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.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
This is not liberal ideology, it's a philosophical question.Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
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.
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.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
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?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.
So you think we work now to make society better? define productive.
YOu are changing the question.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
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.
Well you already answered the previous one so consider it a follow up.
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.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
