[Fasces]

My other thread was largely misunderstood, so I decided to rephrase it, as it was probably my fault.

Is a zero-hour work week desirable? A society in which technology is so advanced, that any job can be replaced by a machine, from policing to burger service to research. This is not to say that humans could not work, simply that they would be completely non-competitive: imagine hiring a chimp for your rocketry design firm, for example, as project leader, rather than a capable human.

The secondary question, then, remains the same as in the other thread - should human governments prevent this situation from arising, if we find it undesirable?

[Wolfman]

Is a zero-hour work week desirable?

Other: it sound incredibly boring, but it is where we will have to go.

should human governments prevent this situation from arising, if we find it undesirable?

Adapt or die. You cann't stop evolution man.

[Fasces]

You cann't stop evolution man.

Ah, so you believe in inevitability?

[Wolfman]

I'm tempted to say no, because I think what you mean is:

You cann't stop evolution. Try it, and you will fail. Your society will change around you, and you'll look like a tard in the process.

Where as what I'm saying is more:

Sure, you can stop evolution. But all you're going to accomplish is making yourself a big ass target for your friends, who will realize you're stuck on the last rung of the ladder, and kill you for your delicious delicious mineral wealth.

[Lightman]

Adapt or die. You cann't stop evolution man.

No, you can't stop evolution in the sense that evolution is the process of things changing. Yes, you can stop a specific change. There's no particular reason to say that the technological singularity amounts to "adapt or die."

[Modernjan]

Yes

In that case break out a cold one and enjoy life in a post-capitalist world where every day is a day off. Just divide the resources equally because no one works and therefore no one has a right to more resources than the next guy.

I think most people would find this desirable but that doesn't even matter because you can't stop technology from advancing anyway.

To address Fasces' concerns: We'll still have to put some effort into teaching our children to appreciate how fortunate they are, but I'm sure that can be arranged (making them lift crates 8 hours a day for a few weeks and showing them pictures of starving people from the old times, will surely make them appreciate their prosperous, leisurely lives). For the most part though people will find ways to keep busy, even if it's through making really bad paintings or music no one would buy or playing World of Warcraft 12 hours a day. Everyone has a passion of some sorts.

[Wolfman]

I disagree. In a hypothetical near future, say, 100 after the Singularity, the US did something that amounted to preventing it from happening here (stopped the further development of technology at a certain point and prevented the importation of new tech I suppose). The EU, China, and Japan did not. Those three countries are almost definitely in economies which are completely sustainable, have no depressions, don't have to worry about unemployment, and in the event of a war, have access to drone and AI controlled robots. Those are almost definitely safer for humans to use (so losing a troop will be less bad), almost definitely more resistant to impact then humans, more maneuverable, faster, stronger, more endurant, better able to take orders, and so on. In short, they'd be better troops. If a country doesn't embrace the Singularity, they'll become a third world state fast. An easy target for larger, smarter countries, that might want to eat our delicious delicious natural resources. It would be just a matter of time before we're no longer relevant in the global discourse, and a bit more time before we don't exist at all.

[Modernjan]

I disagree. In a hypothetical near future, say, 100 after the Singularity, the US did something that amounted to preventing it from happening here (stopped the further development of technology at a certain point and prevented the importation of new tech I suppose). The EU, China, and Japan did not. Those three countries are almost definitely in economies which are completely sustainable, have no depressions, don't have to worry about unemployment, and in the event of a war, have access to drone and AI controlled robots. Those are almost definitely safer for humans to use (so losing a troop will be less bad), almost definitely more resistant to impact then humans, more maneuverable, faster, stronger, more endurant, better able to take orders, and so on. In short, they'd be better troops. If a country doesn't embrace the Singularity, they'll become a third world state fast. An easy target for larger, smarter countries, that might want to eat our delicious delicious natural resources. It would be just a matter of time before we're no longer relevant in the global discourse, and a bit more time before we don't exist at all.

Yup, though I think we'll be getting past the nation state phase by then and your warning will be valid for the human species vs. alien civilizations instead of America vs. Japan.

[Wolfman]

I don't think people are willing to just look past long standing social differences.

[Modernjan]

I don't think people are willing to just look past long standing social differences.

They will in a few centuries.

[Preston Cole]

WTF?

No, of course not.

Unless we want WALL-E to happen.

[The Clockwork Rat]

^ You didn't read the question properly. You probably meant to answer "yes".

Fasces, have you ever read Iain M Banks' Culture novels?

[Daktoria]

Is a zero-hour work week desirable?

Yea, of course. It'd be awesome if everyone was able to live in an automated world.

The only problem I have is people taking that automation for granted and excessively burdening engineers, so the only personalities that should be allowed in such a society would be people competent in engineering (and friends of engineers who those engineers have personally agreed to accommodate).

Obviously, this isn't politically correct because it remits work ethic, but w/e. The goal of life is to automate as much as possible so you can spend as much time as possible goofing off.

[Fasces]

No, TCR.

I do find the incongruence between the two threads amusing though.

No, a zero-hour work week is not desirable, and no, the government should not aim to prevent it happening.

Well, PoFo? Which is it?

[Rugoz]

Making work voluntary is of course desirable.

But I don't think technological progress will result in less working hours, instead it will just render more and more people useless for work, meaning they will live on welfare or their "work" will be susidized by the government (we have to keep em off the streets, right?) or they will work as prostitutes and will be shot if they dare to touch private property (what libertarians want).

[Pants-of-dog]

No, TCR.

I do find the incongruence between the two threads amusing though.

No, a zero-hour work week is not desirable, and no, the government should not aim to prevent it happening. :?:

Well, PoFo? Which is it?

I have a very Latin work ethic, so I think that the government should actually support the creation of a zero-hour work week.

[Daktoria]

Making work voluntary is of course desirable.

But I don't think technological progress will result in less working hours, instead it will just render more and more people useless for work, meaning they will live on welfare or their "work" will be susidized by the government (we have to keep em off the streets, right?) or they will work as prostitutes and will be shot if they dare to touch private property (what libertarians want).

Rugoz, the real question is, "Why are so many people being born?"

It'd be a lot easier to handle demand in an efficient manner if you simply... contracted the demand curve.

People are just so socially competitive that they have to be sexually aggressive in integrating into their communities.

It's stupid, and that stupidity is the problem. The economy would flow all so more nicely if people decided to think before they act.

After that, people would dedicate their lives to constructing machinery to automate function, and once they completed that, they could dedicate their lives to art, science, athletics, or whatever else. They could even adjust the machinery on the fly to adapt for changing hobbies because they knew how it was constructed.

We'd see a lot more abstract sophistication and refinement in an automated world. People would have to be curious and openminded to avoid becoming bored.

[Rugoz]

It'd be a lot easier to handle demand in an efficient manner if you simply... contracted the demand curve.

Um...you mean like killing all those who have not managed to get higher education til 25?

After that, people would dedicate their lives to constructing machinery to automate function, and once they completed that, they could dedicate their lives to art, science, athletics, or whatever else. They could even adjust the machinery on the fly to adapt for changing hobbies because they knew how it was constructed.

If you haven't noticed, we already live in an automated world. Nevertheless people don't stop working in the middle of their life and dedicate their lives to "art, science, athletics" (how cliché is that?), because they rather earn more bucks.

As long as a society values work and money more than anything else its not gonna happen.

[Daktoria]

Um...you mean like killing all those who have not managed to get higher education til 25?

No, I mean simply stop holding people in suspicion who don't become parents. People can be nice, kind, and friendly even if they don't want children of their own.

If you haven't noticed, we already live in an automated world. Nevertheless people don't stop working in the middle of their life and dedicate their lives to "art, science, athletics" (how cliché is that?), because they rather earn more bucks.

As long as a society values work and money more than anything else its not gonna happen.

People value work first. The reason they end up having to value money is because they work so hard such that they become negligent in respecting each other's achievements from finesse and precision instead. Money becomes an objectively powerful store of value which everyone can appreciate whether weak or strong.

What people really need to stop is blaming each other for being lazy and unfunny, and start appreciating discipline and creativity. That emphasis on laziness and unfunniness keeps us so mundane and crude out of worry of appearing strange. In contrast, discipline and creativity emphasize being complete and openminded rather than just massively impressive.

[J Oswald]

No, it would not be desirable. However, I believe that such a situation would effectively be impossible, given the various problems of computer design that would need to be overcome for such a situation to be possible.