What does society owe those who are “unwilling to work”

[Monster Hunter]

No they don't, they're behavioral traits, they only work with the rest of your behavior that you've learned from your influences. They're not independent of that.



I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here, could you rephrase this please?



No, it's both and the origin was from the old days when we still lived in the wild and had hunter-gatherer/nomadic lifestyles. Society today was dragged from those days and forced to work with a technologically advanced civilization, of course there'd be problems. It's like dropping a caveman in the middle of 2019 Times Square and expecting him to be able to cope and function in that world.



You misunderstand, they're always there but passively.



But where does the violent response come from? WHY would there be a violent response in the first place when there's absolutely no situation that calls for it? It's illogical and sounds like a mental disorder rather than a genetic trait. Think about this logically.



Debunked, how? I'm very skeptical because I know it was debunked using parameters considered normal by our SOCIETY and not independent of any bias that the people may have had back then. Again, this brings us back to my experiment proposal, nobody has ever tried to prove it or disprove it so why are we writing this off again?



Didn't I explain to you a few posts ago that the one difference between us and other animals is that we have the ability to recognize these things and have the potential to learn how to dodge them completely so they don't hinder us?

Like I said it's crap science by your example you say we have the ability to over rule that genetic knowledge with intellect but without knowing it was bad and thus informing the test subject of it, we wouldn't know to over rule it.

Like I said its impossible to over rule our nature Completly. For this very reason. To counter it we need to understand it, to understand it. So even if your theory is correct it's crap.

But your theory isn't correct. Because our genetic knowledge gives you an instinctual understanding of certain concepts from child hood. Notice how no children question why they fight, when they compete?they are driven to play and that play always takes the same forms and always has since we were monkeys. Play for human children is the same function as play for cubs of animals. So what are you going to do? Tie them down and stop them playing?

This has to be the biggest bag of psudo science crap I've seen on this site tbh, not only are you ignoring the entire field of behavioural science and genetic science, years and years of accumulated knowledge on traits and inherited information, ignoring the clear evidence in nature of how basic understanding of servival traits are passed down from generation to generation.

This is one of those clear cases where you don't like what science has found and want to test it to meet your agenda.

There's a good reason people ignored you the first time, your full of crap. I just couldn't help but bite at the nievity of your knowledge on homosapian sapians.

Humans are perfect and born as blank slates lol, I though we left that crap back in the 50s

[G3 Ghost]

I don't think it's the "right one", I think it's necessary, that without it, we would otherwise go extinct or eventually come to experience an event that would cause us to revert back to our earlier stages of civilization, or even before that.

The "uneducated, uninspired, unmotivated wastes of oxygen" were also influenced to be how they are from society. That's the thing, you still don't understand that one simple fact. My whole point is; change society and you will change the mindset of an entire species. Now what's even better is if we changed it so it would adapt our mindset to the level of technology we have so we can advance as a civilization quickly.

Again, jobs are things for machines, not humans. We're not machines, we're humans who are meant to create, innovate and explore. And the only way to create humans who do that is to change or create a new society that will raise them as such, which this society has repeatedly failed to do so. You don't contribute to anything when you work your jobs or when you pay your taxes, you just make things worse. You just reinforce the idea of currency, culture, government and religion, you reinforce that this is how things are meant to be and so you just spin the vicious circle our species are stuck in.

Let me ask you, what will happen when all jobs are inevitably fully automated? Not just self-performing but also self-repairing, self-replicating and otherwise fully capable of functioning without any human input? And this machine has replaced all jobs possible? All these people who've been raised from birth to focus on a career, money, status and power? What will they do in a world like this? They'd be aimless, clueless and likely very angry. It's a future that's coming for us all, threads and debates like this one will become very frequent in the next few decades.

The era of humans slaving away in labor is coming to an end, which makes questions like the OP asked pointless and irrelevant. The real question we should be asking is "how can we prepare for this inevitable future and what will it mean for our civilization?"

I do understand that the entire thing is cyclical in nature. Nature begets society begets nature.

Humans are indeed meant to work as dictated by the confines of the reality in which we live.

Should all processes become automated (including the design, repair and preventative maintenance of said automation), then I would hold hope that our species would thrive in a utopia of conclaves dedicated to erudite and philosophical proclivities.

The real and stinging truth of it though is that if one human has more, another human will want that for themselves. If we were dropped into that utopia from birth where everyone is taught that we are all equal and all should earn and thrive with the same starting position, then yes, your vision would have merit.

Human nature is malleable, it adapts. We are not on that threshold where we would be able to make a new society, though. We are bound by the confines of what we must do to thrive as individuals and what we must do to ensure that generations we produce have the same work to wealth mentality.

What you propose is not changing society to fit a new normal of financial equality, what you propose is actually changing thousands of years of human nature adaptation. It won't happen, not in our lifetimes or in the lifetimes of our offspring.

The only real preparation we can do, individually, is make sure we stay in productive fields to support whatever infrastructure this "new dawn" of automation will be. Or, become uneducated, uninspired, unmotivated wastes of oxygen.

[infinitemeridian]

What's the value of forcing people to work in the year of our lord when we don't need them to? They can pursue whatever they want on their own free time. This is only going to get be compounded more into the future.

Studies show that people don't get lazy when they don't work - they find areas to devote their time to. And even if they are lazy...so what? Nobody gets "meaning" or "value" from working at McDonalds, hell, 90% of people don't get that from their 9-5s either.

[G3 Ghost]

What's the value of forcing people to work in the year of our lord when we don't need them to? They can pursue whatever they want on their own free time. This is only going to get be compounded more into the future.

Studies show that people don't get lazy when they don't work - they find areas to devote their time to. And even if they are lazy...so what? Nobody gets "meaning" or "value" from working at McDonalds, hell, 90% of people don't get that from their 9-5s either.

This debate isnt about forcing people to work. It is about not supporting those who actively make the decision to not contribute.

This contribution does not have to be financial, thus removing homemakers and those who have contributed previously but find themselves no longer able to do so from the equation.

[Spectral]

Well this may not be a popular opinion but I think society should give them the option to be medical test subjects in various disciplines. Science always short of bodies for various testing and observations and they really don't have to be doing anything to be of use to society.

FWIW, the NIH has a page where you can search ongoing clinical trials (link with the word "healthy" searched). I don't have data on specifics, but they do pay people to participate in things like vaccine trials and such. It's pretty heavily regulated, so probably doesn't rise to the level you're thinking of (and obviously the government doesn't pay what a company close to a marketable treatment might).

[Ubermensch]

by your example you say we have the ability to over rule that genetic knowledge with intellect but without knowing it was bad and thus informing the test subject of it, we wouldn't know to over rule it.

I think that this idea is confusing you so badly that you're getting things mixed up here. They would simply just follow what they DO know and not do what they don't know.

So even if your theory is correct it's crap.

I'm not even going to offer a proper response to any of that.

So what are you going to do? Tie them down and stop them playing?

Create a society sterile of conflict and competition and raise them from birth in that society. That's what I'm going to do.

not only are you ignoring the entire field of behavioural science and genetic science, years and years of accumulated knowledge on traits and inherited information, ignoring the clear evidence in nature of how basic understanding of servival traits are passed down from generation to generation.

Science based on what exactly? How humans behave in this society? Just goes to prove my point, we haven't tried anything new or outside the box at all. We are arrogant in assuming that we know everything there is about human nature and that there's nothing more to add in the footnotes of our books.

This is one of those clear cases where you don't like what science has found and want to test it to meet your agenda.

I used to be like you, I used to accept that this was the reality of our world, until I began reading and thinking. And I've found that a lot of our science, especially social science and psychological science is extremely biased on what we know of this society. They've never tried to expand beyond how humans behave outside of this society and they likely don't want to because, like you, they consider it nonsense and "pseudo-science". Do you want to know what that is? That is both ignorance and arrogance, which is a horrid combination.

There's a good reason people ignored you the first time, your full of crap. I just couldn't help but bite at the nievity of your knowledge on homosapian sapians.

You've been insulting me, belittling me and trying to discredit me with an extremely limited understanding of this subject this entire time, does this help the discussion? I don't think it does. I feel like you need to start studying people more, start reading history and actually trace the genesis of the events back to where they came from, their sources. But do it with an open mind, try to see how simple things really are, stop thinking from inside the box. All you're doing is constricting yourself by doing that, by appealing to authority, all you're doing is dulling your mind by not looking outside and questioning things. Perhaps you feel that it's safe to live your life like this, that's why you do it, I don't know.

I know for certain that nobody has actually tried what I'm proposing, it's never been done before or explored, it's a completely new idea that nobody wants to talk about because they feel it'll complicate things further. That and a touch of ignorance and arrogance as well to solidify their resolve that human nature is inevitable and that there's nothing we can do about it.

- - - Updated - - -

Should all processes become automated (including the design, repair and preventative maintenance of said automation), then I would hold hope that our species would thrive in a utopia of conclaves dedicated to erudite and philosophical proclivities.

Then you agree with me that this is the necessary approach to our future as a civilization.

The real and stinging truth of it though is that if one human has more, another human will want that for themselves. If we were dropped into that utopia from birth where everyone is taught that we are all equal and all should earn and thrive with the same starting position, then yes, your vision would have merit.

That is EXACTLY what I am proposing with my theory. To raise newborns under that society, that has no competition or conflict and to direct them towards science, specifically space exploration. Although a lot more complex than what we're discussing here, that's the general idea.

What you propose is not changing society to fit a new normal of financial equality, what you propose is actually changing thousands of years of human nature adaptation. It won't happen, not in our lifetimes or in the lifetimes of our offspring.

The only real preparation we can do, individually, is make sure we stay in productive fields to support whatever infrastructure this "new dawn" of automation will be. Or, become uneducated, uninspired, unmotivated wastes of oxygen.

You're right, it won't happen in our lifetimes nor in the lifetimes of our offspring. It won't be possible to pull this off for another 500 years, until we attain the technology to create a post-scarcity civilization, it won't be possible. But what we can do about this is begin all necessary preparations now, revamp education programs, direct our focus on knowledge, especially science and start our ascent to that stage by getting our species on board with the idea by the time that day comes. It'd be a long and strenuous process but a very necessary process if we're to advance any further without destroying ourselves in some way or plateauing and stagnating.

[Azadina]

I'd think that the best approach to people that are so anti-social that they become violent if they don't receive a free stream of income is to simply exile them. We don't have a mechanism for that at the moment, but in principle, there's simply no place for such individuals in a society.

Sure, but until you have that up and running, the best way to exile them is let them do that themselves. And they do, as long as they receive just enough to exist on.

[Howel]

Nothing, really. But it is often a greater cost to leave them to their own, so usually you will have to find some kind of way of insuring that doesn't happen.

[Jinpachi]

Are you actually mocking the idea of better working conditions, work security and living wages? Wow. That's, uh... wow.

Get the fuck out of here. Unless you're working in a fucking third world country working conditions are fine. It's mostly lazy asses who want to be catered to who are doing the bulk of the bitching. Work security? If the workers are doing a good job then the whole company prospers. Living wages? Don't live beyond your means. Don't like the company you're working for? Go get another job, nobody is stopping you. THAT is your option. Stop trying to make your employer bend to your will.

[Cracked]

Sounds like the purge. I hope you aren't in favor of the idea of removing the unwanted?

I'm not advocating for any of it, but that's what all empirical evidence suggests that hard socialism/communism leads to in the end.

[Ubermensch]

Ever considered the idea that humans are not meant to perform a machine's job? Ever considered the idea that we should be focused on knowledge, especially in science? That we should be creating, innovating and exploring our universe? Rather than work meaningless hours just to stay alive and so certain people can feel good about their income/status/wealth?

Why does everybody care so much about jobs in this thread? Have they forgotten what they're really for? They're just so you can have basic necessities but then like humans always do, you guys take it one step too far and begin worshiping the idea of jobs and attack those that don't want to waste their life doing the job of a machine. It's like this is your whole life, everything in your life has accumulated to this one point where you are so dedicated to being a wage slave that you've actually begun to attack those that don't care or don't want anything to do with it.

Come back to reality, we are humans, we should not perform the role of a machine. Remember why it is that you really have a career, to feed yourself and keep yourself alive. There is no grander purpose and what you pay in your taxes does absolutely nothing to solve anything and just makes things worse because currency is one of the four sources of all conflict and competition in society. Those that work in the extreme minority fields that ACTUALLY help humanity like space exploration consist of such a tiny minority of humans that it should put us to shame.

Some people in here have this savior complex where they think that paying their taxes is going to solve everything and that it makes them some benevolent person that "contributes" to his species. No, you just contribute to your countries, which might I remind you, were just lines drawn in the sand by a bunch of children on a playground and we're still nowhere close to working together as a species. And that contribution, like I said, just makes things worse.

People are no less if they don't pay taxes or work in your slave force, don't buy into this tribalism nonsense and think that you're a better person or that you're doing something to help by going to your mandatory jobs so you can get enough money to survive. You're expendable, you're meaningless and anybody is replaceable in the eyes of a corporation. What a life you people lead.

[Vash The Stampede]

I'm not advocating for any of it, but that's what all empirical evidence suggests that hard socialism/communism leads to in the end.

The movie Purge is based on what happens when capitalism doesn't have a healthy democracy to keep it in check. The wealthy gain all the power and declare a day where anyone can kill anyone, which mostly makes the rich immune since they can afford the best defense for that day. Kill off all the welfare leeches without having to lift a finger doing it.

Capitalism, socialism, and communism all don't matter so long as there's a healthy democracy. To be honest I don't know what communism is since it's described as a method of economic and social rule, but the Chinese who we describe as communist are just a shitty capitalism with a dictator. USSR was a shitty democracy with socialism for an economy.

[PosPosPos]

Nothing, but note the ones who whinge the loudest about leeches are generally the biggest leeches themselves.