[mattlutze]

The practical question is whether the same or a greater volume of people today, would be working in sanitation and sewage tomorrow, if they could chose not to.

I'm not sure there's a reasonable way to argue in the affirmative.

[Jedd]

That's a practical question.

There are upwards of 2 billion people who don't have sanitation and sewage professionals looking after their waste. I'm not suggesting we'd all want to live in our own filth, any more than I'm suggesting everyone without access to plumbers lives in their own filth.

Wander out into the country (or even some slightly advanced sub-urban areas) and admire the low-maintenance standalone septic systems, humanure outhouses, etc.

If you don't have to work - would you really feel the need to live within ten metres of several other families, in a concrete box, limited sight of or access to open space, etc? Is the location you currently choose to live predicated upon your requirement to work, and a pragmatic decision on the best location to that end - a trade-off between comfort and commute?

[wanderer2323]

I would really feel a need to live in the place with hot water running from the taps, a working in-house plumbing and heating, a serviced waste disposal facility withing walking radius, the electricity service, an internet connection, a speedy access to all kinds of emergency services etc. Not to mention the reliable service level (e.g. I would want to get an electrician to look (and likely fix) at a failure within a day).

I have wandered "in the country" and there are either - areas where the services are set up in the same way as in the city (large amount of "sanitation and sewage professionals" are involved) - areas where you have to cope with a subpar standards of living

[mattlutze]

Folks with septic systems still need them cleaned, and outhouses need to be regularly evacuated.

Decreasing population density simply serves to make us less productive. And really, the author's argument only sounds like it's reasonable because of the massive increases in productivity an the technological advances we've had as a race, through our obsession with work and achievement.

I don't think many of those 2 billion people would say they prefer to poo in a box hanging over a river, then have to get their drinking water out of that river, over more sophisticated alternatives like separate potable, gray- and blackwater management.

[Jedd]

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse.

> Folks with septic systems still need them cleaned, and outhouses need to be regularly evacuated.

Indeed.

So, the OP suggested we could (if not now, then in the not too distant) stop working, or at least stop doing this 40-hour a week for 40 years thing.

Some people suggested 'but who cleans my toilet?!'

I suggested that if you decentralise that task, then you don't actually need to employ a handful of people to clean 4 million people's toilets.

You're now saying 'outhouses need to be regularly evacuated' - which is true, but regular and frequent are often conflated, and humanure systems need to be emptied out regularly every 6-12 months ... it's dry, non-identifiable compost at that point.

But we're at severe risk of missing the point.

If the only retaliation someone has to 'we should start to think about how to consciously engineer our society such that we don't all have to work 40 hours a week for 40 years' with 'I don't want to spend two hours every 6 months moving composted poo around' ... then that person has missed the point.

> Decreasing population density simply serves to make us less productive.

As you get older you realise the imperative to be (exclusively, solely) more productive is somewhat misguided.

> And really, the author's argument only sounds like it's reasonable because of the massive increases in productivity an the technological advances we've had as a race, through our obsession with work and achievement.

This does not devalue the proposition - it merely puts it into context.

> I don't think many of those 2 billion people would say they prefer to poo in a box hanging over a river, then have to get their drinking water out of that river, over more sophisticated alternatives like separate potable, gray- and blackwater management.

You're doing that thing again. I quote myself, from the message that you responded to:

  >> I'm not suggesting we'd all want to live in our own filth, any more than
  >> I'm suggesting everyone without access to plumbers lives in their own filth.

You also failed to answer any of the questions I asked you.

[mattlutze]

> If the only retaliation someone has to 'we should start to think about how to consciously engineer our society such that we don't all have to work 40 hours a week for 40 years' with 'I don't want to spend two hours every 6 months moving composted poo around' ... then that person has missed the point.

That is not the author's thesis. His thesis is that having to trade your time for money is wrong.

If what you've said above is what you took away from the linked writing, I think you're projecting your own beliefs onto the author position, and we should stop this argument because I'm not against changing our relation with work. I just think this author is a bit of a nutter.

> As you get older you realise the imperative to be (exclusively, solely) more productive is somewhat misguided.

Economic productivity is what allows us to increase the quality of life and standard of living in a community. Reducing economic productivity reduces, eliminates or reverses those improvements.

> This does not devalue the proposition - it merely puts it into context.

Given that the author's proposition is to dismantle a system that for millennia bore specialists who make possible technological advance, and replace it with a system that rears general hobbyists, yes I believe it does devalue the proposition.

> You're doing that thing again. I quote myself, from the message that you responded to: [...]

That quote doesn't actually contribute to either your position or the discussion. You say 2bb people don't have plumbing, then say you don't think we shouldn't have plumbing, then go onto something else. Or is your alternative that we should all have pit toilets?

We should be discussing the broken alternative proposition of the author, but: those 2 billion folks that don't have sanitation and plumbing would likely choose sanitation and plumbing if they could. They obviously live in areas where pit toilets and outhouses aren't enough to deal with the human waste they produce, or they'd just be digging latrines and outhouses and using those.

So, if your position is that we can get by without professional sanitation and pluming industries, they would seem to be the counterpoint.

Fundamentally, do you really agree we'll get more scientists, engineers, professional specialists, innovating and advancing our society and the same or greater pace, if everyone just stops working and "pursues their passions"?

[JoeAltmaier]

As mentioned elsewhere, simply pay people to do it. Many will like a bonus paycheck in addition to their entitlement.

[mattlutze]

That's exchanging your value-time for remuneration, which the author denounces as work.