• Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    We aren’t having the same discussion. I’m talking about eliminating all work, including subsistence farming and sweatshop labor, not going back to hunting and gathering.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In 1776 years ago about 90% of the population were involved in farming. Today that number is under 2% and we have more food than we need to feed everyone. Working less does not mean producing less. It’s why we don’t mine coal by hand or haul goods on sledges.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That 2% goes to 0% and we get food how?

          Or did you mean you just don’t want to work? Because we had that system too, up until a different American war about 90 years later

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The same way it went from 90% to 2% - automation, better land use, better pesticides and fertilizers. The same thing that happened with mining, logging, manufacturing, communications, and everything else since then.

            But instead of working less - as was predicted by scientists as recently as the 1950s - we made up bullshit jobs to keep people busy, and layers and layers of management to monitor them, and entire industries of people who just skim money off of the economy.

            And, yes, I also don’t want to work. But why should I have all the fun? And aren’t we all working so that we can eventually retire and not work? Let’s just collectively skip a step.

            I don’t expect you to get it, though.