Should People Have to Work?

[Tidus44]

I am sort of disheartened by the thought that seems to exist that life has to be a cycle of working in order to obtain money so one can pay for a bed and food in order to eat and sleep in order to have sufficient energy to work to make money to pay for a bed and food so one can eat and sleep in order.....

Life is just an endless cycle to achieve nothing more than existence until death removes even that?

 

I am even further disheartened with the thought that it is felt the only thing the advancement of technology has or could accomplish is unemployed, lazy, obese alcoholics who hoard material things as the government looks after them and plans to go to war over the control of land and money.

 

Would many even be concerned with money or materialistic gains if all their basic needs were fulfilled were assured without having to work for them? While I have no doubt that the spirit of competition would still be present in people it would likely not be measured by wealth or possessions, but in what one does to benefit others. I don't see a lot of people cheering when it is announced some CEO just got a multi-million dollar bonus, but we certainly stand up and applaud individuals who have helped their fellow humans, and even when it is in the smallest way. I think that most people look towards those who give rather than those who get for inspiration and who they want to emulate. Then again, if I said Norman Borlaug I doubt many would even know who that is.

 

One's beliefs are just beliefs, but I think I would rather hold to the idea that others have advanced; and believe that changes in technology will lead humanity to a higher level (as the vast majority have in the past) rather than to a dark and violent world of self indulgence, despair and hopelessness where whoever has the "most" when they die wins (but I'm just not sure what it is they win).

[Morrovvind]

I like your viewpoint Tidus! Here's my question:

 

If everyone is supposed to fend for themselves, why don't we just let all dogs, cats, and pets loose? They should be employed too. Maybe I'm not being serious here haha.

[TRoaches]

Then again, if I said Norman Borlaug I doubt many would even know who that is.

He was a smart and interesting guy, but his philosophy was not without major flaws. For example, consider this quote from his Nobel acceptance speech:

 

"There can be no permanent progress in the battle against hunger until the agencies that fight for increased food production and those that fight for population control unite in a common effort."

 

in conjunction with this quote:

 

"I now say that the world has the technology – either available or well advanced in the research pipeline – to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people."

 

Considering that the world population in 1970 was around 3.7B why would he advocate for population control but later claim that the technology to sustain a population of 10B was imminent? If 10B can be sustained there is no need for population controls to be instituted, especially if one assumes that 10B is not a hard cap and the sustainable population will increase along with the real current population.

 

 

One's beliefs are just beliefs, but I think I would rather hold to the idea that others have advanced; and believe that changes in technology will lead humanity to a higher level (as the vast majority have in the past) rather than to a dark and violent world of self indulgence, despair and hopelessness where whoever has the "most" when they die wins (but I'm just not sure what it is they win).

 

The effects of technological advancement cannot be reduced to either "good" or "bad" future scenarios. The reality is likely somewhere in the middle, with an inherent con associated with every pro. If you believe that technology is destined to lead us to a "higher level" then the question must be asked why we have not yet reached that higher level. Starvation still exists, despite unquantifiable advances in agriculture and transportation technologies. Those advancements have led to improved quality of life for many, and no discernable improvements for many others who have been denied access to those technologies. The primary reason for that denial has been resource wars, which themselves have led to many of the advancements. It is a mind-bending circular process in which there is no inherent good or bad outcome.

[Tidus44]

I like your viewpoint Tidus! Here's my question:

 

If everyone is supposed to fend for themselves, why don't we just let all dogs, cats, and pets loose? They should be employed too. Maybe I'm not being serious here haha.

 

I don't think we are supposed to fend for our self and I trust my post did not leave that impression. At one time it was possible for one person to hold all the knowledge of the world. Now, its impossible for one person to even hold all the knowledge in one subject. Humans are a social species and require (I believe) interaction and to some degree the reliance with others. Its what makes us stronger, not weaker.

[Tidus44]

 

Then again, if I said Norman Borlaug I doubt many would even know who that is.

He was a smart and interesting guy, but his philosophy was not without major flaws. For example, consider this quote from his Nobel acceptance speech:

 

"There can be no permanent progress in the battle against hunger until the agencies that fight for increased food production and those that fight for population control unite in a common effort."

 

in conjunction with this quote:

 

"I now say that the world has the technology – either available or well advanced in the research pipeline – to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people."

 

Considering that the world population in 1970 was around 3.7B why would he advocate for population control but later claim that the technology to sustain a population of 10B was imminent? If 10B can be sustained there is no need for population controls to be instituted, especially if one assumes that 10B is not a hard cap and the sustainable population will increase along with the real current population.

 

 

One's beliefs are just beliefs, but I think I would rather hold to the idea that others have advanced; and believe that changes in technology will lead humanity to a higher level (as the vast majority have in the past) rather than to a dark and violent world of self indulgence, despair and hopelessness where whoever has the "most" when they die wins (but I'm just not sure what it is they win).

 

The effects of technological advancement cannot be reduced to either "good" or "bad" future scenarios. The reality is likely somewhere in the middle, with an inherent con associated with every pro. If you believe that technology is destined to lead us to a "higher level" then the question must be asked why we have not yet reached that higher level. Starvation still exists, despite unquantifiable advances in agriculture and transportation technologies. Those advancements have led to improved quality of life for many, and no discernable improvements for many others who have been denied access to those technologies. The primary reason for that denial has been resource wars, which themselves have led to many of the advancements. It is a mind-bending circular process in which there is no inherent good or bad outcome.

 

 

If someone has to be "perfect" in order to be admired, then I guess its OK to find fault with everyone, everywhere and for all time and never see the good they can achieve. I have yet to meet a person who is perfect or who I even 100% agree with all the time on every subject and in every aspect of life. A person can be the most vile and disgusting individual one has ever met, but if they do something that advances humanity beyond its present state, then the deed, if not the person, can be admired. One can also find fault where and when they want to find it. That too is a condition that much of humanity shares. The man saved my life and millions of others, but he had a different philosophy than me on some subjects so I disregard him as benefiting anyone anywhere at anytime and may even advocate anything he has ever done be rejected. People will find what they are looking for. I choose to find the good and the best humanity can offer rather than find fault over an opinion.

 

I don't think I suggested that a better world would occur by 5 pm next Monday. Nor did I suggest that a better world would evolve without some level of resistance and conflict. What I did say was that I believe advancements in technology will lead humanity to a higher level, and would add that this will happen regardless of those who need to find the negative aspects of everything rather than the positive and even those that will fight against the change. Humanity may take two steps forward and one step back; it may even be taking some steps sideways; but it is still advancing and getting better regardless of the opinions or actions of the few. With some people's attitudes we would all be still scratching into a dead tree looking for grubs because tilling the soil and planting seeds isn't a perfect solution to obtaining food and did not benefit everyone all at once immediately, ergo it must be rejected and never attempted again.

 

I just refuse to accept those negative and selfish points and prefer to see the benefit that may and that eventually will be achieved, even if it isn't a benefit for me personally.

[TRoaches]

I did not comment on Borlaug's perfection or lack thereof, nor did I imply that he should not be admired for his contributions. I only commented on his advocacy of population control, which is a concept that I abhor and is closely connected to most environmentalist thought, is relevant to his premise because he explicitly connected it to his environmental philosophy, and which is relevant to the topic because of the possibility that increased automation could lead to decreased perceived need of human labor by those who are in position to enact such population controls. Refusing to acknowledge the negative and focusing only on the positive effects of any suggested social or economic change is a recipe for disaster.

[Tidus44]

I did not comment on Borlaug's perfection or lack thereof, nor did I imply that he should not be admired for his contributions. I only commented on his advocacy of population control, which is a concept that I abhor and is closely connected to most environmentalist thought, is relevant to his premise because he explicitly connected it to his environmental philosophy, and which is relevant to the topic because of the possibility that increased automation could lead to decreased perceived need of human labor by those who are in position to enact such population controls. Refusing to acknowledge the negative and focusing only on the positive effects of any suggested social or economic change is a recipe for disaster.

 

So then why are you focusing on a relatively unimportant and inconsequential aspect of the individual? He showed the world how to achieve effective and efficient food production on existing farm land and achieve freedom from starvation. Your focus appears to be that you don't agree with a philosophy he held on population control or why would you bring the point up? He also rejected global warming, but I don't hold that against him when it comes to accepting his recommendations for effective and efficient farming.

 

I know his farming techniques have been implemented across the globe, but I am unaware of acceptance and adoption of his philosophy on population control.

 

While I appreciate you abhor his philosophy, there are those who do not, That doesn't make you right and others wrong (or vice versa), its just a difference of opinion.

[Morrovvind]

To Tidus, my comment wasn't for you, it was a general question that wasn't meant to be part of the serious debate, just sort of jokingly haha.

 

I'm not sure I understand the debate on population control. I always thought that the earth had "built in" population controls, such as finite resources, that if used up by too many people, would lead to death of people. If the people of earth took account of this before deciding to reproduce more than what can be supported, they might avoid a shortage of resources.

 

I too would find population control abhorrent if it was directed at any specific ethnicity or social class, but isn't that how it exists now? For example a poor country will have less resources to sustain a population and it's people will die out faster than a rich country. In a world without money, one would think it would not happen this way.

 

So advocates of LESS technology inadvertently could be advocates of population control through the lack of equal distribution of resources across all ethnicities and classes.

 

In short, population control already exists in the form of finite resources and is enacted upon those of lower class. Isn't there a better, less abhorrent way of living than the world is currently?

 

Sorry for any lack of understanding I have or any bad points made, that's the way I see things currently.

[Tidus44]

To Tidus, my comment wasn't for you, it was a general question that wasn't meant to be part of the serious debate, just sort of jokingly haha.

 

I'm not sure I understand the debate on population control. I always thought that the earth had "built in" population controls, such as finite resources, that if used up by too many people, would lead to death of people. If the people of earth took account of this before deciding to reproduce more than what can be supported, they might avoid a shortage of resources.

 

I too would find population control abhorrent if it was directed at any specific ethnicity or social class, but isn't that how it exists now? For example a poor country will have less resources to sustain a population and it's people will die out faster than a rich country. In a world without money, one would think it would not happen this way.

 

So advocates of LESS technology inadvertently could be advocates of population control through the lack of equal distribution of resources across all ethnicities and classes.

 

In short, population control already exists in the form of finite resources and is enacted upon those of lower class. Isn't there a better, less abhorrent way of living than the world is currently?

 

Sorry for any lack of understanding I have or any bad points made, that's the way I see things currently.

 

I have no real idea if population is controlled by resource availability. We have had starving people across the globe for as long as I can remember and well before that, but the global population continues to grow. It is a fact that about 1/3 of the food that is grown on the globe is wasted, mostly by the "have" counties. Starvation continues in the "have not" parts of the world despite the best efforts of numerous agencies to change this. The reasons are varied and numerous, but I doubt any have to do with the lack of resources globally, but is more so a lack locally and in specific areas and for the reasons some have stated in the thread - it's a means of control and thus wealth.

The last time I was in Somalia, tons of food items were stored on the docks and were under the control of various war lords. They were not being distributed to the starving, but were being sold outside of the country to benefit the wealth of a war lord. Unfortunately, there was no way to address this fully as orders are orders and soldiers must obey. Not that certain aspects of opportunity were not exploited - if you catch my drift - but as for a full solution, there was none available or sanctioned.

I guess that the saying is correct, "money is the root of all evil" as without the need for money I would think humanity would focus at other and hopefully more beneficial things than the accumulation of wealth as a means to achieve status.

 

I would think that at some point there won't be sufficient resources to support a certain number of population, but where that point is, I have no idea. It is a fact that some resources are finite and that technology (at least as it is currently) can only achieve so much and thus is also finite. Will technology be developed to extend resources or create new ones to allow a greater population? I will take a leap of faith here and say. "yes it will at some point in the future".

 

I have to believe that there is a way for the world and humanity to become better and that there will be a less abhorrent way of living in the future. To deny this is to accept that there is no future, no change possible and nothing that humanity can strive for that is better and thus must accept status quo. To me, that's just giving up and it just isn't in me to give up. If it were, I'd have been dead some time ago.

[erikolaix]

We all require resources in order to sustain our own lives, and someone will always have to work in order to extract and provide those resources. It would be uniust for there to be one working class and one welfare class; the workers would not stand for it. If a person is capable of work, yet is unwilling to pull his own weight, why should anyone else want to support such a burden on society? If we ever get to that point of decadence, the ideas of George Bernard Shaw will no doubt resonate with many people.

 

If we ever get to the point where nearly all work is carried out by non-humans, and there are abundant resources here on Earth, we'll probably have become an interplanetary species as well. Workers would be needed to colonize and develop new frontiers. At some point in time, new frontiers will open to us... and once that happens, the need for workers will explode.

 

In any case, anyone should be free to choose not to work, as long as their fellow men are not forced to sustain them.

Edited June 29, 2013 by eriknm