[SubuSS]

What if it is because I want to live in a productive society?

I believe innovations come only from a productive society. The day we become wall-E characters is the day either AI has taken over or an Alien overlord has taken over. Then humans will go the way horses did - become pets and vanity objects. This also means the number of humans will go down the same way inevitably.

I am not going to take up the socialist vs capitalist fight, I am very wary of the impacts of a huge consumption only society.

[moate]

The existence of a pure-consumer class (makes nothing, takes what they want/need) doesn't prevent a "productive society" from existing. If anything, is presupposes the existence of production (otherwise, where the hell are you finding things to consume while sitting in your comfy chair and slurping down nutrients)

From your previous post:

>>There's some argument about the definition of "work", since many of them might wish to do something that would be defined as work if they were paid for it by an employer.

So let's start asking questions about your perception: How many people who want to opt out of work fall into your 2 categories of "doing 'work'" vs "Wall-E Characters" and how many fall into the 3rd category (which you seem to be) of people who want "jobs"? Further, how many innovations do you believe only exist because people were forced to partake the a system that involves jobs and work? My best guess is that there are enough people who have the ego to believe themselves capable of creating and innovating to take care of the rest by doing so, even everyone had all their basic needs met and people could opt out.

I'm not arguing that everyone plug into the Matrix and let "big alien brother" keep us as pets. But if it's an option and people want to take it (while still allowing people like you to produce things), why is that bad? And why is innovation itself a moral good? Improvement =/= innovation.

[SubuSS]

That was my first post in this thread - so I don’t know which previous one you’re referring to.

I don’t know how you expect a pure consumerist class be able to exist alongside a productive class - sooner or later the productive class is going to want to distinguish itself, pushing the consumerists down far enough. The consumers are gonna want the latest gadget eventually - they’re not gonna be ok just with basic food / shelter, which’s going to only keep raising the bar of what the consumers are entitled to - which essentially means the society isn’t going to function. Nobody wants to keep paying for some no name set of folks to keep mooching off them and worse getting the same lifestyle for free.

So the only way I see a pure consumer setup working out is where you’re zombied out or made into a pet. Or I see that as the end result.

I think almost all the innovations exist because of hard work. My above point addresses why folks want their whole society to be productive - so everyone works / contributes the best they can. It could be a doctor / nurse / janitor / manual labor / line cook feeding them / day care employee etc.

Re why not allow for folks to become pets: I hate to Godwin this argument, but I don’t think our society is going to make peace with that ever. Even the existence of a higher race will change the equation completely up side down for us - forget about them harnessing humans as pets. There have been way too many lessons from slavery for this to be acceptable.

Re why is innovation a moral good: we either move forward and harness nature or it harnesses us. Just like how covid emerged - there are always new challenges. Eventual the sun is going to go nova - we need to be off this solar system long before that. However you want to think - be in short or long times, we need innovation. I think stagnation / advocacy for the same is actually a moral bad because it dooms humanity’s future.

Note: you might be referring to a very minimalistic homeless lifestyle when you mean a pure consumer sector, in that case - that exists now. We will continue to take care of folks who choose that (or unfortunately forced into it) with increasing quality over time, but that will never be looked upon as a positive thing. It is always going to be a something to avoid - there is always going to be a stigma and danger surrounding the same. I am hoping that’s not the argument you’re going for.

[moate]

>>That was my first post in this thread - so I don’t know which previous one you’re referring to.

Sorry, I had been referring to a specific person and the tone of your answer made it seem like you were them. Didn't think to check the user names.

>>I think stagnation / advocacy for the same is actually a moral bad because it dooms humanity’s future.

You have a very short view on things. Eventually, it all ends. Humanity is doomed. The very universe itself has been in a state of decay and entropy since the Big Bang. Over the long term, humanity has a 0% chance of survival. We're just whistling past the graveyard.