Lightknight said:
CrystalShadow said:
That's one solution. But an especially awkward one assuming the work would normally be done by machines for the sake of efficiency.
I would imagine a more viable solution longterm would be to remove all work related taxes, (primarily income tax), and try to ensure the remaining taxes can be distributed to the population.
More and more people living on government assistance wouldn't be awkward?
Artificial employment levels are to help during the interim where human workers are still necessary compared to when technology can just take care of our needs as necessary. The real question is how our economy functions without the need
for human interaction. Do we just become the moochers of a robot civilization that is at the same time subservient to our needs while also vastly superior to us and dragging us forward in technology along with them? Do we assimilate in pursuit of immortality? Is the future of mankind entirely robotic? With computers powerful enough to emulate even our DNA in real time?
Hmmm. I'm not sure that's even a bad thing.
I don't see how government assistance is any more awkward than any other means of keeping a 'useless' population going.
The problem with current welfare systems isn't that they are government run, it's a mismatch between the source of government income (largely taxes related directly to people being paid for doing work), and needing to provide for people. (Benefits are a double blow to government finances because of the work=taxes thing being the primary source of government income).
Other issues with it are vast bureaucratic requirements, though many of those have to do with assessing if people have the right to benefits, whether they are meeting their end of the (conditional) agreements, such as spending enough time looking for work or whatever else they may be obligated to do in order to get a handout in the first place.
Finally, there's the resentment factor, again related to taxes (why should I work hard and pay my taxes so others can sit around doing nothing.)
So we have one problem related to how taxation is done, and two related to cultural issues and attitudes towards the very idea of giving people handouts.
But I have to ask, as a counter-point, why giving people 'useless' jobs is going to help? Who do you imagine is going to deliberately choose to pay wages to someone who they know isn't doing anything directly helpful to your business?
Who but a government could really arrange a system like that anyway?
And if I had to choose between a government administered work scheme (especially knowing the work done isn't even useful), and a government administered benefits system... Eh.
(I don't know about anyone else, but I find the idea of work for the sake of itself, knowing it to serve no purpose, to be beyond soul-crushing. It is absolutely abhorrent to me to think that people might imply that a 'useless' job is better than no job at all. - And I don't mean useless as in you're doing poor quality artwork, or writing bad stories, but useless as in moving stuff from one shelf to another and back again just because. Literal busywork, that creates nothing, is in no way interesting to do, and serves no purpose, and if it weren't done nobody would even realise the difference)
Unfortunately, with current trends I rather fear the handful of people with enough wealth and power to control the automated manufacturing systems are more inclined to attempt mass irradication of the 'excess' population, either directly, or through starvation.
Pessimistic I suppose, but that's what I expect to see if we don't radically alter our value system before automation truly starts to take over everything...
Aside from ideological motivations there isn't much reason to eradicate populations. As technology increases so too will the means to support people. I've seen indoor hydroponics systems that produce many times as much food per square foot than regular soil does. Just using LEDs without the use of soil so it sustains water in a controllable fashion. From there it's really just an issue of housing and entertainment which wouldn't be that hard to produce with an automated work force.
Keep in mind, if the differences in power are large enough 'eradicating the population' could amount to as little as not giving anyone any means of getting food...
It doesn't actually require active attempts to get rid of people.
And the ability to grow food and provide other resources in this context still requires the will to distribute those items essentially without any real conditions imposed on it.