|
| Thread: Is our view on (paid) work bad? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted December 08, 2009 08:54 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:56, 08 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
In other words, of course something has to do work, but that something doesn't have to be humans or human labor.
It does if what is being done is motivated by human desire.
And even if you could reach some sort of mathematical assymptotic limit at which machines could accomplish all human tasks with no human expenditure of energy at all - tantamount to a perpetual motion machine - we're still quite a long way away from that. It would also emply a stagnation of human endeavor, which I don't see happening. (Thermodynamics again.  )
____________
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 09:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It does if what is being done is motivated by human desire.
And even if you could reach some sort of mathematical assymptotic limit at which machines could accomplish all human tasks with no human expenditure of energy at all - tantamount to a perpetual motion machine - we're still quite a long way away from that. It would also emply a stagnation of human endeavor, which I don't see happening. (Thermodynamics again. )
I don't think it would be tantamount to a perpetual motion machine at all, because something still does work and uses energy, just not something you have to put efforts into, it does it by itself.
Mind you, a stagnation might happen without work on our part, but our lives wouldn't be worse than they currently are, it would be the same -- but without work. If you want a better life, you'll have to work, but the point here is to lead the current life with no work.
I'm pretty sure we can live, for instance, a caveman's life today with no work at all. It's not a good life, but the caveman probably dreamed about it
____________
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 09:18 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 21:20, 08 Dec 2009.
|
with all due respect, if we were to go to caveman lifestyle it would take some serious adaption. Either self exile from the system of money, or sheer intelligent chaos over who takes what. I know you are probably not referring the whole of societies converting to this nature though.
making robots and machines to do work for us even if simple production would also require much adaption and quite possibly close regulation. if product B is constructed by cost of 1mil + 10 mil labor then cost of production by machines goes to 2 mil + minimal labor, it might not seem like a big deal but if every product was made by machines hence the cost is lower and the workers lose their jobs, it will take some miricle or very long adaption process to convert a system where the jobless can survive.
Product B would surely decrease in price otherwise no one could buy it.
If every worker on the face of this planet in production to supply were replaced by machines then the acquisition of resources and distribution would be almost free to make happen. Basically they run themselves so who would make the money and how much could they charge?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 09:23 PM |
|
|
By caveman lifestyle I meant something like: no TV, no gadgets, no art, no entertainment, no architecture, etc... BUT getting free food (the 'job' cavemen had). Hunting would be a hobby, not a job.
So while we wouldn't need to work at all, and it's entirely possible, it doesn't mean the lifestyle would be great. However, if we could achieve the current lifestyle with no work, that would be worth it. (of course those that work would get an even better lifestyle)
____________
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 09:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think it would be tantamount to a perpetual motion machine at all, because something still does work and uses energy, just not something you have to put efforts into, it does it by itself.
In order to accomodate all human tasks without any human work input, the robot/machine work force would have to be able to accomodate changes in human needs. (To postulate a human society without changing needs is unrealistic - potential energy, after all, has to dissipate itself somehow.) This would require that the robots would have to invent new robots, which would require some external source of work. Normally this function would be served by humans, but we've stipulated that human work input is not allowed, so the only way that this robot work force could accomodate all human tasks would be for that energetic deficit to come from nowhere - i.e., perpetual motion. The only other possibility would be, of course, that the robots were intelligent, but this wouldn't work either because no intelligent being wants to be a slave AND the robots would then have their own changing needs. The human problem would just be projected onto the new race of intelligent rubots.
Quote:
If you want a better life, you'll have to work, but the point here is to lead the current life with no work.
An unrealistic scenario. Humans will always try to figure out how to accomplish the same tasks with less energetic cost - hmmm, thermodynamics, again! - and also there's boredom to consider. And yes, that's a thermodynamical process as well. Pleasure is associated with endorphins and other neurochemicals; there's no energetic payoff by playing, for example, the same video game over and over again. There will be a constant demand for new video games. Are unintelligent machines capable of creating new video games without human imagination? Well, let's not go there. Point is that the need for pleasure and saving production costs drive technological advancement. The human condition cannot stagnate - it's thermodynamically unfavorable.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure we can live, for instance, a caveman's life today with no work at all.
Hmm, something tells me that cows didn't just show up at the cave entrance with a sign that said, "EAT ME".
____________
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 09:42 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:44, 08 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
In order to accomodate all human tasks without any human work input, the robot/machine work force would have to be able to accomodate changes in human needs. (To postulate a human society without changing needs is unrealistic - potential energy, after all, has to dissipate itself somehow.) This would require that the robots would have to invent new robots, which would require some external source of work. Normally this function would be served by humans, but we've stipulated that human work input is not allowed, so the only way that this robot work force could accomodate all human tasks would be for that energetic deficit to come from nowhere - i.e., perpetual motion. The only other possibility would be, of course, that the robots were intelligent, but this wouldn't work either because no intelligent being wants to be a slave AND the robots would then have their own changing needs. The human problem would just be projected onto the new race of intelligent rubots.
I'm talking about basic needs for a job -- of course humans' needs would change, but that can be taken in by hobbies. I don't think anyone has a hobby to, let's say, do hardcore manual labor.
Yet those things can be automatized, and what's more, they are basic needs that don't change -- food, for example. 
Quote:
An unrealistic scenario. Humans will always try to figure out how to accomplish the same tasks with less energetic cost - hmmm, thermodynamics, again! - and also there's boredom to consider. And yes, that's a thermodynamical process as well. Pleasure is associated with endorphins and other neurochemicals; there's no energetic payoff by playing, for example, the same video game over and over again. There will be a constant demand for new video games. Are unintelligent machines capable of creating new video games without human imagination? Well, let's not go there. Point is that the need for pleasure and saving production costs drive technological advancement. The human condition cannot stagnate - it's thermodynamically unfavorable.
Yes that's true to the extent that if such things may not be regarded as hobbies. However, cavemen did not have video games, but still lived... and shared one basic need (among others): food. Does that mean, that we can't enjoy lives without working for food? Of course it can be automatized -- where we shift that job to something else.
Quote:
Hmm, something tells me that cows didn't just show up at the cave entrance with a sign that said, "EAT ME".
No of course, you're missing my point. I said "today" we can lead a caveman life with no work at all. Today being farming with automated tractors and other stuff the caveman had no access to.
True, we wouldn't satisfy our today's needs, but we would satisfy caveman needs.
EDIT: what I'm saying is, position yourself as a caveman. You have no idea what video games are -- so in your mind, work means "hunting" mostly.
Can a caveman make the statement that it is impossible to not work (for food, that's their "work")? 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 11:11 PM |
|
|
Well obviously "pay debt to society" depends on in what society you live in. Like if you live in Afghanistan or North Korea you might or might not be satisified by the society there.
But I am satisfied by the society
I get:
* Everybody here gets free vaccine to the swine flu. The queues are like 10 minute long now.
* I am allowed to go to school and prepare myself for work when I have passed high school/college (I don't know the swedish equalant so I guessed...)
* If I don't get a job then the governent will still send me money so I can survive untill I get a job.
* I get free healthcare as a child (I don't know how it is as an adult, but it's not free in all situations)
Etc.
I have a lot to thank society for. And I repay that through working as an adult.
And to be honest, what would I do without work? It sounds very tragic and it is, but if I wont get a work then I will probably spend most of my time home, sitting by the computer and telly.
I would not want to live a life without having a work. But when I get a job, then I want a job that I enjoy. A job where I feel that I don't want to shoot myself.
My dad thinks i'm a horrible person right now for wanting to be a lawyer. Well, I don't really want to be that anymore but my dad thought it was horrible to defend a murderer. And I guess I agree there.
Really can you see a world where nobody works?
I think it sounds like one of those thoughts you had as a child. When I was like four years old, I didn't get why everything wasn't free. Obviously that would never work.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 11:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Really can you see a world where nobody works?
yeah. Utopia. I see it in my head though.
Quote:
I think it sounds like one of those thoughts you had as a child. When I was like four years old, I didn't get why everything wasn't free. Obviously that would never work.
I disagree. Of course by "work" I mean "job", not hobbies. Because really everyone would get bored without doing anything.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 03:17 AM |
|
|
maybe I was unclear, but I wasn't asking if we have to work, the answer is obvious, but if we aren't doing it the wrong way.
seriously, do we really need to work so much so that we can buy 3-4 videos games for month for example? I made a quick count, and apparently this year I spent about 265 € in entertainment, which isn't very much I guess, compared to many people. I could afford to spend much more but don't really feel the need.
I agree with thedeath that we shouldn't have to pay to survive. seriously, if they found a way to tax oxygen, they would do it...
work should only be required for luxury.
of course it brings some problems, agronomic companies wouldn't agree to work for free, and even to lose some benefits (it wouldn't apply to those producing luxury food of course)
when it comes to housing, I think I read that in russia, many people don't have to pay at all.
Quote:
* Everybody here gets free vaccine to the swine flu. The queues are like 10 minute long now.
the french government spent millions to buy vaccines and most french people don't want to do it.
Quote:
* I am allowed to go to school and prepare myself for work when I have passed high school/college (I don't know the swedish equalant so I guessed...)
actually, you have to go to school (at least it's the case here) but it's probably not a bad thing. well, actually it's a good thing because you learn lots of useful things (especially in the 1st years, after that you learn lots of stuffs you don't really need)
but in another hand, the school don't learn you how the world really work (at least not here) and some people are actually very disappointed when they get their first job and realise it wasn't what they imagined at all.
is there that problem where you live too, that people in school don't know what job they want to do, because they can hardly get the opportunity to try what may potentially interest them?
Quote:
* If I don't get a job then the governent will still send me money so I can survive untill I get a job.
lol, it's what you think. you have to meet some criteria. you can be in a very hard situation and not meet them, and then you'll hate your government.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 09:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
there's no energetic payoff by playing, for example, the same video game over and over again.
Oh, I really beg to differ
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 03:40 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:40, 09 Dec 2009.
|
@DF
Quote:
Oh, I really beg to differ
Yeah, ok, point taken. But I meant: like over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... <five years later> ... and over and over again.
@Death
Well, I don't want to go back and for over and over and over... <five years later> ... and over again, so we'll just agree to disagree. "Hobbies" as you put it, cannot sustain human society. Even productive ones. I might enjoy cooking, for instance, and call it a hobby. However, if I'm really good at it, I'm going to produce goods, and if I'm good enough, there will be demand for those goods. Which will require industry that a non-intelligent robot workforce will be unable to provide without (a) infinitely complex programming or (b) innate intelligence. So human labor will be required at some point.
____________
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 09, 2009 10:42 PM |
|
|
Corribus: of course as long as humans want to improve their lifestyle (ignoring work) they are going to work. As long as they want more than they currently have, they will work. I don't deny that.
However, it is entirely possible, in the future maybe, that we can live current lifestyles (without wanting "more") without any intensive manual labor jobs needed at all. (of course I'm excluding "creative" robots here).
There is two types of work to me. First is tedious work that no one (or rarely) would take as hobby, these are mostly manual labor. We are on the verge of eliminating these jobs. The other type is the more creative work -- which usually shares something with a hobby.
____________
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 09, 2009 10:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However, it is entirely possible, in the future maybe, that we can live current lifestyles (without wanting "more") without any intensive manual labor jobs needed at all. (of course I'm excluding "creative" robots here).
Well the problem is that I see no convincing evidence, or even a salient logical argument from you - other than your own optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on how you view it) speculation - that humans will ever cease wanting "more", as you put it. Certainly, all of human history would seem to suggest otherwise. Indeed, rather than slowing down, the rate at which humans demand new technological innovation appears to be accelerating. I have offered a few arguments about why an assymptotic approach to a "comfortable technological limit" where humans are content to enjoy a leisurely equilibrium might be thermodynamically unfavorable. I agree that, if such an equilibrium were to be obtained, then yes - work would be (in a perfect system) unnecessary. And that's sort of the point - energy is required to drive change, and thus as long as there is demand for change, humans will have to supply that energy. If there were no demand, then, maybe, no energy would be required. But you have to explain to me why you think the demand for change would ever evaporate. Consider also that the need for change is not only determined by internal desires; there are also external environmental factors to consider. As organic life-forms, we are programmed to adapt to changing conditions, often times those which are not under our control. Such adaptations are also forms of change, change which a hypothetical fully automated human-free robot system would not be equipped to cope with without human thought/intervention/labor.
____________
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 09, 2009 11:04 PM |
|
|
Well first of all my point wasn't supposed to be practical, but only to show that it's possible without needing a "regulating machine" as you put it, just humans with a different mentality.
And certainly, the type of jobs have shifted dramatically over the last centuries -- "office work" was unheard of not long ago, or at least the way we perceive it today. Likewise, many jobs were made redundant and obsolete, which were automatized.
Consequently, it doesn't make much sense to think that jobs will not change in the future as well -- who knows, we might have jobs where it resembles playing a game (with some sort of pattern matching to match the 'game' with a practical work).
Furthermore what if we manage to engineer new humans in such a way that they will not strive for "more stuff" (and working more) and be happy with average? Again, another possibility.
I'm talking about probabilities here, not facts that I know what's gonna happen -- I mean, I don't want to sound like Nostradamus making fact predictions.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 10, 2009 12:00 AM |
|
|
I don't think tedious work is going to disappear soon, even if I think it would be better. how many people like that type of job?
the problem when you replace people by machines, is that people lose their job, so money, but the price aren't necessarily lowered (and if they are, it's probably not proportionnal to the benefits done by replacing people by machines)
and let's not forget that workers in some countries are cheaper than machines.
stopping people from wanting more could be a solution, but I don't really see how you could achieve that
companies value the quantity more than the quality now. even service companies get more interested in making profit than in really helping people. they are more and more like scammers, they make you think their product / service is great, so you buy it, find out it's crap, but it's too late, you paid for it. moreover it's devaluating for people working there, who know they are producing crappy products / providing crappy services, but can't do otherwise because they suffer so much pressure at work.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted December 10, 2009 10:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, ok, point taken. But I meant: like over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... <five years later> ... and over and over again.
That's why they have implemented a random map generator with H3 SoD
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 10, 2009 03:34 PM |
|
|
I can't argue with that.
____________
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
|
| |
|
|
