This. I think most people would still work; they’d just work less. And have much higher standards for what job they’ll take than people driven by necessity.
So, in other words, Universal Basic Income is sufficient to live on?
A society like this would probably, intentionally or not, develop a servant or even slave class to do at least some of the grunt work.
Yeah. Some people would work on hobbies longer hours and with more effort than they currently spend on working - but most wouldn’t. I’d think that some of the workers would be considered to be attractive/“good catches”/worth knowing, simply because they would probably be more interesting to talk to.
Heinlein’s early novel “Beyond this Horizon” has this kind of society. No one needs to work, but most people find something to do, whether it is using their particular talents (medicince, mathematics, etc.) for the public good or building arcade games for the challenge and a little extra cash. One guy with no particular skills is a bartender because he was bored doing nothing. Another guy, with no particular talents (he’s a thawed out rich white American from the 1920s, so he’s genetically inferior by this time period) starts a football league.
So you have to live in the city? Anybody who wants or needs to live somewhere rural does need to work?
– Leaving that out of it: I think nearly everybody would work. But a lot of them wouldn’t call it work; they’d call it play.
Even now, quite a lot of people put a great deal of physical and/or mental effort into their hobbies.
Well then. Based on my proven talents and basic proclivities my new role will be “professional bad example”.
I’m a whiz at that. Doin’ it this instant minute.
This. I think an awful lot of people, perhaps the majority, would dip in and out, making a “percentage of people” potentially misleading.
Sure, some people enjoy their work so much that they would voluntarily work every working day without significant breaks. But I think for most it’s more pleasant to have an ebb and flow – to finish a project and then take a break*. Plus it gives you a chance to change professions too.
* As an aside, this is something I still personally have difficulty with. In theory, a new project should be exciting, but when it is immediately connected to, or overlapping the end of a big project – as is the norm for paid employment – it feels weird to me. It’s like a movie going straight to the sequel as soon as the finale wraps.
Again, as I said in my OP, this is not a plausible hypothetical.
This thread is more about the human psyche than about plausibility.
Status is not only for mate attraction, it a fairly intrinsic part of being social creatures.
I’m thinking Corey Doctorow’s Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. Set in a post scarcity world status as measured by reputation is still worth killing for. (Good book btw.)
I’d WAG that nearly everyone would work at something in order to raise their status.
David Brin’s story “The Fourth Vocation of George Gustaf” features people competing for recognition for excellence in their hobby endeavors. That kind of motivation is quite plausible - given that today we have people who will spend thousands of dollars to compete in contest about who has the loudest car stereo (generally rendering the cars undrivable for practical purposes (dB drag racing - Wikipedia))
So was most of my answer.
You asked a question. I answered it.
I suppose a lot of it depends on the nature of such a “post-scarcity” society.
I would imagine a standard of living something similar to living on a college campus or a 70s sci fi film like Logan’s Run.
Really the question is how does one create additional value if most work is more or less automated? What gives a man additional social value other than his appearance?
Sports, arts, and entertainment would likely still be popular. I would prefer to go to a bar or restaurant run by human staff as opposed to some automated establishment. People would still work in political or administrative roles, even if they were mostly supervising AI decisions. Any of these roles would probably confer some degree of additional wealth and status.
I think you answered it by saying you haven’t worked out the details and aren’t much interested in them. Have I got that right?
I am not sure we have much evidence for this claim. What we know, and feel to be human nature, is shaped by our society and economic system. In many societies in our history, behaviours we think normal and natural would be corrected, mocked, or worse.
You are correct.
Or just have machines do it, that’s the general assumption in such hypotheticals.
Also, it wouldn’t need to “develop” one, it would just have to be more explicit about coercing the one we already have since implicit threats of homelessness and starvation wouldn’t work anymore.
I’m reminded of the post-scarcity Chironian society in James P. Hogan’s Voyage From Yesteryear. They measure “wealth” entirely in reputation, skill and competence, and are baffled at the idea that collecting a lot of “stuff” somehow makes you wealthy. They aren’t impressed by Earth people boasting of their important title or how much money they have, but I recall a scene where they are positively awed by a soldier who happens to be a skilled amateur magician.
Because on Chiron anyone can pick up all the knickknacks they want, but not everyone can do fancy card tricks. So it’s the latter that impresses them.
That sounds like Seth MacFarlane’s “The Orville” basically reputation = wealth.
I wonder if that’s where he got the idea.
This is a baffling take to me: do you have no hobbies, pastime activities, personal projects, fun stuff to do etc.? Do you vegetate when you aren’t working?
People wouldn’t be vegetating. Surfers would surf, hunters would hunt, gamers would play, gardeners would garden etc.. They’d be going hard after what they really love.
Those hobbies have expenses and equipment. I don’t think the OP stipulates that you get guns, surfboards, seeds, gardening equipment, etc.
Expenses, sure, but not expensive, unless you want it to be. Seeds are pennies per bag, and old, hand-me-down gardening equipment works just fine.
Even guns are cheap and plentiful - you don’t need anything special, even though you may want it. I make my own bows and arrows and hunt with them, for that matter. Very little cost, if you don’t count the time expense.
I have plenty of hobbies / projects, and I have never spent much on any of them. I would never run out of things to do if I didn’t work another day in my life. I know many people like that.
I love to read, as do (did?) millions of people. Library books cost nothing. Or are libraries not stipulated?