You are hilarious to converse with. You’re clearly intelligent, you clearly understand the fundamental problem facing an automated workforce, and when we take that problem to it logical conclusion — the elimination of humans from a large percentage of the economy — you slam on the brakes and refuse to engage in that thought experiment. It’s frightening. I get it.

Laughs. No, you don’t “get it.” You aren’t seeing that I HAVE engaged in this thought experiment, as a function of my daily consulting work, and have come to different conclusions you have. It’s rather simple, but you have to put your arrogance aside and consider the fact that you may be wrong. Simple.

If you read my other writings on this subject, this is precisely the argument I’ve made, but you’d rather mock me here, because you disagree with my politics. That’s fine. I can’t make you read.

Right back at you. This is the first time I’ve ever seen your name; I therefore have no idea what your politics are. But I’ve made the same case in other posts. The government does have the ability to throttle this process.

In a capitalist society — which you claim is the pinnacle of social achievement — each of those people will need some form of income in order to survive.

Actually, I didn’t claim that. I’d prefer to cast it as the least bad economic system known to man. :-)

So, let’s forget about Star Trek if you want to live in capitalism. Star Trek’s economic model is a post-scarcity, socialist model where essentials are available to everyone as public goods.

Sure. Socialism can actually work when everyone has a suitcase sized machine that can rearrange molecules from the atmosphere at no cost to meet all human needs. :-)

Let me know when we come up with that one, and I’ll revise my views. :-)

Your capitalist model is more suited to the greedy Ferengi, who charge credits for everything and anything they accumulate.

Well, understanding that the Ferengi are a caricature of capitalism, the society that they developed is more probable than what the Federation has, for obvious reasons.

Most people who operate in binarys — everyone is either this, or that — don’t understand people.

Obviously. However, both psychology and sociology develop conclusions from those binaries. It is just as untrue to claim that those studies have no merit because “people are more complicated than that”, as it is to fail to acknowledge those complications.

More specifically, its obviously possible that an extrinsic learner finds something that stimulates him/her and they become intrinsic in that particular area; that doesn’t change that generally speaking, they motivate extrinsically.

In order to achieve the society in which everyone can do as they wish, we must first get to a place where basic necessities are no longer bartered like some greedy Ferengi. Which means leaving capitalism behind.

BINGO! And there’s the core of the disagreement. Like all utopians, you view the “everyone can do as they wish” as an achievable goal. Realists disagree.

From that point on, all we’re going to get into is a cut and paste war (as you did above) where each of us is going to try to convince the other, using exhaustive citations, of the sublime nature of our opinions. Neither of us will convince the other. So, no need to bother.

So, to summarize, because I don’t want to you to think you wasted your time:

  • Subsequent studies on extrinsic and intrinsic motivation show that content does affect motivation short-term and in focused areas, but does not change the fact that individuals have strong innate tendencies to one sort of motivation or the other.
  • A large percentage of individuals tend to motivate extrinsically. Because of the existence of large numbers of extrinsic motivators, it is reasonable to suspect that any sort of extended welfare or payment system that does not have productive labor attached to it could be socially counterproductive and lead to dysfunction.
  • I’ve taught a variety of subject too, back in my teaching days. From my personal experiences, I see no reason to ask for a refund of any degree. What I learned was perfectly accurate.
  • I’ve lived in India during long term projects, and have seen the block and tackle method of construction. :-). I recommend not embarrassing yourself by disparaging a general concept with a single example. There is a very large difference between going BACKWARDS in time by going back to older construction methods just to employ people, and simply saying (for another example) “hey, let’s slow down on the self-driving trucks thing, guys”. Phase it in gradually, and give the drivers time to retrain.

Good luck with it.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.