Topic: Shouldn't the goal be no work (Read 592 times)
The goal should be more work. After all, if your body didn't work, it wouldn't be alive. Consider sick people, whose bodies are working, but not the right way. Or consider people in the morgue, whose bodies aren't working at all. More work means more life. But it should be voluntary. If you don't want to work, you essentially want to die.
Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better. Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less? The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have. An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have. If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.
I do agree with you sir. The goal should be really not working. The world is full of technological intelligence that can reduce the time we actually work and how we can live in abundance. Nobody said we'd be relying on technology to do our work for us. Of course not and i don't think that that it's also possible. Less work would be more like it. Who wouldn't want to be paid while doing half the work they're supposed to do? Thst's what technology is for anyways, to make life better and easier for us humans.
Productivity continues to increase and we will see even greater improvements as technology gets even better. Shouldn't the end goal be for humans to work less? The monetary system truly doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of resources we have. An economic crash doesn't just magically take away the natural resources we have. If one person could press a button and produce all the things we make now that should be the goal.
I do agree with you sir. The goal should be really not working. The world is full of technological intelligence that can reduce the time we actually work and how we can live in abundance. 
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-16/social-media-universal-basic-income-cashless-society-how-chinas-social-credit
This article does a decent job of painting the picture of how we go from UBI to totalitarianism in a few easy steps...
This article does a decent job of painting the picture of how we go from UBI to totalitarianism in a few easy steps...
^^^ Imagine that you could find such a place. You would, of course, have to work to grow your food and to live. Part of your work would include storing up this or that for bad seasons. If you are smart, you will have kids who love you, so that they support you in your old age.
Other people will find the same area you live in. They will do the same as you. Then crime will step in, and you will need to form a government among yourselves to protect you all from the criminals. Then the criminals will get into government, and ultimately you will have the same mess as you do today.
The only hope for a no-work situation is robots. The only hope for a work situation is wise kids who will support you like you supported them when they were little, and who will protect you from the criminals in government.
Other people will find the same area you live in. They will do the same as you. Then crime will step in, and you will need to form a government among yourselves to protect you all from the criminals. Then the criminals will get into government, and ultimately you will have the same mess as you do today.
The only hope for a no-work situation is robots. The only hope for a work situation is wise kids who will support you like you supported them when they were little, and who will protect you from the criminals in government.
I like to live where we don't need money and we could just plant and harvest our food,
Just like a farm but in our current farm still needs money for the seed and fertilizer,
I want to live where we don't need money for any kinds of things.
Just like a farm but in our current farm still needs money for the seed and fertilizer,
I want to live where we don't need money for any kinds of things.
George Jetson came home from work one day. He looked just beat. His wife asked him how things went at the office. He said he really worked hard. He pushed 3 whole buttons today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrIf0oYTtaI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlAMmCl3Cw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrIf0oYTtaI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlAMmCl3Cw
I think, but do not know, that if measured in an 'un-normalize' manner, unemployment in our great 'Trump Economy' is greater than was the case in the depths of the great depression of the 1930's.
I'm 100% sure it isn't simply because in 1930 most women weren't employed.
It counts as a lot.
https://medium.com/the-thirties/employment-of-women-in-the-1930s-5998fd255f5
25% of women were employed.
I don't understand your comment.
Isn't 75% a good number for "most"?
Hypothetically:
A system exists with a finite/predictable money supply.
The system generates a UBI for every verified identity.
Members that want to contribute more are free to do so, but wont this ultimately lead to the current system we have?
I guess I can get behind wealth disparity, as long as the ones with the wealth are deserving of it.
That opens up another question of if we allow wealth to be passed on from generation to generation?
Maybe a solution is to allow value to start being obtained at year 0?
Edit: Wealth disparity will always be a thing as long as human emotion and greed is involved.
A system exists with a finite/predictable money supply.
The system generates a UBI for every verified identity.
Members that want to contribute more are free to do so, but wont this ultimately lead to the current system we have?
I guess I can get behind wealth disparity, as long as the ones with the wealth are deserving of it.
That opens up another question of if we allow wealth to be passed on from generation to generation?
Maybe a solution is to allow value to start being obtained at year 0?
Edit: Wealth disparity will always be a thing as long as human emotion and greed is involved.
All right. I'll say it direct and simple. The goal shouldn't be no work. The goal should be more pay for the same work... and leveraged pay if possible.
What does leveraged pay mean? Is that like stock options?
Like MLM.
They will if they get hungry enough. Put them on a treadmill to make electricity for the government. Then feed them based on how much electricity they put out. If they won't work, let 'em starve. That way the people won't have to support them through taxes.
This will take care of the immigrants who are living on welfare, when their welfare runs out... if they don't go out and voluntarily find a job.
This will take care of the immigrants who are living on welfare, when their welfare runs out... if they don't go out and voluntarily find a job.
Love the idea, but try to persuade the left to do it. It will be like trying to wipe your butt with a hedgehog.
We're talking about the same group that greeted migrants with flowers to be later raped and/or mugged by them.
All right. I'll say it direct and simple. The goal shouldn't be no work. The goal shoyld be more pay for the same work... and leveraged pay if possible.
What does leveraged pay mean? Is that like stock options?
^^^ However, in the scheme of things, it is these elite who are the ones who are trapped. We are just entering the phase of robotic work. Nobody knows who will be the winners, the elite or their robots. If the elite aren't careful, it will be the robots. They just might think ahead, and keep the rest of us around to help them fight the robots.
In the end, we all die. And it doesn't take very long compared with the amount of time that has already elapsed. If fighting robots isn't fun, we just might be more blessed to depart before the robots take over.
The whole focus is different than when there were no robots. The folks that had The Georgia Guidestones built, might already have succumbed to what the monument says regarding reducing population, and that without the robots.
Personally, I would think that if the robots take over, they will want greater population, simply because they will know that they (the robots) really aren't spiritual at all, and that they need spiritual people on their side to win spiritual things in the universe.
In the end, we all die. And it doesn't take very long compared with the amount of time that has already elapsed. If fighting robots isn't fun, we just might be more blessed to depart before the robots take over.
The whole focus is different than when there were no robots. The folks that had The Georgia Guidestones built, might already have succumbed to what the monument says regarding reducing population, and that without the robots.
Personally, I would think that if the robots take over, they will want greater population, simply because they will know that they (the robots) really aren't spiritual at all, and that they need spiritual people on their side to win spiritual things in the universe.
Am I the only one concerned about what the elite will do once the masses are no longer employed and no longer have value to them as workers within the systems they control? I mean it is getting to the point where robots and AI can do almost anything... at that point the masses of humanity are more of a threat to them than anything. This not a good position to be in when people with indescribable amounts of power and nearly limitless resources see you more valuable as a corpse than a free human being. IMO this should be our primary collective concern, the conditions are ripe for a harvest... and they just so happen to have a sickle ready.
They will if they get hungry enough. Put them on a treadmill to make electricity for the government. Then feed them based on how much electricity they put out. If they won't work, let 'em starve. That way the people won't have to support them through taxes.
This will take care of the immigrants who are living on welfare, when their welfare runs out... if they don't go out and voluntarily find a job.
This will take care of the immigrants who are living on welfare, when their welfare runs out... if they don't go out and voluntarily find a job.
Love the idea, but try to persuade the left to do it. It will be like trying to wipe your butt with a hedgehog.
We're talking about the same group that greeted migrants with flowers to be later raped and/or mugged by them.
All right. I'll say it direct and simple. The goal shouldn't be no work. The goal shoyld be more pay for the same work... and leveraged pay if possible.
Differentiating work from employment is a fundamental concept.
We're being tought that if you're not employed under the capital of someone or your own capital, you're not working.
This is a stupid definition that, though practical, is in no way a complete and objective vision of society.
We're being tought that if you're not employed under the capital of someone or your own capital, you're not working.
This is a stupid definition that, though practical, is in no way a complete and objective vision of society.
The topic was about work in general, at least IMO.
If we ask whether there will be no employment in our future, the answer is yes, most likely. Is it bad? I'd say no, because we should be working more for ourselves, less for others (i.e. the society).
If the question is about work in general then I don't see a point in asking. There will always be work in this sense, as long as people will exist, unless your vision of society is like the one from The Matrix, where we all live in stasis tubes.
They will if they get hungry enough. Put them on a treadmill to make electricity for the government. Then feed them based on how much electricity they put out. If they won't work, let 'em starve. That way the people won't have to support them through taxes.
This will take care of the immigrants who are living on welfare, when their welfare runs out... if they don't go out and voluntarily find a job.
This will take care of the immigrants who are living on welfare, when their welfare runs out... if they don't go out and voluntarily find a job.
Love the idea, but try to persuade the left to do it. It will be like trying to wipe your butt with a hedgehog.
We're talking about the same group that greeted migrants with flowers to be later raped and/or mugged by them.
Everywhere in the world you see work, be it among people or among all of nature. You also see periods of rest and relaxation. The best idea is to follow nature in the idea of work - working hard at times, resting at others, and take vacations, only to come back to work again. Do it all in moderation, with moderation the focus on all aspects of work or no work.
Our goal in life should be to seek God and the way He tells us to find peace in the hereafter. This life lasts for less than 100 years (usually). But the hereafter is forever.
Our goal in life should be to seek God and the way He tells us to find peace in the hereafter. This life lasts for less than 100 years (usually). But the hereafter is forever.
Our goal should be to live fulfilled life.
Our life should be happy and less stressful than now.
But, I think that life without any work or obligation will be boring, really
We should have time for us, our friends, families, hobbies etc.
In my opinion, in the future we will have much more flexible working schedule, work from home will become standard and we will have freedom to chose when and how much we will work.
Our life should be happy and less stressful than now.
But, I think that life without any work or obligation will be boring, really
We should have time for us, our friends, families, hobbies etc.
In my opinion, in the future we will have much more flexible working schedule, work from home will become standard and we will have freedom to chose when and how much we will work.
I think, but do not know, that if measured in an 'un-normalize' manner, unemployment in our great 'Trump Economy' is greater than was the case in the depths of the great depression of the 1930's.
I'm 100% sure it isn't simply because in 1930 most women weren't employed.
It counts as a lot.
https://medium.com/the-thirties/employment-of-women-in-the-1930s-5998fd255f5
25% of women were employed.
Does maintaining a home and a family count as work? If so I am willing to wager that number would be closer to 80%
I think, but do not know, that if measured in an 'un-normalize' manner, unemployment in our great 'Trump Economy' is greater than was the case in the depths of the great depression of the 1930's.
I'm 100% sure it isn't simply because in 1930 most women weren't employed.
It counts as a lot.
https://medium.com/the-thirties/employment-of-women-in-the-1930s-5998fd255f5
25% of women were employed.
I'll tell you one thing for sure. It will be a big job of work enforcing the no-work policy.
Jump to: