There's no reason to assume the universe came into being for any purpose at all, let alone for mankind to exist. When you make any assumption about the way things "have" to be, it's possible you're committing the sin of anthropocentrism to some extent.
The economy can be literally anything we want. Just because meritocracy SEEMS to be implied by nature, doesn't mean it's the way things have to be. Naturalness itself is an arbitrary criteria on which to base ethics. It's literally just a placeholder for "the chronological structure of particle physics".
If we want to have a post-scarcity society where not everyone has to work, we can do that. From a sustainability standpoint, not everyone was going to be able to have a job anyway. At some point this insistence on making sure everyone participates in the economy is going to be outweighed by the damage devoting resources required to create those opportunities creates. That time may already have passed. Assuming you think its ethically important to attempt to forestall the damages of having an unsustainable relationship with the environment. Ignoring non-Western migrant crises, which I assume most people do, there's the serious issue of the dwindling amount of arable land. There's also the biodiversity crisis, which could have extreme consequences in ways we can't even predict. Reduced water availability is also a problem. If you think it is.
Nature did not come into existence for every person to have a job. Automation can solve this problem. We need to get over ourselves. We need a Copernican revolution away from anthropocentrism. Assuming you think have a livable world in the future is ethically required. I can tell you right now a lot of rich people don't give a shit.
Gobiparatha4000 t1_j0tjg62 wrote
Reply to How would the economies be if AI takes most / all the jobs? by Charming-Coconut-234
There's no reason to assume the universe came into being for any purpose at all, let alone for mankind to exist. When you make any assumption about the way things "have" to be, it's possible you're committing the sin of anthropocentrism to some extent.
The economy can be literally anything we want. Just because meritocracy SEEMS to be implied by nature, doesn't mean it's the way things have to be. Naturalness itself is an arbitrary criteria on which to base ethics. It's literally just a placeholder for "the chronological structure of particle physics".
If we want to have a post-scarcity society where not everyone has to work, we can do that. From a sustainability standpoint, not everyone was going to be able to have a job anyway. At some point this insistence on making sure everyone participates in the economy is going to be outweighed by the damage devoting resources required to create those opportunities creates. That time may already have passed. Assuming you think its ethically important to attempt to forestall the damages of having an unsustainable relationship with the environment. Ignoring non-Western migrant crises, which I assume most people do, there's the serious issue of the dwindling amount of arable land. There's also the biodiversity crisis, which could have extreme consequences in ways we can't even predict. Reduced water availability is also a problem. If you think it is.
Nature did not come into existence for every person to have a job. Automation can solve this problem. We need to get over ourselves. We need a Copernican revolution away from anthropocentrism. Assuming you think have a livable world in the future is ethically required. I can tell you right now a lot of rich people don't give a shit.