It is very fatalistic. I also happen to believe, personally, it’s very realistic. There’s zero reason to assume there’ll come a point where we can divorce ourselves from the things that we’re evolved to enjoy. I dwell a lot on how satisfying it is to be in nature, to prepare food, to enjoy company and, for many of us, to have kids. They’re all unquestionably wholesome things but the reason they’re so enjoyable is the same reason we work our asses off to create a better standard of living for ourselves relative to others. We evolved to act this way and our brains and wired to reward us when we do so.
1 Like
I’m still awake… one last reply
I’d argue that while we may have some wiring for competition, humans are equally wired for cooperation and empathy. What we prioritise often depends on the systems we create - if society rewards collaboration over competition, those traits can dominate just as easily. Are we really bound by nature, or by the environments we design?
Thanks for your thoughtful input so far.
Yeah that is more or less what is happening here. Middle company gets the job and has a pool of smaller sub contracted workers that come in and do the work.
Works is usually done fast, quality is incredibly questionable. I fired two companies off a project recently for doing just this. A crew of 8 drywallers showed up, none of whom could speak English. They couldn’t take direction, couldn’t answer questions etc. Similar thing happened with painters.
For spec stuff where things need to be just “good enough” it works. If you have discerning clients or care about quality it does not. However, it makes the price of legit trades people look quite high in comparison. Some people will look the other way if it can save them tens of thousands of dollars.
So explore your premise. Can AI replace EVERY job? If not, why would anyone do them if everyone else did nothing? Would you still need police, firemen, doctors, nurses and if so, why would they work when no one else does?
Who would write the code for AI?
BTW, there is an underlying tone in your posts that strikes me as trying to justify being lazy and privileged and using your premise to justify it.
This is absolutely the big and likely insurmountable problem. There are many many jobs that can’t currently be replaced by AI and we are probably multiple decades away from that even being remotely possible. So until that is figured out, those jobs will still need to be done by real people, but who will want to do them if everyone else can just sit back and live off the shared resources of everyone?
I appreciate your response, but I think you may be misinterpreting the intent behind my argument. This isn’t about justifying laziness or privilege - it’s about questioning the structures we’ve inherited and whether they still serve us in a world where technology could remove the necessity of labor for survival. Laziness implies a lack of productivity or value, but in a society where basic needs are met through automation, shouldn’t we redefine what “value” means? Is it only tied to work, or could it include creativity, exploration, and connection?
As for your question, no, AI may not replace every job immediately, but that doesn’t invalidate the premise. Tasks like policing, firefighting, or medical care could still exist, but they could also be reduced or transformed by automation and technology. The need for these roles doesn’t mean society must rely on the traditional incentive of survival through labor. People could choose to contribute out of passion, civic duty, or interest, rather than economic necessity.
And who would write the AI code? That’s already happening, and the work is increasingly collaborative, open-source, and shared. If we move toward a society where resources and wealth aren’t concentrated but distributed, the incentive for innovation might not rely on financial gain but on curiosity and progress - something humanity has always excelled at.
Also, I’d like to note that tone in written communication is inherently difficult to convey and often influenced by the reader’s own biases and perceptions. While you read an “underlying tone” of justification for laziness, I see this as an open philosophical exploration of whether the systems we take for granted are still relevant. It’s natural for tone to be interpreted differently depending on perspective, but I hope my posts are seen as an invitation to explore these ideas together, not a defense of privilege.
So, I’d challenge the idea that the premise is about laziness. It’s about rethinking the purpose of life when survival is no longer tied to labor. Is productivity for the sake of productivity truly virtuous, or should we aspire to something greater?
My confusion with this concept is simply who decides what the “reasonable” comfortable life is. If we all don’t have to work, who decides what everyone is entitled to. When I think of this the first thing I think about is the idea of limits on health care. This has always been the fear of a single payer system. Who decides when the care you have received is enough. Now do that for living. How much can you spend on food, clothes, housing, etc. And how does that compare to those that work and recieve “extra” benefits. What about the rich (oligarchs if you will), that have way more than everyone else.
1 Like
And they work their women and girls like mules. Probably not the ideal the OP was gesturing at.
I think your confusion comes from applying a scarcity-based, zero-sum perspective to a future premised on abundance. The fear of “who decides” assumes that resources are so limited that someone must restrict or ration them. But if technology advances to the point where housing, food, healthcare, and energy can be produced efficiently and at scale, the need for such strict limitations diminishes.
Instead of asking “who decides,” the real question becomes, “how do we ensure equitable access in a system designed to provide abundance?” This isn’t about limiting people’s lives - it’s about removing the constraints of scarcity so everyone can live comfortably.
As for those who work or the ultra-wealthy, their “extra” benefits wouldn’t have to come at the expense of others if society is no longer organized around competition for limited resources. The challenge isn’t defining what’s “enough,” but imagining a system where “enough” is a given, not a privilege…
And when the mules and horses are no longer beneficial, they send them to the slaughter auction.
Yup.
We see rescues from Amish country down here frequently. Worked damn near to death.
Yes. I follow a number of rescues and donate to their causes. Disgusting what the Amish do.
This was a topic a few years ago when universal basic income was being talked about a lot. In general I think it’d be nice to push for less (maybe not no, but less) work as automation makes people more productive.
There are a few barriers to that though. Capitalism concentrates the economic power at the top, and corporations aren’t about to pay humans if they can get the same amount of work for free from a machine.
There is a social element, too, as a compulsion to work is prevalent in some cultures. Some European countries are much better at not working than American or some Asian cultures, for example.
I really don’t see how we reduce work without some kind of government social program, though. Corporations sure as shit won’t facilitate such a system.
Also I don’t think we’re close, technologically, to being able to do this any time soon. There are still a lot of jobs that machines aren’t good at. But the gap is slowly closing.
My wife grew up on horses. She’s seen what they do to these animals. Needless to say she isn’t a fan.
1 Like
You seem to imply the the basic idea of desire would go away. I think that would be a terrible world to live in. People should always desire to be better, and be more sucessful. I don’t want to live in a world where I’m just happy to be here because I have everything I need. Emotionally that would be empty.
Oh and I want my daughter to be super successful because of what she has done and who she is. I want her to understand that success takes hard work and that everything is not just given to you.
You raise some valid points, especially about the barriers within our current societal and economic structures. But part of the challenge is that we’re framing this discussion within the systems we already know - capitalism, corporate priorities, and existing government programs. To really explore this idea, we need to think beyond what’s currently feasible and imagine what’s possible if we’re not bound by these structures.
Instead of asking how corporations or governments today would facilitate reduced work, what if we started with a more fundamental question: Can we even conceptualise a society built around leisure, creativity, and abundance rather than labor and productivity? If we can’t imagine it, we’ll always default to incremental tweaks to existing systems rather than envisioning something transformative.
This isn’t just a practical issue - it’s a philosophical one. Why do we tie human worth and purpose so closely to work? Could we, as a species, redefine our values to focus on fulfillment rather than productivity? Before we solve how to build such a system, we first need to consider whether we can even comprehend living in one.
I think there’s a misunderstanding here. I’m not suggesting the idea of desire or ambition would disappear in a society where basic needs are met. The premise isn’t about eliminating goals or personal growth - it’s about removing the necessity of working just to survive, so people can pursue ambitions and desires that are personally meaningful, not dictated by economic survival.
In fact, wouldn’t a society where people aren’t weighed down by the need to secure food, housing, or healthcare actually encourage people to explore their passions and talents? Your daughter, for example, could still strive for success, but her efforts would be driven by her own goals, creativity, and curiosity - not by a fear of failure or lack of resources. Success would still mean something because it would reflect personal growth, not just material gain.
The idea isn’t to make life “emotionally empty” or hand everything to everyone without effort - it’s to give people the freedom to define success for themselves, without the constraints of a system that ties worth and purpose solely to labor and productivity
Yeah, let’s not aspire to do anything like the amish.
This is an off-the-rails thread. No jobs? Confiscate and distribute wealth. Hey capitalism has flaws but we’ve seen the communism end game. Who’s going to harvest food, fix your cars, maintain the roads… I’m not even going to continue this is such a pointless proposition.
Yeah, not being the “creative” type. I think your idea is a bad one. I think work is good. I think the pressure to succeed and take care of yourself is important both physically and emotionally. Would I love to make enough to retire early? Sure. Maybe 55 or 60 (I’m 55 now). And I’d keep myself busy, riding my bike. But I wouldn’t want to do that for the last 30 years. It’s a hobby.
I worry that your idea of living creatively is really just letting people focus on a hobby full time.
Thanks for chiming in, though it seems like you may have misunderstood the intent of the discussion.
This thread isn’t about advocating for communism or dismantling society overnight - it’s a philosophical exploration of how human purpose and systems might evolve in a world no longer defined by scarcity or survival-based labor.
It’s understandable that some might find this topic pointless or beyond their interest, but for those who enjoy engaging in abstract, forward-thinking conversations, the discussion remains open.