From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 11:54:16 MST
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
>> ### You can have your cake and eat it, too, if you give guaranteed
>> survival but only those who prove they want it. Full-time work for
>> 1500kcal/day assures no mooches come but then no sane people die,
>> either.
>>
>>
>
> But what the heck is "work" when increasingly large groups of people
> have no skills that are not subsumed by or made irrelevant by
> accelerating technology?
### This is not quite true. I conceptualize the overall goal of the society
as maximization of my survival and welfare. This entails the need to
maximize resource utilization efficiency, to get maximum bang=minimum buck.
Since the subgoal subserved by the Poorhouse is the minimization of my risk
of dying in poverty in a lifeboat situation, the Poorhouse should provide
all that is needed for survival at the minimum possible cost, in the
unlikely case I might need such services. One of the methods for reducing
the cost of the Poorhouse program (important as long as I am doing well -
this is the buck part of the equation) is to ask the inmates to work, e.g.
clean the grounds, cook, provide gardening and maid services, etc. The work
requirement also reduces demand for this type of assistance, without
impairing its usefulness to me (if I am in trouble, I will use the Poorhouse
even if I need to work for it, this is the bang part of the equation). Of
course, once full automation is available, the relative cost of providing
survival assistance to non-reproducing un-enhanced sentients will be
essentially unaffected by their efforts. In that case, I could consider a
Poorhouse for free, especially for all who forgo reproduction and
life-extension.
Until then, however, failing to extract a price for survival assistance will
inevitably result in significant difficulties.
------
There is no need in advanced countries
> for everyone to be in full-time work of any conventional kind. I
> don't see where make-work to satisfy outdated prejudices improves
> anything or is particularly extropic. Personally, I believe a great
> deal of good could come from a society with such real material
> abundance that no one "works" except on that which they are truly
> interested in. Go into most major corporations and it already
> looks as if there is a lot of pointless make-work going on.
### Once we get there (real material abundance), the un-enhanced humans will
be so unimportant that a single extrosattva might be able to cater to all
their basic material needs out of his pocket money. Presumably, I will have
little interest in the lives of Luddites, if I make it to this glorious
future. Until then, all I am personally willing to pay for is the Poorhouse.
------
>
> An abundant society offers a heritage of a lot more than merely food
> and shelter. But I don't believe this should come from government
> fiat either.
### No government fiat - full agreement here. And of course, once I am rich
I could give more than food and shelter to the non-productive ones, in
moments of magnanimity.
-------
>
> I would have a serious problem with those who would let people die of
> hunger in the middle of abundance just because they did not satisfy
> some group of people's scarcity based prejudices.
>
### Imagine somebody knocks at your door and says he's hungry and wants your
money. You offer him a lunch, if he mows you lawn. He says no, I won't work!
(beep) (beep)! Gimme the cash, or I'll starve.
Would you answer "(beep) you!", as I would, or would you just meekly hand
over the cash?
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:09 MST