[SkyBelow]

While I would agree they were very unlikely to have Vietnam or North Korea in mind, how does one draw the same conclusion about communism? I've met plenty of people who see communism, or at least a system of government that they would ascribe that label to even if others might not, as being a preferable alternative to capitalism. This leads me to think it is a reasonable assumption that they might have been thinking about communism, even if it is not the only possible reasonable assumption.

[kaybe]

Not that it actually matters for the discussion, just for transparency - I am pretty open about the method.

As long as we all get to do less of the undesirable work, our needs are covered and the profits and power of automation are not concentrated in the hands of a few I'd say we reached the goal. 'Evenish' distribution might be sufficient too.

There is a lot of literature on ideas and theories about it. The systems used so far had a lot of debugging time already, and I'd expect unexpected effects to turn up when implementing anything new, and thus it is hard to advocate for any specific one. Working with our problematic traits (such as laziness, selfishness and hunger for power) instead of against them (or worse, ignoring them) seems advisable though.

[andrey_utkin]

> undesirable work

> our needs are covered

Human desires and human needs don't work the way you're probably thinking. I'd suggest to take into account Maslow's theory of human motivation. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm

[kaybe]

*less of the undesirable and more of the desirable work

is what I meant but did not specify. Is that more in line with what you mean?

[andrey_utkin]

Desirability is defined by the consequences the success brings, as opposed to the failure of inaction. It is a thing only in context of some unfulfilled needs.

How do you define desirability in the society where "needs are covered" (already)?

What would comprise the desirability if the profit of every action is alienated from the acting person?

[kaybe]

Not all needs can just be covered by the economy, of course. You cannot make people respect or love someone. I was talking purely about basic physical needs such as enough varied good food and decent shelter. As your link says, 'Man is a perpetually wanting animal.'

I would say a desirable job is one with

- mostly pleasant tasks,

- good working conditions (not hard on the body (heavy lifting and bad positions, no natural light, noisy, bad air quality, ..) and mind (bad stress, bad social fit, ..),

- good relationships with the people around you, (and the ability to leave if they don't work for you)

- a good amount of agency (where 'good' might differ from person to person),

- achievable and worthwhile goals that do not feel like 'bullshit work', with a good feedback loop,

- and probably more I cannot think of off the top of my head right now.

(Respect and reward of other people is definitively a big plus, but if you yourself think your job is worthwhile it's probably enough to count as desirable.)

Most of these are not material rewards (though not having them can increase profit). If the only reason somebody does a specific job at all is money, the above conditions are not met/the person is not actively happy about doing it, and it can be done by a machine just as easily, I say we shouldn't have a need for this person to do it. Still, current society demands people have a job, any job, or even several, as a value in itself.

How the profit from work done is distributed is whole other (but connected) story. (Concerning your last question, I would argue that this disconnect to profit is already the case for many many people.)

Sorry for not writing clearly, this topic would probably warrant a seminar with lots of beer and reading at least.