Are We Already At The "End Of Work"?

[Ares]

The Python That Ate Your Job

We are already well into the "end of work."

The more accurate title would be "The Python (Script) That Ate Your Job." Python is a computer language whose core philosophy is summarized by "PEP 20 (The Zen of Python)", which includes aphorisms such as:

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Readability counts.

(source: Wikipedia)

As I understand it (from a non-programmer POV), Python enables rapid development of scripts that may not be optimized by some metrics but which work perfectly well in terms of solving a problem in a cost-effective manner.

(Programmers can be highly partisan, i.e. emotionally attached to their preferred language, so I am trying to be as non-partisan and careful as possible here to avoid arousing the ire of either Pythoneers or Python detractors. I am just an ignorant bystander; please don't shoot the piano player, etc.)

A senior manager at a small tech company recently related a story that illustrates 1) the power of Python (and other scripting languages) and 2) the changing nature of work:

The company had some time-consuming data analysis that needed to get done on a regular basis, and the manager was considering recruiting a (paid) intern to do the work. Instead, he spent four hours writing a Python script which did the work in a few minutes. He named the program "Intern."

This story is repeated thousands of times a day across millions of tasks. Virtually all of my self-employed friends use technology to enable one person to produce output that would have taken three people in the 1980s.

As management guru Peter Drucker noted, enterprises don't have profits, they only have expenses. If you are self-employed or own/manage a business, you will immediately grasp the profound truth of this insight.

If you can replace an expensive worker (and every employee is expensive nowadays, due to the high cost of labor and general overhead) with a Python script that can be crafted in a few hours, financial fact compels you to do so: your business has no profit, it only has expenses.

This dynamic is scale-invariant, meaning it is true of all organizations, from one-person businesses up to global corporations and entire nations. A non-profit group only has expenses, and so do churches, cities and nations. Once expenses exceed income, the organization goes bust.

Could I be replaced with a Python script? In some ways, yes: a script could be written that mined the thousands of entries and essays I've written for repeating words, phrases and themes, and the script would rehash the material into "new" entries.

But since the script isn't logging "experience" in the same way as a human does, the script would not be able to replicate dynamics such as changing one's mind or taking a new direction, although it could randomly generate such behaviors to mimic human development.

Would the script be "good enough" to attract readers? Perhaps; but attracting and keeping readers is not necessarily a problem-state that can be solved with data-mining and pattern matching, as readers seek not just novelty and expressive writing but insight. Any script that rehashed existing material would not be generating new insight; it would simply be repackaging previous insights.

For highly partisan blogs, this might well be "good enough," since partisan readers actually want to read the same rehashed material again and again: in effect, a script that repackaged "it's the Demopublican's fault" with new headlines and slightly different content would closely match the human content generator's output.

I have no doubt some clever programmers have already played around with generating rehashed content and posting it as a blog written by a human being, an artifice masked by an avatar ("Hi, my name is J.Q. Public and I write about politics."). It would almost amount to sport to generate a phony history and cobbled-together quirks to fill out the illusion of personhood.

(Some readers have even wondered if "Charles Hugh Smith" is such an avatar. The answer is no, because the history and quirks of "Charles Hugh Smith" are simply too implausible to be believable. Also, the cost of maintaining such a complicated avatar isn't worth the paltry income generated by the blog. What machine intelligence would be dumb enough to maintain this idiotically complicated enterprise for such a paltry return? Only a human would be compelled to do so.)

Could a robot and standardized scripts replace everything I can do with a Skil 77 wormdrive power saw? It could certainly do a great many repetitive tasks at a work bench, but it would not be able to do non-standardized, on-the-jobsite tasks such as cutting out the rotten sections of a wood window frame. The robot might be able to execute the cuts (presuming it was light enough and mobile enough to stand securely on a scaffold or slope), but it would need a human partner to program the cuts in the real world and in real time.

In other words, "work" is increasingly a partnership of humans and technology. If one's skills and experience (i.e. labor) can be replaced with a Python script, it will be replaced by a Python script. Organizations that fail to replace costly paid human labor with a script will have much higher costs than those organizations that replace paid labor with scripts.

The paid human labor that can't be replaced by a script will increasingly require the knowledge and skills needed to collaborate with technology as an essential work partner.

We are already well into the "end of work." Digital pythons have been eating jobs for some time now, and because organizations only have expenses, they will continue to do so indefinitely until the only paid jobs left are those that cannot be fully replaced by a script or a robot operating on standardized scripts.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-11/are-we-already-end-work

Ares: I've worked with Python (I do Batch and PowerShell scripting) it's cumbersome and convoluted, but it's quick in execution.

[Ares]

I was reading through the ZeroHedge comments on this article, and saw this posted. As a techie I found this hilarious.


Here, use this CEO class as a template for your journeys.



class CEO : Douche

def __init__(self, name, org, pay=1000000, douchelevel=10):
self.name = name;
self.org = org;
self.pay = pay;
self.douchelevel = douchelevel

def squander(self):
self.org.balance = 0

def steal(self):
self.pay = self.org.balance

def give_self_raise(self):
self.pay += 1000000
self.douchelevel += 1

[Sparky]

The main problem with the economy is that, when you get right down to it, we only need about half of the workforce to get all the important work done that really needs to be done. This is the result of huge advances in technology.

So the other half needs to be working on things that don't really need to be done. Most of these things are related to pushing the envelope toward improving standard of living, usually through improved efficiency or technology.

If you are a pure free market capitalist, then you think this second half should let this happen naturally. Unfortunately, for every successful breakthrough that has large financial rewards, there are dozens of attempts that lead nowhere. So most of the other half would be failing, and in a free market system, that might not reach an equilibrium that allows continuing research and development.

So there is some argument that some central organizer (e.g. government) could play a role in being the broker that provides motivation and subsidies for this other half to be productively improving standard of living. Even though I'm libertarian, I can see an argument for that. Unfortunately, the government sucks at this. They think they are doing this, but the implementation in place is massively misguided, inefficient, and corrupt.

Take healthcare as an example. As much as Obamacare sucks and is going to be a failure, I think the whole idea of using government (taxpayer) resources to improve availability and quality of health care is a good one. It's an area where everyone benefits. As a survivalist libertarians here, we strive to be self-reliant as much as we can. But our health is our most vulnerable area. Most of us are simply not skilled nor have the technology to handle major health issues that ruin our quality of life, or are life-threatening. I think this is an area where the government can put taxpayer money to best use. Unfortunately, our corrupt system is trying to implement some half-assed misguided system instead.

But getting back to the original topic, what should society do when only half of its people are needed to get all the work done?

[Shami-Amourae]

The only solution I see to this will be a minimum income. It's not whether we agree with it or not. It's the only way the Elite in charge keep things under control.

[Ares]

But getting back to the original topic, what should society do when only half of its people are needed to get all the work done?

Let the free market decide. Like the article said, you can't get a robot, script or machine to be a brick layer, a plumber, or graphics artist or designer.

The free market is great at finding what works and what doesn't. I think what we are seeing is too many people who went into higher education and feel entitled to a job, only to find out that now there is a script or a machine that can replace you. Since I am a low level script writer myself, and have written probably over 100 scripts at my new job alone already to help me automate task and reduce repetitive workloads. My skill level in that area is a commodity that I can charge for. But if I never taught myself to do that (hundreds of hours of trial and error, bug checking, etc.), I would have to think of something else to do, or become good at something else. Humans are very adaptive for survival. We do not need a government safety net to allocate capital to its friends in a disguise as our "benefit". There are free market solutions to that as well. Find a need fill a need and find a way to capitalize on it while at the same time helping your fellow man.

[Sparky]

The only solution I see to this will be a minimum income. It's not whether we agree with it or not. It's the only way the Elite in charge keep things under control.

It's sort of what we have now through government assistance. Minimum income is the amount of assistance you get if you have no real income. Of course, this is much more than "minimum wage", which is why so many people choose to not work. In turn, that's why there's a push to increase minimum wage.

A move to drastically increase minimum wage would be the gateway to wage inflation that has been suppressed during these credit crunch years. This is the type of thing that leads tangible asset prices to soar. Like precious metals.

[Ares]

The only solution I see to this will be a minimum income. It's not whether we agree with it or not. It's the only way the Elite in charge keep things under control.

Even that solution is a can kicking endeavor. They are already working on robots that can replace fry cooks, and grill cooks at McDonalds. Cash registers will be replaced as most people use credit cards. Can have their own touch menu order system, once its completed order goes back to the bots to make the order. They work cheap, are fast and efficient and never ask for a day off, or have life events that get in the way.

There will be a point that they cannot control humanity as the technological advancement will start working against them. We are in the beginning stages of that now. The internet as we all know is a major thorn in their side. Mix in with crypto currencies, robotics, and other unknown medical, technological, advancements and we can guess we might not even have to work in the traditional sense. What's the point of working if you have a 3D printer that can "print" whatever food you want? Energy density is being amplified by the 1000's with graphene development, whose to say someone doesn't invent a battery large enough to power a house for 2-3 years on a single cycle and can be recharged with a few minutes by the sun? With no ability to control people, their movements, or their purchasing ability there will be no need for government. How far is it? I have no idea, and this is just hopeful speculation. But from a technological perspective machines are doing what they have always done. Increase production, there could be a point that we increase production to the point that the human element is no longer required to perform the function.

What do we do then?

[Sparky]

Let the free market decide. Like the article said, you can't get a robot, script or machine to be a brick layer, a plumber, or graphics artist or designer.

The free market is great at finding what works and what doesn't. I think what we are seeing is too many people who went into higher education and feel entitled to a job, only to find out that now there is a script or a machine that can replace you. Since I am a low level script writer myself, and have written probably over 100 scripts at my new job alone already to help me automate task and reduce repetitive workloads. My skill level in that area is a commodity that I can charge for. But if I never taught myself to do that (hundreds of hours of trial and error, bug checking, etc.), I would have to think of something else to do, or become good at something else. Humans are very adaptive for survival. We do not need a government safety net to allocate capital to its friends in a disguise as our "benefit". There are free market solutions to that as well. Find a need fill a need and find a way to capitalize on it while at the same time helping your fellow man.

I think you are missing my point that the free market can no longer keep everyone employed. Most of our advances in standard of living now are highly dependent upon advanced technology or huge capital outlay for research. If you lose your job as a script writer, you're not going to switch to advancing cancer research, which is where we could really use some help. You're not going to help me deal with cataracts when I get older. You're not going to help me with diabetes or Alzheimer's. As for the things that a machine can't do (brick layer, plumber, graphic design), there simply isn't enough demand for those skills to employ half the work force. It's true that there is still some unmet demand in those areas, and you'll see a move in that direction over the next generation, but it won't solve the problem.

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine an island with 100 inhabitants, where one guy has the skill to do everything infinitely fast at low cost. How is the free market going to help the other 99 people? The one guy will always be cheaper and faster and better. He then becomes motivated to subsidize the rest of the population because he doesn't want to live on an island where everybody else is dying off from starvation. This is an exaggeration, but it models the situation that is going on.

[gunDriller]

i think, one way to describe it is "Slavery 2.0" - with the Jews returning to their 19th century role as Slave-keepers.

but now the plantations are called "Facebook."

[Ares]

I think you are missing my point that the free market can no longer keep everyone employed. Most of our advances in standard of living now are highly dependent upon advanced technology or huge capital outlay for research. If you lose your job as a script writer, you're not going to switch to advancing cancer research, which is where we could really use some help. You're not going to help me deal with cataracts when I get older. You're not going to help me with diabetes or Alzheimer's. As for the things that a machine can't do (brick layer, plumber, graphic design), there simply isn't enough demand for those skills to employ half the work force. It's true that there is still some unmet demand in those areas, and you'll see a move in that direction over the next generation, but it won't solve the problem.

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine an island with 100 inhabitants, where one guy has the skill to do everything infinitely fast at low cost. How is the free market going to help the other 99 people? The one guy will always be cheaper and faster and better. He then becomes motivated to subsidize the rest of the population because he doesn't want to live on an island where everybody else is dying off from starvation. This is an exaggeration, but it models the situation that is going on.

True, but I've also developed other skills in my line of work. I'm still in technology, I haven't seen a machine or script yet that can auto load a Win2k8 box with custom configurations and user driven request.

Even in your scenario the 99 people still have to feed themselves. What's to stop them from fishing, farming for themselves to provide their needs? Or learning to be self sufficient and not rely on someone to do it for them? No one is saying people have to starve to death because they don't have a job. My guess is that it will get to the point that all of our needs will be met and work is something that we'll look back on and ask why.

3D printed food for example. Imagine just printing what you want, and it just takes a matter of minutes. Would you go to McDonalds, to pay for someone (even a machine has cost) to do it when you can "print" the same burger at your house with ingredients you use at less to maybe zero cost?

Someone just posted the other day that there is an open source metal 3D printer, why buy tools when you can just print them with metal powders? Instead of 80-100 FRN's for a wrench set, you'll spend maybe 5 FRN's worth in metal powder.

I'm looking at the exponential increase in production by technology and machines in general. Yep we will all still need health care at some point in our lives.. Or will we? Humans made it this far without institutional medicine. What's to stop it from collapsing from its own weight and inefficiencies? I haven't been to a doctor in close to a decade now. I take care of myself, I eat right, exercise, and do what I can to maintain my body. I know at some point it will fail, we all die eventually. This current form of health care is grossly overly burdensome and really doesn't care about really curing anything.

There could be other avenues that open up with people having a lot more free time. We just have no idea what the future holds, it could all collapse tomorrow and result in WWIII. We just don't know.

[vacuum]

But getting back to the original topic, what should society do when only half of its people are needed to get all the work done?

The way I see it, there are two ways to overcome this problem.

The first method is, in general, "try to make things better". This is the Bill Gates type approach where he tries to develop all these vaccines, gmos, birth control, whatever Gates thinks will help the population is what he does. It's the socialist model where there is a Great Initiative such as Obamacare, social security, public education, etc. The problem with trying to "make things better" is that it's a pre-planned centralized approach for an organically evolving and complex society. Large committees aren't able to successfully apply resources to problems because of the inevitable inefficiencies and waste.

The second method is to "solve a hard problem". This is more like the military or NASA or large corporation approach where there is a concrete and difficult goal and they develop all types of technologies and processes to achieve the goal. It is unforeseeable what will actually be needed to achieve the goal in great detail, so problems are overcome as they arise. This reduces waste because issues are dynamically address as they come, and the solutions and technology generated from solving those issues is the payoff. I think all we need to do is set some difficult goals to achieve and then create a lot of smaller pre-planned initiatives (the first method) which individually succeed or fail over time. We could maybe try to establish a colony on mars or the moon for example. The medical, agricultural, and technological requirements to get there would payoff over time.

In your example with the man on the island who can do everything cheaper than everyone else, and no on else has anything to do it would be like this. He could either create social programs and decide how to give out credits and to who so that everyone could have a better quality of life (method 1) or he could mandate the construction of a big ship (which he is unable to do himself) which can hold enough food to sail for 2000 miles to the mainland then make it back to bring him back some black tea (method 2).

[Ares]

i think, one way to describe it is "Slavery 2.0" - with the Jews returning to their 19th century role as Slave-keepers.

but now the plantations are called "Facebook."

They can only control a population that vastly out numbers them because of government. Without it they can't rule a pile of dog shit.

[horseshoe3]

The main problem with the economy is that, when you get right down to it, we only need about half of the workforce to get all the important work done that really needs to be done. This is the result of huge advances in technology.

...

But getting back to the original topic, what should society do when only half of its people are needed to get all the work done?

Is it the result of technology, or feminism? If the males of society can to all the "important" jobs, leaving the women to take care of the home, isn't the result more likely to be a strong and healthy culture? Home economics isn't just a course you had to take in Jr High. It actually means what it says. HOME ECONOMICS. Being useful by facilitating the smooth operation of the home. What happens when you take the home economist out of the home and convince her to "get a job?"

If you were trying to overthrow a healthy, productive society, one of the first things you should do is to convince the women that being a wife and mother is "not rewarding." You would convince them to "get a job." This accomplishes many things at once. Primarily it takes a loving parent away from the children and puts them more fully under the influence of the state. It also dilutes wages and and widens the pay gap between skilled and unskilled labor. 5 decades ago, a man could make a decent living as a sales clerk in a department store. Now that job pays minimum wage. In this economy, it doesn't seem possible for a one income family to survive unless that one income comes from a pretty skilled job. And that's just the way TPTB like it.

[mick silver]

soros and his buddy talk about cutting the population in half do you all think thats just talk

[Santa]

I'm looking at the exponential increase in production by technology and machines in general.

I think the exponential increase(growth) in production is actually the biggest problem humanity faces while almost every technological advancement is designed toward an increase in production of some sort or another. I see exponential growth as the Pied Piper leading us human Lemmings right off a cliff. It's physics. Nothing can grow exponentially forever. It becomes a mathematical absurdity.
Then a monster. Then a destroyer. It doesn't matter whether its technology, or institutional systems or biological organisms. The end result is the same.

[Ponce]

We have had that program for the past 50 years and the name of that program? .............. " Federal Employee" where 10 people are doing the same job at the same time in the same building........I don't need a computer to do that job.

V

[Son-of-Liberty]

Is it the result of technology, or feminism? If the males of society can to all the "important" jobs, leaving the women to take care of the home, isn't the result more likely to be a strong and healthy culture? Home economics isn't just a course you had to take in Jr High. It actually means what it says. HOME ECONOMICS. Being useful by facilitating the smooth operation of the home. What happens when you take the home economist out of the home and convince her to "get a job?"

If you were trying to overthrow a healthy, productive society, one of the first things you should do is to convince the women that being a wife and mother is "not rewarding." You would convince them to "get a job." This accomplishes many things at once. Primarily it takes a loving parent away from the children and puts them more fully under the influence of the state. It also dilutes wages and and widens the pay gap between skilled and unskilled labor. 5 decades ago, a man could make a decent living as a sales clerk in a department store. Now that job pays minimum wage. In this economy, it doesn't seem possible for a one income family to survive unless that one income comes from a pretty skilled job. And that's just the way TPTB like it.

I think this is the biggest missed point in this whole thread. Without Women competing with men for jobs Sparky's thought that we have too much labor for the amount of work isn't a problem.

The family wouldn't have to eat fast food and prepackaged food because there would be someone home all day to take care of meals.

Sickness and disease would go down as the consumption of overly processed, poison laden foods decreased, and some food was grown in the back yard again.

The family unit would be stronger and the parents would have the time and energy for more then one child and be a real family unit instead of two parents scrambling to make ends meet while the state raises their child.

Man has always been lazy, and historically we are actually working longer hours then we used to in the past. Studies of indigenous tribes shows that they only work a few hours a day and the rest is spent resting or socializing. This idea that we must always be busy is non-sense but great for the TPTB because it keeps us too busy to realize how badly we are getting fucked.

When you think about it, too much human labor is another problem that the social engineers created and now they are going to shove their solution in our faces like they are some savior.

Too bad this situation likely won't change until after the collapse.

[Jewboo]

Too bad this situation likely won't change until after the collapse.




http://ericlukepeterson.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/single_mothers_think_i_do_mindy_chapman_vo_0-500x390.png?w=584


I also agree that horseshoe3 properly identified the real problem. No way possible now even "after" a collapse for a man to support a family. American females will never go back to accepting Patriarchy after two generations of Feminism:



http://screencrave.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/top-5-bad-ass-military-women-28-5-10-kc.jpg
AFTER WATCHING THIS JEW BRAINWASHING ALL THEIR LIVES?

:rolleyes:

[horseshoe3]

Man has always been lazy, and historically we are actually working longer hours then we used to in the past. Studies of indigenous tribes shows that they only work a few hours a day and the rest is spent resting or socializing. This idea that we must always be busy is non-sense but great for the TPTB because it keeps us too busy to realize how badly we are getting fucked.

There really is a difference between Northern Europeans and most of the rest of the world. You correctly identify the work ethic of most people. And honestly, I can't say that their way is without advantages. I'm sure they have less stress and get an enjoyment out of life that is probably just as strong as mine, but in a different way. However, I can't live like that. I'm positive that it's in my genes as well as most of the rest of you on this board. I enjoy taking a day off now and then, but after a while, I can't be unproductive anymore. It seems that extended relaxation actually causes me to stress out. It could be conditioning by TPTB, I don't claim to be immune to that. But it sure feels like it goes much deeper than that.

[Sparky]

True, but I've also developed other skills in my line of work. I'm still in technology, I haven't seen a machine or script yet that can auto load a Win2k8 box with custom configurations and user driven request.

Even in your scenario the 99 people still have to feed themselves. What's to stop them from fishing, farming for themselves to provide their needs? Or learning to be self sufficient and not rely on someone to do it for them? No one is saying people have to starve to death because they don't have a job. My guess is that it will get to the point that all of our needs will be met and work is something that we'll look back on and ask why.

Yes, but as I said, for the self-reliant the biggest risk is a complex health issue. We are headed toward your last sentence (all our needs will be met), so it seems like a "socialistic" approach to some things are okay in principle. The real problem is uncorrupted implementation.


3D printed food for example. Imagine just printing what you want, and it just takes a matter of minutes. Would you go to McDonalds, to pay for someone (even a machine has cost) to do it when you can "print" the same burger at your house with ingredients you use at less to maybe zero cost?

Someone just posted the other day that there is an open source metal 3D printer, why buy tools when you can just print them with metal powders? Instead of 80-100 FRN's for a wrench set, you'll spend maybe 5 FRN's worth in metal powder.

But this is the problem. Now you've eliminated gun manufacturers and food producers. No one will be able to earn the 5 FRNs worth of metal powder.



I'm looking at the exponential increase in production by technology and machines in general. Yep we will all still need health care at some point in our lives.. Or will we? Humans made it this far without institutional medicine. What's to stop it from collapsing from its own weight and inefficiencies? I haven't been to a doctor in close to a decade now. I take care of myself, I eat right, exercise, and do what I can to maintain my body. I know at some point it will fail, we all die eventually. This current form of health care is grossly overly burdensome and really doesn't care about really curing anything.


Again, this is making my point. Too much productivity. While we sit here with a stupid healthcare system. Divert our productivity to that challenge.

[Sparky]

The way I see it, there are two ways to overcome this problem.

The first method is, in general, "try to make things better". This is the Bill Gates type approach where he tries to develop all these vaccines, gmos, birth control, whatever Gates thinks will help the population is what he does. It's the socialist model where there is a Great Initiative such as Obamacare, social security, public education, etc. The problem with trying to "make things better" is that it's a pre-planned centralized approach for an organically evolving and complex society. Large committees aren't able to successfully apply resources to problems because of the inevitable inefficiencies and waste.

The second method is to "solve a hard problem". This is more like the military or NASA or large corporation approach where there is a concrete and difficult goal and they develop all types of technologies and processes to achieve the goal. It is unforeseeable what will actually be needed to achieve the goal in great detail, so problems are overcome as they arise. This reduces waste because issues are dynamically address as they come, and the solutions and technology generated from solving those issues is the payoff. I think all we need to do is set some difficult goals to achieve and then create a lot of smaller pre-planned initiatives (the first method) which individually succeed or fail over time. We could maybe try to establish a colony on mars or the moon for example. The medical, agricultural, and technological requirements to get there would payoff over time.

In your example with the man on the island who can do everything cheaper than everyone else, and no on else has anything to do it would be like this. He could either create social programs and decide how to give out credits and to who so that everyone could have a better quality of life (method 1) or he could mandate the construction of a big ship (which he is unable to do himself) which can hold enough food to sail for 2000 miles to the mainland then make it back to bring him back some black tea (method 2).

I think the first way would work if it was pure. But that seems to be the hard part. I agree with you second approach. I think the health care system should be our new man-on-the-moon project.

And your island point is what I'm saying. The one super-producer has to benevolently make everyone else productive, for his own good and for the good of everyone else.

[Sparky]

I think this is the biggest missed point in this whole thread. Without Women competing with men for jobs Sparky's thought that we have too much labor for the amount of work isn't a problem.

The family wouldn't have to eat fast food and prepackaged food because there would be someone home all day to take care of meals.

Sickness and disease would go down as the consumption of overly processed, poison laden foods decreased, and some food was grown in the back yard again.

The family unit would be stronger and the parents would have the time and energy for more then one child and be a real family unit instead of two parents scrambling to make ends meet while the state raises their child.

Man has always been lazy, and historically we are actually working longer hours then we used to in the past. Studies of indigenous tribes shows that they only work a few hours a day and the rest is spent resting or socializing. This idea that we must always be busy is non-sense but great for the TPTB because it keeps us too busy to realize how badly we are getting fucked.

When you think about it, too much human labor is another problem that the social engineers created and now they are going to shove their solution in our faces like they are some savior.

Too bad this situation likely won't change until after the collapse.

This is a great point. Domestic lifestyle and home nurturing have seen a huge reduction in standard of living over the last 40 years.

[Horn]

But getting back to the original topic, what should society do when only half of its people are needed to get all the work done?

Research previously unexplored fields of challenge, and ignore the patent process.

I'd be happy fund an entrepreneur no matter how stupid, lazy, and unsuccessful.

[Son-of-Liberty]

There really is a difference between Northern Europeans and most of the rest of the world. You correctly identify the work ethic of most people. And honestly, I can't say that their way is without advantages. I'm sure they have less stress and get an enjoyment out of life that is probably just as strong as mine, but in a different way. However, I can't live like that. I'm positive that it's in my genes as well as most of the rest of you on this board. I enjoy taking a day off now and then, but after a while, I can't be unproductive anymore. It seems that extended relaxation actually causes me to stress out. It could be conditioning by TPTB, I don't claim to be immune to that. But it sure feels like it goes much deeper than that.

I think this has to do with the hard winters our ancestors had to endure. If you didn't work hard during the summer and stocked up enough provisions you wouldn't make it through the winter. However in the winter there wasn't as much day light and you would have little to do other then take care of livestock and maybe crafting inside the home. There would only be 8-10 hours of daylight in northern regions so without artificial lighting you would be forced to take it easy and sleep for 12 hours a day.

Artificial lighting can trick the brain into thinking it is always summer so perhaps this anxiety is something more modern. Electric lighting has really only been around less then 100 years.

People from warmer regions wouldn't have this problem.

[Rubberchicken]

If we are at the end of work, my boss hasn't got the e-mail yet.... The reward of work is not only in the paycheck but in pride of something tangible and of quality. Not everything made in America today is cheap landfill fodder.