Human Obsolescence

[Frederick]

It's not about being edgy, it's just a fact. Human beings don't need work to invent meaning. Frankly, I'm not sure they need anything to do so. Removing the need to work wouldn't remove the need for meaning nor our capabilities of creating it.

 

 

It wasn't meant to be condescending, I'm sure you've just spend too much time on the internet around people who actually want to piss people off. I'm not one of them. The purpose in the work you do outside of these fields is not reliant on the work being necessary. If you find meaning in the work and you enjoy, you can do it. Honestly, I think you're the one ignoring the point. If "that random guy" finds meaning in doing his "shitty job" then nothing is stopping him from doing that job. The meaning he finds there will not simply disappear. Perfection in life is just the starting point for something else. "A world where you are born and given the option to either contribute through art and science or do nothing meaningful then you can't tell me humanity can do whatever they want and strive to their hearts content". You are the only one claiming that they cannot do anything meaningful. What better way to find their meaning in a society where they can do whatever they want because they are provided for? You simply do not seem to be able to wrap your head around the fact that people can find meaning in working with things that aren't actually necessary. If this wasn't actually the case, the would be no art, no music, no pretty buildings, nothing that wasn't created out of absolute necessity. I don't think people want to live in a world there they don't have to do anything, I believe they want to live in a world where they are free to follow whatever meaning they create for themselves.

 

 

You didn't actually read my posts did you? Either that or you're being deliberately dense in an effort to spread misconceptions.

 

"I don't seek to throw anything away, if people really do want plumbing and computers I'm sure they will find a way to get such things."

 

"As for people wanting bigger and better things, that is a result of capitalist consumerism and marketing inventing needs than you don't actually have or people trying to find substitutes for what they actually need. When those things go away, so would the false needs. Even if they did somehow remain, assuming the energy and resource requirements can be solved it would just be a matter of making the machines produce what they want."

 

Nowhere, nowhere did I say that I believe a life where all you're given is bread and water and nothing else is some sort of utopia. That is straight out of your imagination. If people truly seek luxury items in an automated society, they will have the automatons create them, though I seriously doubt they will still want luxury items because, like I said before, their wants and needs would not be the same as human beings today. If you're actually going to comment on my posts, at least have the decency to read them and understand them first.

 

And please, you don't speak for me. You don't know anything about my relationship with money and material goods or anything about me personally at all. I certainly don't have any problems with enjoying myself. Kindly !@#$ off with your overtly slanderous assumptions and stick to the topic.

Okay, I can't help but jump in here on the topic of "higher planes of thinking" such as art, science, music etc. as you've listed earlier.  As someone who is an aesthetic and finds life's greatest fruits to be found in art, music, and beauty, I disagree that high art can exist in a Utopia such as that you propose.  Artists are very much a product of their experience and struggle in life.  They find expression through art which communicates the internal and external struggles they face.  It is because of this why we see so commonly that artists also tend to be conquerors or warrior types.  Art has to convey some meaning or else it is not art; this is the very problem that modern art faces in that it is devoid of any transcendental meaning and only gains popularity through shock effect and the glorification by hipsters who see art only as a boost for their social status and to make them seem "deep and intellectual".  If we look throughout history, the greatest art arose from periods of great vitality and vigour; traits which are most found in times of conflict and heroism.  Artists found inspiration from one thing or another, whether that be God(s), nature, the heavens, the stars, or simply human greatness.  In the periods where art flourished, man sought to ascend to the divine through heroic acts of courage and outstanding achievement.  Art was one of many means to reach this divine state of eternity, where their works would be remembered for countless generations in the future.  If this struggle for greatness were to be snuffed out and we were all to live lives of excess and luxury, where then would we derive our inspiration?  My greatest fear in the future is that we lose our connection with the land and the natural world that surrounds us.  We have become so infatuated with the lures of technology and "progress" that we forget where the greatest happiness lies- the lush forests and green pastures, the gargantuan mountains that reach towards the heavens, the very land beneath our feet.  Art is completely inseparable from experience and so I believe it is absolutely imperative that we do not forget how to live on this earth and to experience the world around us.  I can only sigh whenever the next new "innovation" presents itself and when the machines take over, I'll simply sigh again as the new age of unparalleled nihilism tramples all sense of meaning and struggle.   

Edited November 27, 2016 by Octavius

[Rozalia]

You didn't actually read my posts did you? Either that or you're being deliberately dense in an effort to spread misconceptions.

 

"I don't seek to throw anything away, if people really do want plumbing and computers I'm sure they will find a way to get such things."

 

"As for people wanting bigger and better things, that is a result of capitalist consumerism and marketing inventing needs than you don't actually have or people trying to find substitutes for what they actually need. When those things go away, so would the false needs. Even if they did somehow remain, assuming the energy and resource requirements can be solved it would just be a matter of making the machines produce what they want."

 

Nowhere, nowhere did I say that I believe a life where all you're given is bread and water and nothing else is some sort of utopia. That is straight out of your imagination. If people truly seek luxury items in an automated society, they will have the automatons create them, though I seriously doubt they will still want luxury items because, like I said before, their wants and needs would not be the same as human beings today. If you're actually going to comment on my posts, at least have the decency to read them and understand them first.

 

And please, you don't speak for me. You don't know anything about my relationship with money and material goods or anything about me personally at all. I certainly don't have any problems with enjoying myself. Kindly !@#$ off with your overtly slanderous assumptions and stick to the topic.

 

I would say that to you. I said "I've dealt with these Communist types before and when they start mentioning these things they seriously belief a life where you're taken care of fully, as in you get your bread and water to live on and nothing else (you can't acquire more wealth so you're not getting luxury goods) is some sort of utopia". You then attack me for it and... prove me completely correct by saying you seriously doubt they would want luxury items. So you hit me for saying your type think it a utopia because you never said the word utopia, but I am correct in that you do see it as a utopia. Machines do all the work and you have your bread and water so what more could you want in such a world? I say luxury, advancement, success, so forth but you rubbish that because you think apparently people becoming emotionless machines comes with mechanising work.

 

Slander? Look at the things you've said please, my comments are only made based off what you've said yourself. We have two different views of that future and to defend your sad one you are seriously saying things like "people won't care about luxury goods", like you what mate? You an alien or robot? Oh wait sorry, Communist.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Rozalia

[Big Brother]

"I'm sure you've just spend too much time on the internet around people who actually want to piss people off." and "You simply do not seem to be able to wrap your head around the fact that people can find meaning in working with things that aren't actually necessary." Nah, the way you are wording your arguments is very condescending, probably should work on that. As for saying that the work doesn't need to be necessary for someone to want to do it, because we have artists and music! Well I bring this to the table, the work of an artist or musician is important/necessary as a means of entertainment. Even then, it brings purpose to express that very artists feelings, ideas, thoughts. Now I admit not every work needs to have some life or death necessity in life, but in needs to bring a purpose or contribute something to the world. Someone must have a demand for their work. In this world, the man in your example going off to live in the forest to cut down trees has no demand for his work. " I don't think people want to live in a world there they don't have to do anything, I believe they want to live in a world where they are free to follow whatever meaning they create for themselves." So your solution to that is to remove any and all means to contribute any work outside the fields of art, science, and math? Great solution 10/10. I'm going to give them more options by removing options.

 

If you find my wording condescending, that is your problem, not mine. I care very little about such things. I'm direct and honest and I don't bother with niceties. My example is rudimentary, basic. I'm not giving people more options by removing options, I'm giving people options by giving people more time to choose and engage in their options. If you still cannot understand that, maybe you deserve condescension. Honestly, it seems to me that your entire argument is based on the assumption that for something to have purpose or meaning, it must be wanted or demanded by someone else. You are wrong to believe this. Maybe things appear this way to you but consider the fact that you are but one of billions. What you think may not be true for anyone else. I understand where you're coming from, I truly do. I just don't believe that people need any particular reason in order to provide meaning for themselves and I don't believe that humanity, in a society where the majority of humans don't need to spend so much of their time worrying about making ends meet, will have less options. It simply doesn't make any sense. If you have more time on your hands to do literally whatever it is that you believe your purpose is, you will have more options.

 

-snip-

 

If your greatest fear in the future is that we lose our connection with the land and the natural world around us, you would join me in anti-capitalism, because nothing does more to achieve that end than the exploitative system we live in today. I don't see technology as something that keeps us away from nature, I see it as something that will provide us with more time to experience nature. "High art", whatever your definition of that is, will most likely always exist as long as human beings exist. There's no need for injustice, exploitation and wage slavery for art to be realized. If you truly value nature as much as you do, you would know that many of your fellow human beings who felt the same way rejected the industrial revolution, felt it was the worst thing that ever happened to humanity, that it completely removed us from nature. They rejected the conditions we now find ourselves in. If you feel the same way, you would reject those conditions as well. Otherwise, you are just a pretender.

 

I would say that to you. I said "I've dealt with these Communist types before and when they start mentioning these things they seriously belief a life where you're taken care of fully, as in you get your bread and water to live on and nothing else (you can't acquire more wealth so you're not getting luxury goods) is some sort of utopia". You then attack me for it and... prove me completely correct by saying you seriously doubt they would want luxury items. So you hit me for saying your type think it a utopia because you never said the word utopia, but I am correct in that you do see it as a utopia. Machines do all the work and you have your bread and water so what more could you want in such a world? I say luxury, advancement, success, so forth but you rubbish that because you think apparently people becoming emotionless machines comes with mechanising work.

 

Slander? Look at the things you've said please, my comments are only made based off what you've said yourself. We have two different views of that future and to defend your sad one you are seriously saying things like "people won't care about luxury goods", like you what mate? You an alien or robot? Oh wait sorry, Communist.

 

 

I have not expressed any opinions of what utopia is. I certainly believe an automated society where everything you could ever want (including luxury items) is available to you is better than what we live in today, but I don't know if I'd call it utopia or if such a thing could even ever exist. Please stop making dishonest assumption, it really makes you look like a hypocrite considering how often you call people dishonest. You are hardly correct about anything, you just fill in the gaps with your imagination to convince yourself that you're winning a contest that doesn't even exist. Me saying that people will not necessarily desire the same things people do today does in no way prove you correct about anything (at least not outside of your fanciful mind). All it proves is that I'm claiming people will not necessarily experience the same needs. Everything you say people want in the world would technically be available to them. I have merely claimed that people will not necessarily want these things, which seems to be really difficult for you to comprehend. I never said I believe that automation will make anyone emotionless either, that's another thing that seemingly originates from your own mind. It's sad, really.

 

Your arrogance in assuming you know what people will want in an automated society renders your entire, faulty argument inert. If those are the conclusions you arrived at based on what I posted, you are terrible at arriving at accurate conclusions (which I doubt is a surprise to anyone outside of your alt-right circlejerk). If you honestly think I'll feel any kind of.. negative emotion from being called a communist, you are even more wrong than usual. You really should stick to the argument and stay away from ad hominem attacks because they don't impress anyone (except maybe your own brain). I would never deign to make assumptions about you on a personal level. I don't know you, I don't know where you're from, I don't know who you are, and so I will not be so rude as to make assumptions about you as a human being. I kindly ask that you show the same decency, otherwise I see no point in engaging you any more than I already have. I'm simply not entertained by this.

[Rozalia]

I have not expressed any opinions of what utopia is. I certainly believe an automated society where everything you could ever want (including luxury items) is available to you is better than what we live in today, but I don't know if I'd call it utopia or if such a thing could even ever exist. Please stop making dishonest assumption, it really makes you look like a hypocrite considering how often you call people dishonest. You are hardly correct about anything, you just fill in the gaps with your imagination to convince yourself that you're winning a contest that doesn't even exist. Me saying that people will not necessarily desire the same things people do today does in no way prove you correct about anything (at least not outside of your fanciful mind). All it proves is that I'm claiming people will not necessarily experience the same needs. Everything you say people want in the world would technically be available to them. I have merely claimed that people will not necessarily want these things, which seems to be really difficult for you to comprehend. I never said I believe that automation will make anyone emotionless either, that's another thing that seemingly originates from your own mind. It's sad, really.

 

Your arrogance in assuming you know what people will want in an automated society renders your entire, faulty argument inert. If those are the conclusions you arrived at based on what I posted, you are terrible at arriving at accurate conclusions (which I doubt is a surprise to anyone outside of your alt-right circlejerk). If you honestly think I'll feel any kind of.. negative emotion from being called a communist, you are even more wrong than usual. You really should stick to the argument and stay away from ad hominem attacks because they don't impress anyone (except maybe your own brain). I would never deign to make assumptions about you on a personal level. I don't know you, I don't know where you're from, I don't know who you are, and so I will not be so rude as to make assumptions about you as a human being. I kindly ask that you show the same decency, otherwise I see no point in engaging you any more than I already have. I'm simply not entertained by this.

 

And again, mechanisation does not mean there will be infinite money, resources, energy, and space. As it is all not infinite then there will be limitations which means you can't remove money and so people will want to work to earn more money to have more stuff for themselves and their family. I asked you what if people wanted a luxury car, or two, or three and you just respond with "well they can get it for free, but I believe they won't because bread and water man". I poked holes at your fantasy and you can't defend it so stick to these attacks on me, pretty obvious.

 

Your attacks on what I've said on your thoughts all because you didn't say those exact words is dull and dishonest. I used words such as emotionless machines because that is what you put forward. That people will suddenly stop caring about luxury, success, and advancement aka they will become as if machines. You saying the exact words is not required, we can all see your meaning. I also know why you are putting forward these things. As a Communist you have been smart enough to realise that Communism is impossible if people aren't machines like that, so you dream of this fantasy where now that machines do the work that people will suddenly become like what is required for "True Communism".

 

I assume the basic that has been seen throughout history, exists in the present, and is expected to be true for the future. Its a very safe bet. You assume instead that people will suddenly no longer care about luxury and success and become as I put it, machines. As for calling you a Communist I don't call you that to hurt you, I call you it because you are one even though I have seen you profess you aren't (so you can detach yourself from its killers and push "real Communism" of course). As for your attack on my politics I support a basic income and the mechanisation of work myself, people should not have to work to survive as is dictated by today and yesterday. We disagree because I state the obvious which is people will still want jobs to advance and make a better life for themselves while you believe bread and water is enough and people won't care all that much about more wealth and advancement. 

 

Sorry flower but you should look within yourself and why so many have commented on the style of your posts. You insult and talk down to others constantly but can't handle the Roz smacking your silly ideas down? Come now.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Rozalia

[Big Brother]

And again, mechanisation does not mean there will be infinite money, resources, energy, and space. As it is all not infinite then there will be limitations which means you can't remove money and so people will want to work to earn more money to have more stuff for themselves and their family. I asked you what if people wanted a luxury car, or two, or three and you just respond with "well they can get it for free, but I believe they won't because bread and water man". I poked holes at your fantasy and you can't defend it so stick to these attacks on me, pretty obvious.

If you had paid attention, you would know that when I made my posts, I assumed those problems would be fixed. Try to keep up. Bread and water is not why I believe people will not want the things they want today. Please re-read and try again.

 

Your attacks on what I've said on your thoughts all because you didn't say those exact words is dull and dishonest. I used words such as emotionless machines because that is what you put forward. That people will suddenly stop caring about luxury, success, and advancement aka they will become as if machines. You saying the exact words is not required, we can all see your meaning. I also know why you are putting forward these things. As a Communist you have been smart enough to realise that Communism is impossible if people aren't machines like that, so you dream of this fantasy where now that machines do the work that people will suddenly become like what is required for "True Communism".

I'm not a communist. If you have any desire for genuine discourse, you will accept this fact. Otherwise, I will be forced to assume you seek dishonesty. Nothing of what you say above is what I put forward, it's what you for some reason think I put forward based on your misconceptions. You are arguing against your own made up version of what I'm actually saying. Try again.

 

I assume the basic that has been seen throughout history, exists in the present, and is expected to be true for the future. Its a very safe bet. You assume instead that people will suddenly no longer care about luxury and success and become as I put it, machines. As for calling you a Communist I don't call you that to hurt you, I call you it because you are one even though I have seen you profess you aren't (so you can detach yourself from its killers and push "real Communism" of course).

 

I assume change breeds change. Also a very safe bet. As for my ideology, if you believe that I'm arguing these things because they are what I actually want, you're wrong. I don't necessarily want communism nor an automated society. I'm just exploring an argument, an idea. Nothing about this is representative of myself.

 

Sorry flower but you should look within yourself and why so many have commented on the style of your posts. You insult and talk down to others constantly but can't handle the Roz smacking your silly ideas down? Come now.

 

If you were actually smacking my "silly ideas down", I would agree with you. But that's not what you're doing. You're arguing against me based on your own misconceptions and engaging in ad hominem attacks. These things do not mean you're smacking my ideas down. Sorry flower.

[Rozalia]

If you had paid attention, you would know that when I made my posts, I assumed those problems would be fixed. Try to keep up. Bread and water is not why I believe people will not want the things they want today. Please re-read and try again.

 

I'm not a communist. If you have any desire for genuine discourse, you will accept this fact. Otherwise, I will be forced to assume you seek dishonesty. Nothing of what you say above is what I put forward, it's what you for some reason think I put forward based on your misconceptions. You are arguing against your own made up version of what I'm actually saying. Try again.

 

 

I assume change breeds change. Also a very safe bet. As for my ideology, if you believe that I'm arguing these things because they are what I actually want, you're wrong. I don't necessarily want communism nor an automated society. I'm just exploring an argument, an idea. Nothing about this is representative of myself.

 

 

If you were actually smacking my "silly ideas down", I would agree with you. But that's not what you're doing. You're arguing against me based on your own misconceptions and engaging in ad hominem attacks. These things do not mean you're smacking my ideas down. Sorry flower.

 

So as I said, you have no answer. You are relying on an outright impossibly of infinite money, resources, energy, and space. There really isn't a reason for anyone to debate you beyond that, you have failed hilariously at the first hurdle. If you answer talk of how will this come about with, "When we have infinite money, resources, energy, and space", then you have lost immediately.

 

If it looks like a Communist, swims like a Communist, and quacks like a Communist, then it probably is a Communist.

 

Look, if you can't handle my very light handed treatment with you then get out of the kitchen as they say. You have no problem bringing it to other people so I would expect you could handle it.

[Frederick]

If your greatest fear in the future is that we lose our connection with the land and the natural world around us, you would join me in anti-capitalism, because nothing does more to achieve that end than the exploitative system we live in today. I don't see technology as something that keeps us away from nature, I see it as something that will provide us with more time to experience nature. "High art", whatever your definition of that is, will most likely always exist as long as human beings exist. There's no need for injustice, exploitation and wage slavery for art to be realized. If you truly value nature as much as you do, you would know that many of your fellow human beings who felt the same way rejected the industrial revolution, felt it was the worst thing that ever happened to humanity, that it completely removed us from nature. They rejected the conditions we now find ourselves in. If you feel the same way, you would reject those conditions as well. Otherwise, you are just a pretender.

First off I would like you to define Capitalism in your terms.  It seems that many are divided on what Capitalism actually is.  Really, it should just mean the idea of private ownership and a non-over regulated economy which is something I agree with because it is certainly more morally right than the idea of a state-controlled economy where everyone lives in equal misery(communism).  However, others seem to put it as a cultural definition where "muh evil corporations" control everything and everything is based off of a consumer-society.  

 

To get things straight, I am opposed to a consumer-society, opposed to corporate monopolies, and opposed to communism.  I personally do not have much interest in amassing wealth yet it does not mean that I am going to start embracing Communism and come to the selfish conclusion that no one has a right to pursue their goals of economic success so that they can provide a better future for their children.  You paint Capitalism as pro-industrial revolution and anti-nature yet fail to see that the very ideology you espouse is actually a product of the very thing you so much oppose.  Communism and Capitalism are culturally two parts of the same coin and would both never have existed if not for the industrial revolution(we would still have feudalism).  They are both primarily economic systems which if put at the forefront would undermine the other vitally important aspects of our life such as culture, art, music, science, and philosophy.  While both are certainly not perfect, Capitalism at the very least provides incentive for success and achievement.  In a Capitalistic society, it is up to the consumer to be informed.  The misconception is that Capitalism inherently forces us to work only for profit and thus anything which does not sell is worthless.  While this is unfortunately true to a degree(perhaps the people-not the system-should be blamed), intelligent and informed consumers can ensure that only quality products are produced(this can extend to art, music, etc.).  On the contrary, a Communist society has no quality control because everything is fair game no matter how worthless and degenerate it is.  I do not consider myself a proud Capitalist nor do I at all consider it a perfect system, but I'd take it any day over Communism which has only the effect of degradation and lowering to the lowest common denominator; something that I believe should be avoided at all costs.      

Edited November 27, 2016 by Octavius

[Rozalia]

Okay me and Big Brother talked it out on Discord and I think we know each others positions now. We'll leave it at that.

 

Back to Machines replacing workers. I support that and think its something that needs to be talked about more as the sooner we do the better.

[Juan Julio Montague]

If you find my wording condescending, that is your problem, not mine. I care very little about such things. I'm direct and honest and I don't bother with niceties. My example is rudimentary, basic. I'm not giving people more options by removing options, I'm giving people options by giving people more time to choose and engage in their options. If you still cannot understand that, maybe you deserve condescension. Honestly, it seems to me that your entire argument is based on the assumption that for something to have purpose or meaning, it must be wanted or demanded by someone else. You are wrong to believe this. Maybe things appear this way to you but consider the fact that you are but one of billions. What you think may not be true for anyone else. I understand where you're coming from, I truly do. I just don't believe that people need any particular reason in order to provide meaning for themselves and I don't believe that humanity, in a society where the majority of humans don't need to spend so much of their time worrying about making ends meet, will have less options. It simply doesn't make any sense. If you have more time on your hands to do literally whatever it is that you believe your purpose is, you will have more options.

 

Lol, well aren't you something. So someone disagrees with you and it gives you the right to be rude back? That's a quick way to kill any form of discussion. "My example is rudimentary, basic." This guy is far to edgy for me, seriously if your point is "It's so simple clearly if you don't understand my clearly superior opinion then I must treat you like some kind of child." Get out of here with that man, I understand your point I just disagree with it on almost a fundamental level. Also your argument keeps on centering around look at all these options humanity will have I swears! Even that is broken. Already people struggle finding drive to commit to anything in today's society because arguably there are far to MANY options. Human's suffer a psychological effect where if you are forced into to many choices then they simply chose none of them. A society that expanded upon that would likely cause a lazier and lazier human population. Thus as already mentioned before killing any purpose those people would have in life.