maybe I can use the furs of some of his critters to make clothing so that he can work more comfortably - gloves do that (and in the event of colder weather, vests and the like do that, too).

I don't expect him to simply say: "hey, dude who is sitting over there chasing lizards and talking to birds - come eat!" (Yes, this is typically how I behave in nature - chasing lizards around rocks is fun as hell, and birds seem to appreciate vocalization even if they can't assign any real meaning to it).

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
This thread is now turning towards the direction of how many hours a human can work a week before he can be termed as lazy or productive.

Each human is different in many various ways and circumstances in life. Some do have a choice, while many others have none.

edit on 9-10-2011 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)

I agree with you every human being is unique so it is hard pinpoint how many hours a person should work.I am talking about how much a person should work just to meet the cost of living. I hate living in a society that by default I am either forced to work well beyond what my stress level and body can handle or have 50% my income come from disablity. I would rather work from home 25-30 hours a week 3-5 days a week as needed and make $18,000 per year at least. that is about the minuim standard of living here in KC MO. While I do work 25 -30 hours a week my disbality and benefits make up a good part of my income. I hate relying partially on the government funds(food stamps and medicaid.) but I have no choice. There really is no american dream just different ideals on how we all want to live. If someone wants to live an unhealthy lifestyle that is up to them or if someone wants to do no work at all it is up to them. For myself I do not have anything to do for too long I get antsy. This a really tough and serious issue that we all need to think about if we ever have to rebuild our society. Believe me a collapse is inevitable, we are not too big to fall; we are much like the titanic. We think our societies(including USA and all countries.) are unsinkable but that is a false sense of security. If society does not change now in our lifetime many capitlists countries espeically the USA will fail.

the same sort of thing can be said for the super rich, why not move over and let another guy do it for a few years or better yet 1000 people for 10 years etc.

greedy greedy humans!

One mouse stored his grain and the other didnt, but since the third mouse who told them both what to do yet did nothing himself at all, takes a cut from both sides, the third mouse is the real winner in todays version of the story

I am going to put in as many hours as necessary to maintain my lifestyle.

Sure, I could work a minimum of hours and really enjoy my ketchup sandwiches and ramen noodles. (Believe me I was there at one point in my life. Nothing quite like a ketchup sandwich, let me tell ya.)

Or, alternatively, I can put in 60 hour weeks and enjoy the toys that my effort brings.

I'll take choice number two.

Originally posted by subject x
It's obviously on it's way. Constant advances in automation + ever increasing population= more people than jobs in existence. Something's going to have to be figured out, or we're going to have 50%+ unemployment.

Agenda 21 will cure that.

hey, we would have had that if not for the women's lib movement! A working man in every house, or a few million houses with no income. I would take the former. Granted, I was raised in a very old fashioned home, with a stay at home mom and loved it. I always assumed that was how it should be, and thought i would be a stay at home mom myself.
The trouble with women going to work was it didnt work one bit. Sure for a time they enjoyed having two incomes per household, but inflation gradually took care of that. Now two people in a home work all week to only have the same quality of life as when only the men worked. Seems really like a vast waste of time to me to have two people earning the income of what used to be done by one person. Pretty soon we will need to be sending our kids out to work - not to buy themselves new trends or save for their future, but to sustain their households with their parents. If I could go back in time to anywhen, I would hunt down the feminist leaders and tell them how wrong they were,. They did not liberate me - they trapped me in a world where i have to place work above my family. I would tell them to head back to the drawing board and find a better way to accomplish their goals. We didnt move forward, we went backwards.
and as for your thread title: we arent working at this point to sustain society, lol, we are working to sustain our debts.

Originally posted by subject x
It's obviously on it's way. Constant advances in automation + ever increasing population= more people than jobs in existence. Something's going to have to be figured out, or we're going to have 50%+ unemployment.

We need to quit making more people! Think you can live high on a"full time" 20 hour a week job?

reply to post by dreamseeker

You keep coming back to the idea of being forced to work. No one is forced to work. People work because they either want to do something or because they need the money for something they want or need.

If you want to work a part-time job, if that is all the money you want, then that is fine. If you want to work the full 40, then 20 more on overtime, that's fine too. If you do not want to work at all, then that is your decision. All these choices are legal.

What you seem to be talking about is the consequences of working lower hours. Yes, there are consequences. No, no one owes you anything for being born. If you do not work, or if you place your work at such a low priority in your life so as to become unproductive, you have not earned large sums of money. Since money is the exchange medium, that means you have not earned the things that money can buy. Those are the consequences of not working.

If you hire someone to fix your car, you expect them to do a good job. So when someone hires you, they expect you to do a good job. If the mechanic does a poor job for you, you will not hire him the next time you need a mechanic; if you do a poor job when someone hires you, they will not want to keep you hired.

Most jobs are 40 hours per week because that has emerged as the standard in business models. It is not set in stone, however. If someone wants to pay for it (time and a half, mandated now by law) they can let you work as much as they want. Rarely is anyone fired for refusing to work more than 40 hours a week, unless their job description says they may be forced to do so.

When employers decide to add positions, they will typically figure how many additional man-hours they need each week and simply divide by 40. In other words, they assume that the jobs will be 40 hours per week. But there are plenty of other positions that offer part-time work, sometimes as low as a few hours per month. You don't make as much money because you don't do as much work, but if your priority is free time instead of money, then that is the perfect job for you.

In short, there is nothing that is preventing you from working the hours you want to work. You just have to find an employer who is willing to accept your employment under those conditions. And you always have the option of creating your own job, your own firm to do what you want when you want. Just remember, there are consequences to every choice you make, and no one is responsible for those but you.

TheRedneck

Actually the truth is this.

We need about the amount of people in the world we have today, give or take a million or so, in order to maintain our level of living and technology.

You can't do what you do on a day to day basis without literaly thousands of people working for you and those thousands inturn need thousands.

One person does not build a pc mouse it takes thousands to build one mouse from the people who get the oils to the people who get the minerals to the people who make the plastics etc thousands of people have done a job before one single person puts one pc mouse together.

And all those people wear clothes and eat food and drive cars and have showers and so on and so on.
,
You wake up in the morning have a shower get dress get into your car and go food shopping. Because of thousands of people you have your bed, shower,clothes,car, road for the car, food on the shop shelves etc. And 6 billion people live a day to day life and need 6 billion people to keep it going. Technology does not drive society society drives technology.

We wouldn't have our level of technology without the population growth. And people don't work for free.

Instead of merely working toward maintaining our primitive system, we should also work towards advancing it in such a way that our jobs become more and more obsolete... or better yet, fun! I work towards this future every day in my own way, but we'd get there faster if more people pitched in.

Also, whoever posted the idea of creativity acting as a currency... I think that's a great idea. We need more innovation but also less regulations which do more to hinder progress than to help it.

reply to post by Cuervo

Frustrated? Nah, not likely.

The biggest thing that will happen is I may actually build something like this and see for myself how well it does. I don't like complaining about things; I prefer to just fix the problems I have and move on. Somehow, I'm never bored but usually satisfied that way.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Cuervo

Frustrated? Nah, not likely.

The biggest thing that will happen is I may actually build something like this and see for myself how well it does. I don't like complaining about things; I prefer to just fix the problems I have and move on. Somehow, I'm never bored but usually satisfied that way.

TheRedneck

Awesome! If you are in the position to do something incredible like that, do it. I'm slowly getting my family self-sustainable but it's rough when it's not common practice for people around you. I expect it to catch on. Keep us posted if you get inspired and actually break ground on something like that.

reply to post by Xeven


Here is a question I have been wondering: now that women are entering the workplace to survive (not having much option to be supported by a husband, as far as I can tell, unless it is by religious preference) doesn't that mean that our work force will double while the amount of jobs stays roughly the same? How will that be accounted for, once all the men and women are single and everyone has to work to survive but there are only half enough jobs?

reply to post by Saucerwench


Star Trek only works because of replicator technology eliminating the pressure on food sources and undisclosed energy sources which are plentiful and cheap. That is the only way that that utopian future can even hypothetically exist.

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by Xeven

 

Here is a question I have been wondering: now that women are entering the workplace to survive (not having much option to be supported by a husband, as far as I can tell, unless it is by religious preference) doesn't that mean that our work force will double while the amount of jobs stays roughly the same? How will that be accounted for, once all the men and women are single and everyone has to work to survive but there are only half enough jobs?

edit on 10-10-2011 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

That was part of what brought us to this mess to begin with the rise of the double income family. And don't think for a minute the Corporations didn't notice and capitalize on the trend. By effectively doubling the workforce, the working class by default halved their wages. With two people working full time in an effort to double their income in the 70's drove wages to stagnate for the course of three decades, because the employers can basically make you compete with twice as many people and then compete against automation.