| > The challenge is to get more people ... Why do you think this is an important goal? If we really could have a world in which machines could do all the work, would it really be that bad if some people sat around and watched TV all day? I certainly don't buy the argument that society would stagnate if this happened. There are many people - you and me are probably in that group - who probably wouldn't be able to sit around and do nothing all day. It just seems so boring. And if you look back in history, for example imperial England, a lot of the "idle rich" did take up the pursuit of art, science and technology. I also really don't care what other people do with their time. First, there's a moral issue, it's not for me to decide how other people should be spending their time. And if some people want to sit around and watch TV all day, well, good for them. It's no skin off my nose. I also know a lot of people who seem think that somehow "work" is noble and is worth pursuing as an end in itself and I really don't like this idea. It seems very analogous to management that values effort over results. And more importantly, if we dislike the idea of people being idle as a sort of moral hazard, then why isn't there a big backlash against the millionaires who've inherited their wealth, the royalty, the sheikhs of the middle east, the reality TV stars and so forth. A lot of these people seem to have money vastly disproportionate to their net contribution to society and they're able to sit around doing basically nothing. And yet it's only when the possibility of us plebs being idle comes up that we start here these cliches about hard work and dedication and so forth and everyone gets all worked up about it. Something to think about, I'd say. |
The purpose of banding together in communities is to provide better lives for those who join. At the most basic level, communities provide protection against predators (and other communities!). A more sophisticated benefit comes later with specialization of labor. Recently (the last 500 years or so) significant economic advantages have been had by members of larger communities.
So if physical needs are satisfied, why shouldn't a community concern itself with other ways to make its members happier and live more fulfilled lives? That might might include finding ways to encourage members to, as the OP says, learn instruments, languages, etc.
That requires us to assert that some things (art, music, kayaking) are better than others (reality TV, talk radio). I'm OK with that.