• nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    Definitely on the same page. Humans tend to opt to do things with their time without need for coercion, whether necessary for survival or not. I WOULD argue that in an ideal, highly automated world, idleness could be a valid option but, I don’t suspect it would be as popular as some may think.

    I’m absence of sufficient automation, people will tend to pursue what interests them or what they’re good at, which allowed our species to thrive long before social constructs introduced coercion to extract value from others’ labor.

    • HelloThere@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Even highly automated, an idle future would mean no change.

      That would require essentially a perfect, and unchanging, society.

      That doesn’t sound realistic given our social nature.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Oh indeed. Like I stated, I doubt that many would take that option. Humans just tend to be too driven to do something to dedicate their lives to idleness. They would also likely feel social pressures to do otherwise. And when I say “idle”, I really mean it. It would take effort to avoid producing anything at all - not even art (Steevo and Bob in SLC Punk comes to mind).

        Would some be inclined to be idle? Probably. Would many want to spend their whole lives idle? The data does not suggest this.