Getting away from useless work

[Aimless]

So most of us live in societies (or in a global society) where the vast majority of useful work and useful products and useful innovations can be accomplished by a fraction of the population. The rest of the population is either unemployed or occupied with jobs that are, in many ways, make-work: eg. providing services for which demand has been generated through rampant consumerism (or bizarre ideals) and killing oneself doing so in the hopes of being able to "live" a little longer.

Man, I dunno how I feel about this. Isn't there some way to bring about a world where people don't kill themselves doing useless work just because they were born into a once-protestant circus???! Maybe you could pay them to educate their kids and to take care of their parents or something?!

[Nessus]

I'm sure our resident economy ding-bats will explain why planned economies inevitably fail. The end result is that most people (possibly? Globally, I mean) spend their lives manufacturing, transporting and selling footballs, Axe spray and so on. That's what people want, so that's what gets produced and ferried around. I tried having a similar discussion in the socialism thread, with foreseeable results.

Aside from the realism lol, I have a question; who decides what work is meaningful? Or "useful", to use your phrasing.

[Aimless]

I'm not really thinking about planned economies so much as cultural change, I think. Shift in ideals and priorities.

Not sure how to clearly define meaningful or useful. My gut tells me that serving fast-food and selling axe-advertisements and twiddling your thumbs in the army = meaningless or useless work (except in the sense that they enable some people to live. Sort of).

[Aimless]

Other examples of useless work would probably be much of that produced by political scientists and economists wink wink nudge nudge

[Nessus]

I'm not really thinking about planned economies so much as cultural change, I think. Shift in ideals and priorities.

People want to eat, fuck, sleep in peace and spend as much of their remaining time titillating their pleasure centres. More or less. Dragging them away from their insipid iPod consumerist zombieism will be an uphill battle all the way, and frankly I don't see it happening through some kind of "enlightenment" about the purpose of one's life, or what have you. Which is what I'm taking away from you asking for a change in ideals and priorities; maybe you had a better plan?

Not sure how to clearly define meaningful or useful. My gut tells me that serving fast-food and selling axe-advertisements = meaningless or useless work (except in the sense that they enable some people to live. Sort of).

Obviously I agree with this, but we can't really start defining usefulness as the absence of uselessness, or can we? I mean, to enact a cultural zeitgeist there'd have to be some kind of goal, no matter how nebulous but nonetheless defined by some (positive) idea. Right?

[Aimless]

People want to eat, fuck, sleep in peace and spend as much of their remaining time titillating their pleasure centres. More or less. Dragging them away from their insipid iPod consumerist zombieism will be an uphill battle all the way, and frankly I don't see it happening through some kind of "enlightenment" about the purpose of one's life, or what have you. Which is what I'm taking away from you asking for a change in ideals and priorities;

Well mostly it's the whole thing about wasting your life working without producing anything of great value simply because you live in a society where you have to waste your life working until you're at least 65.

If you're only working jobs that essentially only exist because some people have decided that they are the best way to enable some form of rudimentary social security/welfare then that makes the situation all the more unpalatable to me.

Or perhaps I just wish more people could get by doing work such as raising their kids, taking care of their relatives, managing their neighbourhoods, etc rather than working crappy jobs in order to maintain a society where other people get paid (by other people ) to do that good work (poorly ).

Obviously I agree with this, but we can't really start defining usefulness as the absence of uselessness, or can we? I mean, to enact a cultural zeitgeist there'd have to be some kind of goal, no matter how nebulous but nonetheless defined by some (positive) idea. Right?

You lost me with the long words how do you mean??

[Aimless]

If we're talking cultural change, one goal might be to moderate our attitudes towards the importance of being independent from our families and from our communities and from our fellow humans in general.

[agamemnus]

So most of us live in societies (or in a global society) where the vast majority of useful work and useful products and useful innovations can be accomplished by a fraction of the population. The rest of the population is either unemployed or occupied with jobs that are, in many ways, make-work: eg. providing services for which demand has been generated through rampant consumerism (or bizarre ideals) and killing oneself doing so in the hopes of being able to "live" a little longer.

I don't think anyone likes this. But it's not the free market, it's the lack of a freer market.

[Ominous Gamer]

I've held stocking and shipping jobs that I've viewed as being useless, something a well programmed and streamlined conveyor belt or vending machine could have accomplished.

When I started moving up in library services I was at first under the mistaken impression that my job was useless thanks to the internet, digital databases and information crawlers like google. Considering the current state of things, I now consider my position here more useful than what I would have been able to achieve as a public school teacher.

[Nessus]

Well mostly it's the whole thing about wasting your life working without producing anything of great value simply because you live in a society where you have to waste your life working until you're at least 65.

If you're only working jobs that essentially only exist because some people have decided that they are the best way to enable some form of rudimentary social security/welfare then that makes the situation all the more unpalatable to me.

Or perhaps I just wish more people could get by doing work such as raising their kids, taking care of their relatives, managing their neighbourhoods, etc rather than working crappy jobs in order to maintain a society where other people get paid (by other people ) to do that good work (poorly ).

The market economy solution works on very simplistic axioms, one of which is the idea of incentives. Despite the fact that technologically we, at least in the West, could fairly simply move to a post-subsistence and post-scarcity society, we do not do so because the kind of busy-work you describe is seemingly necessary to the function of the market. Since the market economy makes as few a priori assumptions of its participants as possible, it has to resort to the basest of motives in humans for its incentives. Namely, people must be threatened with physical harm (in the form of disease and crippling injury, if nothing else) and death through starvation to ensure they keep attempting to move up on the income ladder while providing the market with cheap labour.

Possibly the largest anathema to current economic right thinking, in the populist version at least, is the idea of free loaders. That people could sit around and still receive food, shelter and comfort. The simplest solution (from the individual's POV, not necessarily the gubment's) to the problem you pose would be the "basic income" the young leftists have been proposing here in the North; that every citizen be guaranteed a basic income by the state no matter what, without obligating them to go through mindless rigamaroles, endless "trainings" and tons of red tape. But with this sort of guarantee, these people would have no incentive to work! Or educate themselves, or do anything at all save for eat, shit and breed. According to the market solution, and certainly people like this already exist within our welfare paradises.

What I'm driving at is that the current configuration of our societies is simply geared towards this kind of busy-work on the deepest cultural level; "with the sweat of thy brow" is still a very high moral axiom indeed. Within this framework it seems nigh impossible that anyone could focus just on improving themselves, raising and educating their children and so on without at the same time participating in the busy-work market economy.

Are there working alternatives within the market economy society that would allow a vast majority of people to avoid busy-work for the vast majority of their lives? I'm not so sure. But admittedly I'm not very optimistic about human existence in general.

You lost me with the long words how do you mean??

What I meant to say was simply that as long as we haven't really agreed on what "useful" work is, and what "useless" work is, our happy little conversation will halt the moment someone decides to end this delicate waltz with a sledgehammer to the knee and ask for some definitions. In particular, if we cannot define, at least vaguely, what makes work useful/meaningful versus busy-work, it'll be hard to convince or even converse with someone not already of a similar mind-set vis a vis "producing things of great value" in one's life.

[']['ear]

When I read this my immediate response was to think of the various SF writers who envision a future with productivity supplied by robotics. Maybe not Asimov, but some rough equivalent. There really is a point coming eventually where a lot of society will not be needed to work. What then? Flourishing arts and sciences, or a bunch of slack-jawed drones watching "Man getting hit in crotch with football?"

[Nessus]

When I read this my immediate response was to think of the various SF writers who envision a future with productivity supplied by robotics. Maybe not Asimov, but some rough equivalent. There really is a point coming eventually where a lot of society will not be needed to work. What then? Flourishing arts and sciences, or a bunch of slack-jawed drones watching "Man getting hit in crotch with football?"

In Asimov's opinion

Spoiler:

it was the latter

[LittleFuzzy]

The rest of the population is either unemployed or occupied with jobs that are, in many ways, make-work

Hell, they might be doing something even less useful or meaningful, like spending time posting on an internet forum. Oh wait, that's "recreation" not "work." Is it meaningful to do "work" that supports other peoples "recreation"?

[Illusions]

When I read this my immediate response was to think of the various SF writers who envision a future with productivity supplied by robotics. Maybe not Asimov, but some rough equivalent. There really is a point coming eventually where a lot of society will not be needed to work. What then? Flourishing arts and sciences, or a bunch of slack-jawed drones watching "Man getting hit in crotch with football?"

I raised this issue in another thread and Loki, Lewkowski and a few others could not comprehend the extent to which properly, well built, and widely implemented robotics and AI could do nearly every job that does not involve in some way abstract thought that could not be worked around easily via brute force methods (my assumption is that the point at which a robot/AI possesses all the cognitive faculties of a human being it stops being a tool or piece of equipment). This caused problems as it was the crux of my hypothetical scenario in which a world existed where, due to the pressures of capitalism, it was far cheaper to employ these machines than people, and the work force displaced by these machines could not seek jobs elsewhere as any new jobs created that the displaced work force had the skills for would also be a job that could either be done immediately or very soon by another set of machines. Essentially my scenario boiled down to what the ardent capitalists/etc. on the board felt should be the solution to a world in which only a small fraction of the population could physically possess a skill set that made them employable. It was never addressed due to not understanding just how far reaching our technological progress could be.

[Loki]

And how much would it cost to create the AI for these machines, to build the machines, to repair the machines, and to make sure the machines are doing what they're supposed to?

[GGT]

IEssentially my scenario boiled down to what the ardent capitalists/etc. on the board felt should be the solution to a world in which only a small fraction of the population could physically possess a skill set that made them employable. It was never addressed due to not understanding just how far reaching our technological progress could be.

From Rosie the Riveter to Rosie the Robot? In the year 2525? I wonder how long it would take to engineer AI to maintain and upgrade the AI, rendering most of the Humans useless?

[Illusions]

And how much would it cost to create the AI for these machines, to build the machines, to repair the machines, and to make sure the machines are doing what they're supposed to?

I'm unsure how this is relevant as costs do not imply that these things cannot exist, and since the cost of technology does not stay the same over time, this means that while it might be too expensive to implement a certain machine to replace a job in say 25 years, it might not be that way in 50, or a 100 or more. Or do you think that the capabilities of technology will somehow plateau, technology will stop getting cheaper, and for the remaining course of human existence it will always be preferable to employ a person for all their working years than it will be to buy a machine and maintain or replace it?

[Loki]

Sure, at some point in the future, this might be possible. It's highly unlikely that it will be financially feasible (even if it's technologically feasible) during our lifetimes, so why worry about it?

[Nessus]

Is today tautological reasoning day?

[Steely Glint]

Hell, they might be doing something even less useful or meaningful, like spending time posting on an internet forum. Oh wait, that's "recreation" not "work." Is it meaningful to do "work" that supports other peoples "recreation"?

Exactly. Now that we've solved most of the problems around supplying our needs for continued existence, almost everything that humans do is based around supporting some kind of 'want' or another and almost nothing we do is actually necessary for the continued existence of the species, because we can do what is necessary for our continued existence (provide food and shelter) with a tiny fraction of the population. Most of what we do is basically based around making our lives happier and more convenient. The gist of what Nessie and Minx were saying seems to be that endeavors which help make people's lives easier and more comfortable indirectly are more worthy than those that do so directly. I.e. it's a noble endeavor to discover new knowledge and invent new technologies but it's meaningless, vapid, consumerism, shiny trinkets, big brother blah blah to use that to invent something like an I-pod with it: in other words, we should collect knowledge but not do anything with it. The seems pretty absurd to me.

[Nessus]

Exactly. Now that we've solved most of the problems around supplying our needs for continued existence, almost everything that humans do is based around supporting some kind of 'want' or another and almost nothing we do is actually necessary for the continued existence of the species, because we can do what is necessary for our continued existence (provide food and shelter) with a tiny fraction of the population. Most of what we do is basically based around making our lives happier and more convenient. The gist of what Nessie and Minx were saying seems to be that endeavors which help make people's lives easier and more comfortable indirectly are more worthy than those that do so directly. I.e. it's a noble endeavor to discover new knowledge and invent new technologies but it's meaningless, vapid, consumerism, shiny trinkets, big brother blah blah to use that to invent something like an I-pod with it: in other words, we should collect knowledge but not do anything with it. The seems pretty absurd to me.

I might respond to what I think is your criticism of my arguments as of late later, but to be fair to Minx he focused more on people's ability to have a family life in peace without wasting away a third of their lives in a meaningless (for them) job.

[GGT]

I thought the gist was....after inventing the shiny new tech that enables us to have easier (and more informed) lives, someone still needs to clean the toilet or mop the floor. But if we use technology to replace the maid or the janitor with robotics, what will those people DO?

[Hazir]

I see Aimless is having another midterm?

So, let's take your example of the uselessness of serving fast food. Let's say we eliminate that job entirely. How are the people who were served that food going to feed themselves? Waste their time hunting reindeer for dinner?

[Steely Glint]

I thought the gist was....after inventing the shiny new tech that enables us to have easier (and more informed) lives, someone still needs to clean the toilet or mop the floor. But if we use technology to replace the maid or the janitor with robotics, what will those people DO?

Why waste a perfectly good robot cleaning toilets when there are poor people to do it?

[GGT]

I see Aimless is having another midterm?

So, let's take your example of the uselessness of serving fast food. Let's say we eliminate that job entirely. How are the people who were served that food going to feed themselves? Waste their time hunting reindeer for dinner?

Nah, it's already in our freezer, waiting to be microwaved.

We can send Rosie the Robot to retrieve chicken nuggets from the vendor, or the Robot delivers it to our door after our on-line order. No need for McDonald's drive thru.

The robots raised the chickens with computerized feeding schedules, cleaned their cages, tested their blood for diseases, sent the results to a computer base that gives its Health Certificate, etc. The farmer also sits behind a computer screen, or has a robot do that for him. It's all automated. Well, except the chicken itself, but even that is operated and maintained by AI.

No need to leave your home. Everything comes to you. Even energy, because we have energy bots that scout out the best use of what's available, with troops of robots that can extract, exploit, and process any resource, and bring it to "market". Depending on your location, of course. If you're living under an ocean or in a desert, your needs would be optimized, by the robot's assessment. AI can do billions of those calculations in a nanosecond, and command other AI to fill the order.

[GGT]

Why waste a perfectly good robot cleaning toilets when there are poor people to do it?

Why waste time with toilets anyway? We could probably figure out how to process our own waste to feed ourselves, the infinite DNA machine, the perfect helix.

[Hazir]

Oh I see, the ideal is the same life but without the human interaction. IIRC there's a DSM IV definition describing this.

[GGT]

Dunno what DSM IV means. Did I take the hypothetical too far into the future?

[Hazir]

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV

It's funny to see how people always seem to take themselves as the rolemodel for the people who would inhabit their utopia. I don't see much room for people with an IQ of around 90 in Aimless's world where all 'useless' jobs are eliminated.

[GGT]

Oh that DSM. I thought it might be an acronym for a video game or something.

There IS no room for low or average IQ people in this "get rid of useless jobs" scenario.

I suppose that means the future would be strict amniocentesis and aborting any fetus with chromosomal defects.