Getting away from useless work

[Loki]

The IQ score is based on a probability distribution, so you'll always have people with 90 IQ. I also don't think having an IQ of 90 is a genetic defect.

[littlelolligagged]

Would you like to euthanize my son who has Asperger's while you are at it, Geegee?

After all, he's not "normal."

[GGT]

The IQ score is based on a probability distribution, so you'll always have people with 90 IQ. I also don't think having an IQ of 90 is a genetic defect.

But in this hypothetical future, there is no work and no purpose for anyone who can't at least program AI, or sit around thinking deep thoughts or create awesome art or music. Or, even weirder, the AI would decide they might be a drain on society before they're even born.

No need for lawn mower or toilet cleaner people. Everything is automated. Even procreation (that's my guess). The only dumb fetus that might have a chance is the beautiful one, or the one with the long-life-gene they haven't been able to reproduce in the lab yet. Then they could be a prostitute for "real sex" instead of virtual sex, or a breeder of some sort, by virtue of nothing but their genes.

[GGT]

Would you like to euthanize my son who has Asperger's while you are at it, Geegee?

After all, he's not "normal."

No need to take this personally, Lolli. I thought this was an experiment about the future what ifs, with any ugly involved.

[littlelolligagged]

No need to take this personally, Lolli. I thought this was an experiment about the future what ifs, with any ugly involved.

Who said I was taking it personally? I asked a question.

Do you honestly think I, who had rigorous prenatal testing and would have aborted any child with a known (I hate to use the word, but I will) defect, have never had that question pop into my mind?

[GGT]

Who said I was taking it personally? I asked a question.

Do you honestly think I, who had rigorous prenatal testing and would have aborted any child with a known (I hate to use the word, but I will) defect, have never had that question pop into my mind?

You used the word euthanize, for people with Aspergers. That means something like 'putting down a sick animal' after they're born? In this strange hypothetical future, by then I assume they've figured out how to screen prenatally for any defect, as well as which defects are "drains on society". Aspergers and autistics are high IQ people, we already know that. They used be called "savants". Genius is something we don't currently know how to categorize or stereotype.

Probably my own jump to conclusions that in the future, IQ won't look anything like it does now. Quite likely that the people we now call retards or morons, have truly exceptional gifts that we haven't figured out how to understand or communicate with.

[termite]

Would you like to euthanize my son who has Asperger's while you are at it, Geegee?

Asperger's shouldn't stop a person from contributing to society (even the silly future society).

After all, he's not "normal."

Surely in this hypothetical future there is no "normal", only acceptable and unacceptable - normal is just too hard to define when it comes to humanity.

[GGT]

It's a damngoodthing I'm not living in this hypothetical future world. Obviously, I wouldn't be, the AI or the Ministry for Human Development, or whatever, would have nipped me in the bud. No need for nurses, maybe no need for mothers. Can't think of anything I do that couldn't be replicated by a machine, other than the physical touch or voice a mother provides her baby. Hell, even breast milk can be collected and delivered via bottle. Surrogate mothers are common now, too.

A robot could clean my house and tend my garden, grow and prepare food, create nutritious meals, raise my children.....

[They] might decide some of my ovaries are good prospects, if combined with just the right sperm. But basically, I am not needed. I am expendable and replaceable. Indeed, over time I'd just be an aging sack of flesh, since I'm not a genius or artiste. Why waste any energy on me after they've harvested my eggs?

Wow, I'm glad to live in current times, where at least I can be a modest mouse, flaws and all.

[Loki]

When did Chaloobi hijack this thread?

[GGT]

Wasn't the Human Condition already in the OP? Actually, I've lost track of the OP by now. But much of what we all do seems like useless, repetitive, mundane work, doesn't it? Laundry, raking leaves, sweeping crumbs off the kitchen floor, cleaning the cat box.

[GGT]

An epiphany just hit me, about why Chaloobi used to post pictures of his dog's turds!

[Aimless]

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.

I'm not sure how far we can get, but I thought that we might have some flexibility when it comes to culture, considering how much family life vs. work can differ from the US to Scandinavia to Japan to those countries with those lazy darkies who just want to eat and play.

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.

I think the vague definition I'm mostly working with is something like, "work that doesn't give the worker a happier life but that he has to continue working with just so that he can exist, even though it could probably be done by machines." I admit it's a little fuzzy in my head.

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.

It seems pretty absurd to me as well, and if that's what my posts seemed to be saying then I have been a careless Minxie. I guess I got lost in my words.

Nessie's interpretation is closer to what I meant:

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.

I'm not particularly snobby about jobs, but I do think it'd be nice if as many people as possible could have satisfying lives rather than having to do busywork simply because those are the rules of the game.

Naturally, technological progress and financial growth can help people have more meaningful and satisfying lives, but only if they can access those things.

I see Aimless is having another midterm?

Dude, summer vacation

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?

That's what I'm wondering as well.

I don't see much room for people with an IQ of around 90 in Aimless's world where all 'useless' jobs are eliminated.

And this is the problem.

Well, there would be room, the question (I think) is whether or not society will choose to accommodate those "freeloaders". I like population control, but I really don't know if I'm comfortable with euthanasia

[Aimless]

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

I think I get where you're coming from, but I wonder what kind of a market you envision where people are not people. Laws and government regulation are not the only constraints in an economy, after all. People come with their own constraints.

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.

Congrats mate

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"?

Sure it is, although I'd wonder how meaningful it is if it doesn't enable your own personal happiness.

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.

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?

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?

This is important exchange, to me. We are already on our way towards the future Illusions outlined. Even if we don't get all the way there, I think we should have some notion of what might be done in a world where there will probably be far more people than there are jobs, not to mention good jobs. It's already happening in some areas, and I don't understand this position that we can and should just ignore such issues (except from the "I-don't-get-it" perspective ).

[termite]

Wasn't the Human Condition already in the OP? Actually, I've lost track of the OP by now. But much of what we all do seems like useless, repetitive, mundane work, doesn't it? Laundry, raking leaves, sweeping crumbs off the kitchen floor, cleaning the cat box.

Can you imagine how things would be if nobody did those mundane things?

I don't find what I do mundane or useless, although there are aspects of my profession that are mundane even these should never be considered useless, you cannot just have the glorious or rewarding parts of your life without the nitty, gritty, shitty parts.

All these members with small babies will understand this concept better than anyone - after sleepless nights, feeding, burping and changing shitty nappies one little goo or gaa or smile (even a windy smile) is reward enough - for now. The rewards (and the nitty, gritty, shitty stuff) just keep on coming too.

[Aimless]

Can you imagine how things would be if nobody did those mundane things?

Machines. The important thing is that they get done.

I don't find what I do mundane or useless, although there are aspects of my profession that are mundane even these should never be considered useless, you cannot just have the glorious or rewarding parts of your life without the nitty, gritty, shitty parts.

But what about lives that are almost all nitty gritty shitty and mostly devoid of glory?

[termite]

Machines. The important thing is that they get done.

So we should have machines do everything so that we won't have to do mundane things, presumably we'll sit on our ample arses for decades of our lives doing fuck all?(some people already do I'm sure)

And you were worried about feeling useless?

I've got to ask you though Minx: Just what is this important task you would rather be doing other than the day to day mundane stuff?

But what about lives that are almost all nitty gritty shitty and mostly devoid of glory?

I think you underestimate the value a good days work has for a person, certainly some jobs are grotesque to you or I but to some poor bastard it would be considered an achievement to have just such a job - could even win him honour among his peers.

Do you think that poor bastard is spending time on the interweb pondering such things?

[littlelolligagged]

Do you think that poor bastard is spending time on the interweb pondering such things?

That poor bastard wouldn't be spending time anywhere pondering these, or any other, things.

[Aimless]

So we should have machines do everything so that we won't have to do mundane things, presumably we'll sit on our ample arses for decades of our lives doing fuck all?(some people already do I'm sure)

And you were worried about feeling useless?

I've got to ask you though Minx: Just what is this important task you would rather be doing other than the day to day mundane stuff?

Take a cable-car to the top of a beautiful mountain with my family and meet tourists

I think you underestimate the value a good days work has for a person, certainly some jobs are grotesque to you or I but to some poor bastard it would be considered an achievement to have just such a job - could even win him honour among his peers.

I think you're not getting what I'm saying. I don't disparage hard work, I just question the value of hard work that doesn't enrich a person's life. Fuck the internet, I'm talking about having the time and energy to relax, to raise kids, to love, to form and to nurture human bonds, to get excercise, to develop emotional resilience, to prevent stress which is both physically and mentally harmful.

No, I don't think we can all have perfect lives, but what the hell is this business with comparing everyone with the least fortunate?

And I hope you're not implying that it's bad to have time over for pondering ie. reflecting. Dude, large parts of the population suck precisely because they don't or can't reflect on their lives, their behaviour, their world. These are the people to whom we have dedicated several pages of derision.

That poor bastard wouldn't be spending time anywhere pondering these, or any other, things.

Exactly. Good luck to his kids

[Aimless]

I've got to ask you though Minx: Just what is this important task you would rather be doing other than the day to day mundane stuff?

PS. I have the good fortune of being able to choose activities more rewarding than picking up dog-poop.

[LittleFuzzy]

I think the vague definition I'm mostly working with is something like, "work that doesn't give the worker a happier life but that he has to continue working with just so that he can exist, even though it could probably be done by machines." I admit it's a little fuzzy in my head.

You've gone from talking about "meaningful and/or useful" work, to "find the work you enjoy." They're really quite different things. I find it a bit ironic that you initially conflated them, since that Protestant work ethic you were deriding basically said to take joy in being useful.

[Nessus]

You've gone from talking about "meaningful and/or useful" work, to "find the work you enjoy." They're really quite different things. I find it a bit ironic that you initially conflated them, since that Protestant work ethic you were deriding basically said to take joy in being useful.

Someone's reading posts like the Devil reads the Good Book, huh

[Hazir]

PS. I have the good fortune of being able to choose activities more rewarding than picking up dog-poop.

Ask the new parents in this forum how rewarding it is to clean up the poop of their babies.

[Aimless]

You've gone from talking about "meaningful and/or useful" work, to "find the work you enjoy." They're really quite different things. I find it a bit ironic that you initially conflated them, since that Protestant work ethic you were deriding basically said to take joy in being useful.

Like I said, my thoughts are summat muddled on this matter.

Here's the thing: what if you can't find the work you enjoy? That would suck in a world where you have to work in order to exist. It would suck even more if that existence sucked because you spent most of it working this job that you don't enjoy.

Taking joy in being useful, that I can get behind. But I can't help but think that many people are becoming more and more useless, and I don't think their chances at being happy should depend solely on their usefulness. Moreover, I have a hard time demanding people take joy in jobs that deprive them of things that are often much more important to happiness: mental and physical health, recreation, being with loved ones, raising good kids rather than dumping them at daycare from a very early age, etc etc.

[Aimless]

Ask the new parents in this forum how rewarding it is to clean up the poop of their babies.

Don't you think I should ask them how rewarding it is to clean up the poop of other people's dogs??

[Hazir]

Don't you think I should ask them how rewarding it is to clean up the poop of other people's dogs??

No, you shouldn't. You already made clear you think that cleaning up that is unrewarding.

[Aimless]

No, you shouldn't. You already made clear you think that cleaning up that is unrewarding.

Well in that case I hope they come in here to answer your question. I have no idea what I would answer, myself, not having had any kids or any experience with changing diapers of anyone under 60.

[LittleFuzzy]

Like I said, my thoughts are summat muddled on this matter.

Here's the thing: what if you can't find the work you enjoy? That would suck in a world where you have to work in order to exist. It would suck even more if that existence sucked because you spent most of it working this job that you don't enjoy.

Taking joy in being useful, that I can get behind. But I can't help but think that many people are becoming more and more useless, and I don't think their chances at being happy should depend solely on their usefulness. Moreover, I have a hard time demanding people take joy in jobs that deprive them of things that are often much more important to happiness: mental and physical health, recreation, being with loved ones, raising good kids rather than dumping them at daycare from a very early age, etc etc.

First, I don't think there's this strict dichotomy of finding work you enjoy, or otherwise living a crushing soul-destroying existence. 2nd, you're STILL trying to bring in "useful" and I can't understand why. What does the "usefulness" of work matter at all? What is "usefulness" anyway? You really liked that back and forth over robotics, but I felt it missed something. Beyond the subsistence level, all the use of labor has basically been finding something to do with unoccupied people. Technology can't change that. Even in this hypothetical virtual world where robots do all the production, thinking, talking, etc. and are in all ways better than humans, they will still find something to do with us because we'd be an easy-to-tap, available resource. When we run out of ways to spend our time usefully, we invent new ways because there is that subset of the population that just isn't happy unless they're being productive.

On the topic of doing what you enjoy, there's not much to add. It's good career advice which many people don't take, either because their condition is such that they can't manage to, or because they're not sufficiently motivated to. I don't know about you, but I suspect a lot of people are less trapped in the "rat race" than they think they are. We can idealize self-discovery and self-awareness and pursuing your passions but the fact is that doing so is itself a lot of work and many people aren't particularly interested in doing so. And for plenty of people "what they enjoy" isn't quite as enjoyable when it becomes more than just a leisure activity.

Now maybe you're asking "why shouldn't people be free to be lotus-eaters if that's what they want," and I don't have a good answer for you, beyond the fact that even most people who genuinely love what they do are only willing to go so far in having their time and effort supporting people besides themselves.

[Lewkowski]

What exactly do you want society to do Aimless?

[Aimless]

First, I don't think there's this strict dichotomy of finding work you enjoy, or otherwise living a crushing soul-destroying existence.

No, of course it's not a strict dichotomy. A lot of people do work that they don't burn for, and do just fine because that work enables them to do things that they do enjoy. I was thinking of those people who do work that they hate, without getting a particularly good deal out of it. Little money, little control over their lives and their fortunes, little time with their kids and their loved ones, little time and energy for leading healthy lifestyles, etc.

2nd, you're STILL trying to bring in "useful" and I can't understand why. What does the "usefulness" of work matter at all? What is "usefulness" anyway?

I'm trying to bring in "useful" because it would, for me, be one way to justify that sort of soul-destroying occupation.

You really liked that back and forth over robotics, but I felt it missed something. Beyond the subsistence level, all the use of labor has basically been finding something to do with unoccupied people. Technology can't change that. Even in this hypothetical virtual world where robots do all the production, thinking, talking, etc. and are in all ways better than humans, they will still find something to do with us because we'd be an easy-to-tap, available resource. When we run out of ways to spend our time usefully, we invent new ways because there is that subset of the population that just isn't happy unless they're being productive.

I realise this. I was thinking that there are unoccupied people today and there may be many more unoccupied people 100 years from now. Our inventiveness and desire to be productive obviously has limitations, even with the existence of such powerhouses of innovation as the US.

On the topic of doing what you enjoy, there's not much to add. It's good career advice which many people don't take, either because their condition is such that they can't manage to, or because they're not sufficiently motivated to. I don't know about you, but I suspect a lot of people are less trapped in the "rat race" than they think they are. We can idealize self-discovery and self-awareness and pursuing your passions but the fact is that doing so is itself a lot of work and many people aren't particularly interested in doing so. And for plenty of people "what they enjoy" isn't quite as enjoyable when it becomes more than just a leisure activity.

I can only agree wholeheartedly but I'd like to add that it's not just a lot of work, it can be risky and dangerous as well. If it didn't seem risky and dangerous then perhaps more people would have the confidence to aim for something they'd really love, I dunno.

Now maybe you're asking "why shouldn't people be free to be lotus-eaters if that's what they want," and I don't have a good answer for you, beyond the fact that even most people who genuinely love what they do are only willing to go so far in having their time and effort supporting people besides themselves.

Well, I dunno about the lotus-eaters, but yes, that last bit is perhaps at the heart of the problem.

Maybe it's a problem that can only be solved by population-control, brr.

What exactly do you want society to do Aimless?

I dunno, maybe develop in such a way as to encourage a culture of cooperation and support and love

[GGT]

Well in that case I hope they come in here to answer your question. I have no idea what I would answer, myself, not having had any kids or any experience with changing diapers of anyone under 60.

Not to burst open a can of worms here, but you may as well ponder Child Care / Day Care, and the attitudes surrounding that. Is it 'freeing the mother from being trapped at home with infants and young children, wiping bottoms, cooking food and reading bedtime stories......so she can return to the more important places of work outside the home, with a briefcase and blackberry'?

Many people use household economics to say they need a two-income family, even when that 2nd income can have more costs than they're worth. Or they say it'd be too boring to stay home with the kids, doing useless work and they'd go insane. The implication is that being home with kids is an inferior job, left for nannies or day care workers. Men who decide to be Mr. Mom get the double whammy.