Look, I like the paradise you created. You only forgot about who we are.
> There’d be very little need to work for almost every human on earth.
When mankind made a pact with the devil, the burden we got was that we had to earn our bread though sweat and hard labor. This story has survived millennia, there is something to it.
Why is the bottom layer in society not automated by robots? No need to if they are cheaper than robots. If you don't care about humans, you can get quite some labor for a little bit of sugar. If you can work one job to pay your rent, you can possibly do two or three even.
If you don't have those social hobbies like universal healthcare and public education, people will be competitive for a very long time with robots. If people are less valuable, they will be treated as such.
Humans have existed for close to 200,000 years. Who we ‘are’ is nothing close to what we have today. What humans actually are is an invasive species capable of subjugating nature to fit its needs. I want to just push that further and subjugate nature with automation that can feed us and manufacture worthless plastic and metal media consumption devices for us.
Your diatribe about not caring about humans is ironic. I don’t know where you got all that from, but it certainly wasn’t my previous comment.
I also don’t know what pact you’re on about. The idea of working for survival is used to exploit people for their labor. I guess people with disabilities that aren’t able to work just aren’t human? Should we let them starve to death since they can’t work a 9-5 and work for their food?
> Who we ‘are’ is nothing close to what we have today.
I am wondering why you define being in terms of having. Is that a slip, or is that related to this:
> I want to just push that further and subjugate nature with automation that can feed us and manufacture worthless plastic and metal media consumption devices for us.
Because I can hear sadness in these words. I think we can feel thankful for having the opportunity to observe beauty and the universe and feel belonging to where we are and with who we are. Those free smartphones are not going to substitute that.
I do not mean we have to work because it is our fate or something like that.
> Your diatribe about not caring about humans is ironic.
A pity you feel that way. Maybe you interpreted "If you don't care about humans" as literally you, whereas I meant is as "If one doesn't care".
What I meant was is the assumption you seem to make that when a few have plenty of production means without needing the other 'human resources' anymore, those few will not spontaneously share their wealth with the world, so the others can have free smart phones and a life of consumption. Instead, those others will have to double down and start to compete with increasingly cheaper robots.
----
The pact in that old story I was talking about deals with the idea that we as humans know how to be evil. In the story, the consequence is that those first people had to leave paradise and from then on have to work for their survival.
I just mentioned it because the fact that we exploit not only nature, but other humans too if we are evil enough.
People that end up controlling the largest amounts of wealth are usually the most ruthless. That's why we need rules.
----
> I guess people with disabilities that aren’t able to work just aren’t human? Should we let them starve to death since they can’t work a 9-5 and work for their food?
On the contrary, I think I have been misunderstood.:)
I hear more sadness in your words that are stuck on the idea of having to compete. The idea is to escape that and make exploiting people not an option. If you feel evil and competition for survival is what defines humans, that’s truly sad.
> The idea is to escape that and make exploiting people not an option.
I am in, but just wanted to let you know many had this idea before. People thought in the past we would barely work these days anymore. What they got wrong is that productivity gains didn't reach the common man. It was partly lost through mass consumption, fueled by advertising, and wealth concentration. Instead, people at the bottom of the pyramid have to work harder.
> I like my ideal world a lot better.
Me too, without being consumption oriented though. Nonetheless, people that take a blind eye to the weaknesses of humankind often runs into unpleasant surprises.
It requires work, lots of work.
IMO it’s impossible with the idea that survival=work. It’s evident here, with people desperately fighting against AI art because it’ll take away people’s jobs. It’s not even just that, though. It’s also the belief that AI art takes away from human art, as if AI chess existing makes Magnus vs. Niemann less exciting.
That same work=survival idea is what incentivizes competitiveness and of course, under that construct, some humans will put on their competitive goggles and exploit others.
There are a lot of human constructs that need to fade away before we can get to a fully automated world. But that’s okay. Humans aren’t the type to get stuck on a problem forever.
I agree with those points, especially competition is an important one. It has been the furnace of our progress too, so this is a double edged sword.
I think people will not stop forming a social hierarchy, and so competition remains a sticky trait I think.
> work=survival idea is what incentivizes competitiveness
True, the idea that you can do better than the Jones through hard work is alluring. Having a job is now a requirement for being worthy, the kind of job defines your social position.
Compare with the days of nobility though, where those nobleman had everything but a job ("what is a weekend?").
>When mankind made a pact with the devil, the burden we got was that we had to earn our bread though sweat and hard labor. This story has survived millennia, there is something to it.
This sounds mystical and mysterious; it would be a mistake to project one mode of production as being the brand all humans must live with until we go extinct.
> it would be a mistake to project one mode of production as being the brand all humans must live with until we go extinct.
Indeed, you should not read it as an imperative. The other commentator was also put on the wrong foot by this.
Maybe I should not have assumed people would know Genesis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis. I should be more explicit: we are not some holy creatures. Don't assume that the few who are gonna reap the rewards will spontaneously share them with others. We are able to let others suffer to gain a personal advantage.
> There’d be very little need to work for almost every human on earth.
When mankind made a pact with the devil, the burden we got was that we had to earn our bread though sweat and hard labor. This story has survived millennia, there is something to it.
Why is the bottom layer in society not automated by robots? No need to if they are cheaper than robots. If you don't care about humans, you can get quite some labor for a little bit of sugar. If you can work one job to pay your rent, you can possibly do two or three even. If you don't have those social hobbies like universal healthcare and public education, people will be competitive for a very long time with robots. If people are less valuable, they will be treated as such.
Hell is nearer than paradise.