this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
358 points (92.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43939 readers
418 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If we had any sense as a species we would be funding artists so that they can pursue their art full time. Industry advances technology, but art advances the mind.
We might end up like people who do graphics... replaced by AI tools. There aren't any that make it as easy yet (and maybe there won't), but who knows where tech will lead us.
If you do it as a hobby, you don't need to worry about it so much, but it does take something away for sure.
Just like the invention of the camera stopped people painting portraits.
AI will change the game, but I think after an initial period of growing pains that we're really facing a shift in the economy whether we're ready or not. All of the "problems" of capitalism have been due to runaway efficiency. A scarcity economy is absurd when we're infinitely capable of producing everything people want or need.
I agree, and the optimist in me desperately wants to experience a post-scarcity society like the one we're seeing in the The Culture books, where AIs run the world, and we humans are free to chase whatever it is we're dreaming of.
Maybe that's a romantic notion, but I'm hesitant to give up on in. Dreams are what's kept us going for the past millennia.
You might become bored and depression does seem to be more common when you do not have a particular sense of purpose.
I like the idea as well but human psychology might not be so conductive to easy living.
You mean, being forced to find your own meaning instead of just going down a socially acceptable to-do list?
Boredom is simply a lack of imagination and drugs.
Honestly drugs lose their luster eventually and most people whos life resolve around them daily are often pretty uninteresting.
You seem fun at parties.
(No, not really.)
Actually I am quite fun. Do drugs few times a year. Can be interesting as well.
WeLL AWktUALLy...
What do you mean when you say we need a purpose?
We are biologically designed to reproduce. So our current purpose is to survive until we're grown to sexual maturity, reproduce, then raise our offspring to a stage where they're able to survive on their own. Then, we either do it again, if we're still young enough, or die and make room for the next generation. That seems like a very depressing purpose to me, but this is how evolution works.
I think that we now have the intellectual capacity to transcendent this cycle. We've been for a while, and we formed societies, developed technology. Our first models were small tribes, very much hippie-like little communities, that suffered from attrition by tribe warfare and rule of the strongest, where reproduction was controlled by "the fittest". Then we developed monarchic systems that provided a much more stable life for everyone, but ran on servitude (slavery) of peasants. We experimented with systems like communism, that then lead to terror by the ruling class (can still see that in China today), and landed on a somewhat democracy-adjacent system of capitalism that we're running today, and that's not sustainable, because we're destroying our planet.
What's next, and what purpose for the individual do you have in mind?
You don't need a purpose and in fact most of the purpose people identify with are rather unnecessary for lack of better word. But people without some feeling of purpose are definately more prone to depression. Countries like Mexico should be less happy being people have far less wealth and have to work harder but the opposite it true. I find people are overall more happy and content. Now I would normal discount my experiences as being limited but if you look at the suicide rate of say the US to Mexico, the US has 4 times the rate.
This is actually true for nearly every developed to developing nations and I think speaks a great deal about human nature.
Okay, so what you're saying is that you think friction creates a sense of purpose. That might be true. People in Mexico are probably more happy about little things and enjoy them more, because that's what they have. Less freedom of choice paradox to contend with, and less free time to sink into depression (I believe in "the olden times", people were just too tired from fighting to survive to sit down and have an existential crisis). That sounds like a valid idea and is supporting your point.
The question is, how can we combine my (borrowed from the Culture series) idea of a post scarcity society with your idea of a psychological need for friction? Do you think it's impossible to simulate the same feeling of need for something to result in the same strain that then causes happiness?
First I will say the culture series is one of favorite books. But I would start by suggesting a post scarcity society would be difficult in the limited size of our solar system. The main reason being resource theory. Like animals with unlimited food, they will grow in population untill there no longer excess food. Humans likely would do the same until there again is a limit of resources and things develop value. Ie. There is a limit of ocean front property thus we will make a reason to toil to better ourselves and get the best view.
But that diverges somewhat from the question you ask. Could we be happy in such a society if it could exsist? If we bring up the culture series, nearly every character in those books have purpose. Actually great purpose in that often they are doing some deed to better humanity. So it is hard to really use that as an example. So the question then becomes could a regular person be fully happy be having all their needs met and not having to do anything? I rather think of the hedonism bot in Futurama. He does nothing all day but all his needs are met. He has to expend zero energy. To me that seems quite depressing. I would rather be doing something to better myself and overall other people but in a post scarcity society there is nothing physically anyone would need thus there would be little I can contribute. Now could there be a true post scarcity society? I suggest not While money should not exsist, there will still be currency. That will be in the form of fame or talent or power. Creative people will be in demand and trade that for favors. Actors same in that they will gain favor. People in power will use their influence to have access to interests that others may not. But these people would be the minority. The majority of people always will be your average Joe. Will they be happy just comfortable exsisting? Honestly I really don't know. Maybe we can evolve to that.
I will bring up one other point. In the history of humanity, during times of great difficulties are also the times when humans evolved the fastest. Could the opposite occur? If we have all our physical need met, might our overall intelligence decrease. I suspect it might. Then again, might it be better to be dumb and happy than intelligent and depressed?