I try not to make assumptions about what other people mean, since that tends to be seen as 'strawmanning'. I prefer giving people an opportunity to clarify their point in their own words.

...what real difference would it make to my question?

On a global scale we humans collectively now have the capability to produce MORE THAN ENOUGH for everyone on the planet to have plenty (more than just enough to stay alive)... — Frank Apisa

Well, is that true?

I suppose it comes down to what you think is an acceptable standard of living, but are there enough cars for everyone to own one? Are there enough houses for everyone to live in something that can be considered decent? What about health care and social security?

A redistribution of resources on the scale that you suggest would involve a lot of people, mostly in modern countries, to make a large sacrifice in regards to their standard of living.

Do you think people should be forced to make such a sacrifice, or would it be on a voluntary basis only?

I think you are too wedding to thinking inside the box to even consider anything on the outside.

If the suggestion that our technological advances has set the stage for ALL humans to work less and enjoy more leisure (with needs and wants being met)...if that bothers you...so be it.

If you think the totality of our needs and wants requires that everyone continue to work the kinds of hours most still work...while receiving such a small part of the total product of the work as their reward...

...that is your right. And if there are enough people who take that attitude...nothing will change. The system will stay and humans will continue to toil and "more leisure" will not come to pass.

The only word I can think of as adequate to describe that kind of thinking, though, is a word I try seldom to use. The word is STUPID.

But as Albert Einstein once said, "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."

This seems to me like a "people who disagree with me are stupid" kind of response. Maybe I am missing something, but why are you ignoring the arguments I put forward?

If you're not interested in discussing with people who have a contrasting opinion, why post something like this on a discussion forum?

The last thing in the world I think...is that the people in this forum are stupid.

YOU just are unwilling to think outside the box, Tz.

Surely you can see that we are inundated with billions of willing, productive mechanical slaves...slaves that our technological evolution has gotten for us.

Good grief, man...with this influx of slaves...MOST OF US should be working much less.

That is the absurdity I am calling to your attention.

We have got to come up with a way to use this blessing...rather than turn it into a catastrophe.

Why are so many people efforting to create MORE WORK...MORE JOBS...rather than devising a way to break away from the notion that one HAS to work in order to live?

Think outside the box.

:joke:

Thank you of sharing from your journal. Excellent food for thought...although I see much of it as an unnecessarily negative diatribe against using a wondrous state of affairs as a reason to bemoan that state of affairs.

More leisure time does not mean less work...for those who want to work. It simply means that the "work" can be directed toward other things than just as a means to "earning a living."

I'll get into that more at some point.

Why are so many people efforting to create MORE WORK...MORE JOBS...rather than devising a way to break away from the notion that one HAS to work in order to live? — Frank Apisa

Because being jobless is a very immediate concern to which promises of a future utopia bring little reprieve.

I'm also not against thinking outside of the box, but I think ideas like this lack a realistic analysis of the requirements and implications.

For one, you seem to assume mechanical labor is free. It is not. I'd suggest looking into the production process of high-end robotics.
The amount of resources it would take to swap the human labor base for robots would be astronomical. And what about the energy requirements to power it all? Not to mention that robots require labor to operate. They have to be designed, constructed, programmed, maintained, etc.

These ideas of utopia always seem more like a prologue to dystopia to me.

.

These ideas of utopia always seem more like a prologue to dystopia to me. — Tzeentch

Yes, I can see that. You share that with many people...unfortunately for the world.

In any case, I am not advocating for a Utopia. A world of more leisure will not be any closer to a Utopia than what we have now...BUT IT WILL BE A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE HAVE MORE LEISURE TIME.

And I think that is a good thing.

If you believe that, I assume you must have some ideas about the arguments and concerns I have put forward. I am genuinely interested in what you think about them.

I see much of it as an unnecessarily negative diatribe — Frank Apisa

Well, negativity/depression is an appropriate response to observation of a "sinking ship"; attachment to negativity or positivity can be equally deranging to the psyche, there is a reason for each. A good example is depression anent the changing climate. Apparently there are those who think it inappropriate to be depressed while the weather around them changes drastically each season from the norm (it rains all winter now where I live...used to be snow...drives me f'n nuts); how it isn't depressing could only be that one never goes outside. Getting into the depths of what causes climate change (or excessive work for the market society, in this case) might even require a little depressive realism to gauge what is actually going on.

Anyway, I may try to share a mind here on the line of debunking the myth of "earning/making a living." It looks to be a point of departure. Clearly this saying is an analog. What's it an analog of? What is made? What is earned? Living could never occur if there weren't a power antecedent to what our species claims to be a provider of through its systems, standards and inventions.

Our technology has provided billions upon billions of willing, very productive mechanical slaves to do the work that needs doing... — Frank Apisa

From The Everlasting Mercy by John Masefield 1911

***
To get the whole world out of bed
And washed, and dressed, and warmed, and fed,
To work, and back to bed again,
Believe me, Saul, costs worlds of pain.
***

The lines are from a very long poem. It would have been a lot of work for me to write it. I came across the quote on the flyleaf for WORLDS OF PAIN, LIFE IN THE WORKING CLASS FAMILY by Lillian Rubin, a classic in its field published in 1976.

The headlong drive for endless production that must go on, no matter what, is wrecking our world. I quite agree that we not only could, we SHOULD be producing less -- less oil (much, much less), far, far fewer cars, plastic disposables, huge houses for 2 or 3 people, fewer highways, fewer huge office buildings, and so on.

But if we did what we should be doing (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) more labor will be required, not less. For instance, far fewer cars and far less gasoline means people will have to spend more of their own energy to get around short distances. Rather than driving a mile to the grocery store for a small bag of groceries, they will have to hoof it or bike it, thus using more time and more of their personal supply of calories.

Rather than driving 10 miles to work, parking in a huge lot or ramp, they might have to walk 4 blocks to catch a bus, then maybe another 3 or 4 blocks from the bus to their job. There are people who view such prospects with horror.

Capitalism is predicated upon exploitation of other people's labor for profit. More jobs for everyone means more profit producing jobs, more profit, and more disequilibrium in distribution of resources. If capitalism were abolished in a revolution (which I heartily hope for) then labor could be for human need and not for profit. But there would still need to be a lot of ordinary human labor to feed everyone, keep everybody warm, housed, clothed, bathed, and adequately amused and mentally stimulated.

Give me the single most compelling argument against the notion that we all deserve more leisure time...and that we all can obtain it if we put our minds to it.

I will respond with as much depth as I can muster for your argument.

I truly do not understand the argument you are making, Anthony. Assume I am not all that bright...and dumb it down for me.

My argument, BC...is NOT with work. It is with "having to EARN a living."

If one has to walk more in order to help with the environment...then those who can "walk more" should walk more.

When I drive to a supermarket or department store...I always park as far away from the entrance as possible. I enjoy walking...enjoy it a lot.

I'm 83 now, and I probably do less walking than I should to keep in shape. I use a cart on the golf course, mostly because it is one of my perks.

But even in my late 70's I would walk 50 or more blocks in The Big Apple...dodging pedestrian traffic and walking at as brisk a pace as possible.

Give me the single most compelling argument against the notion that we all deserve more leisure time...and that we all can obtain it if we put our minds to it.

I will respond with as much depth as I can muster for your argument. — Frank Apisa

'Deserving' is a rather empty concept, but lets put that aside for now.

The arguments you put forward over the course of this thread were;
- There are enough resources for everyone.
- Robotics solve all our problems.

My three main arguments against this are:
- Resources are scarce. You didn't stipulate what standard of living you'd imagine everyone would have, but cars, houses, health care, social security, etc. It doesn't go without saying that there is enough of these for everybody to just get for free.

- The redistribution of resources you advocate would be massive. Would this have to be done by people voluntarily or should they be forced?

- The idea that mechanical labor can simply replace human labor without issues arising is too hasty. What about the immense resources and energy required for such a transition? What about all the labor and energy required for keeping a complete robotic workforce in operating condition?

You can find longer versions of these arguments in my other comments on this thread.

Oh, didn't have an argument. Just thoughts. I believe in sharing a mind, not drawing conclusions beforehand. If I post again in your thread, it will follow your lead.

It helps to ask simple, general questions like "what is the purpose of work?" Leisure? In an age where work really isn't related to survival any more than it is entertainment...there are a slew of perplexities to churn up the muck if we really have an interest in understanding these things at the root. I don't take for granted many things which others seem to.

'Deserving' is a rather empty concept, but lets put that aside for now. — Tzeentch

No it isn't an empty concept at all, but sure...let's put that aside for now.

The arguments you put forward over the course of this thread were;
- There are enough resources for everyone.
- Robotics solve all our problems. — Tz

You are not especially adept at paraphrasing, Tz. These two distortions are particularly terrible attempts. I doubt I ever used the comment, "There are enough resources for everyone"...and if I did and you can point to it, I will withdraw it and apologize to you. I doubt you could do that, however.

Your second comment is so far away from anything I have ever said anywhere, I am embarrassed to have to deal with it.

In fact, I won't.

Now...how about you go back...pick out something I have actually said...tell me why you disagree with it...and we can have a discussion about it.

If you are just going to create straw-men and then argue against your own straw-men...you are going to win. Your straw-men are incredibly fragile.

If we discuss things rather than do that, though, we will both win.

Ball in your court.

I suggest someone who is a proponent of "more leisure time" try starting a GoFundMe account. This might provide a "peoples'" perspective on the idea.

My two areas of relative expertise are mathematics (classical complex analysis) and climbing. Regarding the latter, I have seen the American Alpine Club shift its priorities over the years, from preserving history and sponsoring Himalayan expeditions to raising money to give to youngsters so they can go play on the rock. And some of those young climbers avoid medical insurance, assuming a GoFundMe account will pay for their injuries. More supported leisure time. I compare this with the environment sixty years ago, when a friend who was living day to day, a "dirtbag" climber, rose on his own merits over the years to become a California billionaire.

However, even in a good economy like the present with plenty of jobs, many young people live in the "gig" world, moving from one temp job to another, with limited benefits. I see this in the academic world where tenure-track positions become adjunct appointments, with virtually no benefits.

So, I have mixed feelings on the issue. :chin:

Thanks, Anthony.

I certainly agree with the thrust of your comment, "In an age where work really isn't related to survival,,,"...at least on an individual basis.

There is plenty of work that pretty much has to be done by humans. Humans do a better job at bartending than most machines, although some machines do help a human bartender with his job. Dealing out comfort and companionship to someone in need of both is almost certainly something humans will do better than machines.

And while there are machines capable of doing some physician and nursing jobs, the TLC of a human is hard to replicate.

No machine will ever make a hand-made silk tie.

But most jobs will be done by machines and will be done more productively than humans...including, at some near point, the making of machines to do those jobs.

The notion "that one must earn one's living" is at the heart of my thesis here...and seems to be getting short shrift...if that.

We'll see how things work out as more people stop by to comment...and others get a chance to revise the ones they've already made.

My argument, BC...is NOT with work. It is with "having to EARN a living." — Frank Apisa

I'm glad to hear you are still playing golf at 83, and at 83 you deserve a perk or two, so keep on swinging the club and chasing the ball, even if on a cart. I don't play golf because I'm way too blind. The ball disappears as soon as it is struck.

But on to the point here...

I didn't understand what your objection was. I thought you were objecting to work. OK, then, you object to having to EARN a living.

Why do you object to the expectation that people ought to earn your living?

We waive the necessity of earning for those who can not do so; the very disabled, for instance, and the aged--people as aged as you and me. We give a living to those who can not earn it (which is meet, right, and salutary).

But as Masefield's poem says, and most economists too, livings do not grow on trees free for the taking. The resources of the earth--plant, animal, and mineral--do not give up their uses without a major effort. A lot of labor goes into making a copper pipe, from mining the ore to buying the pipe at Home Depot. One can have lettuce from one's own garden, but it won't plant itself, pick itself, wash itself off, and cover itself with dressing. Somebody has to labor to have fresh salad.

My comment on this may seem an aside.

I am reading the latest of the Lisbeth Salander novels (The Girl Who Lived Twice)...and there is lots of talk about mountain climbing...especially Everest.

Your comments really struck home with me.

Yo, BC.

The reason I "object" to the "one must earn one's living"...is because it simply isi not necessary...and it is counterproductive.

People forced to work NEVER do as good a job as people who WANT to work.

We have enough people who WANT to work...and there are jobs being taken up by people who do not want to work...but are working because they have to.

Any, I don't so much "object" to it...I merely would like to see it changed to a more appropriate protocol for this day and age.

It is complicated. Mostly has to do with opinion.

If you think requiring work is a better way to operate...okay with me. If you think that humanity would not be better off with more leisure time...okay with me.

You may be right. I may be wrong.

Aristotle predicted this problem in the 4th bc century. The greeks invented toy steam engines and Aristotle predicted such things would put his slaves out of work. My problem with universal basic income is first, is people who view this as theft would get violent, and two the government could justify making a sort of pseudo religion since they are the ones dispensing the goods. All in all after X time i think universal basic income will happen, i just don't know if it will be 1 year or 500 years away.

I believe the solution is modernized significantly reduced zoning laws, Sub-blue laws and electric trike lanes. There are also various bartering apps being developed out there and atleast some of them use data mining and artificial intelligence to make them work. I can send you the article on one of these bartering apps if you would like.

Thank you, Christian, but I'm not into the Bartering apps thing. At 83, I still sometimes marvel at lights going on at the flick of a switch.

I've been writing about Universal Basic Income for almost 4 decades now...from long before it became a popular thing.

Gonna happen, but like you, I'm not sure when.

Thank you, Christian, but I'm not into the Bartering apps thing. At 83, I still sometimes marvel at lights going on at the flick of a switch.

I've been writing about Universal Basic Income for almost 4 decades now...from long before it became a popular thing.

Gonna happen, but like you, I'm not sure when. — Frank Apisa

It was more or less prophesied in Revelation (the book). Many attribute the bad economy is due to a lack of work ethic, but automation and globalization played a huge part. Like you said its a matter of X time.

For some reason this thread is not coming up on the forum page for me.

Why not just come to the realization that we have MORE THAN ENOUGH for everyone...and just find a more efficient system to distribute the bounty...one that doesn't involve being forced to work. — Frank Apisa

But whether I mean just Americans when I use "we" and just Americans when I use "everyone"...

...or if I mean "all humans on the planet" when I use "we" and "every human on the planet" when I use everyone...

...what real difference would it make to my question? — Frank Apisa

If the suggestion that our technological advances has set the stage for ALL humans to work less and enjoy more leisure (with needs and wants being met)...if that bothers you...so be it. — Frank Apisa

There you go.

But I'm done playing ring around the rosie.

Enjoy your bubble.

[

For some reason this thread is not coming up on the forum page for me. — jgill

Not coming up on mine either.

Not sure what is going on, but I'll try to check on it and report back here.

The arguments you put forward over the course of this thread were;
- There are enough resources for everyone.
- Robotics solve all our problems. — Tzeentch

That is what you wrote...and I told you I never said those things.

Not only did I never say them...I never intimated them.

But you apparently are not ethical enough to simply acknowledge that I did not say them...and apparently now think it inappropriate for me to mention that I did not say those things.

You apparently feel that asking you to quote me...and deal with what I actually wrote is playing "ring 'round the rosie."

Okay...I get that.

So go play with yourself...and leave serious discussions to adults.

If you decide to grow up...let me know and I will defend everything I actually have written.

This thread is now listed in The Lounge...so apparently it will not show up on the FORUM feed.