There's no law of nature saying that a human must work 40 hours per week or starve.
The current dependence on work is a consequence, not a goal.
Working on replacing human jobs with robots has two concrete outcomes, 1) impacting people’s ability to have jobs that pay bills and often create a meaning their lives and 2) concentrating wealth in technological elites (who run those robots), and a theoretical outcome of 3) helping humanity in some way.
If we are acting in good will, we should dedicate effort to addressing the concrete impact (1) at least as much as to working on (3). Most of us are or are adjacent to tech elites and benefit from (2), which means we are individually incentivized to not care about (1), so it requires reiterating every now and then. If we are purely thinking of (3), we are not much better than dictators and their henchmen that caused famines and other catastrophes justifying it with some sort of long-term utilitarian calculus.
This is a man-made reality though, and we have as much power to change it as we did to create it.
> Deriving satisfaction from being a useful member of society and social ties is part of human psychological nature.
I can't get behind this idea that "work" is the only way that a person can feel like a useful member of society. This is just the result of our (man-made) programming that makes it seem like the only way. We've essentially been brainwashed into accepting the backwards idea that we need work even if work doesn't need us.
> If we are acting in good will, we should dedicate effort to addressing the concrete impact
I agree, but i don't think the right answer is to stop the tech and keep digging holes and filling them in just to get a paycheck. The solution is to fix the humans. Unfortunately our government is trash so yeah we're probably screwed unless we first figure out how to get govt to actually represent the people. Andrew Yang is the only politician-adjacent I've seen take this conversation seriously.
Does it really need to be stated that “some technology would not be harmful if only the reality in which the technology was used was different”? The challenge is that reality is what it is, and even if we have a degree of control over some aspects of reality we are not at all trying to change it.
If we were the people in charge of job-subsuming robots, and we acted in good faith and common interest, we would be dedicating at least as much resources to changing that reality (in a peaceful, non-violent way) as to introducing a technology that harms a lot of people (even if we get paid for working on that technology).
> I can't get behind this idea that "work" is the only way that a person can feel like a useful member of society. This is just the result of our (man-made) programming that makes it seem like the only way. We've essentially been brainwashed into accepting the backwards idea that we need work even if work doesn't need us.
Even if what you said was true, this is a reality and for robots taking jobs to not be harmful this has to not be a reality. Are we dedicating resources to working on making that not a reality?
However, I don’t even believe this is true. Humans are inherently social. Self-awareness requires other people to exist (“self” cannot be defined without “other”); you can’t become a human without other humans because you need to be surrounded by others for something that we call “consciousness” to develop in you. We are much more ants in an anthill than solitary individuals occasionally in touch with others that we like to imagine ourselves as. For as long as humans existed, we depended on each other, and being in the void, unneeded, is subconsciously a death sentence.
There are the lucky few who find themselves needed by others without much effort, but work is a mechanism that makes the rest of us feel needed. Sure, some work isn’t the best for that, but a lot of work is, be it cancer research or opening doors for people entering a shopping mall.
> I agree, but i don't think the right answer is to stop the tech and keep digging holes and filling them in just to get a paycheck.
False dichotomy. The tech does not need to be stopped and has plenty of very useful applications outside of digging holes (e.g., cancer research mentioned by the other commenter). However, if you have XX% of population digging holes, firing them without any concern is an absolutely bad move, regardless of how good your hole-digging robots are. If you do that, all you are doing is a wealth transfer from people digging holes to people running hole-digging robots. (Remember, people digging holes also participated in the economy, paying their local butcher and baker who in turn could pay their bills, etc.)
> The solution is to fix the humans. Unfortunately our government is trash so yeah we're probably screwed unless we first figure out how to get govt to actually represent the people.
We can work on robots replacing everybody’s jobs: robotics is very challenging, but we found a way. However, to work on making a reality where everybody’s jobs are taken by robots a tenable reality? No way sir, it is way too challenging for our small brains.
