Labor Endgame

[bu villain]

If at some point in the future, let's say humanity has mastered robotics and renewable energy to the point that:

1) No human labor is required to produce and distribute enough food (including water) to feed every human
2) No human labor is required to maintain enough buildings/living space/basic utilities

In such a future, would you be okay with large portions of the population choosing not to do any paid work? What would the labor market look like and would you want to institute any laws to change it?

[David88vert]

There will always be a need for someone to repair the robots.....

[Vteckidd]

Basic economic principles still apply.

Lower skilled jobs
Medium skilled jobs
Highly skilled Jobs
Market pays what each job is worth

the only thing that would change is what dictates a "low skilled Job" and so forth. If they dont perform paid work, how do they survive.

The work force would just transition or have to move to areas that fit their skillset.

[bu villain]

There will always be a need for someone to repair the robots.....

Sorry, should have stated robots can fix the other robots as well.


Basic economic principles still apply.

Lower skilled jobs
Medium skilled jobs
Highly skilled Jobs
Market pays what each job is worth

the only thing that would change is what dictates a "low skilled Job" and so forth. If they dont perform paid work, how do they survive.

The work force would just transition or have to move to areas that fit their skillset.

They don't need to perform work to survive because food/water/shelter is all provided at no cost by the robots.

[Vteckidd]

They don't need to perform work to survive because food/water/shelter is all provided at no cost by the robots.

Not true

Money ceases to exist? Food water and shelter cost money, robots doesnt make things free and have no cost? are you kidding me? Economy would change, but rules of economy dont.

See Industrial Revolution

[David88vert]

Sorry, should have stated robots can fix the other robots as well.

They don't need to perform work to survive because food/water/shelter is all provided at no cost by the robots.

So, who designs the robots, programs the robots, etc?

When we can rely on the robots for everything, they will no longer need us.

[bu villain]

Not true

Money ceases to exist? Food water and shelter cost money, robots doesnt make things free and have no cost? are you kidding me? Economy would change, but rules of economy dont.

See Industrial Revolution

Why would they have to cost money. In this scenario, energy is free (renewable) and the robots, powered by this free renewable energy can provide and maintain the basic necessities of life for everyone in perpetuity. I guess my inability to craft a perfect hypothetical scenario is distracting you from understanding my underlying questions about labor itself so just answer this for me. Is it a moral/ethical imperative that everyone work or contribute to society in some similar way or is requiring labor to survive just a necessity of reality with no moral/ethical implications? Or in another way, should we have a system that requires people to work more than the absolute minimum necessary for survival and does that hold true as the amount of labor necessary for survival approaches 0?

[bu villain]

So, who designs the robots, programs the robots, etc?

When we can rely on the robots for everything, they will no longer need us.

For the sake of moving the conversation forward, let's say Bill Gates originally designed and programmed the robots and said he would never charge for their use. The AI on the robots is good enough for them to become self sustaining/replicating as necessary to provide everyone the basic human necessities. Yes, the robots do not need humans at all. If these details are becoming to distracting, please see the questions I asked Vteck.

[David88vert]

Why would they have to cost money. In this scenario, energy is free (renewable) and the robots, powered by this free renewable energy can provide and maintain the basic necessities of life for everyone in perpetuity. I guess my inability to craft a perfect hypothetical scenario is distracting you from understanding my underlying questions about labor itself so just answer this for me. Is it a moral/ethical imperative that everyone work or contribute to society in some similar way or is requiring labor to survive just a necessity of reality with no moral/ethical implications? Or in another way, should we have a system that requires people to work more than the absolute minimum necessary for survival and does that hold true as the amount of labor necessary for survival approaches 0?

Nothing is free in life. There will never be any such thing as free, renewable energy. There will always be a trade-off.
There will never be such as thing as free items like food, robots, etc. Someone has to put forth the effort to create and build them, and they will require payment for services and products rendered.
A basic principle - anything that someone gets for free, someone else had to pay for.

[David88vert]

For the sake of moving the conversation forward, let's say Bill Gates originally designed and programmed the robots and said he would never charge for their use. The AI on the robots is good enough for them to become self sustaining/replicating as necessary to provide everyone the basic human necessities. Yes, the robots do not need humans at all. If these details are becoming to distracting, please see the questions I asked Vteck.

Bill Gates charges for crappy Windows software - now you think that he is going to give away AI for free???
Humans will need to be paid to reboot the robots when they turn "blue" (blue screen crash).

The reality is that money is just a physical symbol of the power to get others to do what you want them to do. If you had someone that donated "free everything", someone else would find a way to manipulate it to conquer everyone else. It's human nature. There will always be people that want to rule over others, and will find ways to do so.

[Vteckidd]

so your basically saying that
Robots grow food
Robots plant food (crops)
Robots Harvest Crops
Robots Till soil
Robots butcher animals for meat

Robots produce/harvest unlimited energy

Doesnt matter, see previous post. Economy would transition , but basic rules still apply.

All you did was eliminate the need for burger flippers and coal miners, so, instead of us thinking that minimum wage is mceedees, minimum wage would be a nuclear physicist, and jobs we cannot think of yet (because technology hasnt been invented) would be the "medium and high skilled" jobs.

As long as currency exists, there will always be low/medium/high skilled jobs.

See Industrial Revolution, See CHINA

[Vteckidd]

I suspect there would be a charge for time the robots do labor, maint costs, someone would own them.

The economy would shift, but theres always 3 classes of people/jobs.

Not sure why you arent getting this

[Vteckidd]

Why would they have to cost money. In this scenario, energy is free (renewable) and the robots, powered by this free renewable energy can provide and maintain the basic necessities of life for everyone in perpetuity. I guess my inability to craft a perfect hypothetical scenario is distracting you from understanding my underlying questions about labor itself so just answer this for me. Is it a moral/ethical imperative that everyone work or contribute to society in some similar way or is requiring labor to survive just a necessity of reality with no moral/ethical implications? Or in another way, should we have a system that requires people to work more than the absolute minimum necessary for survival and does that hold true as the amount of labor necessary for survival approaches 0?

see Communism

[bu villain]

Wow I didn't think this would be so difficult. Please forget the hypothetical scenario and just answer this question:

Should we have a system that requires people to work more than the absolute minimum necessary for their personal survival and does that hold true as the amount of labor necessary for survival approaches 0?

[bu villain]

see Communism

Communism doesn't deal with a society where the labor cost of survival approaches 0.

[.blank cd]

The Second Renaissance

[David88vert]

Should we have a system that requires people to work more than the absolute minimum necessary for their personal survival and does that hold true as the amount of labor necessary for survival approaches 0?

We will always have a system that requires people to work more than the absolute minimum necessary for their personal survival. People are not content to just have the necessities. If you were content with just the necessities, you could get a few acres of land in south GA, build you own house with the timber on the land, and grow your own crops. That, coupled with a little hunting and fishing, could get you by in life. There are some people that do just that and are content with that. The vast majority of us want more than that though, and will try to work harder to have the nicer things in life. In general, people don't want to just survive, they want to thrive.

You technically don't have to work to survive at all right now. You could commit a serious crime, and live off the system in prison, and survive there with no work required. If you don't want that, you could go to the soup kitchens and homeless shelters and survive without work. Or, you could live off government assistance, welfare, and food stamps, like plenty of people do, and never actually have a job.

[.blank cd]

If at some point in the future, let's say humanity has mastered robotics and renewable energy to the point that:

1) No human labor is required to produce and distribute enough food (including water) to feed every human
2) No human labor is required to maintain enough buildings/living space/basic utilities

In such a future, would you be okay with large portions of the population choosing not to do any paid work? What would the labor market look like and would you want to institute any laws to change it?

Is there anything left for humans to do? Could the majority of humans go out and do paid work?

[Vteckidd]

Wow I didn't think this would be so difficult. Please forget the hypothetical scenario and just answer this question:

Should we have a system that requires people to work more than the absolute minimum necessary for their personal survival and does that hold true as the amount of labor necessary for survival approaches 0?

your scenario is moot.

The fact remains that there will be low skilled jobs > medium skilled jobs > Highly technical jobs. All that changes in your scenario is the TYPE of jobs those are.

your question doesnt make any sense. Thats why I cant answer it.

YES people have to work at or more than the absolute minimum for survival. What constitutes survival can change, but the principle doesnt. Amount of labor necessary for survival never approaches 0, economies change, skillsets change, education changes, but fundamentals of economy dont.

Again, SEE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

We are far more educated and mechanized now than we were in the 1700s. But the main aspects of the economies havent changed. Poor, middle class, upper class.

[David88vert]

Is there anything left for humans to do? Could the majority of humans go out and do paid work?

No, we will all be confined and forced to discuss politics all day on internet forums.
Oh, crap.

[.blank cd]

No, we will all be confined and forced to discuss politics all day on internet forums.
Oh, crap.

I've already mentioned that I'm not paid enough to be on here

[Vteckidd]

FYI Labor is what is exchanged for goods and services, money is just the vehicle to measure your labor with. So there will always be a class of people who will work at or near the minimum for survival.

[David88vert]

I've already mentioned that I'm not paid enough to be on here

What? You're getting paid??? Now I see why you want minimum wage raise - you just want a pay increase!

On another note - is the robot that is bringing your food to you running Windows 4,569,489? I know that it can't be running Windows 7 or 8.

[Sinfix_15]

If at some point in the future, let's say humanity has mastered robotics and renewable energy to the point that:

1) No human labor is required to produce and distribute enough food (including water) to feed every human
2) No human labor is required to maintain enough buildings/living space/basic utilities

In such a future, would you be okay with large portions of the population choosing not to do any paid work? What would the labor market look like and would you want to institute any laws to change it?

It's already happening today. At my place of employment, we're already replacing people with robots. I think in the short term it's going to have a negative effect on the job numbers, but in the long run people will adapt. They will have no choice but to do so. It could be a good thing in terms of quality of life for everyone. Maybe the absence of labor based jobs will force people to focus on providing services.

Do we need any laws to prepare for it???? God no........ whatever the future brings.... the government will most certainly fuck it up. If anything, we need less laws.

[.blank cd]

Y'all scared him off. Now he'll never answer my question

[Vteckidd]

SEE WALL-E

[.blank cd]

Watch "The Second Renaissance, pt1"

[David88vert]

SEE WALL-E


Watch "The Second Renaissance, pt1"

...because cartoons are the answer to all serious economic questions.....

[David88vert]

It's already happening today. At my place of employment, we're already replacing people with robots. I think in the short term it's going to have a negative effect on the job numbers, but in the long run people will adapt. They will have no choice but to do so. It could be a good thing in terms of quality of life for everyone. Maybe the absence of labor based jobs will force people to focus on providing services.

Do we need any laws to prepare for it???? God no........ whatever the future brings.... the government will most certainly fuck it up. If anything, we need less laws.

So, what happens when all the guns are made by robots, and are then designed by the robots to only be usable by the robots?

[Sinfix_15]

zomg the machines are taking are jobs!!! the world is coming to an end!!!!..... What are we ever gonna do!?!?!?!?!?!



Probably the same thing we've been doing for the last 100 years of machines taking our jobs.

http://www.seotrainingsw.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ditches.jpg
https://www.deere.com/common/media/images/product/excavators/JD463145_CE_942x458.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

So, what happens when all the guns are made by robots, and are then designed by the robots to only be usable by the robots?

Easy!!....

We steal one of the robots, program it to be on our side, send him back in time to kill the person who invented robots and protect the person who figured out how to program a robot to go back in time.

[David88vert]

Easy!!....

We steal one of the robots, program it to be on our side, send him back in time to kill the person who invented robots and protect the person who figured out how to program a robot to go back in time.

Monkey wrench time! The robots have to invent the time machine, because we will be to busy sipping on our "Big and Large" drinks!

[bu villain]

your scenario is moot.

The fact remains that there will be low skilled jobs > medium skilled jobs > Highly technical jobs. All that changes in your scenario is the TYPE of jobs those are.

your question doesnt make any sense. Thats why I cant answer it.

YES people have to work at or more than the absolute minimum for survival. What constitutes survival can change, but the principle doesnt. Amount of labor necessary for survival never approaches 0, economies change, skillsets change, education changes, but fundamentals of economy dont.

Again, SEE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

We are far more educated and mechanized now than we were in the 1700s. But the main aspects of the economies havent changed. Poor, middle class, upper class.

I really don't know how else to say it. Is work good in and of itself or is it just a necessity with no moral implication?


Is there anything left for humans to do? Could the majority of humans go out and do paid work?

Sure, humans could still do whatever they wanted and charge money just as they do now. The only difference is that basic necessities for everyone is not a concern for anyone. People could use their time to pursue whatever they wanted be it playing video games, starting a business, studying science, etc.


We will always have a system that requires people to work more than the absolute minimum necessary for their personal survival. People are not content to just have the necessities. If you were content with just the necessities, you could get a few acres of land in south GA, build you own house with the timber on the land, and grow your own crops. That, coupled with a little hunting and fishing, could get you by in life. There are some people that do just that and are content with that. The vast majority of us want more than that though, and will try to work harder to have the nicer things in life. In general, people don't want to just survive, they want to thrive.

You technically don't have to work to survive at all right now. You could commit a serious crime, and live off the system in prison, and survive there with no work required. If you don't want that, you could go to the soup kitchens and homeless shelters and survive without work. Or, you could live off government assistance, welfare, and food stamps, like plenty of people do, and never actually have a job.

Yes people who want more than the basic necessities would be free to pursue that. They could start businesses, charge for their product/services etc. Your statement about living on a piece of land in south GA is getting close to what I am getting at, except the house would already be built and the robots would do the farm work for you. If everyone in the world lived such a life, do you see anything wrong with that?

[Sinfix_15]

Monkey wrench time! The robots have to invent the time machine, because we will be to busy sipping on our "Big and Large" drinks!

No doubt the robots will also send someone back in time to thwart our plan. They'll probably have a more advanced robot too, but our robot will ultimately win the fight because we will program it to be a "goddamn american". It will ride motorcycles, shoot shotguns and be able to fist fight.

[Vteckidd]

So, what happens when all the guns are made by robots, and are then designed by the robots to only be usable by the robots?

http://twscritic.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/terminator-2-judgment-day.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

I really don't know how else to say it. Is work good in and of itself or is it just a necessity with no moral implication?



Sure, humans could still do whatever they wanted and charge money just as they do now. The only difference is that basic necessities for everyone is not a concern for anyone. People could use their time to pursue whatever they wanted be it playing video games, starting a business, studying science, etc.



Yes people who want more than the basic necessities would be free to pursue that. They could start businesses, charge for their product/services etc. Your statement about living on a piece of land in south GA is getting close to what I am getting at, except the house would already be built and the robots would do the farm work for you. If everyone in the world lived such a life, do you see anything wrong with that?

who creates the need to work for monetary compensation????????????

[Vteckidd]

Is work good in and of itself or is it just a necessity with no moral implication?





Yes, unless you can come up with some other way to measure the cost of goods and services.

See UTILITY

[Vteckidd]

except the house would already be built and the robots would do the farm work for you. If everyone in the world lived such a life, do you see anything wrong with that?

http://www.theoutsidejoke.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/wall-e-human.jpg

[David88vert]

Yes people who want more than the basic necessities would be free to pursue that. They could start businesses, charge for their product/services etc. Your statement about living on a piece of land in south GA is getting close to what I am getting at, except the house would already be built and the robots would do the farm work for you. If everyone in the world lived such a life, do you see anything wrong with that?

Like I said, you could get yourself thrown in prison, and all of your necessities would be provided for you, and you wouldn't have to work at all.
Or you could move to the ghetto and get on government assistance and not have to work for necessities.
Benefits.gov - Your Path to Government Benefits (http://www.benefits.gov/)

[Sinfix_15]

Maybe in the future when labor is no longer needed, we will focus our efforts towards medical care, preservation of life, space travel.................

The people not educated enough to do those things can be strippers, maids, chefs, masseuse....



The question is, how can we make sure the united states gets there first???? oooooo........... i have an idea, lets take money from the people who are the driving force of economic progress and give it to bums who sit at home smoking weed all day!

[bu villain]

who creates the need to work for monetary compensation????????????

It is survival and human desire that create the need to work. Whether or not we use money as a representation of that is not relevant to my question.


Yes, unless you can come up with some other way to measure the cost of goods and services.
See UTILITY

What do you mean yes? It wasn't a yes or no question. Also, I'm not saying people can't choose to work, I'm saying they don't have to work to survive.


Like I said, you could get yourself thrown in prison, and all of your necessities would be provided for you, and you wouldn't have to work at all.
Or you could move to the ghetto and get on government assistance and not have to work for necessities.
Benefits.gov - Your Path to Government Benefits (http://www.benefits.gov/)

Yes you can, but that is not the question. Obviously such a plan is not sustainable. I'm imagining a scenario (admittedly unrealistic) where no one is forced to work without worrying about their survival because the basics of survival are provided without human labor.

[Sinfix_15]

It is survival and human desire that create the need to work. Whether or not we use money as a representation of that is not relevant to my question.


Survival and desire existed long before american currency. Can i not live and fulfill my desires outside of the economic system?

I currently own land, can i go live on it, grow my own food and stay on my own property without being bothered?

[David88vert]

Yes you can, but that is not the question. Obviously such a plan is not sustainable. I'm imagining a scenario (admittedly unrealistic) where no one is forced to work without worrying about their survival because the basics of survival are provided without human labor.

Actually, the plan is fully sustainable and working today. The reason that it is sustainable is because the vast majority are willing to work to improve their lives, rather than sit in a prison cell, or live in the ghetto just surviving. In this country, no one is forced to work to survive. The basics of survival are provided by the people currently. If you are hungry, you can go to a soup kitchen. If you need shelter, there are shelters all over the country.

Your argument for a world without work being necessary is one that was presented by 19th century utopians - a society rich enough that fewer and fewer people need to work — a society where leisure becomes universally accessible, where part-time jobs replace the regimented work week, and where living standards keep rising even though more people have left the work force altogether.
Oh wait - that is what is happening now in today's society.
What we see here and now is a continuing decline in blue collar work. Americans dropping out of the work force are not destitute: they’re receiving disability payments and food stamps, living with relatives, finding work here and there, and often doing as well as they might with a low wage job. By historical standards, they live a more comfortable life than the Democrats want to admit.
Right now, we have a country that requires almost no work to survive already.

[David88vert]

I currently own land, can i go live on it, grow my own food and stay on my own property without being bothered?

Only until the robots get there.....

[bu villain]

Survival and desire existed long before american currency. Can i not live and fulfill my desires outside of the economic system?

I currently own land, can i go live on it, grow my own food and stay on my own property without being bothered?

Why are you talking about money? I never mentioned it. Yes you can go live on your own land but you have to own land first possibly by working for it and growing your own food requires labor.


Actually, the plan is fully sustainable and working today. The reason that it is sustainable is because the vast majority are willing to work to improve their lives, rather than sit in a prison cell, or live in the ghetto just surviving. In this country, no one is forced to work to survive. The basics of survival are provided by the people currently. If you are hungry, you can go to a soup kitchen. If you need shelter, there are shelters all over the country.

Your argument for a world without work being necessary is one that was presented by 19th century utopians - a society rich enough that fewer and fewer people need to work — a society where leisure becomes universally accessible, where part-time jobs replace the regimented work week, and where living standards keep rising even though more people have left the work force altogether.
Oh wait - that is what is happening now in today's society.
What we see here and now is a continuing decline in blue collar work. Americans dropping out of the work force are not destitute: they’re receiving disability payments and food stamps, living with relatives, finding work here and there, and often doing as well as they might with a low wage job. By historical standards, they live a more comfortable life than the Democrats want to admit.
Right now, we have a country that requires almost no work to survive already.

Like you said though, this is only sustainable because so many people choose to work. I am positing a scenario in which no human needs to work for the system to be sustainable. It is indeed that utopian ideal I am talking about but my question isn't can we achieve this? My question is whether or not you would like to achieve this.

[Sinfix_15]

Why are you talking about money? I never mentioned it. Yes you can go live on your own land but you have to own land first possibly by working for it and growing your own food requires labor.



Like you said though, this is only sustainable because so many people choose to work. I am positing a scenario in which no human needs to work for the system to be sustainable. It is indeed that utopian ideal I am talking about but my question isn't can we achieve this? My question is whether or not you would like to achieve this.

Because money is why people labor to begin with. Do you think anyone wakes up and says "i want to go dig a ditch today" or "flipping burgers is the meaning of my life".... no, we work for money. what makes money so valuable and controlling over our lives?

[bu villain]

Because money is why people labor to begin with. Do you think anyone wakes up and says "i want to go dig a ditch today" or "flipping burgers is the meaning of my life".... no, we work for money. what makes money so valuable and controlling over our lives?

People labor to attain necessities and luxury items (money is just the medium of exchange). I don't see what this has to do with the topic of this thread though.

[David88vert]

Like you said though, this is only sustainable because so many people choose to work. I am positing a scenario in which no human needs to work for the system to be sustainable. It is indeed that utopian ideal I am talking about but my question isn't can we achieve this? My question is whether or not you would like to achieve this.

The answer to your question is already visible. People choose to work to acquire material goods that they want and desire, not just need to have to survive. In that essence, we have already attained a "utopian state", where you do not have to work to survive.

The "utopian state" that you seem to have in your head is where people are not just provided the necessities that they need to survive, but also are provided some of their wants and luxuries, and have the power to do activities and receive services that are not required for survival.

[Sinfix_15]

People labor to attain necessities and luxury items (money is just the medium of exchange). I don't see what this has to do with the topic of this thread though.

People will always have to labor to pay for their government to exist.

[bu villain]

The answer to your question is already visible. People choose to work to acquire material goods that they want and desire, not just need to have to survive. In that essence, we have already attained a "utopian state", where you do not have to work to survive.

But that doesn't answer my question of whether or not that is a good thing. A lot of people seem to think that many people not laboring is a bad thing. I want to know if that answer changes if the people doing the labor are doing it because they choose to and not because they have to.


The "utopian state" that you seem to have in your head is where people are not just provided the necessities that they need to survive, but also are provided some of their wants and luxuries, and have the power to do activities and receive services that are not required for survival.

No, I require no luxuries to be given in my utopia. As I said, the only thing provided is food, water, and shelter, nothing else.


People will always have to labor to pay for their government to exist.

Good thing this is hypothetical so I don't have to account for that reality.

[Sinfix_15]

But that doesn't answer my question of whether or not that is a good thing. A lot of people seem to think that many people not laboring is a bad thing. I want to know if that answer changes if the people doing the labor are doing it because they choose to and not because they have to.



No, I require no luxuries to be given in my utopia. As I said, the only thing provided is food, water, and shelter, nothing else.



Good thing this is hypothetical so I don't have to account for that reality.

It's not that anyone cares who does and does not labor. I care that my quality of life is diminished so that people who do not want to work as hard as i do can survive. I have to work harder than i should to obtain the things i want, so that people who do not want to work can be supplied with the things they need.

[bu villain]

It's not that anyone cares who does and does not labor. I care that my quality of life is diminished so that people who do not want to work as hard as i do can survive. I have to work harder than i should to obtain the things i want, so that people who do not want to work can be supplied with the things they need.

Hooray. I finally got a solid answer and from Sinflix no less.

[Sinfix_15]

Hooray. I finally got a solid answer and from Sinflix no less.

You say that as if i'm not willing to answer any question. You may not always agree with my answers..... but i'm always willing to give them honestly.

[bu villain]

You say that as if i'm not willing to answer any question. You may not always agree with my answers..... but i'm always willing to give them honestly.

You just have a tendency to answer the questions you want to answer even if they are not the questions that were asked. Like earlier you were talking about money which had nothing to do with my question.

[Vteckidd]

Asks yes or no question.......says its not a yes or no question.
Legit as fuck

[Sinfix_15]

You just have a tendency to answer the questions you want to answer even if they are not the questions that were asked. Like earlier you were talking about money which had nothing to do with my question.

fair enough, but that's usually because i associate some things with other things where you might not agree there is a connection.

[David88vert]

But that doesn't answer my question of whether or not that is a good thing. A lot of people seem to think that many people not laboring is a bad thing. I want to know if that answer changes if the people doing the labor are doing it because they choose to and not because they have to.

No, I require no luxuries to be given in my utopia. As I said, the only thing provided is food, water, and shelter, nothing else.


Good and bad are subjective, they are not simple yes and no answers.
If you are a lazy person receiving benefits for free, you will think it is a good or great thing to not work.
If you are the one paying for others to not have to work, you probably won't think it is a good thing, as they are getting a free ride on your dime.
Perspective changes subjective opinions, and nothing in life is free. What one person gets for free, another has to pay for.

If your utopia only has food, water, and shelter provided, then prison is even better than utopia, as it gives you indoor plumbing and cable tv for free also.

[Sinfix_15]

Food, water and shelter was provided..... just sayin....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Slave_Quarter_Smiths_Plantation_Port_Royal.jpg/220px-Slave_Quarter_Smiths_Plantation_Port_Royal.jpg

[David88vert]

Food, water and shelter was provided..... just sayin....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Slave_Quarter_Smiths_Plantation_Port_Royal.jpg/220px-Slave_Quarter_Smiths_Plantation_Port_Royal.jpg

But they had to work for it. Disallowed for this discussion.

[bu villain]

Asks yes or no question.......says its not a yes or no question.


Is work good in and of itself or is it just a necessity with no moral implication?


It is not a yes/no question. Perhaps you are confused on what the question is. Please read again and answer. Notice the "OR" in there.


Good and bad are subjective, they are not simple yes and no answers.

Exactly, that's why I want everyone's subjective opinion.


If you are a lazy person receiving benefits for free, you will think it is a good or great thing to not work.
If you are the one paying for others to not have to work, you probably won't think it is a good thing, as they are getting a free ride on your dime.
Perspective changes subjective opinions, and nothing in life is free. What one person gets for free, another has to pay for.

The whole purpose of my scenario is that everyone is getting a free ride on the basics. No one is paying for anyone else. Work is only required if you want more than the basics.


If your utopia only has food, water, and shelter provided, then prison is even better than utopia, as it gives you indoor plumbing and cable tv for free also.

Don't you think the inability to leave your very small room except when someone else allows you, lack of privacy, threat of rape/beating, and inability to spend much time with family/loved ones is a pretty big down side?

[Sinfix_15]

The whole purpose of my scenario is that everyone is getting a free ride on the basics. No one is paying for anyone else. Work is only required if you want more than the basics.



This is where your logic is flawed. *everyone* cant get a free ride on the basics..... everything the government gives to one person, they take from another. Could welfare exist if 99% of the US needed welfare?

[.blank cd]

It is not a yes/no question. Perhaps you are confused on what the question is. Please read again and answer. Notice the "OR" in there.



Exactly, that's why I want everyone's subjective opinion.



The whole purpose of my scenario is that everyone is getting a free ride on the basics. No one is paying for anyone else. Work is only required if you want more than the basics.



Don't you think the inability to leave your very small room except when someone else allows you, lack of privacy, threat of rape/beating, and inability to spend much time with family/loved ones is a pretty big down side?

I know this is frustrating. Lol. I promise, I understand exactly what you're trying to say.

[bu villain]

This is where your logic is flawed. *everyone* cant get a free ride on the basics..... everything the government gives to one person, they take from another. Could welfare exist if 99% of the US needed welfare?

THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A REAL LIFE SCENARIO, IT IS FOR PHILOSOPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. Who said anything about the government anyways? I said robots but it could be a race of aliens who provides us with everything we need for survival. It doesn't matter. The whole point of this is to get your feelings on a scenario where 100% of the people were given welfare and your personal morality/ethics surrounding work/productivity.


I know this is frustrating. Lol. I promise, I understand exactly what you're trying to say.

I'm glad someone gets it. Thanks. Care to chime in with your thoughts?

[Sinfix_15]

THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A REAL LIFE SCENARIO, IT IS FOR PHILOSOPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. Who said anything about the government anyways? I said robots but it could be a race of aliens who provides us with everything we need for survival. It doesn't matter. The whole point of this is to get your feelings on a scenario where 100% of the people were given welfare and your personal morality/ethics surrounding work/productivity.



I'm glad someone gets it. Thanks. Care to chime in with your thoughts?

This is the problem with almost every liberal ideology. Theyre all philosophical and do not work in real life. Thank you for finally admitting the error of your ways.

[.blank cd]

I'm glad someone gets it. Thanks. Care to chime in with your thoughts?
I will. I'm at work and don't have the time to post a long answer yet. I kinda wanted to see where this thread went too. Lol.


This is the problem with almost every liberal ideology. Theyre all philosophical and do not work in real life. Thank you for finally admitting the error of your ways.

Thanks for admitting this.

[Vteckidd]

So your question is , if humans didnt need to work to survive, should they work?

Well i guess not. Although since the dawn of time, labor has always been traded in some means or form to acquire goods and services. Labor could also be called utility.

My point is i do not think your scenario is possible, so there is no logical answer to a question that you ask that has no way to be answered.

[bu villain]

This is the problem with almost every liberal ideology. Theyre all philosophical and do not work in real life. Thank you for finally admitting the error of your ways.

This is not liberal ideology, it's a philosophical question.


So your question is , if humans didnt need to work to survive, should they work?

Well i guess not.

You got it! Thanks for the response. So back to the other original question. What do you think the labor market would look like? What percentage of people would choose to continue working? Would their still be a wide range of incomes or would it just be a two class society (workers/non-workers). Would there be any stigma to working or not working?


My point is i do not think your scenario is possible, so there is no logical answer to a question that you ask that has no way to be answered.

A scenario doesn't need to be possible to have logical effects within the unrealistic boundaries. It is impossible that I will grow a third arm but that doesn't mean I can't opine on what I would do with one.

[Vteckidd]

A scenario doesn't need to be possible to have logical effects within the unrealistic boundaries. It is impossible that I will grow a third arm but that doesn't mean I can't opine on what I would do with one.

touche

Your question is more like "if people didnt want to play basketball, would they play basketball?"

:)

If people didnt NEED to work, would they work? Probably not, because in the term that you and i THINK of what work really is. In 100 years , under your scneario, work would still happen, but it wouldnt be as you and I think about it today.

[David88vert]

The whole purpose of my scenario is that everyone is getting a free ride on the basics. No one is paying for anyone else. Work is only required if you want more than the basics.
Don't you think the inability to leave your very small room except when someone else allows you, lack of privacy, threat of rape/beating, and inability to spend much time with family/loved ones is a pretty big down side?

Since "THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A REAL LIFE SCENARIO, IT IS FOR PHILOSOPHIC PURPOSES ONLY." then perhaps you can pretend that prison isn't a "pretty big down side" for those that choose not to work. It's as reasonable and rational as your "get everything for free, and not have to work" scenario. If you can't understand that everything is a transaction, then you already are starting with a handicap.

The reality is that you want to us to consider an illogical scenario and then discuss it with logic and reason. Perhaps if you started with a scenario that fit into a logical mold this could be accomplished - until then, it's all just pipe dreams and an unproductive discussion.

[bu villain]

touche

Your question is more like "if people didnt want to play basketball, would they play basketball?"

:)

If people didnt NEED to work, would they work? Probably not, because in the term that you and i THINK of what work really is. In 100 years , under your scneario, work would still happen, but it wouldnt be as you and I think about it today.

It's more like, if they didn't NEED to play basketball. Since that already is the case, obviously the answer is that there is that a small percentage of people who choose to play basketball. The question is, would the same hold true for things we normally consider "work"? I agree it would be quite different than how we think about it today, which is why I find it to be an interesting question. I am also interested in the ethical side. If everyone chose to do nothing particularly productive, is there anything wrong with that? Do we have a moral imperative to make society better through effort?

[Sinfix_15]

This is not liberal ideology, it's a philosophical question.



You got it! Thanks for the response. So back to the other original question. What do you think the labor market would look like? What percentage of people would choose to continue working? Would their still be a wide range of incomes or would it just be a two class society (workers/non-workers). Would there be any stigma to working or not working?



A scenario doesn't need to be possible to have logical effects within the unrealistic boundaries. It is impossible that I will grow a third arm but that doesn't mean I can't opine on what I would do with one.

Only a visionary could construct such a deep and philosophical question. I can only imagine the possibilities of what people would do in this fantasy scenario where they didnt actually have to work..... only the boundaries of our imagination can limit the answers to this question. Maybe one day we can see this scenario play out in reality and gain some understanding from the results....

http://0.tqn.com/d/accessories/1/0/U/3/-/-/paris-hilton-headband.jpg
http://www.topnews.in/files/Prince-Harry_4.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/Infomania-Lil-Wayne-007.jpg
http://lovelymessages.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/bill-gates-daughter-2.jpg?w=406&h=640

[bu villain]

Since "THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A REAL LIFE SCENARIO, IT IS FOR PHILOSOPHIC PURPOSES ONLY." then perhaps you can pretend that prison isn't a "pretty big down side" for those that choose not to work. It's as reasonable and rational as your "get everything for free, and not have to work" scenario. If you can't understand that everything is a transaction, then you already are starting with a handicap.

Sure I could pretend that, and I will if you want to start a thread with such a condition. But this is my thread so I am setting the parameters. If you aren't interested in discussing within the provided boundaries, that's fine. You don't have to respond. Like I said to Vteck, I don't see how the lack of reason and rationality prevents us from having a conversation about what to do with a third arm. I don't see why reason and rationality are any more prerequisite for my questions.


The reality is that you want to us to consider an illogical scenario and then discuss it with logic and reason.

Yes that's right!


Perhaps if you started with a scenario that fit into a logical mold this could be accomplished - until then, it's all just pipe dreams and an unproductive discussion.

If logical discussion within illogical boundaries could not be accomplished, we wouldn't have myths, fantasy, science fiction, or a large portion of our popular culture.

[bu villain]

Only a visionary could construct such a deep and philosophical question. I can only imagine the possibilities of what people would do in this fantasy scenario where they didnt actually have to work..... only the boundaries of our imagination can limit the answers to this question. Maybe one day we can see this scenario play out in reality and gain some understanding from the results...

So you think celebrities with fame and fortune are a good representation of how everyone would live if they only didn't have to worry about food, shelter, and water? Interesting.

[Sinfix_15]

So you think celebrities with fame and fortune are a good representation of how everyone would live if they only didn't have to worry about food, shelter, and water? Interesting.

Yes actually i do. Each person pursued a path that brought fulfillment to their life without the burden of having to make money.

Paris Hilton partied.
Harry joined the military.
Lil Wayne became an artist.
I dont actually know what Bill Gates daughter does....

That's a pretty diverse selection of career paths for a group of individuals who did not have to work for anything. With endless opportunity, some people will do nothing. With no opportunity, some people will do everything. The real question is why do we take from some people and give to others? That is the only way to accomplish your scenario. I dont care who does and does not work, im just tired of footing the bill for people who dont work.

[.blank cd]

If logical discussion within illogical boundaries could not be accomplished, we wouldn't have myths, fantasy, science fiction, or a large portion of our popular culture.

Or science, period, for that matter.

[Vteckidd]

I am also interested in the ethical side. If everyone chose to do nothing particularly productive, is there anything wrong with that? Do we have a moral imperative to make society better through effort?

So you think we work now to make society better? define productive.

YOu are changing the question.

[bu villain]

Yes actually i do. Each person pursued a path that brought fulfillment to their life without the burden of having to make money.

Paris Hilton partied.
Harry joined the military.
Lil Wayne became an artist.
I dont actually know what Bill Gates daughter does....

That's a pretty diverse selection of career paths for a group of individuals who did not have to work for anything. With endless opportunity, some people will do nothing. With no opportunity, some people will do everything.

I agree but I am really interested in the aggregate. What percentage of people will be partiers, soldiers, etc. Would people actually be happier or would the sweet be less so without as much bitter? These kinds of questions are what I am interested in.


The real question is why do we take from some people and give to others? That is the only way to accomplish your scenario. I dont care who does and does not work, im just tired of footing the bill for people who dont work.

That is an important question but I think it unfortunately distracts from what I am hoping to discuss in this thread. Please start a new thread if you want to go down that path.

[David88vert]

Or science, period, for that matter.

Support this statement factually.

[David88vert]

Sure I could pretend that, and I will if you want to start a thread with such a condition. But this is my thread so I am setting the parameters. If you aren't interested in discussing within the provided boundaries, that's fine. You don't have to respond. Like I said to Vteck, I don't see how the lack of reason and rationality prevents us from having a conversation about what to do with a third arm. I don't see why reason and rationality are any more prerequisite for my questions.



Yes that's right!



If logical discussion within illogical boundaries could not be accomplished, we wouldn't have myths, fantasy, science fiction, or a large portion of our popular culture.

Ok, so here is your illogical and irrational answer.

Half will still work to improve their lives. Half will be lazy.

How did I come up with that? With no logic or reason - just made it up. That's what you want though, right?

[Sinfix_15]

I agree but I am really interested in the aggregate. What percentage of people will be partiers, soldiers, etc. Would people actually be happier or would the sweet be less so without as much bitter? These kinds of questions are what I am interested in.



That is an important question but I think it unfortunately distracts from what I am hoping to discuss in this thread. Please start a new thread if you want to go down that path.

I think society would always evolve it's definition of necessity regardless of what was provided. If we provided food and shelter so that people only worked for what they wanted, then people without cellphones would say they needed cellphones, then people without SUVs would say they needed SUVs, then people without swimming pools would say they needed swimming pools. Productive people would continue to be productive and unproductive people would continue to be unproductive. The only thing you would accomplish is whatever peace of mind you get from knowing that unproductive members of society wont be starving because of their actions.

[.blank cd]

Support this statement factually.

Ummm...

Evolution
Heliocentricity
Gravitation
Thermodynamics
Abiogenesis
Big Bang
Spherical Earth
Religion

[bu villain]

So you think we work now to make society better? define productive.

I think most people do work to make society better whether they enjoy it or not. My life is better because someone built a road, or practiced medicine, or taught me math. Productive as in the common usage. Having an outcome that is markedly different from before the effort.


YOu are changing the question.

Well you already answered the previous one so consider it a follow up.

[bu villain]

Ok, so here is your illogical and irrational answer.

Half will still work to improve their lives. Half will be lazy.

How did I come up with that? With no logic or reason - just made it up. That's what you want though, right?

Yes, that is what I wanted although a little more on the though process that got you there would have been great. Anyways, thanks for at least answering.


I think society would always evolve it's definition of necessity regardless of what was provided. If we provided food and shelter so that people only worked for what they wanted, then people without cellphones would say they needed cellphones, then people without SUVs would say they needed SUVs, then people without swimming pools would say they needed swimming pools. Productive people would continue to be productive and unproductive people would continue to be unproductive. The only thing you would accomplish is whatever peace of mind you get from knowing that unproductive members of society wont be starving because of their actions.

In my scenario, the level of free shelter, water, and food would never change no matter how much people clamored for it.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes, that is what I wanted although a little more on the though process that got you there would have been great. Anyways, thanks for at least answering.



In my scenario, the level of free shelter, water, and food would never change no matter how much people clamored for it.

society wouldnt change.... what is offered wouldnt matter to the productive members of society, they would work for better shelter, better water and better food. The unproductive members of society would still have the same victim mindset and not be happy with what they have. Current society demonstrates this. People in america are not content living in the most prosperous nation on earth, they always want what someone else has. If we provided the entire country with a free honda civic, people would still steal corvettes.

[David88vert]

Ummm...

Evolution
Heliocentricity
Gravitation
Thermodynamics
Abiogenesis
Big Bang
Spherical Earth
Religion

I don't think you understand what "factually" means if you think that you answered the question seriously.

[bu villain]

society wouldnt change.... what is offered wouldnt matter to the productive members of society, they would work for better shelter, better water and better food. The unproductive members of society would still have the same victim mindset and not be happy with what they have. Current society demonstrates this. People in america are not content living in the most prosperous nation on earth, they always want what someone else has. If we provided the entire country with a free honda civic, people would still steal corvettes.

Hmm, I can say for myself that how I lived my life would change. I would have pursued a different path than the relatively high paying career I am now in. Do you not think there are enough people like me that it would create a significant difference? What about all the minimum wage jobs? Would people still be pursuing those jobs like they do now?

[Sinfix_15]

Hmm, I can say for myself that how I lived my life would change. I would have pursued a different path than the relatively high paying career I am now in. Do you not think there are enough people like me that it would create a significant difference? What about all the minimum wage jobs? Would people still be pursuing those jobs like they do now?

You're asking questions that society is already answering. People would get dumber, less ambitious, less motivated and less productive. Government aid is on the rise, society is on the decline. Connect the dots.

[.blank cd]

I don't think you understand what "factually" means if you think that you answered the question seriously.All of those started as a philosophical question at one point. This isn't a debatable opinion, so what are you asking?

[David88vert]

All of those started as a philosophical question at one point. This isn't a debatable opinion, so what are you asking?

Not all of those were facts of sciience. Are you claiming that you were offering extra information outside the scope of the question?

[.blank cd]

Not all of those were facts of sciience. Are you claiming that you were offering extra information outside the scope of the question?

All of the science concepts are facts now. All of those concepts, including religion, we're at one point philosophical questions. I was just rebutting Vtec that many things in life we know of as facts today were in some way illogical at one point, thus, philosophical questions can be, and have been productive discussion.

[bu villain]

You're asking questions that society is already answering. People would get dumber, less ambitious, less motivated and less productive. Government aid is on the rise, society is on the decline. Connect the dots.

I think society is currently giving insights but is far from answering these questions completely. The people working because they have to, still greatly outnumbers those who are satisfied with what not working brings. By you saying "society is on the decline", that makes it sound as if you think a society where no one has to work would be a bad thing. But that seems to contradict your statement that you don't care if people do nothing as long as you don't have to pay for it. Can you explain further in the context of a society where no one has to work and you don't have to pay for it?

[David88vert]

All of the science concepts are facts now. All of those concepts, including religion, we're at one point philosophical questions. I was just rebutting Vtec that many things in life we know of as facts today were in some way illogical at one point, thus, philosophical questions can be, and have been productive discussion.

So, the theory of evolution is now recognized as fact? The Big Bang is no longer a theory? Religion is somehow scientific?

I simply asked for factual scientific examples, nothing more. Your response did not include only those examples, hence my statement, which you appear to confirm with your follow-up.

[.blank cd]

So, the theory of evolution is now recognized as fact?Its recognized as both, yes.
The Big Bang is no longer a theory?Both.

Religion is somehow scientific?No

[Sinfix_15]

I think society is currently giving insights but is far from answering these questions completely. The people working because they have to, still greatly outnumbers those who are satisfied with what not working brings. By you saying "society is on the decline", that makes it sound as if you think a society where no one has to work would be a bad thing. But that seems to contradict your statement that you don't care if people do nothing as long as you don't have to pay for it. Can you explain further in the context of a society where no one has to work and you don't have to pay for it?


Its hard to think about this scenario because it's impossible. If the current welfare model was sustainable without me having to pay for it, i wouldnt care about it. Every bum in every welfare village could sit at home and do nothing. As long as they dont drag me down, i dont care.

[bu villain]

Its hard to think about this scenario because it's impossible. If the current welfare model was sustainable without me having to pay for it, i wouldnt care about it. Every bum in every welfare village could sit at home and do nothing. As long as they dont drag me down, i dont care.

Cool, sorry if I made your head hurt. Thanks for answering.

[Sinfix_15]

Cool, sorry if I made your head hurt. Thanks for answering.

Playing your fantasy game doesnt make my head hurt, realizing this fantasy fiction game is how liberals really solve political issues is what makes me head hurt.


I know how to fix the economy! lets sell unicorn rides to pixie dust fairy land.

[bu villain]

Playing your fantasy game doesnt make my head hurt, realizing this fantasy fiction game is how liberals really solve political issues is what makes me head hurt.

Yes but I proposed this fantasy fiction game knowing that you are unable to play it without tying it to political ideologies so I accept responsibility for that.

[.blank cd]

Playing your fantasy game doesnt make my head hurt, realizing this fantasy fiction game is how liberals really solve political issues is what makes me head hurt.


I know how to fix the economy! lets sell unicorn rides to pixie dust fairy land.

You've really succeeded in marginalizing education huh?

Fortunately this is how smart people solve political issues, in actual reality, for thousands of years.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes but I proposed this fantasy fiction game knowing that you are unable to play it without tying it to political ideologies so I accept responsibility for that.

Eventually the kid grows up and finds out that santa isnt real. I forgot that liberals never grow up, so apologies for that.

[Sinfix_15]

You've really succeeded in marginalizing education huh?

Fortunately this is how smart people solve political issues, in actual reality, for thousands of years.

by asking "what if we could do something that wasnt possible?" or "what if we can accomplish something with two things that completely contradict each other?"

[.blank cd]

He's unable to play it because it forces him to identify with a method of thinking that pundits have coerced him to fundamentally reject.

Being smart is now a "liberal" quality.

[.blank cd]

by asking "what if we could do something that wasnt possible?" or "what if we can accomplish something with two things that completely contradict each other?"

Every single thing you interact with in life was at one point impossible.

[Sinfix_15]

Every single thing you interact with in life was at one point impossible.

Well, good luck on the quest to support all of humanity without anyone working for it. The day you accomplish it, i'll become a democrat.