[hectorr1]

> And, why do they need to be productive?

Because the entire global economy is premised on having enough growth to pay off the debt incurred by previous generations. If people choose to be less productive the whole edifice comes crashing down.

[onion2k]

This is true if human productivity is the only thing driving growth. The suggestion here is that automation replaces that human input as most jobs are actually more about supporting the innovation rather than innovation itself - if you remove the need for those supporting jobs many, many more people can work on the innovation bit instead. Society would benefit greatly.

Some people, maybe even most, won't actually achieve much or contribute anything to the furthering of the human race, but that cost is worth paying for if enough actually do. We probably have hundreds of Einsteins, Turings, and Musks working in the roles supporting the innovators because they can't get out of those roles. That's bad for all of us.

[claudiawerner]

Given the things GP described as being unproductive, things that almost all of us find humanly valuable at a very basic level, perhaps the edifice needs some serious refactoring if that's the case. I love life, I don't love work. Work is part of life, but I can't love life fully if I don't love my work.

A system based on the idea that every member of society must be productive is so hideous and inhuman to me it makes me angry to think of someone seriously propounding this productivist dogma. Why, exactly, is society structured in such a way that most of my waking hours are spent getting ready for work, commuting and working? It's a tragedy to be born, grow up, and spend your days grinding away just to stay alive. That's the one life you have, and I'm wasting it just for the fact of staying alive?

It's no surprise that young people aren't happy with this.

[DubiousPusher]

Maybe the key is to change what we consider productive. Our main measure of productivity is GDP and it has some really perverse methodology. If a defense manufacturer builds a bomb and sells it the government, that is considered positive GDP. If next year that bomb is taken and dropped on one's own country thus destroying value is it considered negative GDP? No, again it's positive production because the pilot and bombadeer sold their services to the government too!

Meanwhile, if one parent in a relationship stays home to care for the couple's children thus rendering a highly valuable service to the family, it is not counted!

Only academics who have furvent faith in the dogma they've been handed down can see such a contradiction and maintain their faith. Recently we have been seeing economists trying to augment gross measures like GDP. And we've seen the rise of behavioral economist who are trying to better integrate human factors into economics.