NationStates Jolt Archive

We would like to encourage our UN Delegates to Vote for a proposal to make it to full vote in the UN. We are willing to take questions on the subject. To make it simple, the bill asks that societies invest in technologies that allow the complete elimination of the work force and of money itself by allowing all manufacturing and distribution to be accomplished by way of automation. This would mean computerized tractors to run the farms, machines to package them, and shops to be run by computerized accounting machines; all of which is completely possible with the technology we already have at our disposal. Repairs would be accomplished by government agencies made up of volunteers. It is our understanding that this would be realistic, as we look at the number of people for whom money is not a concern- the wealthiest people in the world- and they are all still working. We assume that human beings, once bored with thier vacations, will take it upon themselves to organize actively within thier own communities and research, allowing not only a new kind of labor- a labor of choice vs neccesity- but a more enriched, impassioned, and therefore, more capable and productive one.

The Bill is entitled "Live Without Dead Time" and is as follows:

The Situationist Manifesto claims; "THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK cannot subdue the new human force that is increasing day by day alongside the irresistible development of technology and the dissatisfaction of its possible uses in our senseless social life."

Because we are against the notions of Alienation and Oppression, because we believe these concepts must be a priority for elimination by way of the UN, and because all true social progress is impossible until these goals are reached, The People's Republic of Situations Proposes the Following actions be taken:

1. A movement towards complete automation of all manufacture,
2. A movement towards complete automation of all distribution,
3. Finally, an end to the ideas of "work" and "labor."

Given the increases in production technology, it is not beyond the capacity of any state to develop technology that can be used to automate production, to be distributed as wanted by the general populace.

This would allow human beings to lead a lifestyle without the barbaric seperation of work time with leisure time, instead returning the only actual currency of life- one's own time- to the hands of the individual.

When humankind is finally liberated from economic neccesity, liberated from debts and responsibilities forced onto children as they are expected to "participate in society," we will see new capacities for all mankind to re-evaluate the notion of societal participation. This bill will encourage vast improvements in arts, cultures, sciences and economics- as the macroslavery institution of economics will simply cease. This new value of human time will be incalcuable by our current system of pay per hour, which we abhor as only a slight improvement on outdated concepts of slavery.

Furthermore, it guarantees a society where value of an individual can be measured outside of imaginary lines of financial power, instead returning power to ideas. This would also eradicate all forms of exploitation, including but not limited to: prostitution, slavery, dead end jobs, homelessness and starvation, all giving way to a world beyond the ancient and outmoded division of work and leisure.

Effects: Greater Social Liberty, as time is returned to what is now known as "the worker," Imploded Economies, as economics would cease to exist, and Greater Civil Rights.

Abolish work? There are people that work out of boredom. Besides, I could just call it something else.

Good Idea, but it would lead to the whole United Nations being Communistic!?!

Greater civil rights? Civil rights are a luxury if you want to go back to a time where you spent all your time hunting for food...

It's not even communism.

"Given the increases in production technology, it is not beyond the capacity of any state to develop technology that can be used to automate production, to be distributed as wanted by the general populace"

How do you think people get this technology? Do these machines fix themselves? Someone has to do it. If they are the ONLY people working, isn't that like slavery?

To Oppressed Possums:

The notion is only to abolish *mandatory* work as a means of survival. Instead, it would encourage the production of goods to be automated to the point where work is an option. When we look at people who are not required to work to survive, such as the extremely rich, we find that a majority of them work out of boredom. We would encourage this, since this means a greater degree of actual freedom for all people of the world.

Also, abolishing work would not take us to a time of hunting for food. The process would simply be automated. If you look at modern farming, the farmers are all involved with machines- farmers ride tractors to harvest grain, farmers take corn to a machine to be husked. What my proposal would do is simply allow the farmer to sleep while a machine does his farming. Perhaps the Farmer could create an alternative enterprise if he wishes to- the bill does not abolish work, it only abolishes working as a requirement for survival.

Lastly; it would be the responsibility of whoever owns the machines to repair them; if this is impossible, then the idea is that the machines will be repaired by volunteers. The reasoning behind this is simple: If someone does not want to repair the machines, then they will not eat, or hear music, or whatever the machine does. This is the opposite of communism because it emphasizes personal responsibility. Just like now, if your car breaks down, you are responsible for fixing it, or finding someone who will fix it in return for goods or services.

========
To Ra3500:

While on the surface this could look communistic, you will notice that we specifically put a portion of text that encourages local production for local populations as opposed to sharing materials. This is, as we explained above, to encourage a personal responsibility in the maintenance of the machines and to encourage a type of trade between nations and regions., so that consumers can still enjoy the benefits of say, Chinese Silk as well as Bavarian Chocolates. But we also assume that people will make use of thier leisure time to engage in crafts and return an individual artisanship to the free market.

While it can be expected that machines may produce as much as 20% downtime, this is still a substantial improvement over our current work week. Imagine if instead of working 40-60 hours a week, you worked 40-60 hours over three months, with the option to do whatever you want- including start up another buisiness.

Just because it is not how Capitalism works now does not mean it is Communist. :)

Then, where do the people come into it? Why do the machines need people then?

If you give people too many freedoms, they will undermine your authority just because it gives them something to do.

Are we trying to create a world of slackers?

Q: "Then, where do the people come into it? Why do the machines need people then?"

A: Machines don't need people; people use the machines as machines were intended to be used, in order to persue more leisure time.

Q: "If you give people too many freedoms, they will undermine your authority just because it gives them something to do."

A: This system does not undermine any other government rules in place, it simply changes the way economics work. Under a fascist government, this leisure time could be used to better train an army, for example, or extend thier time served under mandatory conscription (which we endorse and enforce in our own nation, by the way; as we find military service encourages the personal responsibility neccesary to have this economic system thrive.) We do not approve of this use, but we are aware that it could be used that way. But we would like to emphasize: This bill only allows you to do what you are already doing with your government, but it allows you to do it to an even greater degree. All it does is open up the issue of time. How your government intends to fill that time is not under the control of the UN.

Q: "Are we trying to create a world of slackers?"

A: Slackers exist anyway. Under our new proposal, slackers could be slackers with no detriment to your nation as a whole. Instead, people with a work ethic and good ideas would rise in society, as opposed simply to the people with financial means to disseminate ideas.

I'm sure there must be plenty of reasonable arguments against this, so I'm puzzled by OP's abstract and repetative efforts.

Why would machines need people? What? It's not about what machines need, they don't have right, we're people, not machines, we're concerned with humanity, are we not? The proposing state already covered the work side of things.

This is the type of society Chivikistan aims for, but we doubt that many third world nations will be able to afford this level of automation. Does the proposing body have a solution to address the gulf which would presumably become present between automated nations and those still relying on labour, due to economic and industrial limitations?

I'm sure there must be plenty of reasonable arguments against this, so I'm puzzled by OP's abstract and repetative efforts.

Why would machines need people? What? It's not about what machines need, they don't have right, we're people, not machines, we're concerned with humanity, are we not? The proposing state already covered the work side of things.

This is the type of society Chivikistan aims for, but we doubt that many third world nations will be able to afford this level of automation. Does the proposing body have a solution to address the gulf which would presumably become present between automated nations and those still relying on labour, due to economic and industrial limitations?

Why? Because machines are not self sufficient. I haven't seen any at least. They need someone to keep them going. When they break, they need people to fix them. If someone needs to tend these machines, we have to force people to work on all of them unless we have a lot of volunteers.

Then, someone has to supply the machines. That can be done externally. All the UN members can import there machines from non-memeber nations.

Unless we give the machines high levels of free will and the ability to think for themselves.

Are all militaries going to be replaced by machines?

Chivikistan:

Thank you for your question Chivikistan.

We agree that third world nations may not be able to afford the immediate upgrade to a purely automated society. That is why we propose a system under which countries are still encouraged to trade goods between one another. As the world invests in machines that are capable of fully automating production, inevitably, the "price" of construction and maintenance of these machines will decrease.

Third World Nations will experience two phases:

1. Prior to automation, they will still be capable of trading goods and services to nations who have undergone or completed the automation process. The vast amount of potential overproduction will inevitably allow for greater shipments of food to starving populations. Right now, it is merely finances that serve as motivation for industrial nations not to simply "give" the food rotting in storehouses to starving populations. Most first world economies have enough food for thier populations already, eliminating finances would only encourage nations (voluntarily) to donate otherwise wasted food and resources to other regions. To prevent any potentials for imbalance and the creation of "Welfare Nations" we would encourage voluntary donations as opposed to mandatory ones. This way, once a nation has the means to be self sustaining, it would be encouraged to do so, after which these problems would be rendered null.

Q: "Why? Because machines are not self sufficient. I haven't seen any at least. They need someone to keep them going. When they break, they need people to fix them. If someone needs to tend these machines, we have to force people to work on all of them unless we have a lot of volunteers."

A: This would be the role of the Government, and it could assign this labor as it finds suitable to its own culture. In Situations, we have mandatory five year military conscription; these conscripts would be in charge of maintenance and repair. Some Governments may use prisoners, some, ideally, may be able to rely on volunteers. Again, if a community is faced with "fix the machine or starve," someone is going to fix the machine.

After that, they would have a degree of freedom only dreamed of now. While the goal would be 100% autonomy for all people, we find this may not be rational at this time.

Q: Then, someone has to supply the machines. That can be done externally. All the UN members can import there machines from non-memeber nations.

A: We don't think this is neccesary. The proposal is focused on the development of these machines and then, when they are developed, an immediate implementation of those machines. The machines would have to pass a test where the machines margin of error is equal to or smaller than the margin of error in human production, which is already exceedingly high.

Q: Unless we give the machines high levels of free will and the ability to think for themselves.

A: We don't think this will be neccesary. In fact, we think this could be a very bad idea, as handing independant machine intelligence a degree of total control over our production could result in massive problems, such as a "Terminator Scenario."

Q: Are all militaries going to be replaced by machines?

A: Perhaps to some degree, but we do not see 100% automation of military warfare as feasible at this time. However, given that all wars would be fought solely on ideology, and not for need of land or goods, there would be less of a threat to the world at large. Military development and technology is not influenced by this bill except at the level of production. Eventually, a machine could build a perfect tank, fighter jet, or submarine- and keep in mind, this technology would not be implemented untill the margin of errors and discards matched or fell below that of human craftsmanship.

That clears some things. What happens when there aren't enough volunteers to do something?

Is it going to be some sort of random selection process?

If there aren't enough volunteers, then what to do is up to the individual governments. I've already suggested making it a military procedure or employing prisoners.

Ha! Put machines to work so my populace can sit around on their collective asses and get fat, and go shoot up the country because their bored?

I think not.

Krausenstein;

What your government allows your citizens to do in thier free time is up to you. The UN Proposal makes no statement on how that time must be used. Also, if you are concerned about gun violence, you might consider banning guns if this legislation goes through.

I'd also like to mention something that has been mentioned to us on a private basis. That is; the bill does not "ban" work. Instead, it is a bill which asks that nations invest in technology which automate the process for industries required for survival as well as leisure.

So, a worker with more leisure time could *choose* to work in order to generate more income for purchases; but would not *starve* if they chose not to work, and with little detriment to the nation as a whole. It would also be encouraged for workers to use thier leisure time to generate new buisinesses and industries, which we believe would be widespread and lead to an overnight revolution in scientific advances.

This is a fantastic idea, and incredibly idealistic. It is an impossibility. If it were possible, then it would have already happened. But there is just too many jobs. For instance, office jobs. They can't be dealt with by machines. And the industrial jobs (i work in the lumber industry) are very automated, but you still need full time employees.
On the other hand, this bill is clearly written as a suggestion. Therefore, its acceptable. People can strive for the goal of automation, and although they'll never reach it, they won't get punished for not reaching it.

Yes and let's pass a law against bad weather while we're at it.

Yes and let's pass a law against bad weather while we're at it.

Which weather was bad weather, again?

Melforlo;

We thank you for recognizing the merits of our proposal! And we would like to provide some alternative view points to some problems you raised.

This bill is written as a suggestion for governments. There is also some historical precedent. For example:

"In 1913, 50-year old Ford (Motors) had revolutionized American manufacturing by introducing the automated assembly line. By using conveyor belts to bring automobile parts to workers, he reduced the assembly time for a Ford car from 12 1/2 hours in 1912 to just 1 1/2 hours in 1914. Declining production costs allowed Ford to cut prices--six times between 1921 and 1925, reducing a new Ford's cost to just $290. This was less than three months wages for an average American worker, and it made cars affordable for the average family. (...) Ford also introduced a minimum wage of $5 in 1914--twice what most workers earned--and shortened the workday from 9 hours to 8. Twelve years later, Ford reduced his work week from six days to five. Ford demonstrated the dynamic logic of mass production: that expanded production allows manufacturers to reduce costs and therefore increase the number of products sold; and that higher wages allow workers to buy more products."

Chocolate Manufacturers also came up with this idea in the mid 1900's, such as Cadbury, who, after slashing the production time for his chocolates down by an hour, let his workers go home- and paid them for that hour. As it stands now, all technology that we create goes to expanding corporate profits, as opposed to benefitting the modern worker- who is, we should remind you, a consumer. And we are aware that consuming is a basic part of human behavior in a post-capitalist world- and is precisely why state communism's corrupted leaders failed. So, we see a boom, not a bust, in personal investment and economics in general.

And as far as ideals, we are a nation that strives for the idealistic. Why? Because we can strive for ideals and fail or strive for the maintaining the current system and succeed. But when we strive for ideals, we inch a little closer to realizing the truth of human potential and dignity.

And now Ford closes it's factories in North America and reopens them or hires them out to Latin America and Southeast Asia, thereby eliminating jobs for North Americans, increasing job instability and unemployment, and enabling deplorable working conditions in developing countries. Great example. :roll:

As Situations said, machines still need to be run too. They need to at least be monitored. That requires some workers. Giving them human thinking is out of the question. Forget it. No Terminator Senario for my country.

You know how economies work don't you? You work, you get a note from a reputable source that says you worked, and you get to use that note to say 'For the work your farmers did to harvest their crops, in exchange for a note that says they can possibly buy things I worked to make, I will take an ear of corn for my work in providing them with something.' This is a 'I'll fix your fence if you mow my lawn' kind of thing. You'll perform a service for someone if they perform a service for you. However we realized that was a lot of services to do for a lot of people and gave no time to specialize in anything. So we decided that we would make people specialize in one profession (all perfessions when money was developed were for the good of society, either in growing food, making pottery, painting ornate pictures with spiritual meanings, making tools an so on and so forth) that would benefit everyone in some way, and then we'd give them an official note that said 'I benefitted you this much (the benefit was given a scale and currency was applied to that scale) so I want you to do something for me in the form of giving me food.'

At risk of going on much longer about two subjects few people care for, economics and history, let me get to the point. Money is a representation of us earning our keep. If robots do all of our work, we earn NOTHING. Who do you think repairs these robots? Who makes all these leasure activities? Robots? Ok, but at some point there must be human intervention to make sure everything is working properly. When parts need to be replaced, someone mines the raw materials, someone ships them to die factories, someone mixes and purifies the raw materials into useable materials, someone casts those materials into parts, someone packs those parts, someone loads those parts onto trucks, someone drives those materials to shops and robot businesses, someone unloads that, someone stocks the stuff, and someone sells the stuff. Then someone gets the supplies to the robot and someons repairs the robot. Robots COULD do all that, but they could malfunction. Someone could also sabotage robots.

What's the point of learning if robots do everything for us? Remember, no one teaches anymore. As soon as the people die off that know how to repair robots and have a general knowledge of technology while we were off having fun, we're suddenly left in the stone age again. We don't know how to DO anything. All of the delicate social structure we have today would be destroyed in ONE generation. I know I read something like this in a book somewhere, but I don't remember which. Anyway I can't accept this proposal.

I would like to know if this society that you propose will still use money. If it does, then how would people without specialized skills gain an income, since you have proposed that all unskilled labor be eliminated through automation? And yes, I understand that they can go to school and gain skills, but how do they have an income while they are students (assuming that they are adults and not kids who are dependant on parents)? If this society does not use money, then how do you prevent hoarding, such as when somebody goes into a store and grabs the entire stock of some item just because he can do it for free?

You make an excellent point, Kitashima. For this idea to work, money would have to be ellimanated, because it does symbolize the work you did. That is basically comunism, but with a nasty twist. Instead of everyone working for the cause, only a select, generous few do, and they must work til they drop to fill the job vacuum.

None of the scenarios you are proposing remotely happens. You are judging the bill by the title of this thread instead of the merits of the bill itself.

I reiterate: I never said anyone would no longer teach. What was required was, no one would be required to work in order to survive. Money would still be used, but would not serve as the basis for life or death, as it does now.

There would still be teachers- have manufacture automated has nothing to do with teaching. And the idea that a nation of people with free time would not participate in thier own self improvement is based on a purely capitalist mentality that says people are lazy- people are not lazy, they are exhausted. Liberate them from the slavery of the work day and you will see some "slackers" to be sure, but you will also see teachers, entrepeneurs, community groups, artists and all sorts of homemade specialists emerge, boosting the quality of life for everyone on the planet. Meanwhile, no one starves, and no one pays to feed people who don't want to work.

There is no tragedy involved; there is no great collapse of any system. All that happens is: people eat food for free; and manufacturing plants reduce the workday to as short as possible. People don't get paid as much unless they choose to participate in thier own buisinesses- essentially the nature of capitalism at its origin- but if they choose not to, there is no drastic result, outside of people being free to do what they want instead of indentured to the work day.

Tipay;

My example has nothing to do with closing plants. The reason Ford is closing plants now (a good 70 years after the example I gave) is precisely because of "cheaper labor," when my bill is suggesting an overhaul of the system which would reduce the manufacturing sector to be as efficient as possible in order to allow the shortest workday, slashing costs to the manufacturer (which also brings down the price of purchasing those items) and if the worker wishes to earn money, he/she starts thier own separate buisiness.

robot teachers? counselors? inventors? babysitters?athletes?
although it would give new meaning to the label, "iron man"...
there are so many kinds of work that require the human touch, for creativity, to understand human needs, to respond unpredictably the way a troubleshooter must (for instance).
nope.

I maintain that you are being overly idealistic, situations. If everyone is getting food for free, how does the farmer make money? You propose that their is no farmer, it would all be automated. But someone would need to repair machines etc. and there is no way you could get enough volunteers. People would volunteer for a year or two and then drop it. Therefore, you would never get anyone who was any good, which would result in more breakdowns for longer, and as a result less food.

Its a nice thought, but its unrealistic.

Interesting idea initially. I personally would like to see that happen in the real world. :D

BUT-- can you say "The Matrix" and "Matrix: Reloaded?"

Interesting idea initially. I personally would like to see that happen in the real world. :D

BUT-- can you say "The Matrix" and "Matrix: Reloaded?"

double post.

Interesting idea initially. I personally would like to see that happen in the real world. :D

BUT-- can you say "The Matrix" and "Matrix: Reloaded?"

That the human battery one?

I only gots one thing to say:

"GET A JOB, HIPPY!"

I swears. Folks these days just ain't willin' to WORK for NOTHIN'!

And it looks like my new job is straightenin' you people out.

I tell you what...

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee