The goal should be zero employment. Making people work to justify their existence is the antithesis of what we’ve fought and suffered for a hundred thousand years to achieve.
Your life is massively easier, safer, healthier, and more convenient than theirs. Your life expectancy is massively higher. The trade off there is an interconnected and interdependent series of jobs.
You are welcome to go be a subsistence farmer or scavenging hermit at any point if youd prefer, but expecting all the same benefits without contribution is a bit odd.
There is a reason people choose even sweatshop labor over subsistence farming.
We aren’t having the same discussion. I’m talking about eliminating all work, including subsistence farming and sweatshop labor, not going back to hunting and gathering.
In 1776 years ago about 90% of the population were involved in farming. Today that number is under 2% and we have more food than we need to feed everyone. Working less does not mean producing less. It’s why we don’t mine coal by hand or haul goods on sledges.
The same way it went from 90% to 2% - automation, better land use, better pesticides and fertilizers. The same thing that happened with mining, logging, manufacturing, communications, and everything else since then.
But instead of working less - as was predicted by scientists as recently as the 1950s - we made up bullshit jobs to keep people busy, and layers and layers of management to monitor them, and entire industries of people who just skim money off of the economy.
And, yes, I also don’t want to work. But why should I have all the fun? And aren’t we all working so that we can eventually retire and not work? Let’s just collectively skip a step.
The goal should be zero employment. Making people work to justify their existence is the antithesis of what we’ve fought and suffered for a hundred thousand years to achieve.
Hunting and gathering is still working to justify your existence.
Yes and we should be doing less work than they did, not more.
Your life is massively easier, safer, healthier, and more convenient than theirs. Your life expectancy is massively higher. The trade off there is an interconnected and interdependent series of jobs.
You are welcome to go be a subsistence farmer or scavenging hermit at any point if youd prefer, but expecting all the same benefits without contribution is a bit odd.
There is a reason people choose even sweatshop labor over subsistence farming.
We aren’t having the same discussion. I’m talking about eliminating all work, including subsistence farming and sweatshop labor, not going back to hunting and gathering.
Then everyone just starves to death.
In 1776 years ago about 90% of the population were involved in farming. Today that number is under 2% and we have more food than we need to feed everyone. Working less does not mean producing less. It’s why we don’t mine coal by hand or haul goods on sledges.
That 2% goes to 0% and we get food how?
Or did you mean you just don’t want to work? Because we had that system too, up until a different American war about 90 years later
The same way it went from 90% to 2% - automation, better land use, better pesticides and fertilizers. The same thing that happened with mining, logging, manufacturing, communications, and everything else since then.
But instead of working less - as was predicted by scientists as recently as the 1950s - we made up bullshit jobs to keep people busy, and layers and layers of management to monitor them, and entire industries of people who just skim money off of the economy.
And, yes, I also don’t want to work. But why should I have all the fun? And aren’t we all working so that we can eventually retire and not work? Let’s just collectively skip a step.
I don’t expect you to get it, though.