← Back to context

Comment by llbbdd

13 hours ago

They're only an invention if you consider "seeking sustenance to live" not explicitly a job if there's no monthly direct deposit involved.

Is that true? In communities or tribes of antiquity I assume there was some trading fruits of different labours before coinage. Still an 'invention' beyond baser individual survivalism.

Indeed.

On the plus side, if there really is no value to labour, then farm work must have been fully automated along with all the other roles.

On the down side, rich elites have historically had a very hard time truly empathising with normal people and understanding their needs even when they care to attempt it, so it is very possible that a lot of people will starve in such a scenario despite the potential abundance of food.

  • It's either: 1) the rich voluntarily share the means of production so everyone becomes equal, 2) the poor stage successful revolutions so they gain access to the means of production and everyone becomes equal, 3) the poor starve or are otherwise eliminated, and the survivors will be equal.

    All roads lead to equality when the value of labour becomes 0 due to 100% automation.

    • There's plenty of outcomes besides those three.

      Over history, lots of underclasses have been stuck that way for multiple generations, even without the assistance of a robot workforce that can replace them economically.

      Some future rich class so empowered would be quite capable of treating the poor like most today treat pets. Fed and housed, but mostly neutered and the rest going through multiple generations of selective inbreeding for traits the owners deem interesting.

      2 replies →

    • If truly 100% automation (including infantry/police) the most likely scenario is not any if the above; most people will be kept on some kind of minimum sustenance enough to keep them from rebelling (“UBI”) and those who disagree will either be coopted into the elite or eliminated.

      2 replies →