by 
The opposition to the idea of post-work has lightened. It generates fewer snorts and eyerolls. I can sneak it into classes, talks and workshops and maintain credibility. As the implausibility argument loses some of its edge, the main objection is a variation on the lazy theme, i.e., humans are ill-equipped to handle free time and won’t know what to do with themselves.
The gist of the lazy argument is that the “good people” will continue to be productive and useful. The “bad people” will get into all sorts of mischief, perhaps watching crappy TV all day, or getting addicted to alcohol, gambling, or drugs. Fill-in-the-blank with your favorite vice. Most will simply be lost with no sense of purpose and just be generally lazy (neither good nor bad).
Rather than argue the percentages, let’s look at this a different way. Let’s assume we are in a Tech-Led Abundance scenario with AI and automation producing more wealth than humans ever could have. There is enough for everybody, and we have figured out a way to distribute it fairly enough such that everyone has their basic needs met and lives comfortably.
What if, in this scenario, most people in fact choose simply to be lazy [remember, neither good nor bad]? So what? If our collective livelihood doesn’t depend on how much each of us produces, who cares what our neighbor is doing or not doing? What if most people choose to do very little? What if they are not worried about productivity, to-do lists, and getting things done? What if they are not worried about sense of purpose, self-actualization, or being all they can be?
Maybe that would tell us something about humans and what is important to them. In the capitalist world, we are essentially valued only inasmuch as we contribute to GDP. In today’s late-stage capitalist context, do we really think people are happy with where they are? Some are, for sure, but almost every day we see more evidence that people are depressed, miserable, checked out, and even suicidal. We see Great Resignations, Quiet Quittings, Lazy Girl Jobs, etc. Maybe being productive, having purpose, and being all we can be, isn’t all it’s cracked up to be? We have crafted a civilization assuming that we need to be continually improving, growing, and getting better. But maybe that’s not the best path?
Many of the AC concept authors and other thinkers have brought up the point that so far as productivity has increased, instead of choosing to work less as a result of this productivity gain, we have chosen to keep working and consume more. Perhaps we are re-thinking that choice?
The point I am making here is not that we should choose to be lazy. But maybe we shouldn’t assume it is wrong. Perhaps we should examine and re-examine just what we should choose. We assume its “more.” But maybe less is better? And we shouldn’t be so worried about that? – Andy Hines
Spot on, Andy. Here in the Philipinnes, people really live for eating and singing with family and friends. Work is required only to live. If work were no longer required people would not be necessarily lazy, but have more enjoyment time.
I think that is very much the case in ‘manyana’ countries, particulary those with Spanish influence. In my own case, my two years sabbatical from Shaping Tomorrow and starting our service at PreEmpt was filled by my hobbies and spending time with the family. I wasn’t lazy, but certainly more relaxed, and reflective on things I had been able to do that weren’t possible when running companies.
Best
Mike
thanks for supporting the case!
I lost my 30s and 40s (for most of us, our most productive decades) to a debilitating illness — undiagnosed Lyme disease — that kept me in bed roughly five days out of every week. The illness forced me to make my peace with being satisfied with and carefully nurturing the assets I did have — a supportive marriage, a comfortable home, and two small kids who had first claim on whatever energy I could muster on any given day. It also brought me up hard against my WASP upbringing: it was a constant battle to reconcile my “laziness” (for, without a diagnosis, my patent moral unfitness was the only possible explanation) and try to fashion a happy life within the very narrow limits I was now confined to.
Fifteen years after I was diagnosed and cured, I still regard that lesson as one of the great gifts of the illness. I learned to fiercely value the small things: a cup of tea, a fire, a view out the window, a comfortable chair, a snuggle with my kids, a conversation with a friend. I was living in Silicon Valley, which was Ground Zero for hustle culture; but I was forced off that treadmill long before it became fashionable to question it. The choice was clear: find other metrics to gauge my happiness by, or spend my life being miserable because I couldn’t live up to other people’s expectations.
People often bring up the “laziness” question in discussions of UBI. We actually have a solid, long-running example of what people will do if they don’t have to work: just look at our retired population. Some of them do retreat to their couches and watch FOX all day. But more of them spend their days volunteering, hanging out with their grandkids, puttering in their gardens, catching up on their reading, traveling, or pursuing hobbies. Some even go back to school, or start new careers.
It’s reasonable to assume that if we gave the same opportunity to younger adults, they’d probably do pretty much the same things. It’s only our old Protestant programming (which I had to fight so hard against) that tells us that there’s some kind of moral hazard here. There isn’t. There are just a hundred thousand days that are allotted to us in this lifetime, ours to enjoy with whatever feeds our souls. Any god that would tell us that our lives are only worthy when we sell them off to bosses for a living isn’t one I’d want to spend much time worshiping. If that was the only purpose, why is this world so full of satisfying, fascinating, awe-inspiring experiences that have nothing to do with work?
thanks for sharing that. What a thoughtful and helpful contribution!