The Abolition of Work (2002)

Abolishing work means abolishing the false choice between a job and homelessness. People can still be paid to do things. Unpleasant work might need to pay better rather than depend on a desperate underclass. People will probably still clean toilets if you pay them enough, or maybe they will simply out of a sense of responsibility. What if we had the resources to provide for everyone's basic needs while paying people enough to keep things running, even when they have an actual choice? What if we have the resources, already?

You ask about artistic megaprojects. Well, what about them? Maybe billion-dollar movies don't get made. I think we'll do fine without them. Maybe AAA games aren't ground out by a machine of worker exploitation. They aren't worth it, anyway. No game could be. But I think it's crazy to think that you won't have people who want to organize into groups and create things. If everyone in the tech industry is given their basic needs for free, do you think everybody will go home? Or will some of them still do it for some extra money and because they find it rewarding? People who like their jobs like them for reasons beyond The need for money.

Today, the way we get farming, cooking, cleaning, manufacturing, etc., is primarily by exploitation. I think that our society should refuse to accept that that is inevitable. The idea that things only get done if you force people to do them lies at the corrupted heart of our economic system. We should reject it and build a just world, or we should die trying.

So, I'm not sure that those who produce (or distribute) it will agree at once "let's give right away half of produced for free". But if you pressure them much, they might "agree" to cut the production in half. But you may imagine where that could lead.

Finally, you may expect the government to buy half of it right away to give away for free. Well, good luck with running with that line for president, probably won't work even in Sub-Saharan Africa. And likely the food will still be trash when reaching the target audience, due to government efficiency.

The original poster made reference a reference to medieval beliefs in earthly paradise with the idea of food falling from the heavens. In reality, we already sorta live in the land of Cockaigne given the dizzying variety and quantity of food we are able to produce, as well as the amount of energy. We have the technology, and we have the ability. Granted, it would be nice to have much cheaper energy sources but these no longer seem to be a distant dream.

So all I am saying is that the idea that we don't have to work as much is not that unrealistic. Already much of work is relatively meaningless, or merely redistributive. The portion of the economy that actually produces things is small. Most people shift wealth around in the tertiary sector.

So yes, there indeed are enormous challenges when it comes to distribution. But these are mostly the result of political choices and not physical barriers to which the original poster was hinting at sarcastically. If you take electric vehicles, no progress is made for decades then suddenly when people focus their efforts on it the landscape changes completely. Coca Cola can manage an extremely proficient distribution system, so who is to say governments can't? With increasing automation they will have to start redistribution anyway or indeed lose elections.

This reminds me a bit of members of the House of Commons wondering if the poor would become too lazy if we decrease the working day from 16 hours to a mere eight.

>Finally, you may expect the government to buy half of it right away to give away for free

Governments all over the world already prop up agriculture with price controls. India is currently wracked by the largest protests in history because that system was put on pause. So it's not like people aren't receptive to governmental intervention in critical sectors. The notion of government efficiency is amusing in the first place when we consider the half of food that is wasted by market action