> Beggars do not work, it is said; but then, what is work? A navvy works by swinging a pick. An accountant works by adding up figures. A beggar works by standing out of doors in all weathers and getting varicose veins, bronchitis etc. It is a trade like any other; quite useless, of course — but, then, many reputable trades are quite useless. And as a social type a beggar compares well with scores of others. He is honest compared with the sellers of most patent medicines, high-minded compared with a Sunday newspaper proprietor, amiable compared with a hire-purchase tout-in short, a parasite, but a fairly harmless parasite. He seldom extracts more than a bare living from the community, and, what should justify him according to our ethical ideas, he pays for it over and over in suffering.
EDIT: On a side note, I agreed halfway with what you're writing but the second half of your comment seems a bit more unclear/I'm not sure what you're discussing there. Could you clarify what you mean?
Brings to mind Graeber's article on "bullshit jobs".
Orwell is saying that to see someone suffer is in line with our ethics; someone who suffers can be ethically reasoned to have earned what dues come their way.
Compare the beggar in orwell's quote, if you will, to the injured war veteran who benefits from a fundraiser. He has suffered, so we consider it worthy for him to benefit through community actions.
Why is he worthy of the benefit? Because he suffered. I am not worthy because I have not suffered as he has. The beggar? Suffering.
You are thinking very stringently if you are interpreting the quote as a 'literal' trade, broken toe for dinner for a week
The injured war veteran, at least according to the official fiction, suffered in the course of benefiting the community. Whether they succeeded is up for debate, but the intent to benefit is seen as evidence that gifts/support/etc. won't "enable" them.
If everyone only used what they needed, we'd all have plenty of resources to dedicate to the communal good.
It may have the advantage of being true.
It does not mean that it's the only condition for happiness ( it is necessary but not sufficient ) , but I know of no good assault on this idea. Adam Smith's "to be loved and to be lovely" exists, and is deeply imbedded.
The advertising/media industrial complex problem is much more profound. But in order to propagate criticisms of it you'd sort of need the advertising/media industrial complex to get those ideas out. Still, Adam Curtis documentaries exist, the work of Marshall MacLuhan and Vance Packard and others exist.
Of these, Adam Curtis seems to have taken the thing on most directly. And it was very funny watching "Mad Men" pull its punches.
And it is perfectly possible to deal with advertisement/media through laws and regulations.
E.g. I find that where I live in Norway, much of the informative and quality media exist almost exclusively due to government policy. Either you got the state run broadcaster or quality newspapers which get economic support from government.
The quality newspaper typically don't make a lot of money because they are not shameless sell outs to advertisement and pop culture.
Now for entertaining movies I am happy about the purely commercially driven TV channels, but it is also painstakingly clear that you can run well balanced and insightful journalism easily on primarily profit driven media.
He'd damaged the reporting of American history in a manner to set back the literature for a century. He's set the stage for most of the nonsense American believe.
Of course small papers can maintain some degree of integrity but there's very few voices in mass media that can.
I am very happy if good journalism still exists in Norway. That's great. In America? I'm much less hopeful.
We need to see if these Canadian or Finnish proposals show fruit. Because one of the fundamental tenants of basic income - unconditionality, perpetuity - is the keystone of seeing economic growth through its deployment. It is also the halmark of decrying existent forms of welfare in how they incentivize docility and non-participation.
That said, I think you are totally wrong about this. Just look at surnames: Baker, Smith, Shoemaker, etc. The actual names of people and their families were completely centered around their employment, or more generally, what it was they did all day long. Yes, this was medieval Europe, and conditionals abound, but the same is true in many other cultures too. The surnames of Mehta or Poddar in India relate to accountants.
More generally, you mention that people needing to do something for someone else is not what humans should do. I think this is totally false. Maybe not just 1 person/baron/emperor, but I certainly think people want to be useful to other people in their community. Ok, yes, this is a gaussian curve here, like so many other things, but I would like to think that at 1 std south people still want to help others as a natural condition for mankind.
However, I do agree with you and Adam Smith that people should be mostly doing 'nothing' all day. Most of the work to feed and house people in 1st world countries is 'done.' We can easily give out the bare essentials for life, the issue is distribution, as is claimed by Minimum income folks. Though I agree with you in a mechanical sort of way, that is not the issues. The issue is emotions. Giving people free stuff is not 'fair' for most folk. And that emotional issue of fairness, something I think drives a lot of the reasons behind laws and politics, is the elephant in the room. The question quickly come out of 'why should I work if she gets free stuff all the same?' Do not underestimate the ability for people to 'game the system' either for simply the want to appear more well off than their noisy neighbors. Keeping up on the Jones's is why you see so many new iPhones in very poor areas.
Overall, I think people exist on the bell-curve between selflessness and selfishness. Most folk are 1 std north or south of the average. The real questions are where is that mean relative to Jesus and the Devil and how wide is that std relative to that?
Note: Also, time and again we are told that the standard of living here in the US is far too high for the whole planet to be able to live like us. Nearly all scientists worth listening to say that climate change is real and we have to do something about it. Weather we like it or not, the average living condition here in the US must fall to a level our planet can sustain. Possibly we are seeing this in action already.
The Bakers, Smiths, and Shoemakers were in their own sense entrepreneurs. They ran their own businesses, kept their trade within their families, and profited strictly through the fruits of their own labors rather than a capitalists willingness to give them crumbs of their efforts. Owning your own small business, or having a family owned business, is incredibly divergent from the status quo of employment to international megacorp where everyone you ever meet involved with the company is still just a low level cog in a larger machine.
The Bakers et al saw their prosperity often strictly through their skill and talent. We have normalized that significantly in modern society for better and worse, but the inventive Smith who could improve on his metalcasting skill through ingenuity would reap tremendous benefits in the kingdom. Trying to innovate in shelf stocking at Walmart will get you fired. The ability to dictate ones own destiny like that, even if constrained to the skills passed down from parents, is still providing absolutely useful work being done. The Bakers and Shoemakers existed because of real demand from not only the nobility but their neighbors for their work.
There were few or no unemployed in the era of Smith families formation - if you did not have practical utility to your community you were often discarded. You prayed on the good nature of your own children to keep you around in old age when you were decrepit and could no longer work. Before the Industrial Revolution, the marginal cost of maintaining an individual persons working conditions was enormously high, such that 80% of people at least were working as farmers for thousands of years.
My point is that today we face a crisis not of a lack of resources as those before us would have faced. Today the labor participation rate, which I much prefer to fictitious employment rates, is at a 20 year low and continuing to drop. It is today below the rates we saw when women were en masse entering the workforce in the 70s and 80s. It is dramatically higher for those younger rather than older, predominantly because rather than train and hire new recruits to do the old jobs we either obsolete them or automate them. It is also valuable to consider that even before the rise of working class women, women were serving critical functions in society as caregivers and child rearers, that we have done a lot to professionalize and integrate into that labor force as paid work, so even today the 1:3 people over the age of 16 that are not posting working income are much less likely to be doing work without pay.
If we had this rate of labor participation a thousand, or even two hundred, years ago we would have seen mass famine and social collapse because you needed way more than that ratio of people farming just to feed everyone. We obviously do not have that problem today. Hell, we cannot even fathom an unemployment rate where would actually reasonably see a shortage of anything. Our only concerns when dealing with unemployment is how we would have millions of destitute and homeless, not due to a lack of resources, but because they lack any money to buy them with.
On the standard of living in the US, we can practically see what is happening. I don't believe it is any adjustment for climate change. We still do not give a shit. It is simply globalization, and oligarchic state control. The US did what facists and communists did to a degree with capitalism. We treated it like religion throughout the cold war, and eroded liberty and individual empowerment to hold the ideology sacred. We killed unions and sat idle while global monopolies were formed under our stead, and while our politics enabled the gross transfer of wealth from the middle to the top, and from the middle to foreign markets where the act of producing goods traveled.
On the backs of the vast majority of American wealth falling, the rich have gotten dramatically richer, billions were lifted out of extreme poverty, and nations like Korea, China, Brazil, Mexico, and India have seen the rise of dramatic middle classes in very short spans of time from the wealth we send overseas.
That is economics driving the dissolution of median wealth, not the environment. As long as our economic policy systemically ignores negative externalities like human rights and greenhouse gasses (and it always has, we just did a better job long ago at managing them through collectivism, environmental protection, and workers rights in the era before gargantuan business interests took over most western democracies through amassed wealth <and thus power>).
Actually, we have a dire shortage of non-luxury housing.
Essential to that is how you phrased it - non-luxury. The market for the (relative) rich to buy houses is so large there are over a million of unoccupied homes[1] just to sate the potential choices of the ownership class that can afford them. There is an immense glut of building supply, rather than a shortage of it, just it is all directed to where the money is.
[1]: http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-homel...
China is a great extrapolated example of this with their ghost cities[2]. The economic machine of China, using the same capitalistic peak employment model of expectation, has a tremendous civil engineers corps that needs to do something. But China takes some of the worst of capitalism and mixes it with the worst of Marxism and a large dose of totalitarianism, so rather than provide modern living to hundreds of millions there are dozens of cities built without anybody living in them, because nobody can afford to buy housing within them. But the CCP kept building them to keep the workers "busy" and keep the supply chain flowing, because they kept anticipating - in the same way many deceived Americans are - that the prosperity for the masses is coming eventually.
[2]: http://priceonomics.com/surveying-the-ghost-cities-of-china/
This just reflects on my central point - capitalist economic systems do not distribute labor or create supply based on human needs, but human wants. Those without who need have nothing to give capitalism to get their needs back, but those who have to give will have all their wants provided for and more. Not to say capitalism is not the best economic organizational system we have, it just does not align with most peoples common ethics.
I don't want to research the 200 brands of almond milk or 85 sushi restaurants in my neighborhood -- I want some proxy, however imperfect, for their quality, availability and value. I want someone to come find me and tell me that their milk or restaurant or whatever exists. And as someone who sells things, how am I supposed to make the public aware of the existence of my very good product which nonetheless fills a niche that is well-occupied and not a very important part of people's lives (and therefore unlikely to be discussed unless immediately sought)? How should I best let consumers know that my product is different because of its features, or the craftsmanship, or whatever. Should we all live in universes bounded by the speed of chatter, so that HN's pure market sensibilities can be satisfied? Should I just wait for customers to stumble upon the right keywords to make my product show up in their ad-free search results?
This idea that advertising has no use and exists sort of parasitically is baffling to me. Even more baffling is that it's a meme which routinely nets all the upvotes on a place like HN -- where presumably the commenters are more likely to have actually created and sold valuable things, and therefore, one assumes, would have more than an academic appreciation for how business is done.
It's been said many times before, but the level of discourse around here is retreating rapidly into equal parts academic idealism and Reddit-esque karma-driven populism.
the problem is that there's a conflict of interest between the seller of a good and the buyer of a good. Every seller wants to claim that their product is better, regardless of actual reality, while every buyer would like to actually know which product is better
As you rightly point out, the buyer doesn't want to do a lot of research to find this out, but.. the problem with advertising is that advertising does not give the consumer a good idea of what is actually best because of the aforementioned conflict of interest.
I think if we are talking about reality, we mostly rely on the law here; E.g. if I go to the corner store and grab a gallon of milk, it probably won't poison me, because there are 'minimum milk' standards (my area has yet to legalize unpasteurized milk for human consumption) So I can buy the cheapest milk in the store, or the milk advertised to target my demographic, and either way, little harm is done. Worst case I spend a little more money than I'd need to.
The right answer to the research problem is something like consumer reports (though really, I think it'd work better if it integrated with cooperative retail... e.g. I'd go to the store and only the top 2-3 products in each catagory are there.)
The idea that advertisers all claiming to be the best is a detriment to consumers presupposes that we need to live in a world where people only speak about empirical facts. We are all skilled in the art of bullshit detection, and we all have aspirations which can be played to as well -- frankly, life would be dull if we weren't able to attach an undue sense of optimism to a cup of coffee from that new cafe. Advertising succeeds in some part because it pushes buttons which sometimes go unpushed in our daily lives.
I don't know if limiting consumer choice to a few of the massive number of alternatives is the right answer. It's probably not the optimal answer, but it is the current answer. Right now, most consumers are exposed to 2 or 3 brands of a thing, and which two or three brands is controlled through advertising. What sorts of things a consumer is exposed to is also controlled by advertising.
The problem with advertising, from the consumer's point of view is that the people paying for the advertising have interests that conflict with the consumer's interests.
But yes, right now, advertising serves the product discovery function, and the product discovery function is important.
My argument is just that the consumer would be better off if they paid someone to research the available brands and present them with a manageable number of choices, and with interesting new types of products rather than allowing the people selling them stuff to do that. My argument is that organizations structured like consumer reports, that is, organizations that only accept money from the consumers they are doing research for, would have the fewest conflicts of interest, and thus would probably provide better results (for the consumers) on average.
> For this, I would go consult Consumer Reports? And how do I know that Customer Summaries isn't more aligned with my values anyhow?
The consumer, of course, would still need to choose which consumer research group most closely matched their needs and values, which in and of itself is a hard problem. But, I think if done properly, and conflicts of interest avoided, it is an overall better product discovery system than advertising.
Also, you'd clearly need to figure out some way of making it easier. Following the recommendations of the research agency I have hired needs to be as easy for me as following the recommendations of advertisers is for me right now, at least if we are to use this for things like milk.
(Also, the more I think about it, the more I think what I said about integrating it with a store is a bad idea; it introduces conflicts of interest. But it would be the easiest way to reduce the cost in terms of checking with my research company before buying.)
Aren't you by limiting selection - limiting innovation, the ability of each one buying according to the price and other characteristics he he sees fit?
However, you are probably going to hand that power to someone - there are just too many products to research them all. I am arguing that you are probably better off if you hand that power off to an entity who's only revenue source is you and people like you, than if you hand that choice off to conventional advertising agencies.
Where's the problem?
Minecraft is basically a cultural icon now, despite having no effective advertising throughout its growth years. It was only after it was already gargantuan that Minecraft Pocket Edition started seeing adverts, primarily because the parent company ran out of ideas of what to do with their money, which is often the motivator for a lot of advertising budgets.
Specific to the games industry, discovery is a problem if consumers both A. have no peer group involved in gaming to get recommendations from and B. have no sources of discovery media (ie, rankings, reviews, etc) to find games themselves. Which I'd definitely say is true - the two largest game stores in the world, Google Play and Steam, have incredibly bad discovery mechanisms built in, and the former's entire market is mostly an appeal to getting on top of said discovery mechanism through psychological manipulation in skinner boxes.
"one bite at the apple" eh?
There are a lot of small companies in America, and a lot of people do businesses under different names. "Was an officer of the company I'm about to buy from involved in shady dealings in the past" is one of those things I'd love to have my consumer research firm research, but it's not something that comes in to play as much as you think, I think. A lot of the games are written by first-timers, or people who's first try flopped because nobody played it (which is similar as to the informational content you are talking about)
Now instead of 200 brands of almond milk and 85 sushi restaurants to try or ask your friends about, you have 285 companies shoving ads in your face, all insisting they're the "best", when obviously they all can't be.
In fact, having to sort through 285 ads is worse than actually trying 285 products, because the advertisements are completely disconnected from the quality of the actual products.
Offer a good product and people will come back and tell their friends. That's the alternative to advertising, because it's what people will do anyway.
Neither do I. I'll just pick one arbitrarily. It's almond milk. I might even just skip it entirely. I don't even really need milk, if giving up advertising meant I had to drink water that's fine.
I think the issue here is that you're approaching this from a consumerist viewpoint to begin with - it's difficult to explain exactly what's wrong because it's a completely foreign approach.
So maybe some form of advertising is useful, but it would look totally different if what drove it was consumer benefit and not producer benefit.
There is also the conflation that there is some lost potential when advertising can actually sway you into buying something - but the secret is, if you do not already have the necessary economic pressure upon yourself to seek out goods and services in your interest already, that advertising is actually detrimental because it subverts your internal alignment of values through conditioning causing you to make purchases against your base intentions.
The only aspect of advertising of worth is learning products exist, but I would quite easily argue that - especially in the age of social media - word of mouth informance about goods and services that can benefit your life are much more valuable and reasonable and much less detrimental to personal economics than advertising.
How many people bought smartphones because of a TV ad vs their peers telling and showing them how useful they are?
Since we are getting on this topic, I imagine in the case of the downfall of advertising - however that may happen - people would become sociable again amongst each other about what products are good and useful and which have quality. A thousand years ago you would not have known of the quality of rice from a country away but you would know who is the best and worst blacksmith in town and where to get the best ale. We could easily have that again, enhanced with technology to make it a truly global information market.
The private finance of product placement to cause emotional purchases rather than rational ones, by comparison, is dramatically more inefficient.
Of course advertising has a use, but without advertising it's not like you would "have to research the 85 sushi restaurants" in your neighbourhood.
Put it this way: I use adblock, I do not watch TV nor go to places which actively advertise. My life is fine, and I don't have to "actively research" anything unless I specifically want to. In fact, compared to people who don't avoid ads, I tend to spend my money a lot better... something to think about.
In either case, they provide broadcasting as well, and in all cases, they are inherent to either the Internet Age or human organization, and do the job better than emotional splurge-purchase decision TV ads ever could.
To run with your milk example, my wife and I recently learned of Danzeisen Dairy (http://www.danzeisendairy.com); a state-local dairy producer who recently started selling their milk in at our local grocer.
We didn't learn of them through an ad in the local paper, or a TV spot, or display ads on the web. The bottles were just there, in the local grocer.
But before anyone thinks they aren't advertising... the milk was in cutsey little glass bottles, adorned with their logo, the words "Local" - "delivered farm fresh" in retro script, and they "just happened" to be located at eye level on the milk shelf. Not advertising? Ha! ... but it wasn't blatant and obtrusive.
Maybe we (as society) should start to be less lazy about researching the products we consume instead of letting huge brands with different interests decide for us.
In each, all and every possible sense.
Why do people say this, when they know full well that advertising drives people to buy things, and therefore, drive the economy?
These people wouldn't just hoard their money because there is no ad telling them what to buy...
They'd just be exercising their own agency, rather then cokes, or nikes.
If there were no advertising, not many people would know about—let alone buy—video games. But dollar for dollar video games are much better for them than alternatives like drugs.
> not many people would know about—let alone buy—video games
So you are saying in the absence of manipulative ads, kids would be consuming drugs rather than games. I highly doubt that. And from personal experience, my brother is a Minecraft addicted nutter because of peers pushing him towards it, not advertising. I've never seen ads for Minecraft, yet it is one of the most successful video game properties ever.
wut?
People see an ad, they're more likely buy that thing. If they don't see an ad, they don't buy that thing.
You think people are still going to be spending their money if they aren't talked into buying things? lol.
The economy grows when people spend money. Disincentivizing people from spending money is a good way to make sure the economy dies.
Always be selling. NO exceptions. Coffee is for closers.
If 1 dollar is spent 5 times a year, that economy has a higher GDP than when that 1 dollar is spent 4 times a year.
Advertising makes sure that money is spent quickly, to increase the GDP by increasing the velocity of money in an economy.
If you get rid of advertising, you slow down the economy.
Do people spend money without advertising?
I would say, yes they do. People have intrinsic wants and needs. Why would I so fulfilling them, because of a lack of extrinsic wants and needs?
Edit: also aren't you just trying to optimise to what is measured. GDP goes up, and that's beneficial because? Greenspan says so?
I get that it's not what you want to hear, but that's your problem to deal with, not mine.
"Wishing and hoping" that advertising doesn't work, doesn't actually make it so. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it doesn't work.
The advertising industry is profitable because it's an arms race. Companies have to advertise because their competitors already are doing.
If all industries agreed to limit their ad spending, those trillions could become mere billions overnight, and the marginal revenue decreases would be more than offset by the decreased spending. But such coordination is impossible in a competitive economy, because any defector will reap huge rewards.
But in reality that does not actually matter either. Like I said, there is very little fiscal responsibility in people - at least in the US - predominantly a product of culture. The money people would have spent on random useless object advertised on TV 1 would instead be spent on personal want 2. The practical effect of advertising is that it is simply redirecting dollars that would have gone to those with smaller advertising budgets to those with larger budgets. The trillion dollar industry exists as an arms race where increasing product quality or diversifying is less effective - because people are already broke, and net wealth is declining, you cannot compete honestly as effectively in product anymore. If you try that, you simply lose to the guy who had more advertising out there using psychological techniques to manipulate people into buying the inferior product over yours, and that is where the wishing comes in, people wish people were more rational, but we are not, and constant bombardment of advertising only wastes money to let the fattest cats maintain sales margins.
We aren't arguing whether coke tastes nice, we are arguing whether you need to drink it...
I think you need to reread my comments.
I still don't understand why a slower economy is a bad thing. Poverty and starvation is definitely a bad thing, climate change is definitely a bad thing, but a slow economy?
I can agree with that, but I wonder how much it matters, in different scenarios. For example, if instead of hiring someone to cut my lawn (increasing GDP), I cut my lawn myself. Since GDP is lower, is the world therefore a worse place than it might have been?
Just a tought I have sometimes. Sometime in the future we will need to think another way to measure economic improvement.
I'm not just pretending, I genuinely don't understand what that means. It kind of sounds like you think consumption beyond bare sustenance is bad and needs to be checked somehow? If I'm understanding correctly, then I disagree with you.
What makes you think it would fall apart at all?
There's a myth out there that we are unconstrained by physical resources. And it has largely been true "since the beginning of time". But that time is quickly coming to an end -- the next big generation shift will be the acceptance of a resource-constrained world imho.
Look at meat consumption. It takes something like 10x as much energy to grow a calorie of meat as it does a calorie of vegetables. If the entire world (or even just the global middle class, if something like that exists) ate as much meat as the developed world, it would be an ecological catastrophe growing all that livestock, disposing of its waste, and fertilizing the grain needed to feed it. And guess what, as the populations of India and China are entering the middle class, they're adopting a taste for meat-heavy diets.
Energy consumption per capita is a pretty good proxy for human development. Whether it's meat or our plastic lawn furniture that we consume from amazon, all of it takes energy to produce. In other words, consumption is another word for energy, and if even a sizable chunk of the world consumed as much as we do in the western world, it would require something like more energy than all proven oil reserves. Clearly that's not going to work.
We can always hope for the deus ex machina ending and say that we'll find salvation in technological progress (whether it's an efficient way to store solar or figuring out fusion or an FTL drive top open up new worlds), but that requires a dangerous amount of hope. It's also the path of inaction -- wait for someone else to deliver salvation.
More realistically, I think consumption is starting to hit physical resource constraints and is inflecting towards the top of the S-curve. The entire global economy since the beginning of time may have been about consuming, but that doesn't mean the party can continue.
Consider the following maximal example: If all of Earth's resources are exhausted (whatever that means, I don't rely on any exact definition), we need to head outwards into space. Because our expansion is limited by the speed of light, we can at most cover a distance
r(t) = c * t
V(t) = (c * t)^3
Cubic growth is much much much much less than exponential growth. In fact, the exponential function can be shown to grow faster than any power function.
If you put a population of flies in a closed container, even with an unlimited food supply, their population will grow and grow until it hits a peak and collapases. We are smarter than flies but to think we are not also constrained by nature is folly?
1. Scientific discovery and innovation. People were all in huge panic in the 17/18/19th century about the ability of our limited amount of land to feed the (exponentially-growing) populace, yet discovery of new methods/technologies increased the hypothetical yield such that the point became moot.
2. We live in a feedback-loop system. In the absence of perverse (and universal) government incentives, society will slow-down as resources become scarce. That is, until point number 1 kicks in again and the cycle starts fresh.
John B. Calhorn's mouse utopia experiments give some indication of complexity in large communities beyond food resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#Mouse_experime...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM
There was no shortage of food or water or nesting
material. There were no predators. The only adversity was
the limit on space.
Initially the population grew rapidly, doubling every 55
days. The population reached 620 by day 315, after which
the population growth dropped markedly. The last
surviving birth was on day 600. This period between day
315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and
in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in
behavior were the following: expulsion of young before
weaning was complete, wounding of young, increase in
homosexual behavior, inability of dominant males to
maintain the defense of their territory and females,
aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant
males with increased attacks on each other which were
not defended against.[2] After day 600, the social
breakdown continued and the population declined toward
extinction. During this period females ceased to
reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely,
never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank,
slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits.
Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars
characterized these males. They were dubbed “the
beautiful ones.” Breeding never resumed and behavior
patterns were permanently changed.If we run out of land, we take the sea. If we run out of sea, we take space. And so on.
This answer precludes the very real possibility that the necessary technology advances to "take the sea" or "go into space" don't come in time to be useful. Any plan that includes "things that haven't been invented yet" isn't a real plan, it's wishful thinking.
Socially we already do that. We have created a gargantuan advertising industry that has zero net material gain for society, whose sole purpose is to redirect dollars already in circulation to their employers. We have dramatically expanded bureaucracy in almost every industry to micromanage risk at the cost of tremendous overhead in the time of human beings spent on it. We maintain many institutions in the service industry more-so because the marginal cost of having all the participants unemployed (and thus hungry, destitute, and dangerous) is worse than just paying them do to work nobody practically would need done if not for the negative impacts of simply dropping people out of the workforce.
But this is entirely the wrong way to approach economics. It is absolutely antithetical to the human condition to start from the presumption that people need to do something for someone else for their life to have meaning. That is where entrepreneurism comes from, and we need more of it going forward, not less, as we systemically eliminate the repetitious work in our lives through technological advancement. To aspire for peak employment is to aspire for the death of aspiration. Rather than seeing a "problem" of unemployment, when the practical cause is derived from the lack of anyone willing to pay people for their time considering the skills that they have, see it as an opportunity. If we have unemployment it means everything worth doing is being done, and we should be trying to enable those who are not needed to keep society running to improve that society through innovation than to fabricate busywork for them to do to keep all the cogs in the machine in tune with one another, even if a large segment of said cogs are redundant.
And probably the best example is how I imagine most people would read that previous sentence - but there is a ton of things I want done! But practically, capitalism does not care what you want, it cares about only what those with the dollars to make their voices heard want. The unemployed should be those free to listen to the wants of people rather than money, rather than those who society condemns to poverty.