America's obsession with happiness

@ gveranon

I do consider myself a cold realist when it comes to the capabilities of human beings. I still find it difficult to believe that a working class of machines will do all of the necessary labor in society before humanity is extinct. Humanity will undoubtedly try to achieve the impractical. But, as a good old fashioned pessimist, I'm awaiting all sorts of nightmarish blunders on the part of all those idealists working behind the scenes. As I said before, I would love to inhabit such a society. Nevertheless, I'm not predisposed to make my reason conform to my desires or personal wishes.

We're both entitled to our speculations. My position, unfortunately, has an added disadvantage insofar as it implies that we won't be saved by technology. I realize you yourself are not claiming that technology will deliver us from our miserable condition, but the cold realist in me smells a great deal of unwarranted optimism when it comes to the issue.
 
@ Justin Isis

No one would dispute the fact that the division of labor under capitalism presupposed an agricultural economy in terms of chronology. Civilization proper didn't even begin until there was a series of agricultural surpluses near the world's river valleys. But the fact that that's so is irrelevant. The advent of capitalism presupposed the Big Bang too. Did the Big Bang play a significant role in the reduction of human suffering? It seems more sensible to ask whether or not there was a qualitative change in economic organization that occurred starting in the 19th century.

As a matter of fact, most text books concerning history will tell you that the amount of technological progress which occurred in the 19th century (the rise of capitalism) was far more than what was previously experienced from the earliest civilizations onward - combined. And it was this technological growth which resulted in this "reduction" of suffering you keep mentioning. Here's a quote from none other than Karl Marx:

"The capitalist class, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceeding generations."

The quote comes directly from the Communist Manifesto. You can imagine what apologists of capitalism have written about those same "productive forces." I'm not one of those apologists, but I must give credit when it's due.

I do agree with you that there will be less work in the future due to automation. But I suspect this will reach some kind of peak because of internal constraints.

As for the problem regarding entropy, I've already addressed that point throughout my discussion with gveranon. Although he and I differ about the possibility of a working class of machines, we both agree that entropy does act as an obstacle to its attainment. He believes it will be achieved in spite of entropy; I don't.

EDIT: On a personal note, I was diagnosed with TB during my years of homelessness. Thankfully, I was given proper treatment for two months before it could develop.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Veech,

Some of what I mentioned probably won't happen. But some almost certainly will. Rereading my posts, I realize that it's hard not to sound like a gushing idiot when talking about future tech possibilities. Nevertheless, it is currently more realistic to believe that major transformations will continue to happen for the foreseeable future than it is to believe otherwise.

I think I've made clear that I'm actually more pessimistic than optimistic about future changes. Tech possibilities are one thing; human uses of them are another. I don't think the automation-and-leisure scenario is technologically unrealistic; it may be sociopolitically unrealistic, though.

Bringing entropy into the argument is like bringing conservation of energy or earth's gravity into the argument. Sure, I'll agree that those conditions pertain.

Given my predicted time frame, it should be obvious that any optimism you sense in my posts isn't a personal wish-fantasy. I don't expect to be partying with Ray Kurzweil in 2118 or 2218.

My personal wish-fantasy is focused like a laser on retirement. For those who aren't independently wealthy, the expectation of death in x years is what makes retirement feasible. So I'm hoping to retire in a few years and die before I run out of money. That's what optimism looks like in my personal world.
 
@ gveranon

I wasn't implying that you were guilty of wishful thinking. I was saying that the idea itself is typically brought up within the context of wishful thinking. You made it clear that there are some serious challenges ahead, and that the hypothetical society we're talking about could be accompanied by all sorts of problems.

Ironically, I might actually be the more optimistic one by not believing the existence of such a society will ever become possible.
 
I've found some insight to the original topic of the thread. This guy here views happiness (or being seen as happy) as a moral obligation. He probably owns a house in Stepford.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zxnw0l499g
Another insight: the salient existence of a "Happiness Industry" trying to collect data on people's moods through face scans, personal tech wears, and government's happiness index.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgezVMbPv8I
And here is a Black Mirror's news for me, corporations employ what they call "Chief Happiness Officers" to manage employees' happiness. And it's not a new term for HR manager.
 
Warning before people click: Prager 'University' is a fascist propaganda channel and frontrunner of the far-right clickbait industry.

Likely most know this, but despite my continued grumblings I like the direction 2018 Ligotti forum has gone in and don't want the deathly dark age of creepy alt-right 2015 TLO to return. The YouTube algorithm has a lot of ignorance to answer for, which actually ties into our discussion of automation and how I believe it can be perverted to work for big business rather than the liberation of the working class.
 
Last edited:
Didn't mean to drop out of the conversation... familial weekend duties precluded my participation. Lots of interesting replies and micro threads continuing on since Friday. I'll make a general observation about some of what I have read so far as opposed to a specific reply to each and every post I found interesting.

Here is my general observation about the direction of a key element of this thread. While I actually found the exchange about entropy and robotic labor to be a very interesting one, it feels like that path really just puts off a different and far more meaningful conversation about the reduction of suffering and work now, under the current set of technological conditions as well as sociopolitical limitations of our current set up.

Sure, we can quibble about all the possibilities and fundamental obstacles to a Utopia taking place (and even any moral or philosophical objections), but that conversation is uninteresting to me, because of the very real public policy problems that are upon us now. As it stands now, automation and technological advancements have, functionally speaking, created the 20 and 30 hour work week for many many people in our society. But these laborers are not reaping any kind of real benefit... in fact these folks are being pushed, economically, to the fringes of our society.

There does not appear to be any type of economic/work activity immune to tech disruption, and while those disruptions are yielding great benefits to consumers as well as those with the capital to invest in said tech disruptions, its very unclear to me what path exists for the peeps laid off or work reduced to also realize the benefits given our current social contract. In our current set up, its not like folks who get laid off (or had their hours significantly reduced) because of tech will be given a huge pat on the back and told "thanks for everything, no need to make up the missed ours, feel free to now go do art, read horror fiction, play chess or badminton, or whatever leisure thing makes you happy". Nope, our collective expectation now is for these people to try and either find another full time job (that is also at risk for automation) or some how piece together 2,3, or 4 part time jobs to make up the full 40 hours they owe society.

Is that the kind of economy or society we desire to live in? Personally, I'm doing great... I project manage the roll out of BI and data science solutions for a large government entity. I won't see an AI replacement for my human decision making in my life time... but for all the medical coders that work in our health system... it is conceivable that we purchase a Deep Blue (neural network/deep learning) system that does text analysis of diagnoses notes of our doctors and then auto classifies the correct billing/medical codes. Those human jobs are NOT safe at the moment. For those of you who really don't know how easily manual labor is being replaced or will continue to be replaced, I'm just giving a very tiny in-the-weeds example of it happening, currently

What happens to those people when there is no need for them to do clerical work? Do they all just become Uber and Lyft "entrepreneurs" right up until Uber and Lyft put self-driving cars on the roads (wouldn't that just be a delightful kick in the crotch)? Or maybe they will all become amazon prime sellers... living the dream of selling baby food to the masses.

I'll just say this... in the US... both major political parties are garbage at trying to address this monumental and rapid shifting in our society. For all of our glorious championing of stellar GDP growth and extreme low levels of unemployment... for some very peculiar reason... wage growth for your average citizen continues to stagnate.

I suspect, our legislators will continue to bury their heads in the sand, throw a token million dollars or so to 'retraining' programs for Appalachian coal miners to learn how to code in python, and simply wonder out loud why the welfare/food stamp rolls are exploding. What happens after that is anyone's guess. I can't honestly say I am an anti-capitalist of any sort... I definitely see how the means of producing so much for so many has exploded in the last two hundred years using this approach... but I really have to wonder, given where things are going now and how quickly things are moving... if we need to start re-thinking some of this. It seems to me that some of our previous modes of thought on work and value to our society are bit outdated and simply don't equip us with the tools and mind set to handle this change.

I guess... my immediate question is should our society take steps now at redefining how the citizenry contributes value to our society or should we just keep letting the current dynamic continue and let the workforce get reorganized in a way that works for what seems to be a precious few? If the answer is... "nah... things have been great so far just let market forces handle this change to our workforce needs"... uh... what does the workforce look like to you in the next 10-20-30 years and are you fine with that?
 
Universal basic income is going to be necessary, though we also need larger changes to be implemented. Both major political parties are trash at addressing this because they don't care about what happens to poor people, even if one party is dramatically worse for it than the other.
 
@James: I know about PragerU. I also found a bit in a book about American Dream on this"moral obligation to pursue happiness" (unfortunately I lost it), Zizek also talked about it on how "we are obligated to enjoy", so to my thinking the video is propaganda but not the idea. It's interesting because the message seems to be an inversion of the Greek's eudaimonia: "You need to be happy to be good."

Who's going to pay for universal basic income?
 
If the rich are taxed accordingly and the requisite steps toward automation are made there isn't an issue. Capitalist governments are already finding it marginally harder to scapegoat the unemployed for economic problems, but when the jobs are either unnecessary or don't exist dramatic reform shall be demanded.
 
Mr. Veech said:
Personally, I'd like to see a redistribution of the means of production, which implies worker-owned businesses.
Click to expand...

What does that look like, pragmatically speaking? I feel like through ebay and amazon, we are seeing more and more people try to become self-made import export entrepreneurs. That doesn't really seem like a path to success for the majority of folks... and those "markets" are owned and administered by tech giants which makes me wonder how much real entrepreneurship exists for the individual.

Are you suggesting that individuals will be running out, buying the robots themselves and producing stuff for mass consumption at an individual level? I'm wondering how you achieve economies of scale when you atomize the means of production in that way? Maybe I have misunderstood what you are suggesting...
 
James said:
Not possible within capitalism.
Click to expand...

You're right.

Under capitalism wealth is (as we've seen quite clearly) controlled by a handful of business elites. We need to see a decentralization of both government and big business, because the two work alongside one another at the expense of the worker. Both the idle rich and corrupt politicians have profited at the expense of the average working citizen.

@ Comrade Tulayev

The primary reason it's so difficult for small businesses or individual entrepreneurship to succeed is because governmental regulations favor big businesses. This is the result of living in what is essentially a plutocracy.
 
Personally I don't think universal basic income will ever get passed, and if it is passed, it would only be after a war. The boat is rocking, yes, but it'll be long before the passengers jump for the floats.
 
It's a long way off, but it's inevitable if automation occurs. Right now the Trump government are more concerned with policies against trans people and non-whites. If universally available healthcare isn't happening any time soon then UBI isn't. I suppose it's just nice to think of better times, even if they are centuries away, as the current period is so unfathomably bleak, but I do suspect there will be a significant course correction eventually if we avoid an irreversible catastrophe long enough.

After a lot of the older people die off public opinion will be significantly different to the point I suspect the UK will re-enter the EU as younger people didn't want Brexit at all. I would imagine a similar thing will occur with support for the Republican party after the older generations have gone. It's hard not to feel as if the older generations have thrown us under the bus economically and socially over petty prejudices.

Mr. Veech said:
You're right.

Under capitalism wealth is (as we've seen quite clearly) controlled by a handful of business elites. We need to see a decentralization of both government and big business, because the two work alongside one another at the expense of the worker.
Click to expand...

I think we need drastically increased regulation when it comes to the government's relationship with businesses and that the less regulated market naturally favours big business against the small because that's how the system is set up to work. A solid start in working towards improvement is to elect as many true progressives as is possible so the rich will be taxed to the degree they deserve, but further organised action will inevitably be required.
 
@ James

I think we need governmental regulations which discourage businesses from becoming monopolies. I'd like to see smaller businesses compete within a market which ultimately favors the ordinary worker/consumer. After all, we still have to create economic incentives. I don't wish to see the widespread governmental seizure of private property.

The crucial difference between you and I is that you are suspicious of big business, whereas I am suspicious of both big business and big government. Both, in my opinion, result in wealth being concentrated in the hands of a small elite. I think history has shown this time and time again. Both capitalism and socialism have exploited the average worker for far too long.

This is why there's no substantive difference between Trump and Obama.
 
I'm not exactly a big Obama fan, but there is a substantial difference between them for many vulnerable people in American society considering the anti-trans push, ICE, pushes to curtail reproductive rights, rise of far-right violence, etc. These aren't small things for some people and are actually life threatening issues, as is Trump backing out of the Paris agreement. Not seeing any notable difference between Obama and Trump is kind of a luxury position.
 
James said:
I'm not exactly a big Obama fan, but there is a substantial difference between them for many vulnerable people in American society considering the new anti-trans legislation, ICE, pushes to curtail reproductive rights, etc. These aren't small things for some people and are actually life threatening issues, as is Trump backing out of the Paris agreement.
Click to expand...

Trump and Obama are the same insofar as they represent economic polices which result in the economic gap we're experiencing. Social issues are another, albeit important, matter.
 
Well, they're both capitalists and therefore wrong, but even then Trump is demonstrably worse given his stance on tax cuts, healthcare, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top