Is it possible to have a world full of neets with electricity, food and water?

Is it possible to have a world full of neets with electricity, food and water?

Other urls found in this thread:

podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/radiolab/radiolab111408.mp3
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Machines

>& Humanities

But why would you want to slave your life away so Goldberg can afford another child slave mansion?

working for a living is not quite what you think it is

I know but they take resources and maintenance too dont they? Who and for what reason will want to do it?

the machines build machines to maintain the machines

But 90% of the jobs are up because of pure consumerism. And you can make food by yourself( gmo would work even better but its shady who controls it).

Kek, if it only worked that way.

one day it will

Physically possible? Of course. We could create a self-sustaining automation capable of operating with maybe 1% of the available labor force, if we really put our minds to it.

Socially possible, probably not. Some groups will always want more, and the excess we currently have, that allows for NEETS at all, depends on that fact. The safety net only exists, inasmuch as it does, because it is for the exception and the retired, and not the majority.

Granted, as your population shrinks, and becomes top-heavy age-wise, that starts to become a problem.

normalfags aren't cut out for the neet life they'd all work for free in droves if only for human interaction and societal pressure

>1% of the available labor force
Yeah but what excuse are you going to make for it? Why would they not be neets as well?
>Some groups will always want more, and the excess we currently have, that allows for NEETS at all, depends on that fact.
What if people get only the things that matter (carefully designed food to get your vitamins/proteins etc./ enough water).

I'm aware of that but they are just a really small %. Even normies these days don't want to work.

>Yeah but what excuse are you going to make for it? Why would they not be neets as well?
That's the problem - it'd be physically possible, if we were all robots dedicated towards that task and had no say in the matter. Add things like ambition, resentment, and jealousy into the mix, and the idea of a society made up of such individuals dedicating itself to the task becomes untenable.

At the same time, it's those same the tribalistic factors that allows society to exists in the first place.

>What if people get only the things that matter (carefully designed food to get your vitamins/proteins etc./ enough water).
What is and isn't considered critical to human life will expand as the society's capability does. Free housing, medical care, internet access, sex changes, whatever this week's "human right" is... The demands of the non-producing sector will continue to expand, and the burden on the producing sector will rise, as, in turn, will resentment of said and unwillingness to cooperate.

Which is the boat we find ourselves in now, with various nations providing various degrees of welfare, and various popular political organizations calling for increased austerity, even in cases where it's at odds with economic logic.

>Some groups will always want more
You know neets don't get a limitless credit card and billions of dollars of free stuff right? They survive off of however much welfarebucks and money they can sponge off of family. So your argument is retarded.

>untenable
I don't think so. You don't need anything that special. If anything it will become easier since humans will waste so many less resources both in food/ water / energy.
>What is and isn't considered critical to human life will expand as the society's capability does
Nope, only the most important things are free(food/water/electricity(with internet being in it since it would be crucial for knowledge which is the reason for neetism).
>free housing
That could be solved easily there are a lot of people who own more than one house/pointlessly big houses.
>medical care
This is something I don't know about, but other than people who are have genetic diseases (really low %) people would be extremely healthy since they will actually eat the healthiest foods.
>sex changes
I count this as meaningless degeneracy so no, its actually a opposition to civilization.
>Which is the boat we find ourselves in now, with various nations providing various degrees of welfare, and various popular political organizations calling for increased austerity, even in cases where it's at odds with economic logic.
Nope, these are self made problems.

And it takes two incomes just to keep a family a bare minimum now. Only the more successful families can afford to maintain a neet, the vast majority of which are also state subsidized though any number of programs.

Automation and globalization are rapidly eating away at the value of labor. Wages are going down as are benefits. As that continues, the average family's ability to support non-producers will diminish, and the cost to the state will increase, and society, in turn, will be less and less interested in supporting non-producing citizens, and thus political movements aimed at reducing such programs accelerate. This in turn is doubled down on as corporate influence over law becomes ever more prevalent, and the corporate powers are dismayed at the fact non-productive citizens are also minimalist consumers.

>That could be solved easily there are a lot of people who own more than one house/pointlessly big houses.
Which only a fraction of the populous owns, and only because either they or their immediate relatives were excessive producers.

>I count this as meaningless degeneracy so no, its actually a opposition to civilization.
That's nice, but others will disagree and advocate for programs to subsidize such things (and such programs already exist). And, in any case, having non-productive citizens is even more directly in opposition to civilization.

>Nope, these are self made problems.
Everything we are discussing is a self-made problem.

>excessive producers.
Of consumerist products, which is even a bigger reason to do so.
>That's nice, but others will disagree and advocate for programs to subsidize such things (and such programs already exist).
There won't be any currency and as I said already in a world like that there would be no pointless hedonism.
>having non-productive
In what sense? All people would be extremely educated without any biases. It will finally unleash the human potential.
>Everything we are discussing is a self-made problem.
But their views will not work in a civ base on logic.

>in a world like that there would be no pointless hedonism
The only world with no pointless hedonism is one without people.

...and the current civilization, believe it or not, is based on logic. Yes, emotion enters into it, but logically, it has to, as the civilization is made up of emotional beings. The various mechanisms that allow society to function depend on that fact. The excess of resources we have is produced by that model. This model wasn't forced upon us suddenly by some alien force, it came about naturally and organically, as a result of mutual and competing interests.

I mean, yeah, you can dream of some Venus Project style wonderland, but unlike this civilization, it'd pretty much have to be laid down upon by god-like forces. It'd also have to be done so globally, and all at once, as no such society could compete against the ambition driven societies, and even if it ever managed to, would be seen as a threat to their existence, and thus swiftly eliminated if it ever grew beyond a few tolerated communes and the like. Even if you managed all that, in all likelihood, the fundamental forces that drive this society, would destroy that one, internally.

So again, while we're physically capable of building such a society, it cannot naturally evolve as the motivations are not there. People with excesses of property aren't opening their homes to the homeless, and if they were forced to, there would shortly be no such excess property. That applies all the way down the line to free food - the producers are only willing to give so much to quell those that sink in a sink or swim society. We may be, effectively, in a post-scarcity society, but the mechanisms that provide that, require shortages, both real and artificial.

Now if you have some grand plan on how to get from A to B that doesn't involve CRISPR'ing the humanity out of humanity, I'd love to hear it, but that's the catch-22 you're dealing with. What makes this possible, makes that impossible.

>The only world with no pointless hedonism is one without people.
Its is possible completely and its actually the next step of evolution even if it sounds cliche. Just look at countries like china, its just they have really really primitive value.
>emotional beings
Its not about emotion(since empathy is the most important one) its about values and since people back then were more primitive because the life back then was simpler its normal that they had completely wrong views.
>The various mechanisms that allow society to function depend on that fact
But thats not true and every civilization last as long as there is no mindless hedonism.
>People with excesses of property aren't opening their homes to the homeless, and if they were forced to, there would shortly be no such excess property
There are more than enough free homes to do so and there has to be done ethnic deportation(where they will still live in such a world just different country) anyway so the country population doesn't become pointlessly big and there will obviously be birth control. And this is all of course without counting immortality, singularity and other "magical" technology. Its all about having a minimal property in which you can have ais who will do gmo, water, and electricity while maintaining them from time to time.
The biggest problem is not social but doing the technology itself.
>CRISPR'ing the humanity out of humanity, I'd love to hear it,
Well if everyone follows the laws of logic thats it.

who is that qt on the left?

>There's no mindless hedonism in China.
You wut m8?

>every civilization last as long as there is no mindless hedonism.
Again, you wut m8? How are you even on a history board?

Mindless hedonism has been a driving force behind all lasting civilizations. I mean, you can argue it goes overboard at a certain point, but it's a key factor to every economy of any real size and duration.

>The biggest problem is not social but doing the technology itself.
No, the tech is there - it'd have to be applied rather dramatically differently, but all the fundamentals are there. The primary problem really is a social one - or more so - a biological one. The same social mechanisms that make this level of civilization possible, form an insurmountable wall between it and any proposed majority neet utopia.

>There are more than enough free homes to do so and there has to be done ethnic deportation(where they will still live in such a world just different country) anyway so the country population doesn't become pointlessly big and there will obviously be birth control.
Population depletion creates resource shortages, which is why we're importing all those people to begin with. If your population is shrinking, you become increasingly less relevant on the world trade stage, while your non-producing elderly population outnumbers your younger producing class population, burding it ever more, and putting you in perpetual recession.

>Well if everyone follows the laws of logic thats it.
Logic and emotional drives are much more fundamentally inseparable than we like to think:
podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/radiolab/radiolab111408.mp3 (Skip to 22mins)
Axioms are ultimately emotional. You can select the most logical path to a goal, but you cannot even select a goal, or make choices beyond your ability to immediately weigh all consequences, by logic alone. Separating emotion from logic just leaves you with useless unmotivated lumps of flesh.

>Well if everyone follows the laws of logic thats it.
Everyone is already following the logic of necessity in their daily lives, as well as in their politics. They may be largely misinformed or mistaken, and a lot of them disagree, but there is a logic and reason used to form their conclusions, be the "illogical" belief in the supernatural be involved or not. This is why, for instance, large swaths of people aren't interested in giving up their resources to fund NEETs, and a good number of them would rather just have them exterminated. Simple, cold, logic.

Considering most of them spend their lifes in sweatshops and their culture and laws are clearly in favor of production. You can see for yourself how insane some of their laws are. Of course there is hedonism even then( I should probably said north korea for a more accurate country) but its a minimal and only the really rich people can indulge in it as much as they want.
>Again, you wut m8? How are you even on a history board?
Meanwhile in the west people are doing whatever feels right and even destroying themselves permanently just because it feels right to be the other genre or whatever and thats only possible in a mindlessly hedonistic country. What will happen when the country is full of them? There is a difference between hedonism and mindless hedonism. For moral decay just look at Rome.
>Population depletion creates resource shortages, which is why we're importing all those people to begin with.
That's for political reasons as all the capitalists just outsource in 3rd world countries because the only immigrants that work in 1st world countries extremely rarely do manual labor others are mostly in welfare.
>Logic and emotional drives are much more fundamentally inseparable than we like to think:
Thats why I said its about focus not emotions or anything itself. If people change their values but keep the drive as in understanding right from wrong (look at indian sects or finland and just cultures in general) it is completely possible.
They follow only instincts.

Yes, we'll have robot slaves

>They follow only instincts.
If they only followed instincts, they'd be eating their babies and flinging shit at each other.

Society at large maybe a complex weave arising from the core social instinct of empathy, but there's a whole lotta solid reasoning behind that logic, and if anything, "kill all the neets" is abandoning the instinct of empathy for the logic of practicality.

>I should probably said north korea for a more accurate country
(Pointing to Best Korea as a positive example of anything.) Due to the bamboo wall, it's hard to tell what's going on in there, but I'll bet you dollars to donuts even the destitute citizens of the DPRK entertain the fuck out of themselves in a myriad of unproductive ways.

>For moral decay just look at Rome.
One of the largest and longest lasting civilization has ever laid witness to, largely because they were needlessly greedy and ambitious fucks, and not neets, much like every similar empire. If anything, one could argue neet-hood becoming common among the nobility lead to the decay, but it certainly didn't fall from "moral decay" alone.

>That's for political reasons as all the capitalists just outsource in 3rd world countries because the only immigrants that work in 1st world countries extremely rarely do manual labor others are mostly in welfare.
That's not a political reason - that's an ECONOMIC reason. Cold hard logic - the resource of labor is cheaper abroad, and when imported, is still cheaper than the yocals, who demand more and are dwindling in number, while technological advancement only makes it increasingly easier to export jobs. Fighting it, is a political stance, but eventually, necessity wins out over desire.

>they'd be eating their babies and flinging shit at each other.
Not really since instincts are animalistic and animals care about their peers to some extent. And then just because you think doesn't mean that you use logical reasoning.
>destitute citizens of the DPRK entertain the fuck out of themselves in a myriad of unproductive ways.
Of course people should entertain themselves because its unproductive to do something all the time but like I said there is a difference between hedonism and a hedonistic lifestyle to say it simpler.
>needlessly greedy and ambitious fucks.If anything, one could argue neet-hood becoming common among the nobility lead to the decay, but
You still don't understand what I mean with neet. I don't meant it as comfortable living doing nothing all day and just being lazy. I mean it as a society which focuses on actually being productive and educating themselves, the world itself would become a big university.
>, is still cheaper than the yocals, who demand more and are dwindling in number, while technological advancement only makes it increasingly easier to export jobs
Its cheaper but at lower quality and is a really really short term move which ends in more damage for them since the population starts revolting because they are greedy assholes who could still make decent money but don't want to. And anyway if make the tech you solve this "problem" anyway.

It's all well and good to imagine that, left to their own devices, all humans will become great thinkers and learners, but there's been plenty of periods of plenty throughout history, and such men have always been the exception, not the rule, regardless of the excess of resources available.

Men like Plato and Aristotle rose to prominence because greedier and more ambitious and warlike men claimed enough lands and stability to produce them, but not every Athenian highborne citizen became such paragons of virtue and intellect, simply because the opportunity was provided. Far more became peons in all but name, lazy aristocrats, or worse. In much the same way, when one thinks of "NEETS" today, one thinks of otaku who masterbate in their mother's basements while playing video games and posting endless meaningless debates on message boards.

*cough* That said, you not only need to provide a viable social model for those with power to surrender that in some effort to give such opportunities to the masses - indeed, most of those in the developed world already have said. You also need to create a social mechanism through which to motivate the masses to better themselves. Left to their own devices, independently wealthy individuals not of their own making tend to rot more often than not.

Technology alone never resolves the issue, as the motivation to use that technology rests solely on it being profitable for the propagators of said to do so, otherwise the situation you so desire would have arisen nearly a century ago, if not before. Creation and use of said requires motivation, and, once basic needs are resolved, power is the sole motivation. The need to feed that hedonism you complain about, that in turn evolves into ever greater depths and complexity as more power is obtained. This is among the reasons why so much of the employment today is ultimately meaningless or redundant, yet still exists long after basic needs are fulfilled: the desire for social status.

>but there's been plenty of periods of plenty throughout history, and such men have always been the exception, not the rule, regardless of the excess of resources available.
Now they will have no other choice and people are actually more self aware nowadays.
>Far more became peons in all but name, lazy aristocrats, or worse.
Well its obvious that not everybody will have the same potential but everyone will be trying their best.
>with power to surrender that in some effort to give such opportunities to the masses
They will have no other choice but to surrender.
>You also need to create a social mechanism through which to motivate the masses to better themselves. Left to their own devices, independently wealthy individuals not of their own making tend to rot more often than not.
>You also need to create a social mechanism through which to motivate the masses to better themselves.
In a society like this you will have no other option but to do it and most of the people are waiting for something like this anyway. It would be like a competition itself. It won't be anarhism after all.
>
Technology alone never resolves the issue, as the motivation to use that technology rests solely on it being profitable for the propagators of said to do so, otherwise the situation you so desire would have arisen nearly a century ago, if not before.
Like I said the times were different an people had different views back then. You can barely compare people from just 20 ago to people now on their values.
>The need to feed that hedonism you complain about, that in turn evolves into ever greater depths and complexity as more power is obtained.
Well their drive would be knowledge.
>the desire for social status
That would be seen as meaningless in such society.

>[the drive for social status] would be seen as meaningless in such society.
Not so long as they are human. An excess of resources, even having every last thing you could ever desire provided for you, does not put an end to social drives. Just take a look at any high class school and just how vicious debutants can be. The core tribalism that is essential to human nature is the core mechanism that makes civilization possible, where divisions do not exist, they will be created, be they religious, ethnic, political, philosophical, football teams, hair styles, or favorite waifus.

As for the rest, that's all well and good, but provides no motivation other than "it must be cuz I say so". Power doesn't magically disperse, and when it does disperse, it merely creates a vacuum for a new structure to emulate the crimes of the previous under new guises. Few people seek to better themselves with no motive to do so and knowledge drives fewer still. Your road relies upon one impossible social change after another, ignoring all practical motivation in the name of idealisms, in addition to ignoring the unimaginable amounts of blood entailed by the very phrase, "They will have no other choice but to surrender." They have every choice, and no motivation to do so. Even if made to do so by force, it may very well just repeat the cycle.

Any path to utopia not sent down from the gods themselves must be blazed by the hands of man, and must take those hands into account, as well as the history and drives behind them. Countless thousands of years of social strife and evolution gave rise to the current era, and all the benefits and evils there of, were birthed by those core motivators coming into conflict in a myriad of ways, forming a fractal tree beyond any simple comprehension, rule, or ideal.

I'm not saying change can't happen. Change will happen, as it always does, but any change that takes place will be built by those processes which came before and cannot ignore them.

>Not so long as they are human. An excess of resources, even having every last thing you could ever desire provided for you, does not put an end to social drives. Just take a look at any high class school and just how vicious debutants can be. The core tribalism that is essential to human nature is the core mechanism that makes civilization possible, where divisions do not exist, they will be created, be they religious, ethnic, political, philosophical, football teams, hair styles, or favorite waifus.
But in a society like this you won't have any need to do extremities since people will be pretty much equal and to really want to compete you will just have to make something great which is by itself a good competition.
> "it must be cuz I say so"
Its not because I say so but because they will have no logical excuses.
>blood entailed by the very phrase, "They will have no other choice but to surrender."
Considering they themselves are the one enslaving people and having no remorse about their fellow men, is it?
>evolution
All the evolution is technology one as people didn't change at all till recently. But technology and knowledge will change people because it gives them will.

Equality is as illusory as it is temporary. As with the debutants, any group of humans, regardless of how equal, even, I suspect, a group of clones, will form a pecking order, a hierarchy. Hierarchy and these same bonds again, being key to what makes civilization possible. Again, even when no such divisions exist, they inevitably create them.

...and pretty much everyone who has risen to such a level of inequality that they would attempt to enforce their ideal of equality upon the masses, can been counted among the greatest murderers of all time.

>to compete you will just have to make something great
Making something great, for power. The greatest weapon, the greatest nuclear device, the greatest mind control method. As groups rally behind these great individuals, your equality is going to go out the window right-quick, such has been the case with every other "great creation" in history.

>Considering they themselves are the one enslaving people and having no remorse about their fellow men, is it?
They rarely look at it that way, and somewhat less rarely do those who slave under them, so long as they are provided with a common enemy or someone to look down upon. The powers that be simply see what's good for them and theirs as good for the nation or humanity, and that those beneath them are merely in need of a "guiding hand" to see the inevitable "truth" of their "logic" - which I hope should be sounding familiar by this point.

>technology and knowledge will change people because it gives them will.
Technology and knowledge don't grant will, people do. If anything, both can be used to rob them of it.