|
I see this discussion breaking down into two parts 1) Do humans get satisfaction from contributing and participating in society 2) To what extent does paid work overlap with #1 I take for granted that the answer to 1 is a yes and I think most people are on board with that. So the question moves to 2. I think the answer to 2 is "usually", for two reasons. First, paid work just usually overlaps with things that are obviously useful for some reason. Being a trash man may not be enjoyable per se, but the necessity of it, and hence the contribution/participation aspect is fairly obvious. Although most jobs are surprisingly obscure (ask someone what they do and it's not going to be doctor/teacher/fireman), most jobs are plausibly contributing to some societal end goal. That said I do think in the modern world the connection between work and contribution/participation has broken down somewhat as a result of specialization and technology in general - some people are several steps removed from the production of a tangible good. But not completely by any means (and counter-intuitively it's low status jobs like janitors and cashiers which often still have obvious tangible outcomes). Second, receiving pay is itself a sign of worth in a market economy. The simple fact is that if someone is paying you to do something it means someone wants what you do. This is obvious, but I think it still inevitably taps into our psyche at a fairly low level. This doesn't mean we have to have a market economy to have this sense of satisfaction (it would come from elsewhere in alternatives), but so long as we do there will always be a certain importance attached to wage beyond the finances alone. EDIT: I think the third element here is to what extent people will self-direct themselves towards satisfying/productive activities absent societal pressures like pay. I think the answer, unfortunately, is that they commonly won't. Though to what extent I'm not sure. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Oct 29, 2014 |
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Cicero posted:Why would you think this? The money people are willing to pay for a job to be done indicates what value it has for them, either personally or for their business. If I hire an assassin for fifty grand, it isn't because society thinks killing people is worth that much. Umm but you're a member of society. So your demand for hitmen does represent demand for hits from your society. Not everyone likes snickers candybars but if society produces and consumes X number of them then that indicates demand, even if you or even most people don't like them. And whether something is beneficial is unrelated to demand. See candy bars. Though it's true that price (wage in the labor market) doesn't indicate demand by itself because supply is also a major factor. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
nelson posted:I'll go with the robot solution myself. Let's say robots and technology can cover 99% of the basic needs. For the sake of argument let's say you'd still need humans to make plans and tell the robots what to do but after that the robots go ahead and do it. The remaining creative work will still require humans but none of it is required for day to day survival (scientific research, entertainment, etc...). What would society look like? Would people volunteer for the few things that needed to be done or the many things that people want done but don't necessarily need? You make an important point by suggesting that the status void currently occupied by pay will get filled in by something else. When I read threads like this I get the suspicion that some people are looking to liberate humans from external preassures and responsibilities, and assuming that they'll assume some higher state if this happens. Not quite. If we remove the pressure to work and produce new forms of status and accompanying pressure will inevitably arise to fill that void. On top of that for the majority of people some sort of "work" currently occupies a huge portion of their time, purpose and mental energy. I think it's really naive to imagine a world where we've eliminated this, and not recognize it as a major risk. We can't just assume that everyone is going to find their way into some fulfilling hobby to occupy their time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Your questions are seemingly predicated on certain assumptions about people, the economy, etc. If you were forthright about those assumptions then this discussion would probably be more fruitful for all involved. The agricultural revolution changed what people woke up in the morning and did. It didn't change the fact that they had to wake up and do something. We're contemplating a world where that might change and I think it's important not to downplay the impact and risks associated with eliminating something so significant and deeply intertwined with our history. quote:I agree that it is worth discussing what kinds of meaningful and identity-forming activities might replace work in a society where work was either greatly reduced or eliminated altogether. That's something people have been talking about for a long time, and part of the value of a thread like this is that it hopefully stimulates that kind of discussion. Agreed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 02:00
|
|