[boyter]

I think you may be missing the point. Pretty much all developed countries produce an abundance of these things, and more to the point have automated a lot of it. A lot of jobs that used to be done by many people can now be done by a few.

[bane]

It would kinda suck to end up as one of the poor schlubs who has to be one of the "few" who works while everybody else kicks back and screws around all day.

[md224]

I would think in a future where work is optional, the goal would be to create a system where choosing to work would still provide you with additional privilege (via more money)... the difference would be at the bottom end of the scale, creating a society where unemployment is a feasible lifestyle if all you really want in a material sense is basic needs (food, shelter, clothes) plus healthcare.

Feasibility of that system is another question altogether. I'm just saying I think in an ideal world, there would still be motivation to contribute to society (in a capitalist sense); it just wouldn't be a hard requirement for maintaining your dignity.

[bane]

I think many people in this thread have a very self-informed and naive view of what a society made up of people with unlimited free time would do with that time -- it wouldn't be self-actualizing.

I know where this idea comes from, I think it's very tempting as well. I was fascinated with the society described in the Culture books. But the harsh reality is that most people would not go in the direction that's hoped.

[md224]

I know this thread is a day old, which in Internet time is ancient history, but in case you see this:

You seem to be making the basic assumption that "self-actualizing" should be the goal of all human beings, rather than something more general like "being satisfied with one's life." It's possible that you believe the former is a prerequisite for the latter, and I can't refute or confirm that hypothesis.

Personally, my goal for the lives of citizens living in a work-optional utopia would be something along the lines of Sen's capability approach to welfare economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach). As long as everyone has the opportunity to be the kind of person they want to be, and as long as they don't negatively affect the freedom and welfare of others (e.g. you can't aspire to be a car thief or serial killer), then however they choose to live is fine with me, self-actualized or not.

[bane]

Ha! I just checked down here to see if there were any more replies.

I'm basing the self-actualizing notion on the several posts in the last couple weeks I've seen here and the comments that followed. There's some kind of pervasive view here that if people just didn't have to struggle for the basic act of living, the world would be full of self-actualized people filling the world with the products of their new hobbies.

I agree with you that your outcome would be fine by me with the same caveat

> as long as they don't negatively affect the freedom and welfare of others

The problem we see today is that for people who've managed to figure out how to get their most basic needs taken care of for them, is that they don't subscribe to the need not to negatively affect the freedom and welfare of others.

My theory is that it's out of boredom and a lack of things to keep them otherwise occupied -- 'idle hands makes for the Devil's work' and all that.

Regardless, what lots of people want to be, is not an isolated island of self-fulfillment, but one that's fulfilled through interaction with other people -- even if that interaction is a negative one. However, parsing positive from negative interactions on a universal level is near impossible. One person's negative interaction, may be another person's deepest wish.

[Aqueous]

Well, in the future I'm thinking about, even the few would have very little to do operating the machinery that performs all of these tasks automatically.

When given a choice between being one of the many and being one of the few, I usually choose the few.

[gress]

Is it different to ending up as one of the "many" who work, while the few kick back and screw around all day?

[bane]

Yes. Because being one of the few layabouts on either end of the bell curve is a blessing, while being one of the few who works for everybody else is easily viewed as a punishment.

[gress]

So it's ok to be poor and stresses as long as everyone else is?