Skip Navigation
41 comments

  • Mostly yes but these claims that "we isn't even HAVE to work!" is just so brain rotting stupid

    Yes, we do have to work. Yes, all of us that can and are able to. Yes, we probably could work less, like 20-30 hours a week, we might be able to get away with that but less than that?

    Who is going to stock the shelves at super markets? How do you think your food arrives at supermarkets to begin with? How do you think that food is grown? Who will take care of your broken bones?

    We all have jobs and yes, it is still very much a necessity. Maybe in some future we will enslave actually sentient AI to do all our mind killing work for us but until that day, we're on our own

    But yeah, fuck the extremely rich that control the world

    • First off, fuck the rich.

      Second, I think we could have a society where people don't work. I'd work. I kinda like having some shit to do. And I'm not alone. There's some people who like working a lot more than I do. And there's some people who don't like working at all. I think it's doable. I obviously agree that we need to work though. Some people do. I just don't know that we all need to.

      That was my idea of what AI and robots were supposed to do, replace mindless bullshit jobs, let people do their thing. It just needs to come with some UBI.

    • also, anyone that’s consulted (like real consulting: not bullshit “management” consulting: actually building, but with a mandate and permission to actually change shit and get things done) knows that human systems are not perfectly efficient either

      just like no machine is perfectly efficient (they all lose energy to tolerance, error, wear, slop, friction, heat, etc), human organisations lose efficiency in both materials and human effort for similar reasons: liquid capital must be available to deal with emergencies (eg paying people during a global pandemic), warehouses must have stock, humans must check to ensure other humans haven’t made mistakes or acted with malice

      just because theoretically humanity produces more than enough money, food, hygiene supplies, etc to feed the US population (>300m) 20x over doesn’t mean all of those supplies would be enough to feed, clothe, and sanitise the world (>8b)

    • If you could alter human nature so that everybody trusted everybody else, and everybody cooperated with everyone else, then people could work significantly less.

      In that scenario you wouldn't need police, courts, food inspectors, restaurant inspectors, auditors, or a military because everyone would just be cooperating and honest. Offices would need far fewer managers because managers would just be coordinating work, and never have to worry about employees slacking off. HR would never have to fire anybody or discipline them because everyone would be trustworthy. You'd need far fewer executives, and the executives would be honest about how little they worked, and wouldn't ask for absurd compensation.

      But, that isn't humanity. Throughout history people solving disputes non-violently has been extremely rare. It's possible among small isolated groups who all know each-other, but as soon as you get towns, people are no longer able to completely trust the people they encounter day to day.

      People are also underestimating how good we in the developed world have it today. Working only 40 hours a week was something only the privileged few used to be able to do. Being able to choose what you want to eat is something that only the nobility used to do. Could it be better? Sure. Has it gotten worse on the small time scale of decades? Maybe for some groups. But, for most of the world the last few decades have been ones where the standard of living has gone up by leaps and bounds.

      Yes, we should guillotine all the rich, but look at the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution to see how a fully justified plan can still cause death, starvation and chaos in the short term. Humans are still animals, and although we can sometimes recognize there's a problem, cleanly transitioning to a better system without chaos and death is not something we've figured out how to do.

      • We do not need to change human nature. We need to figure out more effective ways of countering the relentless skullduggery of rich shitheads.

        You are repeating a lazy old trope that encourages inaction and creates the current situation. Human nature is just fine. We all have good parts and bad parts in our nature. Society is defined by how it encourages the better parts and how it manages the worst parts.

        We need to figure out how to counter the age old practice of entrenched rich interests using shitty underhanded tactics to undermine effective efforts for marginalized and poverty stricken people to organize and help themselves.

        If you look at the history of movements that attempt to build mutual aid networks and actually provide for themselves, you will also find wealthy individuals sowing seeds of destruction. Media and whisper campaigns, using entrenched political advantages, intimidation, and outright assassination are all commonly used methods.

        The reason the Black Panthers were so frightening to the powers that be was not because of the armed members that were the only ones shown on TV. The media was careful to avoid mentioning that BP were also working with community groups to provide breakfast programs for school age kids and other community support programs.

        The Black Panthers were frightening to the powers that be because they were forming an actual ad hoc government that was intended to meet the needs of the local people the official government would not. This same pattern has been repeated in every situation in recorded history where a marginalized group organized themselves and became a threat through their unity and coordination.

  • According to modern finance guys, they slaved their whole lives, multiple generations did, to ensure maximal shareholder value.

41 comments