I'd like to join the technological unemployment discussion.
As to technological unemployment, it is indeed a good thing. Nay, a fantastic thing. A world without a demand for anyone to work except those who are highly technically skilled would clearly be a world of plenty. Just think about it: no one needs anything non-technical done; that means no non-technical need is going unfulfilled: no one is hungry, because if there were any shortage of food there would be demand for farmers. No one is unclothed, because if there were any shortage of clothes there would be demand for weavers, etc.
And if you'll say that any shortage of clothing will just be met by more machines, YES, that's the whole point and it's great! It means, again, there is no shortage of clothing. Clothing is not in demand. But still more miraculously, no people (or very few people) are required to devote their labor to achieve this state of affairs. It's the whole reason you buy a dishwasher, for example, freeing you up to do something you think is more fun or valuable than washing dishes by hand. You're not working anymore because you don't need to do the work. You're either doing some other work that needed doing, or - if there is no other work at all that needs doing - you're living in a paradise, since all your needs that could be met by any kind of human labor are already met. You don't even need a shoulder massage, because if you did you could hire someone to do that and that would be a non-technical job created, contradicting the initial assumption.
This would be paradise, a situation where you don't need to work at all and you can still experience a higher standard of living than you do now. On the way there, we'll have intermediate situations where you can work only part time with no reduction in life quality, then only 5 hours a week, then a few minutes a week will do it. Finally most people won't work at all unless they want to enjoy an even higher standard of living or if they just want to occupy themselves with something for the fun or psychic reward of it. There is absolutely nothing to be afraid of about this scenario. And keep in mind at no time is the unemployment involuntary in such a future. It's people working less because they care little to better their already quite nice situation by toiling for hours a day; instead they will work only a few hours a week, or eventually not at all - all the while enjoying an increasing standard of living.
Many people when confronted with the (rather probable) scenario of unemployment due to technological progress are apprehensive about such a scenario. Losing employment is by definition negative. Yet most people when queried respond that they don't enjoy their jobs very much or at all and they'd rather be doing something else. This peculiar situation tells us something about the state of our culture. I can't hope to try to describe what has happened as eloquently as Robert Anton Wilson in his book Prometheus Rising (1983) so I'll quote him:
Needs would still go unfilled, because people without jobs would not have the money to pay for them.
Yes indeed! And that would be a bad thing, right? It doesn't tell us anything about our available resources for fulfilling those needs, though. What it tells us instead is that our system of managing and distributing those resources is sub-optimal. Now what can we do about that?
A resource based economy has been proposed by the Zeitgeist movement. I am skeptical about it because of its rather centralized nature but I support the testing of such an idea on a voluntary basis. This solution aims to eliminate the problem of unequal distribution of the bio-survival tickets (money) by eliminating the need for them in an economy. The problem with this is that money fulfills an important role today: it helps us with attributing prices to resources and so managing their distribution. This would have to be replaced by some other means of determining where resources should flow in society and central planning just doesn't cut it for me.
Other than this suggestion we are left with trying to work within the confines of a system based on bio-survival tickets but perhaps we can change the way we use them (our culture) and/or the attributes of the tickets (Bitcoin anyone?). I feel like a broken record lately, but I want to emphasize the need for a culture of tipping and micropayments to emerge so we can foster the kinds of economic relationships Zanglebert Dingleback was talking about. This might be a stepping stone in the right direction. Think bloggers, coaches, consultants, IT people, artists, receiving direct transactions from their customers or their audience and thus supplementing or even supplanting their employment income.
Lets look at this another way:
My fear is that this world will result in a massive increase in inequality. Essentially, there will be two classes of people. Those who contribute to creating and operating the automated systems, and those that don't. The economic value of the latter class will be negligible compared to the economic value of the former. EDIT: And in the long term the latter class is invevitably the majority. And in my dystopian future (not the only future, but I fear the most likely) the majority are living in poverty.
roy
This scenario has been explored as early as 1895 by H.G. Wells in his book
The Time Machine. In this futuristic dystopia the human race has evolved into two species - the ruling class of Eloi who reap all the benefits of a fully industrialized society and the working class of Morlocks, who run all the machinery, but get close to none of the benefits. This might indeed be a possible endgame for our current system. That's why I advocate changing, nay,
abolishing the system. What we need are system
s and protocols