Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NihiliSloth t1_iwzp1de wrote

Change the words “happier and more productive” with the words “complacent and more robotic”.

At some point, companies have to realize people are not machines and they aren’t made to work 12 hours a day 5 days a week.

It’s proven that in countries where the work week is 35 hours or less a week, people are happier. And it’s because they can actually live their lives. They have time to take care of themselves physically and emotionally. They have time to spend with family. They have time to do hobbies. They have time to connect with nature. They have time to sleep.

With the amount of time people are expected to work in the US, people barely have time to sleep before they have to go right back to work. It’s a recipe for burnout. It’s a recipe for depression and hopelessness.

Fuck this stupid brain scanning bullshit. If you want people to be more happy and productive, give them a reason to be more happy and productive. Create a healthy work environment. Pay them well. Give them incentives. Don’t make them work 60+ hours a week. Cut that time in half. Let them live their lives while also having a job. Don’t make them pick a job over their lives.

Fuck capitalism being the most important thing to most people. News flash, It’s not the most important thing.

161

kerouac666 t1_iwzvsco wrote

“Fitter, happier and more productive/a pig/in a cage/on antibiotics” as unemotionally read by an artificial voice are literally the lyrics/song of Radiohead’s “Fitter Happier” on OK Computer meant to represent the dystopian isolation of ‘97 life. We got all the bad cyberpunk stuff, but none of the cool fun stuff. Employers can track our brain patterns for max efficiency, but we have no flying cars. Lame.

31

UntakenAccountName t1_iwzyzc8 wrote

The flying car is for the employer exploiting your labor and making all the money off of you. Duh.

15

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_iwzrfia wrote

Indeed, human beings are not machines and never will be, which is precisely why it’s a moral imperative to replace human labour with robot labour wherever possible.

19

DaPretzelBoi t1_iwzw7z7 wrote

We need systems in place to allow people to get by fine without jobs before we get too far into automating them and reduce the number of jobs available. Capitalists are vehemently opposed to such an idea.

7

kraemahz t1_ix066nb wrote

We do need those things, they likely will not happen without it being bad for quite a while to the point that those resisting it have no choice.

2

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_ix0fn0v wrote

Bingo. A short period of suffering is necessary to compel the people to demand UBI and not take no for an answer.

1

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_ix0fk8r wrote

Yes, it’s called UBI, which would follow a steep loss of jobs because the people would demand it, whether by the ballot, wallet, or bullet. This would be paid for by taxing automation.

1

Artanthos t1_ix26fs0 wrote

Or people will be shoveled into barracks style dormitories, fed very basic meals in cafeterias, and any resistance will be summarily put down by much better armed police.

1

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_ix27hlc wrote

At that point why not just execute 90% of humans?

1

Artanthos t1_ix7p8eb wrote

People like to believe they are good.

With the solution above, the wealthy will be able to legitimately state that they provided food, clothing, and shelter to the unemployed masses.

It just won’t be what you are asking for. It will also be far better than the conditions experienced by the poor in Victorian England, where the wealthy thought they were doing good by helping the poor and the orphans.

1

NihiliSloth t1_ix0vrp7 wrote

But will we still rely heavily on money and capitalism being put above everything else? Because that’ll take away a lot of jobs people need in order to eat and keep a roof over their heads. Will everything still be so expensive if human labor is replaced by robots? Cause we could knock out most of the workforce with retail, warehouse, and food industries. Robots can do all of those jobs. But what happens to the people who lose their jobs? Or will money be a non issue? Will people be taught different skills? Will other jobs be more desirable? Will there be enough of those jobs? Or will society have to be restructured and people will have to live a different kind of life?

3

YeetThePig t1_ix109g8 wrote

In all likelihood, we’re going to cling to capitalism because the wealthy and powerful demand it, decay into full-blown fascism propped up by automation and resource wars, mass extermination of the poor and unemployed where possible (through either violence or willful neglect), and when that inevitably no longer remains feasible, total collapse of society. Should our species and a sufficient amount of technology survive that, there’s definitely a slim chance at a civilized AI-enabled humanity to emerge from the ashes.

3

NihiliSloth t1_ix10h5a wrote

Yeah and that’s the problem. Fuck capitalism.

3

YeetThePig t1_ix11oh5 wrote

Yeah, I would concur that that would be the rational response. Unfortunately, we’re not a rational species to begin with, and the political and economic power are all concentrated in the hands of particularly irrational sociopaths. So as a result, humanity gets to witness what happens when the unstoppable force of automation-driven capitalism meets the immovable object of human needs.

3

NihiliSloth t1_ix149vn wrote

Yeah someone else on this thread questioned why I think CEO’s and other extremely wealthy people are psychopaths. It’s because they are. People don’t obtain that amount of money and power by being nice and giving to people. They obtain it because they take what they want, regardless if they hurt people or not. And oftentimes it does involve hurting people. They simply do not care. They only stop when someone else keeps them in check due to illegal activity. But some people have enough wealth and power they can just pay their way out of situations and they are exempt from the law.

People like the person questioning me (who think the workings of large corporations is completely okay) will never get it because they are a part of the problem. They lack sympathy and empathy for what’s really transpiring. They fail to realize that humans are meant to work together, not against each other. And when we do work against each other, in the end, it will only lead to failure. History repeats itself time and time again. People refuse to learn.

4

YeetThePig t1_ix17j80 wrote

Yep.

“Great Filter, dead ahead, cap’n!” “Excellent! Hold course and accelerate to flanking speed!”

1

Artanthos t1_ix26we0 wrote

Total collapse of society is unlikely.

If society eliminates most of the lower and mid classes while maintaining production it would create abundance for the upper classes.

It would suck to be a part of society that is no longer needed, but it will be the upper classes that write the history books.

1

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_ix1dk5k wrote

UBI for 90%, intellectual jobs for 10%.

2

NihiliSloth t1_ix1eday wrote

Right. But where does that leave the 90% of people who are unemployed? What does the world look like? I’m all for using robots for everything as long as it doesn’t give the wealthy more power and it doesn’t screw everyone else over.

We would need complete restructuring of our societies. One that is not based on capitalism. Do you think the wealthy will seriously want to let go of that power?

1

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_ix1hpuy wrote

Well, the 90% unemployed would just receive that UBI money and live their lives as they see fit, I suppose.

1

Z3r0sama2017 t1_ix0yn2v wrote

Thats what the wealthy think too. Throw us on the junk heap and let the useless mouths die off so they can get whatever small bits of resources we had managed to hodl.

For them the momentary feeling of satisfaction looking down on us will be immediately crushed by their insatiable greed.

1

WEN_QONHIUNG t1_ix1dsar wrote

Getting rid of the folks who consume their products doesn’t sound very intuitive to me…

1

Z3r0sama2017 t1_ix2s07z wrote

They don't need consumers. They will have the all resources and AI/robotic workers will do the work while they live in paradise.

By getting rid of consumers they remove an unneccessary step. Money is unneccessary if no goods are being exchanged.

1

Lorion97 t1_ix030i0 wrote

Fuck just being more productive, life is not about work and I wish everyone would stop treating happiness as something we can forgo for the sake of "productivity".

7

NihiliSloth t1_ix04l1p wrote

Agreed 100%

Happiness to me is being without stress and being able to go and do what I want with my family. It’s eating good food, drinking coffee, taking a hike, and smoking a joint. Being happy to me, is belting my favorite songs and getting lost in the emotion and rhythm of music. Happiness is watching my little one grow as well as my plants. Happiness is petting my cat. Happiness is so many things.

Happiness directly relates to what can benefit me. Even being productive for myself and achieving goals I set for myself make me happy.

Being productive and making money for a company while they barely pay a living wage and treat their employees like replaceable cogs in a machine does not in any way correlate to happiness. It correlates to never ending stress and suffering.

8

Lorion97 t1_ix1tl1e wrote

What I was more insinuating was that there's a hyper fixation on productivity and it feels incredibly hollow when bosses go "I'm going to help make my workers happy for my benefit."

Which I get as a boss is what you want, more production for more profits. But it feels incredibly manipulative and alienating. Because unless you being happy makes you more productive those changes to make you happier for the short time you are here on Earth won't be made.

Like you can't just have an increase of happiness without an increase of productivity. Productivity comes first always regardless of emotional wellbeing. Emotional wellbeing is just a luxury.

1

NihiliSloth t1_ix1viot wrote

Well yeah, we are programmed to frown upon laziness. If people aren’t being productive, they are seen as lazy. And we can’t have that, now can we? There are societal standards for a reason. It’s to make the wealthy, wealthier.

2

KDamage t1_ix3da1j wrote

We are really slowly turning into a transhumanist society. We're still at the infant step where tech is not yet merged with flesh, but smartphones and computers still make a huge part of our daily routines and decisions all day. On some extent, I've been imagining such a scenario for a long time where the tech-flesh barrier would break, like a lot of anticipation romancers wrote in the past.

And while my own conclusion would be to stay on the "non-augmented" side, I have a hard time imagining a world where a majority of people would not go transhumanism.

A simple example : a job position is open for a prestigious, very well paid job, requiring a neural implant for extended knowledge and efficiency. Something where the non-augmented could clearly not compete. Would there be absolutely zero candidates ? I think not. Then the tech become more and more mainstream, with more and more people adopting it as they see it only gives them an advantage over others and better wages.

I'm pretty confident there will be a point in time, and not that far in the future, where the well-known scenario from anticipation writers depicting a societal conflict between augmented and non-augmented will be a reality.

A brain scan to monitor and adjust a person for better mood, better efficiency, is not that very different from the above. From the article the narrative sounds horrifying because it's an employer decision, but what about the moment where it's a candidate decision.

1

NihiliSloth t1_ix3efol wrote

I’m just not interested in any of it.

I’m fine with medical advances. Im fine with new medications. I’m fine with vaccines. Im fine with new diagnostic devices. I’m fine with surgeries that improve quality of life. But that sort of advancement is for the betterment of humanity, not boost productivity in a work environment.

I’m not okay with technology that only furthers the advancement of the machine. We are not robots. We should not expected to perform like them. Giving our bodies ignorantly to people just for the sake of better wages will surely backfire. People will be exploited even further than they are now. And that tech that’s used now may make people content, but I doubt it’ll have the same lasting affects later on down the road. All I see is exploitation and chaos building up.

2

KDamage t1_ix3euni wrote

I indeed completely agree. Everything is already written in novels, some of them being not romanticized but simple societal evolving calculations and predictions, and I've yet to see one that did not depict exactly what you mentionned. Some people will be aware of the dangers you mentionned, but I'm pretty sure a lot will not, or will prefer to ignore it because "better pay". Just like some in the present times prefer to ignore burnout syndrome.

1

MustLoveAllCats t1_ix27yb3 wrote

> At some point, companies have to realize people are not machines and they aren’t made to work 12 hours a day 5 days a week.

Why? Why do they have to realize that? They're doing just fine working the common people to death, and the common people are stupid enough to vote in politicians like Doug Ford and Ron DeSantis who play for these companies.

−1

BotJunkie OP t1_iwzqoxb wrote

If you read the article, in the security screening application, workers (at least some workers) preferred using the EEG system to screening bags manually. And if you can screen more bags in less time that way, isn't it better for everyone? Even if it doesn't result in fewer working hours because employers are exploitative either way, it's fewer working hours doing a mindless, repetitive task.

−10

RisingPhoenix5 t1_iwzvh1a wrote

Define better for everyone? Just because they can do the job faster doesn't make it better, unless you're telling me I get paid the same amount for half the work. If I'm still at work, my employer will find busy work for me to do. Mostly more repetitive mindless tasks. From what I see, this is only beneficial to employers.

Oh, I see my office staff is getting burnt out? Good. Now I know to start looking for replacements. Sure, the concept is neat in theory, but efficiency isn't happiness.

This last bit is just me rambling, but I recall a certain Galactic Empire using technology that used tech for a similar purpose... https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/AJ%5E6_cyborg_construct

9