People who don't work shouldn't live?

[DelusiveNinja]

Money: A current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively.

I think that money is the issue with the world. People are forced to work in order to survive and entertain themselves. This made me question if people who don't work like bums and children deserve to live or have fun. Is it possible to get rid of the need for money? If so, one would have to look at exactly what money buys and find a way to distribute it without running out of supplies. Food is an example of something that if not regulated will become scarce and right now the system in place requires money, which cannot be obtained without work. Of course, people can go back to hunting but what is there to hunt in places like New York? That's why I propose somebody make a food that gives all the nutrients and energy a person needs for one day in one serving. This food will negate the craving for food for 24 hours and will be distributed to the public for free. This is a fantasy idea (for now), but it helps illustrate what I am getting at. Why are people accepting the way we live instead of working to innovate it?

 

[Cherry Cola]

We are not physically built to fulfill our daily calorie need in one serving, it wouldn't be healthy.

But yes I agree, we should create and stockpile enough of some sort of cheap calorie rich food product that the threat of starvation would cease to loom over underdeveloped countries thereby further spurring the irrational behavior of their denizens; keeping them locked in a loop of poverty.

 

[Cognisant]

Why?
I mean why make things "better", ask yourself what better really means.

Y'see the essential problem is human beings themselves, we like to think we're above our animal nature but we're really not, give people an infinite supply of food and they'll mindlessly multiply like vermin until some other necessity of survival becomes scarce. So what is the perfect world, a vast city where hydroponics, fusion energy and genetic engineered food has enabled us to support a population of many trillions in relative comfort, is that the ideal world, is that what we are striving for?

Nonsense.

If you think that then you are tragically human, trapped in the human perspective, bound in servitude to the human race, to your own human genes more specifically, you fail to see the transitory nature of our species, that inevitably our end will come and the best we can hope for is to usher in something else, something greater.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Why?
I mean why make things "better", ask yourself what better really means.

Y'see the essential problem is human beings themselves, we like to think we're above our animal nature but we're really not, give people an infinite supply of food and they'll mindlessly multiply like vermin until some other necessity of survival becomes scarce. So what is the perfect world, a vast city where hydroponics, fusion energy and genetic engineered food has enabled us to support a population of many trillions in relative comfort, is that the ideal world, is that what we are striving for?

Nonsense.

If you think that then you are tragically human, trapped in the human perspective, bound in servitude to the human race, to your own human genes more specifically, you fail to see the transitory nature of our species, that inevitably our end will come and the best we can hope for is to usher in something else, something greater.

Give people food and those shackles of nature they're wrapped in will loosen considerably. Add another 20billion US dollars and you can give them all some basic education, which is an effective remedy against uncontrolled multiplying.

The world you describe is quite ideal in my mind. It provides a much more solid and reliable ground for us to expand our knowledge and further escape them shackles.

 

[DelusiveNinja]

It's better to just leave it this way and focus on become something greater, leaving behind the animal nature of the human species. I shouldn't care about a future I will not be able to see without a greater, longer lasting form. I see. Is that selfish?

 

[Cherry Cola]

I don't know. I don't understand what you are talking about. Honestly I wasn't quite sure my initial reply was on topic either because it was hard getting the gist of your OP :P

Perhaps you could clarify?

 

[Duxwing]

Why?
I mean why make things "better", ask yourself what better really means.

Y'see the essential problem is human beings themselves, we like to think we're above our animal nature but we're really not, give people an infinite supply of food and they'll mindlessly multiply like vermin until some other necessity of survival becomes scarce. So what is the perfect world, a vast city where hydroponics, fusion energy and genetic engineered food has enabled us to support a population of many trillions in relative comfort, is that the ideal world, is that what we are striving for?

Nonsense.

The problem with such logic is that they don't multiply like vermin when given adequate resources: Look at Italy, where the birth rate is less than the death rate. Moreover, half of all pregnancies in the US are unintended. How many of those come to term? Think of all the unnecessary births that could be prevented by mere contraception, or, barring that, early abortion.

-Duxwing

 

[Cognisant]

Oh, okay.

Breed my minions, BREED!
Lubricate the gears of progress with your squishyness.

 

[Duxwing]

Oh, okay.

Breed my minions, BREED!
Lubricate the gears of progress with your squishyness.

Now that's the spirit.

-Duxwing

 

[DelusiveNinja]

In post #5 I was coming to a realization that instead of worrying about how society is now worry about how we will sustain life after our body is no longer of use. Society is the least of our worries because eventually we will die, and society will live on. Death is unpredictable at that, so with the time I have I should focus on how to prolong my existence and "cheat/avoid" death of at least my mind.

 

[DelusiveNinja]

I don't mean "we" as a nation become a bunch of cyborgs (whilst there is nothing wrong with that idea). I am saying that the intelligent worry about themselves and the ignorant worry about the survival of everyone else.

 

[DelusiveNinja]

Give people food and those shackles of nature they're wrapped in will loosen considerably. Add another 20billion US dollars and you can give them all some basic education, which is an effective remedy against uncontrolled multiplying.

The world you describe is quite ideal in my mind. It provides a much more solid and reliable ground for us to expand our knowledge and further escape them shackles.

You are on topic, but Cognisant brought up another issue that was more important.

 

[Duxwing]

You are on topic, but Cognisant brought up another issue that was more important.

He was just trolling, and if you'd like a rebuttal, then I can provide.

-Duxwing

 

[DelusiveNinja]

He was just trolling, and if you'd like a rebuttal, then I can provide.

-Duxwing

Spill the beans!

 

[Cognisant]

I'm not trolling... entirely *looks distracted*

My manner is trolling but my point is valid.
I think.

Actually I have idea

Spoiler

 

[ActiveMind]

I think as INTPs, this is an area where our approach to improving the world comes in handy.

However, I think the sensibilities towards day jobs and whatnot is beginning to change and evolve. Instead of a hierarchy, why isn't the job-place more of a co-op? Knowing your job instead of someone talking down to you is conducive to a better job environment.

I also agree that the problem is that our lives are still predicated by money when we now have the tech for full global abundance. The problems inherent are also greed and the aforementioned hierarchy.

I believe it is up to people like us and others to come up with a collective solution that would allow for us to take the two guarantees in life and plan the implementation of four new guarantees: Food, shelter, clothing, transportation. Thoughts?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I think I've derailed enough.

I feel I should at least acknowledge the OP and state that it all depends on how we define "work" and if we choose to acknowledge all of its facets.

I think that money is the issue with the world.

The derail about gender equality actually is applicable here...

People are forced to work in order to survive and entertain themselves. This made me question if people who don't work like bums and children deserve to live or have fun. Is it possible to get rid of the need for money?

Does leisure have value? If so, why not get paid for it? This leads to the notion of restricting the amount of work required of any individual, which is possible due to technological innovation (automation much?) and the pool of excess labor within the service industry, i.e. less work being done means less jobs needed for people to do things for us that we could/would/will do during leisure.

That's why I propose somebody make a food that gives all the nutrients and energy a person needs for one day in one serving. This food will negate the craving for food for 24 hours and will be distributed to the public for free. This is a fantasy idea (for now), but it helps illustrate what I am getting at.

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!

Why are people accepting the way we live instead of working to innovate it?

Because of cultural barriers that are attached to the status quo. It'll likely progress on its own in time, which isn't to say there won't be plenty of pain and bloodshed inbetween.

 

[Beat Mango]

We could all easily live with minimal work. But people always want a +1 on the next guy, and that's what we're all working for.

 

[walfin]

Anyway. The energy pill is a sensible idea because it keeps people alive but it is something that most people wouldn't want. I should love to continue eating normal food rather than a tasteless energy pill, and I'd work hard for that reason alone.

Though I suspect such a pill might wreak havoc on our natural digestive systems.

The greater danger is that it would be abused by sweatshop owners to deprive their workers of lunchtime.

 

[Huggogguh]

People are forced to work in order to survive and entertain themselves. This made me question if people who don't work like bums and children deserve to live or have fun.

I suppose this depends upon what you're own definition of work is. Especially in modern society where a vast majority of professions aren't chosen out of a need or necessity to survive, but out of the gratification of the job. Say for example I'm a computer technician, and this has always been my dream job. If I 'work' all day on computers but then go home and spend my 'leisure' time working on computers as well, is it still classified as work if I would be doing it as a hobby and having fun anyway? How do you apply your question to someone like that?

Is it possible to get rid of the need for money? If so, one would have to look at exactly what money buys and find a way to distribute it without running out of supplies.

Imagine the monstrous overhaul that would need to be done to remove such a deeply ingrained aspect of society as monetary gain. Even aside from supply shortage, removing money would meaning breaking down class barriers and history seems to have proved that this is something akin to communism. Mind you, capitalism and democracy haven't really evolved to match their definitions either.


Sent from my GT-I9210T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[ummidk]

I think that money is the issue with the world. People are forced to work in order to survive and entertain themselves.

people were forced to work to survive long before there was money (In fact, it has made it easier)

Is it possible to get rid of the need for money? If so, one would have to look at exactly what money buys and find a way to distribute it without running out of supplies.

Yes, you just have to convince the people who benefit off the system most that we need a new system. You are also leaving out the part where someone will probably end up with control of distributing it, and that will go so well.

Of course, people can go back to hunting but what is there to hunt in places like New York?

I'd guess the prosperity of the human race for the last say 500 years leaves survival on an individual basis impossible for more than a small portion of our current population.

Why are people accepting the way we live instead of working to innovate it?

Again, the people who can innovate it, have no reason to.

 

[DelusiveNinja]

Work: A job; employment: looking for work.
What I meant by work was basically whatever you do to make money. People were forced to work to survive a long time ago but I am asking why. Why must we work (get a job) instead of having what we need to survive and be entertained handed to us? Do we not deserve these resources? None of us asked for life and some of us loathe our existence. Yet we must obtain what we need through "blood, sweat, and tears". A vast majority of people deem their work lives to be a pain in the ass and wish that they didn't have to do it to support family or themselves. Should they have to do this? There are not as many people enjoying their professions as there are people hating them.

If we did have everything handed to us, yes, we would need a distribution committee(?) and that won't go so well. Especially, if I were to run it. Everyone would be hungry .
*sigh* There is no going back now I am already knee deep in "society doodoo". I guess it's time to accept the necessity of employment and attempt to refute the inevitability of death.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

If we did have everything handed to us, yes, we would need a distribution committee(?) and that won't go so well. Especially, if I were to run it. Everyone would be hungry .
*sigh* There is no going back now I am already knee deep in "society doodoo". I guess it's time to accept the necessity of employment and attempt to refute the inevitability of death.

I wouldn't abandon it yet. Work is necessary, but that doesn't mean we can't reduce the amount of work done by each individual while maintaining quality of life. This is what I was getting at in post #17 when I asked whether leisure had value.

 

[own8ge]

>People that think to have the right to decide who may live and who not.

That's wrong. All of you!

 

[Hawkeye]

>People that think to have the right to decide who may live and who not.

That's wrong. All of you!

Surely a person has a right to end their own life? ^^

 

[Nezaros]

Surely a person has a right to end their own life? ^^

And even from an objective standpoint there are people who are more useful than others. In times of gross necessity there will be certain people who should go.

Leisure time (That is, freedom to do the things that one enjoys, not truly "free" time) benefits the individual, while labor benefits society. The ideal situation is one where one enjoys their work entirely but that isn't always possible. In all other cases a balance must be struck but this varies per person per job over time and to try to work out a definite formula for all is next to impossible.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Leisure time (That is, freedom to do the things that one enjoys, not truly "free" time) benefits the individual, while labor benefits society. The ideal situation is one where one enjoys their work entirely but that isn't always possible. In all other cases a balance must be struck but this varies per person per job over time and to try to work out a definite formula for all is next to impossible.

I agree with the ideal, BUT...

What if the formula worked itself out? Say... a law was passed that required everyone employable to be employed within an X mile radius of where they live. Labor requirements would then be allocated within specific local niches as determined by niche occupants themselves. The self-guided labor redistribution mechanism would be quite awesome, imho. Don't think you're working enough? Go where there's more work available. Lazy? Go where there's a lot of "yous." Less specialized? Split your labor between multiple jobs. Of course, this system is also bound by various equilibria.

Would ^this actually change the ideal?

 

[Hadoblado]

The greater danger is that it would be abused by sweatshop owners to deprive their workers of lunchtime.

This is the bleedingest heartest thing I've ever read.

 

[redbaron]

This is the bleedingest heartest thing I've ever read.

Easy to say while living comfortably in a first world country.

 

[worm]

perhaps we should utterly destroy society all together and leave each person to do as he/she must.

 

[DelusiveNinja]

Society is a system not a person, making society nearly impossible to destroy. Society could be destroyed by a super INTJ or something like Lelouch from Code Geass, but I'm not sure if those people exist.

 

[Hadoblado]

Easy to say while living comfortably in a first world country.

Very, very easy. Just like expressing worry for sweatshop kids in fantastical hypotheticals while (I assume) doing little in reality to correct this inequality. I just found it strange that someone immediately went there, as the scope of the implications is very large.

Also, for those that missed it, the existence of a free infinite food pill would do a lot to negate the need for sweatshop kids to sell their labour so cheap in the first place. Sweatshop kids are the equivelant of slaves only because their only choice is to work for fuck all or die.

 

[SOLROCK]

I think that money isn't the root of all the problems. I mean its just a quantification of value. Although I can say that wage slavery is a pretty scary thing. I mean working every day living pay check to pay check at least to me is a scary thought. As for localized labor sources it sounds great although not very efficient. Some places simply cannot produce what they require they have to look elsewhere. As for not trying to innovate, innovations are happening all the time. I mean just last year solar panels reached efficiencies of about 24% thats like 10% more than the old ones. I feel like I've been rambling.

 

[Brontosaurie]

things that don't live should do the work

 

[Duxwing]

things that don't live should do the work

Wise words.

-Duxwing

 

[Slacker_Assassin]

things that don't live should do the work

I dig this idea.

 

[Slacker_Assassin]

I think as INTPs, this is an area where our approach to improving the world comes in handy.

I constantly think of why things are the way they are. They kind of suck and need some serious changing. I guess it's the INTP way.

However, I think the sensibilities towards day jobs and whatnot is beginning to change and evolve. Instead of a hierarchy, why isn't the job-place more of a co-op? Knowing your job instead of someone talking down to you is conducive to a better job environment.

Because a really shitty capitalism/corporatism.

This is something that would seem to be common sense, but the powers that be do not seem to want something like that. And the everyday person does not seem invested enough to change it.

I also agree that the problem is that our lives are still predicated by money when we now have the tech for full global abundance. The problems inherent are also greed and the aforementioned hierarchy.

Greed, I think, is the root of all evil on this planet, and especially in this society. People like the Koch Brothers come to mind. But, it's not just them; it's that entire mentality. What's even worse/more sickening is people who will never have as much money as they currently do, but the same ideas in the pathetic hope that one day they can be billionaires with more money than is ever needed.

I believe it is up to people like us and others to come up with a collective solution that would allow for us to take the two guarantees in life and plan the implementation of four new guarantees: Food, shelter, clothing, transportation. Thoughts?

I am with you 100% ActiveMind. Now, how do we make it happen?

 

[BigApplePi]

I believe it is up to people like us and others to come up with a collective solution that would allow for us to take the two guarantees in life and plan the implementation of four new guarantees: Food, shelter, clothing, transportation. Thoughts?

Are those four new or do they come first? Add a fifth: leisure.

Money and jobs are generally required in a large society. When I say, "generally required" I mean for those who will fall short of the above five without them. Not everyone falls short. Those who don't fall short will do as they wish. They have no motive to work.

I also agree that the problem is that our lives are still predicated by money when we now have the tech for full global abundance.

What tech? Is there a tech that will motivate even distribution? What work? What if work is worked to promote uneven distribution?

Looks like this theory needs work.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah I think your gonna need some human brain implant tech mate

 

[sushi]

Money: A current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively.

I think that money is the issue with the world. People are forced to work in order to survive and entertain themselves. This made me question if people who don't work like bums and children deserve to live or have fun. Is it possible to get rid of the need for money? If so, one would have to look at exactly what money buys and find a way to distribute it without running out of supplies. Food is an example of something that if not regulated will become scarce and right now the system in place requires money, which cannot be obtained without work. Of course, people can go back to hunting but what is there to hunt in places like New York? That's why I propose somebody make a food that gives all the nutrients and energy a person needs for one day in one serving. This food will negate the craving for food for 24 hours and will be distributed to the public for free. This is a fantasy idea (for now), but it helps illustrate what I am getting at. Why are people accepting the way we live instead of working to innovate it?

Sellers, investors and renters get the most profits. Workers are there, but they don'twhat kind of value they are creating in the economy.

I attribute that to the working class's stupidity though. If the workers don't demand to be paid with a green piece of paper, capitalists would not have the compulsion to make profits (to pay their workers). Workers in essnece are enslaved by their desire for a piece of green paper more than anything else. The green paper has become more valuable than food. If everyone worked for free, then the product of labor would be free, then there would be no capitalism.

Of course all those free market apologists would be bitching about free labor, and free goods, and non-money exchange. as communism had proven to fail in the past.

Money is an incentive to work harder, but even if you work harder, become more productive and produce more goods per unit time , even if the goods fail to get sold, your amount of work means nothing.