|
| Thread: Is our view on (paid) work bad? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 08, 2009 10:46 AM |
|
|
Is our view on (paid) work bad?
some times ago I saw a debate at the tv about 'are men made to work?'
and there was a guy with who I totally agreed, who said that our society pushes people to consume and as a consequence to work only with the goal of achieving our desire to consume instead of actually trying to achieve something.
He also said that with the specialisations in work, some people don't even know what's the real purpose of their job, ans as a consequence can hardly feel they achieve something. you know, those people in factories, working on a production line at always building the same small part of a big something, and they have no idea what that big something is. They could be helping to build weapons that will be used by terrorists and they don't even know it.
talking specifically about the french side of things, he said that we put so much value in work that most french people have no idea what to do when they don't have a job. the work is also a way to determine the value of people here. the more you work, the more likely you are to get respected. if you say you don't work, people assume your primary aim is to find a job at any cost. if you tell them it's not the case, then they think you are lazy and take advantage of the society to live. when I say work, I'm talking about a paid work. you could have a hobby that requires working, but from what I know, it's not something french people would refer to as 'work'
there is also the fact that french people feel that work is their duty toward society. yet they complain a lot about that society and about work.
I think it's sad and frightening that the life of many people can be summarized by :
working, watching tv, sleeping...
quoting myself from another topic :
Quote:
I think if you live an healthy life, do what you want, realise your dreams, be happy, you'll stay young and beautiful longer than most people and also probably will have a more attractive personality.
lots of people have a job that they don't really like, or even completely hate and that often stress them and are convinced they have no other choices if they want the money to live (I think they are wrong, but getting the opportunity to do what you like may involve taking some risks and doing some sacrifices first that most people probably aren't ready to do)
moreover, when those people lose their job, while they could use this time to think about what they could do, they only worry about retrieving a similar job to the one which already didn't make them happy as soon as possible, mostly because they see it as the easiest way to make money and probably also because they don't know what else to do.
and I think, for that reason (and some others, but I guess mostly this one) most people ages faster than they normally should.
I might be wrong, but it's the feeling I have about work in general
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 12:37 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 12:42, 08 Dec 2009.
|
complicated subject. Not so complicated to describe until we get to the same situation different scenarios, then there are variables, and a lot of other things to consider. I should rather say it is a vague subject rather than complex.
One thing for sure, is work is at this technological age (and prior) is required in order to survive. If there was new technology that made it so people hardly had to work at all, then I would fear for the morals of the inhabitants of this earth. For one thing, if they found a way to have animals do this for us, it is hardly speculation to think they would opt to have them labor and be destroyed before their bodies become undesirable to eat.
Anyways, robots, they could harvest their fuel we will say as 1% of their ultimate work output fuel the other 99%. This is of course virtually a much higher level of human technology. If we could harness robots to protect people, produce food, maintain structures and themselves, basically, if we could design a system based on robotics to handle everything in such a way that corruption of their systems were impenetrable, then there are various potential problems.
The modern morals of tycoon businessmen would not permit them to share power and productivity. Of course money would be involved however they would more than likely develop strategy that they have the best for themselves, and the highest payers. Once "infrastructure" development is starting power struggle will commence. May result in mysterious devastation and manipulation of each other. Ok thats that end, the human consumers which are very much so the majority will sign just about anything that seems reasonable to adopt the services of robots in their communities and more importantly in the systems that maintain their food, shelter, and other desires and wants.
I personally volunteer some. I stay busy. Yes I have income, I am capable to have a comfortable life and I do, and it is getting better.
If there were no jobs then perhaps art and entertainment would have a big chance to take major influence with the ways in which humans live. As of now it is hard to become a name in the industry. very hard considering it takes a mix of initial talent and the practice of. It would also in most cases require investment of time and equipment. The mainstream could be shaped in more virtual setting where artists are not at risk of piracy and it would be easier to establish recognition. There are multiple paths to this which would seem like a peak in the entertainment industry.
I know I may seem all over the place here. My basic approach to the subject of do people need work? At the state of how we have adapted into the setting of this reality I would have to say we need work. I do not say however that change could not occur. In time we may both deteriorate and progress all at various levels individually, environmentally, politically, culturally, etc, etc..
It is in many peoples opinions fortunate with out societies that we must have subsistence in order to be self providing. I do strongly disagree with American college education processes, especially in this time. It does not make logical connections between various things such as lack of funds, requirement of funds to achieve the positive litmus results commonly required to be considered (AKA a degree). Of course the required education should not be free but in my two years of college I was able to realize nearly the entire schedule consisted of things that would not benefit a substantial majority of careers in the slightest way. Linguistics, interesting yes, but what lesson does this help a chemist? (you may realize there are examples for almost every general prerequisite there is)
Of course education is good all round, yet this in my mind does not justify requiring a peoples to pay for things when our entire country lacks the means. How many kids do not need debt to get through college, AND pay bills in the meantime + eat? This is a ridiculous situation and there are so many people who want education but it is merely a fading dream.
Your topic is complex, in a way I can hardly begin to touch on the direct question without explaining the life line of the tree. It is an interesting subject though
A: Do people need to have something to stay occupied?
I say in very much most cases, yes
B: How does gainful employment help the standard human individuals of this world?
1: sense of accomplishment
2: purpose of motivation.
3: Motivation to succeed.
4: Needs and means to survive comfortably, met.
5: With one working to help others in someway, it is important to consider that the others contribute to the society and together we all pretty much "work together" to maintain our societies even the fragile and minimal ways such as those jobs many would feel are dead end, bottom of the barrel services.
6: Of course this list is far from all inclusive
C: How does work hurt people?
In many cases jobs are taken only to survive. They are considered temporary or dead end jobs. If it requires someone 40 hours + of work per week to provide for themselves and or their family, they often need either great strength or a miracle to find time to take care of their personal life and further their work situations. A prime example of this is the one identifiable from the notorious quote "you will flip burgers your whole life" In most situations ya, drop outs, do find themselves washing cars or working fast food until they go crazy and break and lose any feeling of confidence and self worth enough to put fourth even more energy beyond a work day to look prospective employers in the eye. it is important to add that: there are also many people who have been dealt a crappy hand in life in the areas that need more than what they had to start with, to progress and achieve something they would want better. Some people are very happy in spirit mind and soul who do these jobs, but for others, these jobs can feel like a trap.
D: Do we have to find something we enjoy doing in order to progress and feel good in life?
No. If I based my spiritual and mental feelings on what I had, I would be mentally and spiritually destroyed if these things were taken from me. There is not much work people do like in such a way that they look forward to the start of their work weeks, or going to work in general. It is important that we develop general planning to get to some place we would like to be but, if all people expected some entitlement to only provide for ourselves with work that we love in a competitive industry, we would be in utopia if we were right.
General summary
I cannot say very much universal truth here without going further into the massive amount of variables and how they work together in such, various ways. But but one bottom line is if you can do something to make your future better, i would recommend looking into self accomplishment. If you end up hating your job after having lived a life of doing what you needed to do to get to a place you wanted to be, then you could very well have potential to get closer than a place of hating the situation you are in. Sometimes , actually often times people end up opting for something to find out it was not what they had in mind. **** happens, it happened to me, i made the best of it, even when i was much more immature than I am today. Ironically it turns out all together that 3 year situation was the best job related move I ever made. I cant say luck runs abundantly in this world, I cant say what i had, was luck, but not one of us are in the same shoes, I am just fortunate to say, "yay" and I am still looking forward
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 12:59 PM |
|
|
Work, unless you were super-lucky to find something interesting, takes most of your life time (including traffic jams and such, you waste majority of your day in work). The time you lose is usually not even proportional to the monetary gain; While you do get a bit of money, you are no longer allowed to develop yourself and your hobbies, knowledge about the world etc. because of fatigue and constant lack of time. Additionally, work causes in most cases a lot of stress, which contributes to health problems. You are also expected to give up on most of your relationship and social life unless you're that kind of guy who can work 10 hours per day and still has enough energy to go to a gym, meet with friends, play on a guitar and do XXX other activities. I certainly ain't.
In other words, work is beautiful if you do what you love & earn money for it and a nightmare if you can't make a living of what you love and you are forced to make charts in excel from dawn till dusk in another corporate waste of imagination called office.
All I have to say here.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 01:15 PM |
|
|
In my opinion all must work (unless you are REALLY sick).
In Sweden, lots of people say that they are sick when they can still work in lots of places -.-
We must work to help and pay our debt to the society.
But of course you should get the work that you want.
Obviously, it's not realistic that you become a proffessional football player or something but that isn't realistic and very few people today think like that and aim to have normal jobs instead.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 02:08 PM |
|
|
Gearing your lifestyle towards mass consumption seems pretty hollow and ultimately unsatisfying. The increased specialization of work takes away a lot of the zest of it, but to a certain extent that's unavoidable because the sum of parts that make up the whole of society are simply too complex for any one person. There isn't a single human being on this planet that could make a PC from scratch (having the parts shipped to you is far far far from scratch).
That being said, the rest of the post seems pretty naive to me. If you hate your work, that's your fault, not work's fault. There are people out there that love their jobs, or at least moderately like them. If you hate your field of work, you shouldn't have gone into it. So many people pursue careers in accounting and business and then complain if their life is unsatisfying, but they do it anyway because it makes good money. That's your decision and your sacrifice. Personally, I think it's a bad one. Granted, somebody has to do that work, but 'somebody' doesn't mean 'you'.
Work and money are critical if we want to continue to live our lives as we live them.
If you take away money, the roof over your head, the food you eat, the liquid you drink, your electronic equipment, your vehicle, your clothes, and everything else, all still need to come and be maintained from somewhere. There is still going to be 24 hours in a day, there is still going to be a need for trained and specialized people, and there is still going to be a finite amount of resources. There are still going to be starving people: in fact the number will vastly increase.
Money = Labor + Resources + Transport + Demand
With that, work is obviously essential. In fact people are prone to have their death accelerated after they retire, because they feel they no longer have anything to offer to the world. That's not entirely true, but it is to the extent that our work is a signature that we leave behind.
P.S.:
Quote:
if you say you don't work, people assume your primary aim is to find a job at any cost. if you tell them it's not the case, then they think you are lazy and take advantage of the society to live.
Duh.
I'm confused. This is debatable?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 05:06 PM |
|
|
"He who does not work, neither shall he eat."
Quote:
talking specifically about the french side of things, he said that we put so much value in work that most french people have no idea what to do when they don't have a job
Are you serious? All the French do is go on strike every few weeks.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 05:32 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 17:40, 08 Dec 2009.
|
hey, they said it in the debate. french people put a lot of value in work but complain a lot about it 
I don't think we need robots, like blizardboy (I think) said, we consume much more than what we really need (well, not in every part of the world) do we really need that much money to live? lots of people complain about being poor, despite they have a roof and can eat. I don't know how it is in other countries, but here, it seems that people easily get jealous of whoever earns more money than them.
I don't think it's unrealistic for most people to work less so they have time to do something else and still have enough money to live (of course, it's different if you have children to feed)
I'm also thinking that many people have a problem, that is when they are not working, they spend their time in front of the tv (or they go to the bar) and if they don't have a work, they can spend whole days in front of the tv. (well, actually I kinda do that, I spend most of my time on internet or video games, but I'm glad if I can find a good reason to go out )
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 05:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There isn't a single human being on this planet that could make a PC from scratch (having the parts shipped to you is far far far from scratch).
unless you're the CEO at Intel.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 06:49 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 19:03, 08 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
We must work to help and pay our debt to the society.
The society(ies) we reside in from the time we are born until the time we are capable to decide where we want to go (and if we have some power to go there) is not a choice.
Yet still the quote here, insists that I somehow owe something. This is a valid perspective in at least some various views and outlooks upon relative parts of reality. The way I rather see things is sort of on the other side of your view, xerox..
I was put here, and if I want something from society, I pay for it. Generally the means are acquired by work. I dont owe anything but ceaser his $$$. It's his system, and his money. When I walk out of a store I have paid for what i have. I do not feel any inherited debt based on what i was pretty much forced to have by mere existence. I am not paying or feeling debt to society, for air, the life I have, and anything i acquired by birth.
I am not greedy but the things I would choose to give to society would not be a dollar but being helpful, which can boil down to several elements, one minute particular being labors, but the systems shrouds and calls my input judged by the "all mighty $$$"
A small society with no government controlled currency would have a system quite unimaginable in a setting such as entire countries.
I guess now I would have to ask, how do you think we owe society? The dollar speaks here. So what do we owe, money? Is paying my way for the things I take from society based on means of the dollar, or the work?
If it is the work that people of a society owe, then, the system based on dollars is twisted and easily identifiable as such with little consideration.
If it is the $$$, that people of a society owe, then it is very difficult to see how we then owe anything when I look at money through a more holistic view.
It is sometimes an interest of mine to think with a fresh mind about economics and what money actually is. It is without a doubt very considerable to understand how money works, and where it holds value to understand how the first currency systems came to be, and which ones lasted and progressed into the one we have today. Power has certainly shifted not only into new hands but into a new time.
Does anyone here know how the first parts of our world currency system has started? This is actually a question because my conclusion is sheer speculation.
A "group" created "work" and the payment of this work, we know as regulated currency. The productivity within the organization(s) receiving payment would then be available to acquire by the currency "earned". Overtime it becomes more interesting, particularly how it spread into many hands and became something humans became to value more than the very work and productivity that this "money" paid for. I assume it is still very similar now as it was in the early stages.
The value of money has become more valued than work and there is virtually no escape from a system originally designed by those who were capable of giving people a product/service in return for the money they created gave, the people.
There is much more to consider when taking a look at money in depth.
Again I ask the question. How do we owe society? We apparently in most cases see money as the answer to what we owe, regardless that the standard means is work. The $$$ speaks louder than the value of input.
What is the $$$?
The unseen seems absent to many people concluding based on impossibility by being unseen.
The value system based on a government regulated $$$ then seems the only possibility.
$$$ is, a system. A system which is regulated. Many agree it is a source of both good and bad but hardly anyone see's it as anything other than the only solution.
again, question to xerox, or anyone.. (i only ask 3 times to stress that I am asking this) How do I owe to society beyond agreement to participate in a system to acquire a service or product from those systematically based? I owe nothing for my birthright and I pay for what I take.. Is it the things that we will take that we owe something to our societies or is some natural debt occurred by being born?
If the regulated money speaks as my payment saying "this is what I owe" then work is for the poor, and people who have money already are not wrong because, they are already paying society with their money and giving the government the tax. So the work is not paying the society but money is.. Right?
____________
What are you up to
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 06:58 PM |
|
|
Taxes Celf. Taxes and governments.
Quote:
It is without a doubt very considerable to understand how money works, and where it holds value to understand how the first currency systems came to be, and which ones lasted and progressed into the one we have today.
Money is debt, not work, or a measure of work.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 07:04 PM |
|
|
Money is not debt, even though it may arise from lending. Money is just a unit of exchange and a means of comparison - nothing more.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 07:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Money is not debt, even though it may arise from lending.
That's a contradiction. It's a note that says it has to be repaid, but it can be exchanged with other such notes. So it's debt.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 07:11 PM |
|
|
It doesn't say it has to be repaid. *takes out dollar bill*
"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". Don't see anything about it being repaid.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 07:19 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 19:25, 08 Dec 2009.
|
I like the view that money is debt. I am kind of a stickler on taking more than one view. Calling it debt is interesting.
Question still is how do we owe society? I dont really mean to twist things but when seeing money itself as a note of society owes us, then how do I come to owe anything to begin with when I have already paid for what I received?
I guess I am kind of running into only one aspect of the original subject, work,
it is very easy to over analyze like I do
simplified response
Work, is required, for everything that requires work.. haha obviously.. It is easy to look around our homes and society to find many many things that required work. To acquire and utilize what has been produced by the providers then it is generally required to give input and receive this note that says society owes me (nice description, thedeath) If we dont work then society does not owe us.
</simplification>
I guess the reason I am not with the regulated system and some feeling that I owe society for my mere existence, is because I pay for what i acquire already. And.... The acquisition methods (work) of these notes saying society owes me, is by far unbalanced, not to mention yet again, regulated and distributed by a government (bla bla bla more rants on regulation of entitlements and debts)
____________
What are you up to
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 07:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It doesn't say it has to be repaid. *takes out dollar bill*
"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". Don't see anything about it being repaid.
That money is someone's loan. And of course I was talking about actual money, all of it, not just paper notes -- those are just notes for someone's account. By "money" I mean the stuff in the account.
Quote:
I like the view that money is debt. I am kind of a stickler on taking more than one view. Calling it debt is interesting.
Question still is how do we owe society? I dont really mean to twist things but when seeing money itself as a note of society owes us, then how do I come to owe anything to begin with when I have already paid for what I received?
I'll use simplified terms.
Government takes a loan from the Fed, which creates money out of thin air (Fed is not gov but private). Government then pays someone with the money (and receives whatever it wants in return). That someone then deposits or gives money to someone else.
Everything thereafter is temporary. Eventually government (after years/decades) will tax the whole amount and use it to repay the Fed, so to speak. If the government stopped taking loans money would disappear out of existence, completely.
Without taxes, it can't be paid back, which means massive inflation aka pre-WW2 Germany.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 07:51 PM |
|
|
Death, how many times do I have to tell you that the government doesn't have to repay the Fed?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 07:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Death, how many times do I have to tell you that the government doesn't have to repay the Fed?
I said I used simplified terms. And of course it has to do it, otherwise it would inject money out of thin air, rendering taxes useless. Treasury Bonds have a lifetime, the money they represent has to be paid back when it ends. It's a loan like any other, except that this one creates reserves instead of using them.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 08:05 PM |
|
|
And if someone comes up with the interest being impossible to pay back, NO, interest is NOT 'destroyed' money. The interest the bank receives can be used to buy something from the guy who took the loan (for instance), giving him the money back (but losing a product or labor), so he can repay his loan (and 'destroy' the money).
It's like a donation on your part to the bank's services. It's not part of the loan.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 08:26 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 23:16, 09 Dec 2009.
|
There's a reason why, in physics, energy done by a system is called work. A ball doesn't push itself up to the top of a hill. Work has to be done on the ball to make that happen. Of course, once the work is done, the ball has an (almost) equivalent amount of potential energy with which it can do many things. I say "almost", because some of the work is wasted to bring the system into the final state - in the present analogy, say, friction, which means that it some of the work is lost as an unrecoverable price of accomplishing the task at hand. In any case, while it would certainly be nice if balls naturally had lots of potential energy to do things, that's not the way the world functions. If you want something done, you have to put in enough work to bring the system - whatever it is - into a state with enough potential energy to make whatever it is possible.
So it is with life. You want a house? Car? Food? Playstation 3? These things don't assemble, grow or distribute themselves. You must put energy into the system (in this case, society or the economy) in order to provide the system with enough energy to do things that you want. The almighty dollar is, in some sense, the sociological unit of energy, a normalization unit which ensures that - on average - the amount of energy you use from the system is proportional to the amount of energy you put into the system. It sure would be nice if nobody had to work, but with no energy put into the system, there would be no benefits to reap for anyone at all, and indeed, we need some of the energetic fruits of our work to keep us alive as well!
Of course, very much like physics, there is a natural distribution to things. Some people work much less for the same payout, and some people work harder. Is that unfair? Depends on how you define fair. Is it natural? Absolutely. If you have a balloon filled with gas molecules, the molecules have an average (depending on temperature) amount of energy with which they can accomplish tasks. Of course, not all the molecules have the same energy. Some molecules have more. Some have less. The ones that have more, it must be emphasized, do so at the expense of those who have less, through collisions - although (assuming the mixture is heterogeneous - lots of different types of molecules), it should also be emphasized that some molecules are naturally able to better accumulate and distribute their potential energy than others because of their structures. Now, if you put work into the system (increasing the temperature, say), the average amount of energy of molecules in the balloon will increase, but some individuals will grab a bigger share than others and will have more energy at their disposal to do things. Well, that's physics, and, for that matter, life.
Let's say you could invent some machine that would enforce some rule that each molecule had the exact same amount of energy. But to maintain such an ordered, thermodynamically unfavorable system, you'd have to supply the machine with a constant amount of energy, energy that could, perhaps, be utilized for better things. The tighter the distribution you want the system to have, the more energy you'd have to put into it. Fighting the natural tendency toward distribution is a futile, wasteful process. And what would be the point? You are wasting gobs of energy to make it so that each molecule has the same amount of energy, but the actual value of energy per molecule is low. On the other hand, you could put that same amount of energy into the system rather than the equality-machinery, and while the distribution would be large (some very much energy-rich than others), the average value of energy per molecule would be much higher. Yes, there would be those that are richer than others, but in the latter case, even the poor are better off than in the case where a narrow distribution is enforced. Well, I don't want to get too far into a capitalism/communism debate, but I think it should be pretty clear which system thermodynamics favors.
You may think this analogy silly, but there are serious economists and physicists who have applied the principles of thermodynamics to sociology and economics. The point is that thermodynamics rules the universe, and work, while perhaps unpleasant, is an energetic necessity to keep society going. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, which generates free energy forever at no cost. The requirement of labor to generate money as a means to enjoy both pleasurable hobbies AND survival is no different from the requirement of solar fusion to generate chemical energy as a means to keep our bodies warm and drive the millions of metabolic chemical reactions which keep our cells - and us - alive. People who believe that a society could exist where everyone plays all day without the requirement of work are delusional and fundamentally ignorant of the principles of physics that drive everything: from the motions of balls on hills, to the molecules in balloons, to cellular processes and hamburger digestion, to the hopes and dreams and daily routines of the bags of water and blood and piss and snot and other forms of organic sludge known as human beings.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 08:34 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:35, 08 Dec 2009.
|
Corribus, I don't know how much thermodynamics applies in society though. If we had self-powered (they either know how to extract their own power, or use an available resource like solar power) intelligent robots, most of the work we do today wouldn't be needed anymore. And if we didn't do something else our lifestyle would be the same, with much less work.
The thermodynamics example works, but only in a world where you ignore the social characteristics -- that is, where you think that an automated machine doing work is the same as a human doing work.
For example, the sun does work, an automated machine that harnesses that energy can do work (for free) as well... but it's not what most people would say it's work, because they don't need to work.
"Socialist Utopia", in essence, is not about not doing work -- that would make everything frozen. It's about making it abundant and shifting it to energies not arising from our efforts (like the sun and automated machines).
In other words, of course something has to do work, but that something doesn't have to be humans or human labor.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
