Steve Jurvetson- end of working because "you have to".

take everything

Anyone familiar with this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq4EOJkH3Gc

Talking about how fcuked up capitalism as we know it is. How in the (near?-) future people will work only if they find the work meaningful and enriching. No more wage slaves or working just to survive.

Obviously this is universally appealing (well maybe not to the super-rich because it's disruptive) but I love this guy's ideas. He works with Elon Musk (another disruptive visionary) from what I gather.

The idea that you can just constantly create and pursue genuine aptitudes/interests without worrying about basics (lower Maslow needs- food, shelter, clothing, healthcare and education).

Not familiar with the details (need to read more) but it would strike me as a more natural and sustainable state for the world to be in.
Not least because the gross inequality that exists today is absurd.

Any thoughts on this guy or this whole concept.
I find it fascinating.
Cheers.

The Backwards Man

There's a reason you don't see sharks riding inflatable bananas or earthworms lounging around on deckchairs reading chick-lit

Flint Fredstone

The Backwards Man wrote: »

There's a reason you don't see sharks riding inflatable bananas or earthworms lounging around on deckchairs reading chick-lit

Sharks lack the ability to grip onto an inflatable banana and earthworms can't read?

The Backwards Man

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Sharks lack the ability to grip onto an inflatable banana and earthworms can't read?

They lose their raison d'être.

cerastes

take everything wrote: »

Anyone familiar with this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq4EOJkH3Gc

Talking about how fcuked up capitalism as we know it is. How in the (near?-) future people will work only if they find the work meaningful and enriching. No more wage slaves or working just to survive.

Obviously this is universally appealing (well maybe not to the super-rich because it's disruptive) but I love this guy's ideas. He works with Elon Musk (another disruptive visionary) from what I gather.

The idea that you can just constantly create and pursue genuine aptitudes/interests without worrying about basics (lower Maslow needs- food, shelter, clothing, healthcare and education).

Not familiar with the details (need to read more) but it would strike me as a more natural and sustainable state for the world to be in.
Not least because the gross inequality that exists today is absurd.

Any thoughts on this guy or this whole concept.
I find it fascinating.
Cheers.

As great and all as it sounds, what happens the maslow needs when the capitalists hold all the cards? access to shelter and other resources?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

cerastes wrote: »

As great and all as it sounds, what happens the maslow needs when the capitalists hold all the cards? access to shelter and other resources?

Revolution, probably.

The problem is convincing people that there is actually a better way possible and to stop them from just thinking this is the best most secure thing we have and voting for conservative political parties because they're told to be scared of the alternative.

colossus-x

The Backwards Man wrote: »

There's a reason you don't see sharks riding inflatable bananas or earthworms lounging around on deckchairs reading chick-lit

I do. Then again I 'smoke'.

kneemos

You can do all that now,if you can survive on €180.

Iwasfrozen

take everything wrote: »

Anyone familiar with this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq4EOJkH3Gc

Talking about how fcuked up capitalism as we know it is. How in the (near?-) future people will work only if they find the work meaningful and enriching. No more wage slaves or working just to survive.

Obviously this is universally appealing (well maybe not to the super-rich because it's disruptive) but I love this guy's ideas. He works with Elon Musk (another disruptive visionary) from what I gather.

The idea that you can just constantly create and pursue genuine aptitudes/interests without worrying about basics (lower Maslow needs- food, shelter, clothing, healthcare and education).

Not familiar with the details (need to read more) but it would strike me as a more natural and sustainable state for the world to be in.
Not least because the gross inequality that exists today is absurd.

Any thoughts on this guy or this whole concept.
I find it fascinating.
Cheers.

I doubt the world has the resources for that. Over population, especially in Africa, is a problem.

Subcomandante Marcos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I doubt the world has the resources for that. Over population, especially in Africa, is a problem.

Overpopulation in Africa is a myth. South and South East Asia is far more densely populated.

Balmed Out

There's going to be a lot of dirty toilets.

Junkyard Tom

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Overpopulation in Africa is a myth. South and South East Asia is far more densely populated.

It's not just a myth its also dangerous propaganda. Saying 'them Africans is breedin' too much and there ain't enough to go around' is a profoundly ignorant/indoctrinated view to hold.

Of course if you believe this propaganda you're completely ignoring that a much smaller political landmass that we call China has a multiple of the population of any African country and has a greater population than that of the entire African continent with nowhere near Africa's rich abundance of resources.

Subcomandante Marcos

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's not just a myth its also dangerous propaganda. Saying 'them Africans is breedin' too much and there ain't enough to go around' is a profoundly ignorant/indoctrinated view to hold.

Of course if you believe this propaganda you're completely ignoring that a much smaller political landmass that we call China has a multiple of the population of the African continent with nowhere near Africa's rich abundance of resources.

You're also ignoring the fact that the Chinese government and semi-state quangos are buying up vast tracts of fertile agri land in Southern and Eastern Africa and importing their own labourers to work on said land, forcing the locals into smaller and smaller pockets of workable land.

kneemos

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's not just a myth its also dangerous propaganda. Saying 'them Africans is breedin' too much and there ain't enough to go around' is a profoundly ignorant/indoctrinated view to hold.

Of course if you believe this propaganda you're completely ignoring that a much smaller political landmass that we call China has a multiple of the population of the African continent with nowhere near Africa's rich abundance of resources.

And pretty severe population control.

PowerToWait

Getting OT but jayzis Africa. Been pillaged, raped, battered, manipulated and shat on for ever.

Calibos

The Mercator map projection is also to blame which makes the northern hemisphere look bigger compared to Africa. The West Wing even did a bit on it. You can fit the USA, Europe, China, India and more into Africa. That's about 350+400+1300+1500=3.5 Billion people. The population of Africa is about 700 million. Africa is not the problem. Also Google Hans Roslings TED talks. Population is set to stabilise at 10 billion by 2050.

nokia69

Calibos wrote: »

The Mercator map projection is also to blame which makes the northern hemisphere look bigger compared to Africa. The West Wing even did a bit on it. You can fit the USA, Europe, China, India and more into Africa. That's about 350+400+1300+1500=3.5 Billion people. The population of Africa is about 700 million. Africa is not the problem. Also Google Hans Roslings TED talks. Population is set to stabilise at 10 billion by 2050.

And yet plenty of fools in Europe want take in any African who can reach the Med

Also the population of Africa will continue to rise well after 2050

kneemos

nokia69 wrote: »

And yet plenty of fools in Europe want take in any African who can reach the Med

Also the population of Africa will continue to rise well after 2050

Africa suffers from corrupt governments,constant droughts and famine and can't support its population in many areas despite its resources.

nokia69

kneemos wrote: »

Africa suffers from corrupt governments,constant droughts and famine and can't support its population in many areas despite its resources.

It does

but none of that is my problem

When European powers handed Africa to the Africans it was in a pretty good state, and most people were optimistic about many of the newly free countries, the decline in most African countries is their own fault

South Africa is the best developed country in Africa and we all know why that is

K-9

Yep, China isn't that great a shining light when you look behind the data.

Sounds very good, but I'd need to look at how people would finance it. Like where do you get the money in the first place to be more picky?

AnonoBoy

The Backwards Man wrote: »

They lose their raison d'être.

Sharks can't speak French dude.

Kev W

nokia69 wrote: »

South Africa is the best developed country in Africa and we all know why that is

I don't.

Why is it?

iguana

take everything wrote: »

The idea that you can just constantly create and pursue genuine aptitudes/interests without worrying about basics (lower Maslow needs- food, shelter, clothing, healthcare and education).

And who will provide those needs? There will always be work, not always pleasant or fulfilling, that needs to be done. Food needs to be produced, sewers need maintenance, children need to be cared for and educated, bed pans need to be emptied, etc. And while some people will find teaching, parenting, nursing, farming etc mostly very fullfilling. I'm not sure too many people get up in the morning and look forward to another fun day of repairing sewers or risking their lives to repair electrical line problems in horrendous weather conditions.

AnonoBoy

Kev W wrote: »

I don't.

Why is it?

Something to do with all the positive press Oscar Pistorius has brought to the place?

The Backwards Man

Botswana is the most developed country in sub Saharan (because that's what our prejudiced friend is getting at, let's not beat around the bush) Africa.

Junkyard Tom

nokia69 wrote: »

When European powers handed Africa to the Africans it was in a pretty good state, and most people were optimistic about many of the newly free countries, the decline in most African countries is their own fault

There you go lads, the problems of an entire continent of over 1 billion people and its history summed up in one little sentence.

It's their own fault.

Close the internet, turn off the Sun, and lets all go back to bed.

nokia69

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's their own fault.

Yeah, at the end of the day its hard to argue with the plain and simple truth

Junkyard Tom

nokia69 wrote: »

Yeah, at the end of the day its hard to argue with the plain and simple truth

Remove the word 'truth' from that sentence and it makes a lot more sense.

Kev W

nokia69 wrote: »

Yeah, at the end of the day its hard to argue with the plain and simple truth

Why is South Africa the best developed country in Africa?

A Primal Nut

It's good to see someone being optimistic about the future when robots are doing all the work. All these scare videos on youtube about how robots are going to take everyone's job and thus the economy will collapse completely misses the point of why we work in the first place.

smash

Lets start by following the Swedish model of a 6-hour work day with an attitude that promotes working from home. Think of how much more productive you'd be without the hassle of a commute, and the benefit of a lye in.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

nokia69 wrote:

And yet plenty of fools in Europe want take in any African who can reach the Med

Eh, they are not fleeing overpopulation...

nokia69

Kev W wrote: »

Why is South Africa the best developed country in Africa?

Because up until 94 the people running the country were competent and for the most part free of corruption, its because of these people that the country is the best developed in Africa, however a poster above claims that Botswana has over taken South Africa, he might be right, I expect South Africa to slowly sink down to the general African average, just like their northern neighbour Zimbabwe

nokia69

Kaison Agreeable Sin wrote: »

Eh, they are not fleeing overpopulation...

Never said they were

But the place is so big could they not find somewhere other than Europe to flee to

Subcomandante Marcos

nokia69 wrote: »

Because up until 94 the people running the country were competent and for the most part free of corruption, its because of these people that the country is the best developed in Africa, however a poster above claims that Botswana has over taken South Africa, he might be right, I expect South Africa to slowly sink down to the general African average, just like their northern neighbour Zimbabwe

Apartheid was great craic altogether, wasn't it, none of those spear chucking natives getting in the way and messing it up, those clever white men made sure of that.

Kev W

nokia69 wrote: »

I expect South Africa to slowly sink down to the general African average, just like their northern neighbour Zimbabwe

Why?

Junkyard Tom

nokia69 wrote: »

Because up until 94 the people running the country were competent and for the most part free of corruption

They were a pack of corrupt scumbags running a racist apartheid state and benefiting from SA's resources for themselves.

Dempsey

Ah yes, the impoverished and developing countries will be glad to know that a rich western venture capitalist wants the world to stop taking advantage of poor people after he's made his fortune.

What happens when all the farmers want to do something else?? Where is the food going to come from in this utopia??

lawlolawl

Dempsey wrote: »

What happens when all the farmers want to do something else?? Where is the food going to come from in this utopia??

The internet?

All of these TED talk "visionaries" are just spoofers predicting an idealized future even though they themselves don't even live in the real world presently.

nokia69

Kev W wrote: »

Why?

Do you really think I'm wrong, because if you do, you can't know very much about African history since independence

Was it all just bad luck that Zimbabwe under Mugabe has been a disaster, do you think of Jacob Zuma as a competent leader, what about Idi Amin in Uganda, the list of wonderful African leaders goes on and on and a pattern emerges, you can't spot it of course, or maybe you do but you can't admit it

Dohnjoe

smash wrote: »

Lets start by following the Swedish model of a 6-hour work day with an attitude that promotes working from home. Think of how much more productive you'd be without the hassle of a commute, and the benefit of a lye in.

Working from home has been shown to be less productive, and is not possible for many jobs

lawlolawl

smash wrote: »

Lets start by following the Swedish model of a 6-hour work day with an attitude that promotes working from home. Think of how much more productive you'd be without the hassle of a commute, and the benefit of a lye in.

If you can work from home and/or only do a 6 hour work day then your job isn't all that essential or important to society as a whole.

smash

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Working from home has been shown to be less productive, and is not possible for many jobs

Where exactly was that shown?

Because....

The findings of the 2014 Ctrip study suggest that people working full time from home are about 13% more efficient.

lawlolawl wrote: »

If you can work from home and/or only do a 6 hour work day then your job isn't all that essential or important to society as a whole.

Well now, that's just bullshit of the highest order.

nokia69

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Apartheid was great craic altogether, wasn't it, none of those spear chucking natives getting in the way and messing it up, those clever white men made sure of that.

No I think it was a terrible idea, but I do find it interesting that during the apartheid years, so many Africans from countries along the boarder with South Africa tried to enter the country illegally to find work

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod:

Everyone, get back on topic. Thread is about something something capitalism, not Africa.

Kev W

nokia69 wrote: »

Do you really think I'm wrong, because if you do, you can't know very much about African history since independence

Was it all just bad luck that Zimbabwe under Mugabe has been a disaster, do you think of Jacob Zuma as a competent leader, what about Idi Amin in Uganda, the list of wonderful African leaders goes on and on and a pattern emerges, you can't spot it of course, or maybe you do but you can't admit it

I didn't say I disagreed, I just asked why you hold the opinion that you hold.


Edit to add: just saw the Mod note, never mind.

SEPT 23 1989

You got city hands, Mr.Jurvetson You've been counting money all your life.

KomradeBishop

The reason you are seeing venture capitalists like the guy in the OP, promoting the idea of a Basic Income and a utopian society without the necessity for work, is because the Basic Income is one of the greatest trojan-horse policies out there for finance and the wealthy:

They can transform the Basic Income into a business subsidy just by slashing wages, and can consolidate all welfare into the Basic Income, and can then destroy the Basic Income when a big enough economic crisis hits (it's much easier to attack politically, than current welfare, and will be the first to go when the purse-strings are pulled) - without returning the previous welfare system - i.e. the Basic Income is a tool to provide a massive business subsidy, slash wages, and destroy welfare altogether, all in one.

It's even being used as an excuse for bringing in a system of flat taxes - i.e. to bring in a system of regressive taxation - more than a few Irish economists are promoting this combination of flat taxes and a Basic Income.

It's one of the most dangerous policies out there to be honest - I used to support it, until I read about and began to appreciate how it can be quickly turned around, as a political tool to attack everything it's supposed to help with.

wakka12

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Overpopulation in Africa is a myth. South and South East Asia is far more densely populated.

I would say the ability to sustain the population size in an area is what would determine overpopulation. Not population size or density. England has a very high population and density yet we wouldnt say its overpopulated, because its population is supported. Most of africas environment is very inhospitable with little resources to support any population worth talking about. So really I would say africa is overpopulated, as in it can't support the population it has now.Despite its population density not being high generally

K-9

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The reason you are seeing venture capitalists like the guy in the OP, promoting the idea of a Basic Income and a utopian society without the necessity for work, is because the Basic Income is one of the greatest trojan-horse policies out there for finance and the wealthy:

They can transform the Basic Income into a business subsidy just by slashing wages, and can consolidate all welfare into the Basic Income, and can then destroy the Basic Income when a big enough economic crisis hits (it's much easier to attack politically, than current welfare, and will be the first to go when the purse-strings are pulled) - without returning the previous welfare system - i.e. the Basic Income is a tool to provide a massive business subsidy, slash wages, and destroy welfare altogether, all in one.

It's even being used as an excuse for bringing in a system of flat taxes - i.e. to bring in a system of regressive taxation - more than a few Irish economists are promoting this combination of flat taxes and a Basic Income.

It's one of the most dangerous policies out there to be honest - I used to support it, until I read about and began to appreciate how it can be quickly turned around, as a political tool to attack everything it's supposed to help with.

Otbers would say BI is to keep us all quiet and sheep like! Give us some crumbs to keep the peasants happy.

I'd be dubious of it and flat rate taxes.

A Primal Nut

We're going to give you great healthcare, but a few of you are going to die because we have to take some risks. There can't be zero risks. But it's going to be better than anything you've had before. In the United States this would be illegal, in much of the world this would be amazing.

What the hell does he mean by this? Is he advocating healthcare/drug companies should be allowed to experiment on poor people outside of the United States even if some of those people will die from the experiments?