
Buckminster Fuller on technology and useless jobs - miles
http://www.openculture.com/2019/03/buckminster-fuller-on-technology-and-useless-jobs.html
======
rosser
The busy-ness of business and our general obligation to "earn our keep" have
squandered more human potential than every other stupid thing we've ever done,
combined.

How many Einsteins never left the patent office? What other contributions were
never made, because dude who could have made them decided food and shelter
were more important than aspiration? That is a societal loss, and we only have
ourselves to blame for it.

~~~
benjaminjackman
I don't know if you meant it to parallel the Bezos quote about blue origin /
the desire to push our species out across the solar system but it came to mind
right away when I read what you wrote because I have been thinking along
similar lines:

"The solar system can support a trillion humans, and then we'd have 1,000
Mozarts, and 1,000 Einsteins. Think how incredible and dynamic that
civilization will be," Bezos boasted during a speech at New York's Yale Club,
which was transcribed by Business Insider.

I wonder if can't figure out something as simple as how to allocate the basic
rewards of our system socio-efficiently if the future will turn out more like
"The Expanse" than "Star Trek". And if we focused on simply getting all the
near-Einsteins out of the patent office (as you said) here on Earth first how
much faster the goal of colonizing the star system would be achieved.

~~~
oh_sigh
We have 15x the population as when Mozart lived. Do we have 15 Mozarts now?
And arguably more of the population is living in better conditions, so maybe
it should be closer to 30x or something?

~~~
nosianu
Oh yes we do. Music today is orders of magnitude more in all directions that
you want to explore "music space". Mozart would feel he is in paradise if he
were resurrected today, sooo much to explore, sooo many more options. From
instruments to the variants of music, not all based on the European system, to
how easy it is to listen to music at any time, anywhere (even if the quality
is not concert hall, even a mediocre player beats not having the option at
all).

I play (alto and soprano) recorder and violin, amateur-casual, and listen to
almost all styles there are at least occasionally, and depending on mood and
context find amazing things in many places. The kind of music Mozart knew is
such a small subset.

What may have suffered, not sure, is the ability to play an instrument. Given
how easy it is to listen to music made by others anywhere there is no need to
learn how to play. On the other hand, using computers and modern music tech in
general you can compose and play music that Mozart had to get a hundred people
together for, and you don't need to train your synthesizer to play your notes.

When I imagine I would meet a medieval society the one thing that I would want
to bring is a synthesizer (and solar panels and good speakers), and a huge
electronic library of music. We have come a looong way in the last one- to two
hundred years, with ever increasing speed in new musical developments.

------
hirundo
The purpose of every job is to change the world in the way that employer wants
it changed. Employers employ people for no other reason. But I don't think
Fuller is saying all of these jobs are useless to their employers. It's more
"these jobs are useless to me, to the goals that I support and understand." I
think that just means that Fuller's goals aren't aligned with these employers.
He wants to accomplish different things, and people trying to accomplish other
things look useless to him.

Reshaping the world to be closer to a given ideal may well be foolish and
frequently is. But the proper judge of the usefulness of a job is the person
paying for it, not a remote intellectual.

~~~
benatkin
> The purpose of every job is to change the world in the way that employer
> wants it changed.

Change the world by polluting it more?

The idea that employers' actions are motivated by changing the world is a very
idealistic view of business. They may have that idea at the start but that
idea gets lost very quickly when actually doing stuff. Plus people from other
common professions like doctors and lawyers want to change the world. Wanting
to change the world says more about youth than it does about the field of
business administration.

~~~
xyzzy123
I think the poster meant change in a concrete sense.

As in, I’d like to change the world by having a hole dug right over there.

There are various levels of work that can happen around the change.

The lowest level is physical, actually digging the hole. This is usually the
lowest paid.

Then there’s the knowledge/expertise level. This is a step up but still pretty
lowly. What shape should the hole be? How can we dig it most efficiently and
what amount of dirt must be trucked away.

The next layer of work is usually more highly compensated again, _feelings_ ,
or the sales of holes. How do all the stakeholders feel about the hole? Will
this hole help bring someone fulfilment? Do we need more PR to tamp down anti-
hole protests? Could an op-ed help sway the council?

The apex layer is usually politics or capital. This is where all the real
money is made. Who owns the hole? How are we going to finance the hole? How is
it going to increase the value of an investment, and what are the chances I
can sell this hole to someone else for more money?

The higher the “level” the work, the more potential for true waste there
usually is.

So ok there was one person digging and two people who kinda looked like they
were leaning on shovels the whole time. Sure, that’s waste of a sort but to
really screw up you need to aim higher.

“Turns out, we spent all that money on the hole project, but gosh darn it,
hole investment has cratered and nobody _actually_ needed a hole there and we
can’t sell it.”

------
Smithalicious
I do not at all buy into the idea that many people are doing jobs not worth
doing or that we are on the verge of running out of worthwhile things to do.

~~~
PaulHoule
A significant fraction of people, if asked, will tell you that they believe
the work they do has no value.

That includes a wide range of people from gas station attendants to high-
middling corporate dudes.

Other people might think differently, maybe that person is depressed, maybe
they are depressed because of factors at work -- nevertheless it is a real
sentiment.

~~~
dexen
_> A significant fraction of people, if asked, will tell you that they believe
the work they do has no value._

In optimal conditions, a basic job performed to average standard should be
saving life of at least one person. Ideally, of a family. That's no small
thing, and that's obviously is going to make the worker proud and self-
appreciating.

Hear me out: it used to be that a job, no matter how mundane (a subsistence
farmer, a hunter-gatherer, etc.) was all that stood between this person's -
and often his or her family - starving and dying. Used to be there was a clear
and present connection between even the most basic task, and prolonging and
improving life for the person, and commonly also his or her family.

Not anymore. We here in the west have taken this away from most people. No
matter how badly they work - or even not work at all - we provide the bottom
of Maslow's hierarchy to virtually any citizen anyway [1]. By stripping away
the necessity of work we have removed its importance, appreciation, pride,
fulfillment and a lot other aspects up top the Maslow's hierarchy.

\--

[1] not to say "to all citizens at once", but to any given individual?
essentially yes.

~~~
sosodev
I can't think of anywhere in the west that guarantees all of the physiological
needs to people who work poorly or not at all. The physiological needs include
shelter which many, at least in America, go without.

If anything I'd argue the opposite of what you have to say. People are
unsatisfied because Maslow's needs are not being met. I work and I'd say I do
it well but I don't make enough money to guarantee shelter for myself.

------
bovermyer
The problem with eliminating work (which we're getting pretty good at) is that
we don't then have a system to support people who don't work.

In order for A to not have a negative effect, you have to have B.

~~~
mymythisisthis
We should have a 4 day work week, with 1 mandatory day of eduction/training
(not about ones work).

~~~
pjmorris
I'd sooner see one day mandated for 'anything you see fit to do', which would
leave people free to create (or do nothing) as well as to absorb.

~~~
mymythisisthis
I'm thinking it should be more structured. But, I'm thinking of Amazon
warehouse workers. 4 days working in the warehouse, 1 day of training. The
training should be provided by the local school board, or the employer would
be sure to sabotage the exercise. The person gets to choose form a wide array
of courses that the school board has to offer.

------
gwbas1c
> We could stop inventing bullshit, low-paying, wasteful jobs that contribute
> to cycles of poverty and environmental degradation. We could slash the
> number of hours we work and spend time with people and pursuits we love.

The problem, ultimately, originates from greed for material possessions. It
also originates for a need for meaningful work and contribution to society.

I'd love a world where, if I quit my job, I could live in subsidized housing
with free food and transportation.

But how do we "pay" for it? Yes, in theory, we can automate so much food,
shelter, and energy production that the cost of living is so low that it's
essentially free.

IMO: The way to do this is to keep the bullshit jobs, but figure out how to
let people retire young. Perhaps there can be some kind of government-managed
program where, once someone performs 1-10 years of full-time, minimum-wage
work, there's enough money in the system to sustain that person in government-
managed housing, with government-managed food, clothing, ect.

At that point, work becomes truly optional.

Furthermore, for people who choose full-time work, we can also do things like
pair cost reductions in housing and transportation with shorter loans. Instead
of targeting lower monthly payments, we can target shorter terms.

~~~
NavyNuke
> "...to sustain that person in government-managed housing, with government-
> managed food, clothing, ect."

This sounds like a nightmare and to me it wouldn't feel like I'm free at
all...being so dependent on the government seems like a terrible idea...Who
would want to be so reliant on the government for such basic needs?

~~~
gwbas1c
I propose it as completely optional. You basically can choose to depend on the
government at a very young age, or have a career for more material wealth.

That's why I suggest working towards shortening loan payments, so someone can
have a career and get similar benefits.

------
lewis500
“We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be
employed at some kind of drudgery…. He must justify his right to exist.”

This is a framing designed to get attention but is obviously empty. "We" don't
"invent" jobs. There isn't some big council of job inventors we all sit on
with the purpose of giving everyone a right to exist. People and organizations
decide to hire people for various reasons, and people sign up to be hired---
usually so they can make money. Jobs are agreements between people. This is
true even of government jobs in a democratic society: people are hired by
various government agencies which, with a couple of jobfare exceptions, hire
people for reasons of their own---not because of a mandate to make up jobs for
people. This is a plea to an imaginary decision-maker.

~~~
beat
Eh. Supply and demand matters. There's a supply of labor even for bullshit
jobs, in part because of a lack of reasonable alternatives to having a job. If
there was something people could do that didn't pose a direct threat to their
own safety that didn't involve "job" (you know, like UBI), then jobs would
have to compete much harder for employees - better wages, or more importantly,
being intrinsically rewarding.

Of course, it's quite possible for the supply of workers to exceed the demand
for workers. It's not a pretty sight - read up on the Great Depression for
example. And that seems to be exactly where we're headed right now. People who
once worked in jobs that no longer exist thanks to technological advance and
market forces, who have no alternative ways to make a living, and are getting
shamed as lazy moochers for it. That's how revolutions happen.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
There may be a supply of labor for such jobs, _but why is there a demand for
it_?

If I run a company, my goal is _not_ to hire a bunch of people to do useless
"work". I want as few such people as possible, not just because I have to pay
them, but also because they slow everyone else down doing the work that
actually earns money. In a capitalist economy where inefficient firms can go
bankrupt, why is there demand for people who will do useless work?

One possible answer is that we don't actually live in a capitalist society -
that government influence prevents real capitalism from happening. There is
some truth to that position, but I doubt that people who promote the "useless
jobs" theory think that _less_ government involvement is the solution.

I think the correct answer is that the "useless jobs" theory is flawed. No
company is deliberately hiring people to do useless work. (Some empire-
building managers _within_ companies may do so, however.) The jobs are useless
because of inefficiency in the company, not by design, and a more efficient
company would find something real for those people to do.

~~~
beat
I think "useless" doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit the employer, but
rather that it doesn't benefit the employee, and it arguably doesn't benefit
society.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
It benefits the employee. That's what a paycheck is.

What I think you're trying to say is that _the employee doesn 't perceive any
meaning in the job_. And if you do mean that, I can whole-heartedly agree with
you.

And, arguably, the employee can't perceive any meaning in the job _because_
they can see that the job doesn't benefit society in any meaningful way.

It's not clear to me what the solution is, either.

~~~
beat
Whatever the solution is, we need to get to it, and fast. I've been reading
Andrew Yang's _The War on Normal People_ (among other books), and it is
terrifying. We are poised to shed tens of millions more jobs (in addition to
the millions we've already lost) in the next decade or two, due to virtually
every repetitive job (what he distinguishes as routine, rather than non-
routine) being replaced by robots that do it faster and better for less money.
And there is _nothing_ on the horizon to replace them, to provide an
alternative income for the millions of truck drivers, fast food workers, call
center operators, retail clerks, insurance agents, paralegals, even doctors
who are about to become obsolete.

And if the answer to this dilemma is to throw them out on the streets because
they're obviously lazy and/or stupid, exploiting our hard-earned tax dollars
with their immoral ways - or to just keep swelling the ranks of unemployment
and disability and "retraining" programs that will never lead anywhere - then
the people who are still able to make it are going to face some very nasty
shocks.

------
ve55
Not to be confused with Buckminsterfullerene
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminsterfullerene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminsterfullerene)),
the interesting fullerene inadvertently named after Buckminster Fuller.

~~~
jessriedel
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic about "inadvertently". The molecule was
named buckminsterfullerene after the man Buckminster Fuller. ("-ene" is a word
ending for molecules.) Chemists then developed a more general class of
molecules which they named "fullerenes", of which the buckminsterfullerene is
a special case.

~~~
ve55
I have read the Wikipedia page I linked so I was aware of it, sorry if my
choice of words appeared poor.

------
jelliclesfarm
Except there are limited resources. We haven’t learnt to exist without a
parasitic relationship to something/someone else. And that ‘host’ as it
were..is constrained and not limitless. Even the sun will disappear after a
time..admittedly after a very very very long passage of time..but even solar
energy ..our sun’s energy..isn’t ‘renewable’ in the bigger picture.

Also.. about the occurrence of more Mozarts..and Einsteins...they will be
tempered with more Hitlers and depressingly even higher proportion of ‘average
joes’ who will all consume more than they produce. That’s when the cart will
tilt and tip.

I fear we have all passed carrying capacity long time ago. For our planet,
about a billion is a good number. If we want to be ‘fruitful and multiply’ we
will have to find other suitable habitats for ourselves or alter
ourselves(genetically is one way) to be compatible with our new environment.

This is assuming there is no other life forms out there that is already
completing and searching for resources.

Having said that, I have become more comfortable with the notion that rather
than numbers, quality of being is better. Human evolution is random mutations.
We are products of a chaotic unpredictable fickle system. That’s scary. I
wouldn’t want to perpetuate or encourage it unless we have some understanding
or grasp over who we are and where we are..

------
pedro1976
IMO the premise "everyone needs to work in a corp" is already wrong.

The question should be what do so everyone can live a good life. Maybe some
want to work to have a good live, others not. The next question would then be
if and how a society can afford the individual live styles.

Lets discuss in a more philosophic, post-capitalistic way.

------
mfoy_
Regardless on your feelings about "socialism", you have to ask yourself: _What
will happen when automation comes for more and more jobs?_

If the means of production are _all_ automated, what does that mean for our
society? Do we rail against _automation_ in order to retain traditional jobs?
How would that be materially different from Keynes' idea of economic stimulus
by making jobs to dig holes and them in again?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
What happened when automation came for farmers' jobs? They went to work in
factories. The result was that we had at least as much food as before, but we
also had cars and refrigerators and washing machines.

Don't think of jobs as employing people. Think instead of society spending
people on jobs. When we didn't have to spend a third of our people on growing
food, we were able to spend them on manufacturing, _and society was better
off_. If we don't have to spend as many on manufacturing, we're able to spend
more of them on computer programming, _and society is better off_. If we can
automate less-valuable work, we can spend our people on more valuable work.

For any individual person without a job, this isn't necessarily a good deal.
"You lost the thing you knew how to do, now you have to go learn how to do
something harder." That's uncomfortable. We as a society need to do better at
helping them learn the next thing.

But the concern seems to be that we're going to run out of "next things". What
if there's _no_ work to be done? I don't think we're close to getting there.
It's like the farmer wondering what will happen when the factories have
produced a car for everyone, and so there's no need for factory workers any
more - not knowing that factories are going to produce more than cars, and
that factory work isn't the final stage of the economy.

~~~
mfoy_
I agree we're not that close to complete automation. But one day we _will_ be.
What then?

Society needs to have some sort of plan in place for people when there are too
few, too difficult jobs left.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Completing automation _of what_?

Farming? We're close. Factories? We're getting there.

Completing automation of writing software? I mean, we're not writing machine
code any more, but we really haven't even started. It's not clear that we're
close to being able to start.

Completing automation of scientific discovery? Completing automation of new
product ideas? Security? Writing novels?

I mean, I'd hate to say that none of those things _could be automated_. And
yet I can't believe that _everything_ will be.

~~~
mfoy_
Assuming AGI takes off, why not?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
That's quite an assumption, though.

But even if it happens, then what? Any scheme you propose to handle it is at
the mercy of the AGI. If it doesn't agree, your scheme doesn't happen.

~~~
mfoy_
The Corporation Wars trilogy has some interesting ideas about what this could
look like.

------
quxbar
Exactly why volunteered for Andrew Yang 2020!

~~~
beat
Andrew Yang is the only candidate who seems to me to be actually serious about
the future. Everyone else, it's either liberals saying that our problems can
be solved by more 1960s welfare and 1970s regulation, or conservatives saying
our problems can be solved by less 1960s welfare and 1970s regulation. Andrew
Yang is the only candidate who isn't working from a 50 year old playbook.

