I'm reminded of this scene on learning how to swim from the film the Glass Castle where a father is teaching his daugher how to swim:

There are, as far as swimming itself goes, easier and more effective ways to teach and learn swimming, and the above seems like subjecting someone to unnecessary suffering.

But I suppose that if the actual lesson is to be about learning that it is necessary to learn to swim, then something like this is the way.

IOW, the salient distinction is between a skill and the necessity for said skill. Learning the former can usually be done with minimum stress; with the latter, stress seems inevitable.

I have my doubts about trials-by-fire. Reminds of how theists argue about evil being necessary to apprehend good. But, by Jupiter, this much evil?! Are we imbeciles that we can't take a hint?

As for work, it's economics. Everybody has to sell something.

I worked because I had to, as do all humans. As do all animals I guess. It's not unfair. It's just how it works. — T Clark

That's a lot of assumptions about "how things work".

I would argue that work activates people. The early humans got mentally and physically active because of doing what was needed in nature. In modern times we have replaced this with "work", so it keeps us healthy.

However,

That is just an illusion since if we had anything else than work that required thought and physical movement in day-to-day life, that would be as much "activating" as any kind of work. Assuming work is needed is based on the manufactured ideas of duties. But what if we replaced all those duties with automation? What then? It is probably going to happen, as it is being done right now. Lots of people are losing their jobs because of automation, so what will the future hold if "work" is no longer a necessity?

Work is also stressing out people, it is lowering their life expectancy. There are only a few occupations today that do not have a negative impact on people's lives and it's usually non-critical jobs that give more of a subjective sense of meaningfulness than any collective necessity.

But assuming that we work, "because that's just how it works" feels like a philosophically shallow viewpoint on the topic of "work". The nature of "work" as it exists for many people in the world today, is often just a manufactured thing that is not necessary at all.

As for work, it's economics. Everybody has to sell something. — TheMadFool

Or we change the economics into something else that does not require that. It will be a necessity in the future when automation takes care of most stuff. What will people do then?

Or we change the economics into something else that does not require that. It will be a necessity in the future when automation takes care of most stuff. What will people do then? — Christoffer

Thanks for giving me an aha moment.

The etymology of "robot" is slave. Ah, those good ol' days!

The etymology of "robot" is slave. Ah, those good ol' days! — TheMadFool

A slave can only be a slave if it has the capacity for self-reflection. It's also the foundation for how slavers mentally tortured slaves into thinking of themselves as slaves and nothing else, they changed their mental self-image to fit the reflection. But "AI" doesn't have to be strong AI, it can just be VI (virtual intelligence), it can be an algorithm or a complex automated robot that do complex actions in repetition, like taking care of old people by fixing laundry, making dinner etc. They don't have to be strong AIs for that.

Anyone who's into AI and the development of such technology can see what is going on right now. It's the first step in the total automation of society. Like every new disruption technology, like the first car, people right now are viewing these things as little more than a curiosity. "Oh, look at Tesla's new self-driving, it's cute, but it will never be a thing". It will, and it is inevitable. Capitalism demands it. It's the perfect ratio of expense vs income for a company, so any company will apply automation where it is possible, or else lose to the competition.

But what is interesting is what happens after the fall of traditional economics. What will the future of capitalism look like when everyone is utilizing autiomation?

What will the future of capitalism look like when everyone is utilizing autiomation? — Christoffer

First of all, some (or many?) people will not be able to afford the automation and will have to make do the old fashioned way.
Secondly, some people will probably rebel against automation.

There is a vast number of futuristic films that explore the possible scenarios of how the above two premises work out.

First of all, some (or many?) people will not be able to afford the automation and will have to make do the old fashioned way. — baker

Is that what we've seen with the car? Started off as exclusive, then luxury, then it worked its way down through the classes and today everyone can either get a $100000 Model S or a scrappy old rust-waggon from the 90s. Technology rarely stays exclusive and expensive, especially in wide adoption. On top of that, it's mainly larger industries that employs people who will automate in the first run of change. So where do the employees go?

Secondly, some people will probably rebel against automation. — baker

Why? Sure, if it's a nice corner café with really good service, that will never change to automation because social interaction is part of the reason people go there. There will be a lot of similar places to work, but not enough for the entire population.

But if you mean that the implementation of automation in industries lead to mass unemployment and that these unemployed people will rebel against this adoption, yes, it will be a massive push to "ban" it, but how can you combine a capitalistic free market system with governments demanding companies to "lose money" on employing people instead of the extremely more efficient automation systems?

This will probably shift more into governments getting the boot since they didn't have a plan for this kind of mass change in the economy. They are still educating subway engineers to drive trains in nations where the trains will soon be automated. Governments don't seem to have a clue on what's going on. The solution is to re-educate the workers getting replaced, into technical support teams for the automated systems. Instead of driving the trains, they supervise, but even that will be gone a couple of decades later.

There is a vast number of futuristic films that explore the possible scenarios of how the above two premises work out. — baker

Films are mostly written with the intent to tell a story and that story is about other things than the premise of world-building. So, in a sci-fi set in a future where there's automation all over and there are class struggles around these things, they rarely are the center of that story, or it never really explores the extreme sociological problems that could happen if the progress goes unchecked. I would say that "Blade Runner 2049" gives a good background to how the future might look in that the majority of people live almost in homeless conditions while the ones actually working are stuck in shit jobs while the privileged have gone off-world retiring far before old age. But even that isn't really about the wide sociological scope, it only zooms in on the workforce of replicants that took over the jobs of the regular people, which mostly live in hallways and megastructures with little to no hope of any change in their condition.

Even a movie like "Elysium" seems to focus directly on the class division that happens when technology becomes extremely advanced, almost caricatures the complexities of the issues into an almost "heaven and hell" simplicity.

I think the biggest question to tackle is if there's even going to be a solution that is enough for all?

Not all people are suited for high intellectual work, which is the kind of gigs that will be left for humans when automation becomes enough advanced. People live in a fantasy where everyone can become whatever they want if they want it, but that's not true. The IQ levels required for many gigs that cannot easily be automated go above the average intelligence, so a majority of people cannot do that work based on their mental capacity alone. If society focuses on high intelligence work more, then we might see a more complex education system and generally higher IQ in society when people are required to push their own IQ span a bit higher, but it won't be enough.

In the end, we will have a massive amount of people who don't fit anywhere. So going back to the original question of economics, capitalism will through this fall and needs to be replaced with a new system. It will start with universal basic income, which is just the natural way for governments to make sure the economy doesn't crash in the first run of change. But even that cannot work since there's no one working and paying enough taxes to fund that UBI, so eventually that would collapse as well.

What then would a new form of economics be? If the only choices a citizen has is to do creative or high intellectual jobs, which most aren't educated for or have the capacity for, or have UBI until they can't anymore because there aren't enough national funds to cover it, and then industries start failing because no one can afford to buy products even though they make them cheaply using automation.

There will be a collapse in this scenario and something needs to replace that collapse.

So if the choice was between no one existing and creating someone who must do X work to survive, maintain, entertain, what would yo do?

I think work should be done. My society has enculturated me to believe this is just a fact of life. I have embodied the value. Thus, other people should do the same. But this is true? — schopenhauer1

You're right - the world of employment and work is a product of enculturation. Nevertheless, people do question this set up, especially those in their teens and twenties who have recently joined the 'rat race' and are wondering why all this potential drudgery is ahead of them.

Many people would love not to work and many people don't work. There's off the grid living or being homeless and living on the street. But then other types of labour and survival hustling kick in. The best way avoid work in our culture is be born wealthy. Why do you think people want to be rich? That said, some people love their work and not all work is equal. Some involves doing things the worker loves. Some jobs are rewarding and useful to others. This matter is far from straight forward.

That said, some people love their work and not all work is equal. Some involves doing things the worker loves. Some jobs are rewarding and useful to others. This matter is far from straight forward. — Tom Storm

But should you decide that for someone else if the “like work” preferences are contingent and stochastic? I’ll even grant you the notion that if you created a guaranteed happy situation for someone else, it is permissible to create the situation for someone else…But if it’s not? Is it really necessary to do that for someone else? And if it’s not, why would such an unknown situation be considered permissible?

But should you decide that for someone else if the “like work” preferences are contingent and stochastic? — schopenhauer1

Who is deciding? Just adding to the picture not advocating any path.

Is it really necessary to do that for someone else? And if it’s not, why would such an unknown situation be considered permissible? — schopenhauer1

Permissible based on whose reckoning? Why use the word permissible? Nothing is necessary, I am just describing a situation, not making a prescription.

We live in a capitalist paradigm of work. It would be lovely to have a choice about this but how do you suggest we tackle it?

So if the choice was between no one existing and creating someone who must do X work to survive, maintain, entertain, what would yo do? — schopenhauer1

Are you asking if it's better to exist and suffer or not exist at all? I don't think that question helps in regards to a very realistic outcome of the current capitalist movement of automation. We will probably end up in what I describe, so what do we do in that scenario and after is the main question. I feel the question asked in the OP just touch upon a very old and contemporary issue with "work", but we're soon in for something entirely different in the scale of the industrial revolution during the coming hundred years, and it will define if capitalism, as we see it today, will survive in the same form or not.

Are you asking if it's better to exist and suffer or not exist at all? — Christoffer

Sort of. Rather, is it ethical to choose for someone else a state of affairs whereby they must "work" and "feel stress" and do so when there was no need in the first place (no one existed prior to work or feel stress)? I am looking for a standard here, not necessarily what is happening in practice.

Who is deciding? Just adding to the picture not advocating any path. — Tom Storm

A parent.

Permissible based on whose reckoning? Why use the word permissible? Nothing is necessary, I am just describing a situation, not making a prescription. — Tom Storm

Well, I am trying to find some standard here as to the ethical weight of forcing something else to work-in-order to X (survive, maintain, entertain), which is the situation of an average person born.

There will be a collapse in this scenario and something needs to replace that collapse. — Christoffer

I find it funny how it is all a big raucous, work, life etc. All needing to be maintained. How about the goal of not spreading more work and stress via "just don't create the situation for more people". If we can't actually develop a way out of it, then why would we put people into it? Pondering ways out on a philosophy forum won't suffice to change anything. The micro-decision to not put more people into situations of work and stress is attainable, however.

Work is stupid but if you don't work, you will eventually die, because (surprise surprise) society has not conditioned you to be able to survive outside of it, so you gotta fill that slot! Yippeee!!! — darthbarracuda

Ha, well, you know my answer though. If we can't find a way out of it, why put people in it? As I said to another poster, if people liking X thing (work) is a stochastic and not guaranteed thing (happy with it), why would we presume that we can make the decision for other people, when it was unnecessary to create that situation in the first place (meaning someone didn't already exist to be ameliorated by these negative situations of unwanted work/stress).

There is no state of affairs where no one feels stress, but I suppose one could avoid it with drugs and the like. I wouldn’t impose any of that, but I would advise against it. — NOS4A2

You can stop at, "There is a state of affairs where there is no one who feels stress". That is not existing in the first place.

Sure I am. You're treating the fetus like it's a tabula rasa. It is not. It is striving to live. You haven't made a creature that might not want to live. You have made a creature that is striving with all its energy to live. It may change it's mind later and then it can make a decision. — Bylaw

This is inauthentic. Once humans develop the capacity to "reason" or "find reasons" rather, most waking decisions are not "automatic striving for life" but rather micro-decisions made as to what, when, how to do something. Humans barely unthinkingly do anything, and to compare to animals that may do so, would be misguided. Yeah you can find times when humans "zone out" or find "flow states" but in the course of daily X, Y, Z, there is a lot of stress, tedium, etc. and knowing one is stressed. So then one has to made a decision to try to be less stressed, etc. etc. An example is one can choose to walk out of the workplace at any time. One just doesn't want to live with the consequences.. All of this is reasoned and not automatic thinking. Certainly as @darthbarracuda stated, there is a societal pressure as to how one reasons, however. Like memes, the idea of "work hard to survive" needs to be in there.. But that isn't the real focus here. It is rather, should someone else (like a parent) decide that this person needs work and stress which is inevitable in being born in the first place.

Sort of. Rather, is it ethical to choose for someone else a state of affairs whereby they must "work" and "feel stress" and do so when there was no need in the first place (no one existed prior to work or feel stress)? I am looking for a standard here, not necessarily what is happening in practice. — schopenhauer1

A bit hard to deconstruct what you are aiming for here? Is it ethical to ask someone to do stressful work that is unnecessary? Or to do stressful work that is necessary but wasn't up until that point? Depends on what work it is, how the economy works, and so on. If the work is, say, dig up people who are trapped in a collapsed building, then demanding stressful work onto people is a necessity to save lives; the stress they feel during work is irrelevant to the positive outcome. If the work is rather stressful out of making the owner rich while the person working earns very little, you could argue it is unethical, but also while under a free market, fair, if the worker didn't do anything to become an owner themselves and only accepted their class and place in the economical hierarchy. In a more Marxist view, the only fair/ethical thing would be if the work is helping both the worker and collective, the stress is shared among all that collaborate for the whole group.

It's hard to sense a standard with so many variables. It depends on the type of work and what kind of ethical economical structure society is built upon. In the US, people are being more taken advantage of than in Sweden where the unions have much more power and laws are harsh against those who try to use cheap labor. So just between these two nations, there are two pretty different levels of ethical viewpoints on "work" that leads to different answers to your question.

I find it funny how it is all a big raucous, work, life etc. All needing to be maintained. How about the goal of not spreading more work and stress via "just don't create the situation for more people". If we can't actually develop a way out of it, then why would we put people into it? Pondering ways out on a philosophy forum won't suffice to change anything. The micro-decision to not put more people into situations of work and stress is attainable, however. — schopenhauer1

Because capitalism really. We invented a monster we call a friend and when we realize we cannot easily kill the monster devouring us we either just continue ignoring it and feel fine in that ignorance, or we just kill it, regardless of the consequence to society. Problem is that if we adapt heavily into automation, we are essentially "solving" this thing by replacing humans who are stressed out by the work, with machines so that the bigger monster can continue and let us humans rest... but we haven't figured out how the monster will continue to exist when the bloodstream of transactions stop working. It's like we have the shell of capitalism, but nothing within it will work. Right now, we maintain the monster, we keep it fed, we read fairy tales before it sleeps the out-of-market night, but we don't know how to actually opt-out and deal with it without collapsing the entire world.

Capitalism is like Fenrir, the giant wolf, and child of Loki. If Loki created capitalism, it would be this wolf. And we, the people, are Odin, chaining it down, feeding it in the hopes that it will not lead to Ragnarök. We hope that we can keep it like that, forever ongoing, that it will not devour the moon and start the collapse of everything. But it will, it is inevitable, and we need to know what to do after Ragnarök, not fool ourselves with trying to prevent it, as Odin did and failed.

I can't see what you wrote has to do with what I wrote. And I really can't see where you demonstrated my post was inauthentic. I don't really see it as a response to it and I am not sure what my authentic response is supposed to have been.

Well, I am trying to find some standard here as to the ethical weight of forcing something else to work-in-order to X (survive, maintain, entertain), which is the situation of an average person born. — schopenhauer1

These are pretty old arguments and I wonder what the point might be - what does it bring you if you determine that it is unfair to have to work? Which of course how it seems to be to many, many people. World capitalism would suggest this approach is built into almost all cultures. Marxism might be one response for some. And you can pose similar 'fairness' based questions for almost anything humans do.

Why should people be forced to go looking for animals and edibles berries in a hunter gatherer tribe?

Why should everyone not be given a house and a car free when they turn 18, so they don't have to 'suffer' through work?

Why should a cleaner not be paid as much as a lawyer; is it unfair for some people to work hard for so much less reward?

“There is no state of affairs where no one feels stress”. Such a state of affairs exists only in fantasy, like a world made of candy.

Why should people be forced to go looking for animals and edibles berries in a hunter gatherer tribe? — Tom Storm

Exactly. Any person born into the world will have to work. Is that a fair decision on someone else's behalf?

Let's chuck any argument with the non-identity issue.. Which brings me to NOSA2 haha.

“There is no state of affairs where no one feels stress”. Such a state of affairs exists only in fantasy, like a world made of candy. — NOS4A2

A world with no people is still a state of affairs where no one feels stress.. So it isn't a world of fantasy. The world in fact existed billions of years before humans and presumably billions of years after.

Exactly. Any person born into the world will have to work. Is that a fair decision on someone else's behalf? — schopenhauer1

I wonder if just being a human necessitates living with unfair decisions on other's behalf. The question for me is what can be changed, why should it be changed, and how can it be changed.

We didn't choose the system of government, the use of currency and the corporations which now dominate us (often unfairly). Where the hell do you begin?

Why should people be forced to go looking for animals and edibles berries in a hunter gatherer tribe? — Tom Storm

mmm more like they're forced to not be a hunter-gatherer...human potentiality is defined in reference to a prison. Who wants to live in a stupid city except those who can't survive without it?

The wild is no piece of cake, but those who are born into it are uncorrupted by the luxuries of the city and, for the most part, are well-adjusted to whatever hardships occur. These people are the last remnant of the natural age of humans, before there was any "humanity", "civilization", "institutions", or "technology", when much, much less people lived shorter lives but with the greatest amount of freedom possible, when domesticated life was sneered at, when what mattered were actual real goals achieved through the full utilization of the body, before civilization came along and introduced countless insane imaginative systems of control that have systematically wreaked havoc and quite simply have no good reason to continue to exist.

It is shameful that nearly everyone would choose to continue to live in a civilization because "it's too hard" to live outside of it. It's mostly not even our fault, but we really are truly disgusting creatures.

Sure, but I was just making the point that work exists in many domains and the people involved don't get to choose. I wasn't attempting a distinction between cultures.

Ah man you got me all worked up for nothing :yikes: