That's a sign of toxic culture, not of men wanting to be defined by what value they can bring.

I think there is no possible world where people are without meaningful work and are happy about it.

-->

Even if they collected $10,000 a month and got to spend all of their time doing hobbies and spending time with family, it would feel pointless and hollow.

What is the difference between "hobby" and "work" if not what random people decide what is better monetised?

Both is labour & value added.

In a world where everyone gets enough money people could do what they actually want. So a CEO wouldn't be "stuck" being a CEO if they don't like that job & would rather be eg a baker. In the current system bcs of a huge pay divergence you get an unhappy CEO (who ofc won't quit) and an unhappy baker that just couldn't get a more suited paying job.

But we as a society would get a lot more out of life & cultural progression if people would be happy & satisfied at what they do (job=hobby).

Empirical evidence (even USA did extensive tests in the 60s) show that given a universal income (so basically no scarcity) basically nobody just sits around watching TV all day, everyone is productive (research, art, services, etc).

Imagine only having customer support or food industry workers that truly enjoy their job & want to do it.

How many prodigies are stuck at random dead end jobs with no prospects and life options?

Labour is what we all benefit from.

Work is what the employer/owner benefits from.

Even if so - the definition of oneself is what that person gets paid for, not what that person enjoys doing (or even is just good at)?

(Especially with jobs, folk on LinkedIn will describe their job as anything but their actual everyday job, or lie/exaggerate about their job when with other people - so not even that "role" is true.)

... like, lmao, except if it's like a weird grinding kink or something.

*monetary value

(in relation to toxic culture)

(bcs value that people actuality bring to society often isn't fairly valued in terms of money or even not at all)

You have a very limited view of what life should, or even can be.

Nothing like comparing a technology that took more than 10 years to get "released in the wild" and had several "killer apps" built using it very early on (email, instant messaging, web pages, online games) and many companies had no idea how to get money with it, vs. a "content generator" that is run almost entirely on promises of increased productivity and profit.

No it's biology

It's not a normative statement. I don't necessarily think it's good. I just don't think people can be happy being useless

Huh I thought matrix was pretty new, and people used irc back then.

Also the AI could automate away that man's hobby...

deleted by creator

No I didn't

The two aren't equivalent. One of them is an actual proven technology that definitively exists, the other one is still to prove itself.

I was paraphrasing and trying to be nice. Fine, you didn't say humans yearn for the workplace. You said humans existentially require the workplace.

I think if AI replaces humans in the workplace, even with UBI, humans would cease to exist shortly thereafter as our lives will have become meaningless

Okay let's do an experiment.

Get some annoying trust fund kid, take all their money away from them, and tell them that they now have to get a job but it's a good thing because now their life has meaning. Let's see how happy they are about it.

People are being harsh with the downvotes but I get what you mean. I get bored and restless doing nothing productive for long lengths of time.

I'm also guessing you don't mean a 40 hour grind where all the profit goes to a small group of individuals in your example.

If I was told I could work or study but didn't have to and it was public profits, I'd probably still end up doing a 20-25 hours a week in something.

You are a bit harsh with it though. I wouldn't say just family and hobbies is hollow.

Define "being useless". It certainly seems that "being useless", to you, it is either "not working" or "not creating monetary value", which would be super ironic given that there are many jobs around the world that make the person feel useless or worse

I'd say that anyone that feels the need to define themselves "by their role" has no clue on who they are or can be, needing the rest of society to direct them

Everyone defines themselves by their role. If you're only living for yourself, not helping anyone or doing anything for anyone else, why live?

How about you give them a wife and kids to take care of at the same time. Life would feel pretty pointless if I was only working to support myself

I don't know how you've managed it but you've managed to invent toxic-domestication, The idea that someone's life can't be worth living unless they are working. I don't know maybe you're young but when you get to your 40s you begin to realise that actually what you really want out of life is just to be left alone, you really aren't craving notoriety. If you can just sit in the hobby room and build airfix models or whatever then go to the pub, for the next 40 years you'd be happy.

I really don't know why you're arguing about this because there have been actual experiments where people have been given UBI and pretty much everyone ends up just going and doing their own stuff. I've never heard of anyone complaining about being given free money.