posted
With all these complaints about technology making jobs obsolete and good jobs going overseas, I've noticed an interesting assumption: Apparently, we believe that having less work to do is a bad thing. Is this necessarily so?
I think we should consider the extreme. Consider a hypothetical future where there are NO paid jobs. All work is done by advanced robots who can do things just as well as humans do. All human beings are unemployed. People can do things, but they are strictly voluntary and unpaid.
So, the question is: Is this hypothetical world a utopia or a distopia?
Is it a horrible place, where everyone is unemployed and poor?
Or is it a great place, where nobody has to do any work they don't want to?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The answer to that question really depends on the hypothetical fate of money in this society.
If money is abolished, and the world were to become a working form of Communism or Socialism...or even just a bartering society...then I think it would be great. Almost reminds me of the kind of society presented in Star Trek.
Of course, they had spacecraft, replicators, and teleporters, so they have a little advantage.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The the people who own the robots will be rich and well off and everyone else will be poor. At least that's how it looks to me.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way i see it, there would be two possible outcomes: one where capitalism is pretty much abandoned for it stands to reason that with no paying jobs, you couldn't pay for anything, or two: society shapes up to be extremely polarized when it comes to rich and poor because those who owned the corporations would be the only ones making money.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't that pretty much a "Terminator" world? Not very appealing. And kinda boring. I actually like my job.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it is a capitalist system, how will people make their money without jobs? Dividends? Government stipends? Will there still be haves and have-nots?
I assume in this society there will still be people who do bad things (murder, rape, etc.). Who will enforce the law? Robots? Who will make the laws?
[Edit: people type while I type. Who knew? ]
[ April 22, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose you'd have to define whether or not these robots need any human supervision at all. If they don't then no-one would make any money and you would cease to have a capitalistic society.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could be a good thing, but it would have to be so carefully structured and controlled that actually making it work, with only human power and understanding, is a fanciful, idealistic dream.
It would be a world balanced on a razor. Lean a bit too far, and there would be utter disaster.
Posts: 144 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe in a world without jobs. I believe in a world without need. I can see robots providing food, transportation, protection, and a lot of our jobs. I can even see them policing the citizens; however, there will always be a demand for human creativity-- in computer, writing, music, art, games, exploration, new medians of communication, et cetera.
There will teaching jobs. So if everyone gets anything without money, what becomes the median of exchange? I imagine it will be recognition based on voluntary behavior.
Imagine the game battlefield 1942. Fun little game. The developers have opened it up so programmers can make "mods" without fear of reprisal. In fact, mods are encouraged. So, now we have “Desert Combat,” a much better version (imo) then the original--AND IT IS FREE
I imagine in that hypothetical future, everyone will have their physical needs met and more and more people will be driven (either from an introverted desire to discover or create something new to an extroverted desire of recognition) to do stuff voluntarily that benefits the group. Recognition will become the next form of currency.
Being an educator is one way to get that recognition. I imagine it would be a world were a select few are trying to one-up themselves with ideas, a select few will explore the human condition, and the majority will be consumers of entertainment.
Is this good? I bet there would be all sorts horrific crimes as people feel empty who produce nothing and seek to satisfy emotional emptiness inappropriately.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jobs seem pretty ingained in our culture. Adam was supposed to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow.
But even if we teach the robots to make bread for us, there's still tons of other roles in society in which humans will just feel more comfortable dealing with other humans.
And there's always professional sports.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, who pays your bills, Tres? We work because we are responsible for having the things we need to care for ourselves. Even if there were technology to make that easier, there would still need to be someone to maintain the technology. There is no such thing as not having to work, because everyone has to do something to survive outside of the vaccuum of a lab or reality show.
Side note: "utopia" is an old Greek work for "nowhere." Maybe the Greeks were more advanced.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad you bring this up, Tres, because the shortsightedness of some people tends to frustrate me. To answer your question: it will never be a utopia nor a distopia as long as it contains fallible humans, but it would be better than what we have today.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would have as a profound effect on mankind as the agrarian and industrial revolutions, and it would generate all of the same profound changes : new doctrines, new weapons, new conveniences, new social structures, etc., etc. In short, it would be a society that differs with ours to the point of being beyond recognition.
More work efficiency is a different thing that has important effects, some good, some not as good.
A better question, which would help determine Tres' question, is, how many people can stop being cruel and/or stupid?
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming that this whole no work thing could actually happen, it would be a complete disaster, and now, I beg your forgiveness for referencing such a terribly done movie, but I have not seen the new one or read the book. In The Time Machine, the people above ground don't have to work (and I use the term work to include your job, chores, writing a paper, and anything you don't want to do that just has to be done, so you do it), and there is a sort of collective brain atrophying process that takes place. Lets just face it, we humans need work to keep our minds and bodies functioning and alive.
posted
We'd still have the creative/artistic jobs and the jobs that require intelligance, unless these robots also have AI. If that happens I imagine that the world will be a virtual world were we are ruled by programmers.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it's a very good question that has been explored in any number of books. It's not clear that technological innovation equals more jobs. while perhaps not necessarily robots, it is cerainly feasible to believe that there only need to be 10% of people working with advanced machines to produce enough food and shelter for everyone. What then?
While I certainly don't believe in utopia, I do think that it's entirely possible humans can look forward to having to work fewer and fewer hours, or at least perhaps work being optional.
I find this question very, very fascinating. It's one that I keep on meaning to investigate in more depth since it does have serious implications for the state of the world in the future.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm surprised no body has said this yet, but hasn't just about everyone here seem the matrix? I don't know about all you but I certainly don't want to be around when The robots get pissed and kill everyone of the useless humans.
Posts: 1294 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think another problem with not having people work is depression. Most of us need a sense of purpose in our lives. If we don't feel like we're accomplishing something then we feel as though we have no purpose. I realize for some people this sense of accomplishment doesn't necessarily arise from their job, but there is a satisfaction for completing something. Some of us need our projects to feel like we've done something. As Alexa pointed out, if we didn't have to work we would have more time to do humanitarian things, like teach children or take care of the elderly, but I think that if people aren't given an external motivation to do work, they won't do anything. In the process they'll begin to feel worthless, this may lead to either an intrinsic motivation or it may lead to a really deep depression. We see the problem already when people don't feel that their job is fulfilling. It affects their personal life and happiness. If we take that away completely, what are they left with? Once again this isn't everyone. There are many people who are satisfied entirely by creating and improving their personal relations, but there is still a significant subset who need their jobs to define themselves and to feel as though they are worthwhile.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There will be things to keep us occupied. Far more things than there are now, if trends continue. I think the main thrust of the argument was economic, attacking the claim that jobs and wealth were inseparable. A much better measure (which is, surprisingly enough, what economist already use) is production.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know how computers were supposed to do away with paper? I somehow don't see the rise of technology as doing away with drudgery.
beatnix, I thought of "The Matrix" as well. I actually kind of feel a lot of folks are already there, addicted to TV shows that feed them ads so they can drive the consumerism machine.
If we ever get to the point where the robots are building the robots, someone will define them as alive and then we'll have a PETA type group fighting for their rights. So that will be a job for a few people. Even if they are still designed by us, they will at least have the status of domesticated animals.
If the machines develop AI, then we're just screwed. But if they were smarter than me, they wouldn't attack us physically. They would just slowly leach any artistry and creativity from our media, while boosting sensationalism to turn us from thinkers into beasts.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, that idea is expressed really well in the Kurt Vonnegut's first novel, Player Piano. Essentially, you have to have a PhD to actually work. Everyone else ends up in the military or the equivalent of the CCC.
posted
I personally think that the whole "idle hands" theory of human nature is closer to the truth than what I'm hearing in this thread... I teach students who have books, food, technology adn so forth provided to them free... all they have to do is put forth a bit of effort and learn, but they still consistently flake out. Take work away from human beings, and you'd have a big freaking mess that'd end up with lots of deaths.
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm not saying that people *can't* work. Sorry. Wasn't expressing myself well.
I'm saying that the number of people who will *have* to work to keep people alive, and the people who support those machines, will become smaller and smaller.
Absolutely, there will always be something to do.
But if, as someone mentioned up thread, a machine quadruples, let's say, a person's output, and it only takes another person to maintain the machine, what about those other two people who no longer 'have' to work?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if, as someone mentioned up thread, a machine quadruples, let's say, a person's output, and it only takes another person to maintain the machine, what about those other two people who no longer 'have' to work?
They find a new job.
A few questions to the 'shortsighted' comments:
What would people do to keep occupied? There is obviously no current model for such idleness in culture, so what fairy-tale model do you draw from?
Would this mean the end of any need for currency? How would the world get up to such a point from now, since technology has proven to not solve the world's problems yet?
Who would lead, and how would they achieve leadership? Since there exists no political model from which to draw from currently, what is the fairy-tale model going to look like?
What would happen to aggressors, and who would carry out whatever happens to them? Once again, no model, needs a fairy-tale model.
Without dipping liberally into science-fiction writing, there is no ample framework from which to design what this "workless society" would even look like, even if one discounts the problems inherent in the idleness of society. And who's to say that such a society would not, from that point on, stagnate to destruction?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
