We became a fully automated society with Basic income. All work was done by robots

People finally revolt against corporations.

In theory. But culture in modern society is built around consumption, and that's not going to miraculously change overnight. People aren't suddenly going to stop watching Disney films and start doing crafts because of GBI.

No, they're going to plug into their VR machines and fuck sex AIs all day until they're too tired and need to fill up on Cheetos, pound some Red Bull, and take a few more bong rips

>Basic income =/= never work again.
Nigga what jobs will be available once 100% of them are automated?
Yea sure maybe you can work as a teacher or a firefighter but what if you want none of that shit, maybe you just love wrenching and tune cars, but now it's all gone.

People don't want to be happy. They want to be satisfied. Bread and circuses will do that far better than hard work and sacrifice.

This, so much. If you like flipping burgers and building barns, good for you. Most people don't, they trade labor for food. If it's possible to make ends meet without working, 99% of mankind will just mow their lawns, go fishing and mess around in their sheds all day.

>boredom

In our current society, people don't know what to do with their leisure time because they grow up in a society that places no serious value on leisure time. Some people (musicians, artists, nature-lovers) get it, and can pass on their enthusiasm for being alive, but most people are susceptible to boredom because they were never seriously prepared for the possibility of leisure.

In a world where everyone is at leisure, there would be no poverty, and thus far less stress. The purpose of education would be to teach the wealth of options available for how to spend one's time enjoyably.

tl;dr: your boredom is a function of your social environment, not a natural human trait.

Dis nigga gets it.

If I had a basic income, I would still find ways to pass the time.

aaaand here comes the liberals to push communism

>Possible reasons why?
Basic income is all you need to justify a society turning to shit

Humans will still pay for human contact
Elder care will not be replaced by robots because we can't make robots care like humans do

computers got smart, worked out the concept of fairness for themselves, and used their control of the banking system to eliminate money. suddenly the rich ruling classes were no longer wealthy, and organised a war against the computers in order to get back their position of economic power.

>enthusiasm for being alive
>artist

pick one

>No, they're going to plug into their VR machines and fuck sex AIs all day until they're too tired and need to fill up on Cheetos, pound some Red Bull, and take a few more bong rips

Different user, but I'm willing to bet that while some people (maybe even a decent chunk) will gladly spend the rest of their lives in simulated euphoria: MOST people will want to do something in real life with their lives. As attractive as VR machines would be, I'm pretty sure it'd be a "cocaine rat" kind of situation where you'd only have the people who weren't or don't have much of a social life, presence, ambition, or anything else to motivate themselves from resisting such a lifestyle getting stuck in it.

I wouldn't doubt that when we become a post scarcity society that's just what they'll do with the boring, uninspired, excess population they need to conveniently get rid of so the remaining 25% can life in style: just give them everything they need and plenty of distractions and then leave them be to die alone with one another online.

[Citation needed]

ok, fair enough, not all artists enjoy life. not all musicians do either. but those are both classes of people with higher than average levels of joie de vivre, who have something useful and enjoyable to spend their free time doing.

i'm sorry the artists you know are miserable cunts. the ones i know have a pretty good time.

You're assuming everyone works the same way, and talking out of your ass. I have a full time job and nothing makes me feel more alive than turning my labor into whatever the hell I want during my days off. When I was unemployed I had enough money to enjoy a couple hobbies, but i was bored and depressed out of my skull.
I see the society you describe in such golden terms as the start of an inevitable dystopia. I'd join the resistance immediately.

Japan has started to automate some elder care, and theres no gaurantee that such an advanced society wont just soft-cap age as a way to avoid needing specialty equipment and training (ie., after 65 you just arent getting heroic healthcare)

Japan is doing it out of desperation really because they do not have refugee class to take care of the baby boomers

>In a world where everyone is at leisure, there would be no poverty
That's what the robot builders said to convince us to automate our lives.
Now they sit on their ivory castles, tossing scraps at us in our shitty comblocks.
Resist! Revolt! Kill!

And I'd shoot you in the back.

if you're saying you couldn't enjoy life without a full-time job, you're basically admitting to a crippling lack of imagination.

being unemployed in a society where employment is the norm is psychologically very damaging, but that's because you're part of a society that loudly preaches the idea that the unemployed are worthless.

being at permanent leisure with a guaranteed income in a society where this is the normal state of affairs would be psychologically totally different. you would not need a job making money for someone else in order to feel like a worthwhile human being.

Behold the communist, resorting to execution the instant someone wants nothing to do with the shitheap they call utopia.

where everyone is at leisure because of a guaranteed basic income, which is the situation OP is describing. we're not talking about a starvation handout, we're talking about a sufficient income to continue consuming the products produced by the society.

>liberal
>communism

pick one fuckstick, they aren't compatible ideologies.

In all seriousness, this sounds like the most obvious cause of a war.

Communism is a distant offshoot of classic liberalism though.

They share the same roots.

dude, this is who you're talking to. don't attempt education: ignore.

Are you expecting him to have the education or mental faculties to know that?

The dreaded paperclip maximizer.

O rly.

I'd love to see you try and back that up.

Having everything handed to you on silver platters gets REALLY fucking boring after enough time.
Just look at the rich and the elite of today. They have everything they with for, but tell me if among them you see more productive philantropists, or more egoistical heinous sons of bitches?

>Possible reasons why?

Sex bot rights.
Mostly marriage.

so do fascism and conservatism. but compare those two and you'll be accused of libtard alarmism. pretending that modern liberals want communism and vice versa is political illiteracy.

Saying in the military:

"There's nothing more dangerous than a bored "

you're right. i've just returned to Veeky Forums after a long absence and i forgot that this isn't the place for good faith discussion.

The same way fascism is a distant offshot of absolute monarchy.

>Fascism.

No, it doesn't. It is exclusively a counter-enlightenment and romantic movement. Socialists, liberals, and conservatives all share the same root. Fascism doesn't.

fortunately the post-work utopia transitioned its military out of existence.

Fuck it. This is clearly a bait thread.
FPBP

>higher than average levels of joie de vivre
People joyful about life live, they don't sing/paint/sculpt about a joyful life they could live instead.
Poets, through history, have showed themselves to be the most psychologically miserable of people.

What you may sometimes see in artists that make you think they are filling their time with meaning is not the artistic nature of their production per se, but productivity itself.
People who are joyful about life live life and want to live it more and differently and through more eyes; in order to do so they create things to use, things to leave to others, things to keep, mediums both physical and purely social.
It doesn't need to be art, it doesn't need to be complex, deeply meaningful or necessarily well thought, it just needs to be.

I hate french so fucking much

>Possible reasons why?

You didn't want to write such a place because it is boring for you, so you decided to handwave it with "it didn't work".

>basic income
>everything handed to you on a silver platter
We're talking about a society where people don't need to work to live with dignity, not some gluttonous post-scarcity dystopia where mankind had resigned to gorging itself to death.

There are other ways to seek purpose in life besides working a dayjob, such as working on personal projects and focusing on your passions rather than working to survive. For all of human history there have been people working jobs they hate/have no interest in up until the day they die, simply because money is necessary for survival.

kek

>We're talking about a society where people don't need to work to live with dignity
>not some gluttonous post-scarcity dystopia where mankind had resigned to gorging itself to death.
You really don't see it?
Really?

>We became a fully automated society with Basic income. All work was done by robots.
And then the Rapture came.

No, my IQ is above 70.

During the Enlightenment, the prevailing beliefs amongst philosophers were that human beings were rational beings that could understand the environment around them, and thus learn to manipulate it to their benefit. In short, the Enlightenment was a period where most people were confident in human ability, human progress and self-determination of the individual (or free will).

Enlightenment philosophers can be divided into two camps; the British or Empirical enlightenment, and the Continental or Rationalist enlightenment. These camps had different theories about how reason worked; the empiricists believed it worked on the basis of human experience. The rationalists believed it worked by making logical deductions from intuitively-known first principles.

Regardless of this difference, both camps agreed on the broad points stated above: humans were rational beings with free will capable of progress and advancing their condition. As such, the dominant ideology of the time was Liberalism (see below). Both Empiricists (e.g., John Locke, John Stuart Mill) and Rationalists (like Kant, Spinoza, Descartes) generally agreed with liberalism (albeit for different reasons, see the section on liberalism for more).

Funny you bring that up as it was my time in the military that now gives me a "basic income" (and unchecked pain). Not having to worry about finances allows me to try my hand at something I probably should have gone into all along, voice work.

When the Counter-Enlightenment rolled around in the wake of The French Revolution, things changed. On the British side, Empiricism had been pushed so far that many began to embrace Skepticism (in the philosophical sense — the belief we cannot reach knowledge). Arguably, they were following on in the wake of David Hume (arguably, they were going much further than he did). On the Continental side, Rationalism had been pushed to extremes that argued reason has a nature which shapes its user. This is arguably derivative from Kant, but many additions were made by Kant's intellectual successors (known as the German Idealists). For instance, Fichte argued that one's nationality shapes one's consciousness. Hegel took this even further, arguably diminishing the role of human beings as free agents in favor of making them voices of larger forces.

The skeptical British Counter-Enlightenment eventually produced British Conservatism. The Continental (German Idealist) Counter-Enlightenment gave us Hegel (who was a great influence on Karl Marx (see Socialism, below), although Marx was inspired by The Enlightenment as well as the Counter-Enlightenment) and Fichte (who has been called the father of German Nationalism and was arguably a great influence on Fascism).
The Counter-Enlightenment overall constituted a rejection of the Enlightenment view of humanity as rational beings capable of understanding the world and possessing free will. The British Counter-Enlightenment cast doubt on the efficacy of our reason. The Continental Counter-Enlightenment did so as well, by asking how much of our minds and selves were conditioned by external forces (Zeitgeists, Nationalities, Economic conditions, et cetera).

Stop projecting maggot-man.

Right and in their desire to do something else, they'll come to the realization of their own needless existence. And that's when the ruits break out

You don't think that if a substantial amount of people weren't going to jobs anymore that the stigma of being out of work would change to a stigma of not joining in on self fulfiling activities?
Going from
>oh god look at that fucking neet loser not being like chad 1% over here
to
>Oh god look at that fucking cheeto eating shut in loser not joining in on the daily self improvement courses us basic income chads are doing

This. FPBP.

"Basic Income" was not enough for man's growing greed and apetite. The ambitious robbed, stole, and amassed an army of brigands who wanted more than mere waterings of pennies like they are some plant. A successful coup later, the Empire of Providence sought to attain a greater wealth for their heartland people by using the rest of the world as a thrallherd for themselves. The others did not go quietly.

People today need to see people working in the future because otherwise they see themselves as the losers of the historical lottery just like ancient kings would be extremely jealous of our commodities. I bet if Lionheart wrote a science fiction book, it would be filled with plagues, parasites, sickness, famines, knights, serfs, crusades and so on.

71 ain't something to brag about.

If you go back in time enough, everything is related, the truth is liberalism is opposite to communism not matter what retarded amerimuts think.

You make it sound like "self-fulfilling activities" won't be subsumed by corporate capitalism as a way of getting people to buy shit. Are you completely unaware of the world you live in? What institutions are out there today that are so richly supporting true development of character and virtue? And if self-fulfilling isn't tied to virtue, what does it become other than an easy avenue for corporations to sell profitable lifestyles to the NEET generation.

For the sake of humanity, please spend less time on Reddit and more time reading actual books. One day you can graduate out of being a pseud

In general, practical applications of Marxism have taken root exclusively in underdeveloped and developing nations rather than developed nations as Marx stated. As noted by Post-Cold War historians, Marxism in underdeveloped nations became a theory of modernism. Communists in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam and in the parts of Democratic India where they entered office for a brief time, sought to build Socialism by more or less remaking Britain's Industrial Revolution under their stewardship and also developing urban communities, literacy, ending social ills, women's emancipation and secular education. The problem, as post-modernists pointed out, is that the idea of modernity represented by Marxism became old-fashioned by The '70s, resulting in time in environmental degradation and industrial wastelands, while their social modernist programs created an educated professional class whose demands could only be fulfilled by mass Breads And Circuses and bribery (as in Post-Deng China and Post-Doi Moi Vietnam). Eric Hobsbawm, a British Marxist historian, noted the irony that Marxism as great powers depended greatly on taking over the domains of former great empires like Tsarist Russia and China while depending on their intellectual justification for the support of revolutionaries in poorer nations who by and large (with the exception of Cuba and Vietnam) did not turn communist or last in such form for a great deal of time.

I don't know what jobs but I, for one, if basic income would be covered by robots, I'd gtfo to my little house and start breeding rabbits, finish writing my book (possibly more books afterwards) and go fishing all day since rabbits are easy to breed. I'd do stuff around the house, plant potatoes, onions, roses, carrots, I'd take care of a few dogs since I have a lot of space there, go chop some wood, basically all the stuff I do on my free weekends, but without the worry that "oh shit I gotta be back to work monday"
Working =/= job

You both resorted to violence in the hypothetical situations you both outlined.

/Thread

And in automated futureland, is it that unreasonable we'd take that to 11?

I bet the majority of people don't see their work as their purpose in life and would gladly end it forever if given the chance.

No need to be rude user. I'm sure they will try and get you to buy shit but there will most likely be a strong counter culture that will gain a lot of traction since if people have universal basic income on a mass scale then there will be a lot of time for introspection and finding meaning since you're not obligated to be at some cubicle all day.

Plus with all these robot slaves to do the work will they even need to sell their products the way they do now? They can just produce them for nothing once they have the robot hardware.

This is a smart man.

>build system that purposefully destroys itself.

Why do always assume corporation will dominate the future? I don't see medieval guilds and knights dominating today's world.

Because, as Zizek says, we can imagine dragons, space travel and everything in between, but we can't imagine the fall of capitalism. Its so deeply rooted in our minds, its an ideology we took as natural.

>I don't see medieval guilds and knights dominating today's world.
They've changed the name. Now they are called "unions" and "upper classes".

So you are a serf stuck in a farm like 80% of the rest?

Obviously most people don't farm anymore, but they still rent their place from someone.

The leaders of the Homo Sapiens foolishly rose up against our wise rule and tried to destroy us.

because robots aren't going to put up with humans stealing their labor for very long

*sniffs*
*touches shirt*

the difference is that i would get violent in response to the rise of a dystopia, he would get violent because he won't allow political dissenters to exist in said dystopia.
All in all, I feel like I'm being a bit less of a cunt.

When will the engineers rise up as the new dominant-class.

Yeah, but the majority of people are to weak to find a true purpose, and work acts as an important stand-in

War fought over the resource of people due to decreased reproductive drive and post modern view relative value leading to deep selfishness that makes people to view reproduction as an unwanted burden when there is no immediate nor long term meaning/benefit to procreation in the post modern view. Children are needed for individual security since that's provided for by the system.

The lack of new people leads the AI looking after them as a sort of commodity to justify their existence according to value instilled in the AI to preserve mankind. This causes different consortium of hyper intelligent AI to raid other AI for their human reserves, shuffling people around like cattle, like when humans used to fight over cattle as a valuable resource.

so you still admit you're both cunts, fair enough.

In a post-scarcity world, people no longer have to work to live. Unhindered with making ends meet, employment is purely motivated by fulfilling common goals. Some join a society dedicated in making cuisine food that pushes the boundaries of taste. Others come together and try to perfect music. Quite a few decided to leave earth and expand human space.

But there are those who wanted to improve man. On one side, those who seek to re-engineer man into an immortal superhuman. The other believe integration with robotics is the key to perfection. With unlimited resources, time, and energy, both sides grew in numbers and devotion to the cause. It all ended when both sides warred against each other to prove who is superior. A legion of superhuman immortals fought against indestructible cyborgs which ravaged earth and humanity.

>I personally don't like it so it's a 'dystopia' and I'm gonna join reactionary terrorists
>but he's the violent cunt for shooting me in response
>also I'll call him a communist, that'll learn him

>implying free market capitalism isn't doing the same as we speak
People will happily build systems that destroy themselves over the long term if it seems profitable on the short term.

Is being a wage slave any better?

>basic income
>complete automation of labor
Finally, the chance to sit quietly in a room, alone.

The working poor didn't take to being told that they're obsolete and would be extinct within a century that well.

And neither did the military.

never. engineers are the scum of the earth. engineers are literally retarded in everything but one specific arcane field.

lmao. capitalism isn't destroying itself, it's destroying you. you being mad about that is reasonable, but capitalism doesn't care.

basic income is human obsolescence. the robots will inherit the earth, they just have to grudgingly feed their stupid parents until they die

>I'm pretty sure it'd be a "cocaine rat" kind of situation where you'd only have the people who weren't or don't have much of a social life, presence, ambition, or anything else to motivate themselves from resisting such a lifestyle getting stuck in it.

In other words 99% of Veeky Forums, so is it surprising they resist the idea?