The fear is very real, not about emasculation, but a loss of identity in a society where "you are your job". I have seen this first hand in both people who weren't "essential" during COVID shutdowns (to their horror), and people who were deemed "essential" but it was, in their words, "bullshit".

Automation is rapidly accelerating into the wall that is identity beliefs at scale, and there is evidence that these belief systems are fairly rigid, making adaption to change challenging to say the least.

The revolution won't be the automation. It'll be in us accepting that the job wasn't who we were/are and it's okay to let it go (caveat systems are in place to ensure quality of life is provided for at an agreed upon floor). It's just a job.

"You are not your job" is one thing I keep teaching all my junior colleagues. Your work is not your identity, and should not be seriously attached to your ego.

This helps very much at code review and performance review times.

I spend more time doing my job than almost anything else. Sleeping is the only thing I spend more time doing. It might be healthier if I can avoid attaching so much importance and part of my identity to it, but I don't know how that's possible for me. Not only does it dominate my time, but it determines how much money I have for what I need and want and therefor what class of society I fit into and how difficult my life is/can be as a result. Really I see it more of an act of Zen doublethink to believe that your work should not comprise any part of your identity given how central it is to your experience as a human.

I find this really interesting because it's the exact opposite of how I think. I simply can't wrap my head around the concept, even knowing that many people think the same way.

Twenty years ago I had a friend who was a social worker and I offhand mentioned to her that "well, I'm not my job." She stared at me as if I had two heads and then said, slowly, "I completely agree with you, but you have no idea how rare it is to hear a man say that."

I enjoy my job and I'm happy to do it, but it in no way defines who I am for more than the 8-or-so hours per day I spend at it. The thing is, making your work your identity is almost central to the American male experience, and I doubt that's going away any time soon.

I guess you're in good company :-)

> Sleeping is the only thing I spend more time doing.

I envy your work-life balance %)

> Zen doublethink

facepalm

Doublethink being the act of simultaneously knowing something to be false while believing it to be true, and "Zen" here being a state of inner piece. So "Zen doublethink" would be choosing to believe something that you know isn't true for the sake of inner peace.

Giving the philosophical roots of Zen, this is like writing "peaceful war"

While correlating your identity with your job is probably not a good thing in a general sense of the word, I think looking a bit broader, having purpose in life is important; for a lot of people, that is their job / career.

In addition to automation, I fear there are a lot of bullshit jobs out there right now that people cannot see as their purpose; it's a job, they take it because they need to make money, and because there isn't a living to be made in what they themselves are passionate about.

There's a LOT of people who would love to make a living in the arts - writing, drawing, etc - but there's just not enough money in it because people aren't willing to actually pay for it, so they have to move their passion to a hobby while working a dead-end job where they are just a number in a payroll system - i.e. they are replaceable. McJobs, if you want.

My budget is tuned to buy mass produced products. I cant afford art. "Willing to pay" is putting it overly general.

> The revolution won't be the automation. It'll be in us accepting that the job wasn't who we were/are and it's okay to let it go

This is perhaps the only thing socialism got right. At least the flavor we had in Yugoslavia and the remnants it left on the psyche of my parent's generation.

You do your job, then you go home and live your actual life. The job exists as a way to "pay your dues" in society, but it isn't your life. Your life is home, family, the house you're building, maybe a little side business. That sort of thing.

My generation growing up in the 90's and 00's tossed that away and went full american. Hustle hustle. Doing your job is not enough. You must love your job or you are a failure.

We have more prosperity and I sometimes wonder if our parents didn't have more life.

> We have more prosperity and I sometimes wonder if our parents didn't have more life.

When I was younger and naive, I judged the Amish. As I've grown older and wiser, I realize they had the right idea all along. Family, loved ones, community first. Everything else serves those.

The Amish are actually some of the most successful businessmen.

So... its probably not all just "friends and family values" in the Amish world. Despite a luddite-based culture and "technically" an 8th grade education, they're probably one of the hardest working people around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06...

--------

They just figured out where to focus their business chops. Organic foods, hand-crafted customized furniture, etc. etc. And the Amish have a huge reputation as among the best craftsmen and freshest foods for these sorts of things.

Their sense of community probably also helps keep the various Amish businesses alive since they help each other so much.

The Amish have built a prosperous life for themselves selling their brand of "quaintness" to Goldman Sachs traders buying curio cabinets and porch swings for their place in Sag Harbor.

My impression is that their brand is more about quality. I can't imagine the Amish "cost-optimizing" like big manufacturers do. So much stuff is a nice veneer with shoddy bones.

Regarding the Amish, I admire their approach to technology. Technology is only accepted if it benefits them without distracting them from their main duties (family & church).

This inherently makes them immune to the majority of the downsides we see in today's tech such as addictive patterns, advertising or "broken by design" tools as they would just not become accepted in the community to begin with.

Given the current, often user-hostile state of technology I think this is an example we should at least consider.

Define "technology". Anything invented after the year 1800? 1900? 1980?

In modern America we used to have that, but non-job social structures have been hollowed out since the 1970s. Now Americans get a distressingly large percentage of their social interactions via work, making them psychologically dependent on their job too.

Well as I unerstand it, the average American salaried worker spends 10-12 hours a day, at least 5 days a week, at the office. With maybe 10 days holiday a year.

How does anyone have time to have an actual life outside work?

We goof off at work.

The error is universalism. Neither mindset you're describing is appropriate to be given a universal "should" status, people have differing preferences. Some rather enjoy having their work be a big part if not the primary part of their life. Plus there are many nice things which benefit everyone that wouldn't exist if the people who brought them about had just treated their jobs as jobs. Maybe some think those things shouldn't exist, but you'll never convince the creators of that.

Where America still shines is you can for the most part still go with either mindset as you prefer. Even in SV tech where there's so much "dream job" this and other such talk, BigCos are nevertheless packed full of employees for whom it's just a job. But there are the occasional rather devoted employees who put in much more than 40 hours (not to mention the fudgey to account for time where you're thinking about work topics in the shower, at dinner, before bed...) and that's fine, it can make a nice mix. Now if you start down the socialist path of promoting a universal policy, and there are many (like limiting work hours) that could support making things easier for the just-a-job mentality, what you're actually doing is eliminating an option people prefer, and a huge source of innovation along with it.

"Money doesn't buy happiness" is just something we tell the poor so they don't revolt -- this also applied to communism -- the communist elites lived a much better life materially and socially. Sure, average Ivan was "happy" because his neighbors had just as crappy flat, just as crappy car, just as crappy job, just as crappy food and so on and there was no way for him to "better" his life because money was meaningless because thats not what Ivan really lacked -- he lacked freedom to do as he pleased with his money.

My point was that people are competitive, social animals and social status is very important; sure, communism castrated a lot of those impulses and some people claim they were much happier back then, but its mostly bullshit nostalgia.

I was very young back then, but I remember the deprivations, my kindergarten educator slapping me for not applauding "dear leader", my parents just leaving me alone in the flat because they had to go the communist parades, being lectured in kindergarden how my parents jobs(doctors) were in fact less important than the jobs of other coleagues worker-parents jobs who "perhaps" made the syringes my parents could not do without; I remember people having to work on saturdays, night shifts and so on.

Having not lived through it, but having seen a glimpse of its aftermath living in Berlin a few years, it was very interesting to see the contrasts between the Ossis and Wessis (at least ones that were say, at least 18 in 1989). In general, I found the Ossis to be more friendly and open and fun loving. For example, an Ossi party would usually be louder, messier, and have worse food, but everyone would be laughing and a guitar might come out at some point. The typical Wessi party I experienced was perfectly catered, everyone was perfectly dressed, and it was in a perfect house, but people weren't necessarily having that much fun.

Now this is different in other parts of Germany, but it's an interesting natural experiment, because these guys were literally in the same city.

It’s not exactly a novel concept. Compare your recollection of the low class Irish party scene on the Titanic. What’s your imagination of a suburban house party or block party compared to the eloquent glitzy ballroom party by the well-to-do? Not many in society are expecting the well off to have much fun in gatherings amongst themselves.

It should be obvious that money prevents the sorrow of poverty.

"Money doesn't buy happiness" refers to happiness, which is not simply the lack of sadness.

It means that once all the typical material needs are provided, simply having more money does not make people visibly HAPPY all the time, and most people tend to focus on other goals.

This has been proven again and again by scientific research.

Money may not buy happiness but poverty sure can remove it.

In Romanian we say 'Money don't bring happiness but neither does their lack of'

The OP referred to Yugoslavia, its socialism was vastly different. After the first years of the Tito era, there was little pressure to praise Tito, just not to disparage him. The 1970s are fondly remembered as the decade of the vikendica and middle-class holidays in Bali. (Young Yugoslavs also made up a conspicuous portion of the travelers on the Istanbul–Kathmandu trail, because with the red Yugoslav passport one could travel visa-free all over the world.) If a person wanted especial material success, then one was free to go work in Western Europe, the borders were wide open and a huge amount of people took advantage of this opportunity.

If you are from Romania, as I assume from your username, the experience of socialism there, or other Eastern Bloc countries, does not even compare.

Money doesn't buy happiness. All it can do is buy distraction and remove physical discomfort like starving or sleeping in the rain or riding a bike instead of a car

My dad was salty during communism that he didn't get more "respect" for his labor (highschool teacher) than your run of the mill factory worker. I remember during the early 90s how he was hopefully saying that once the country exits the "transition" phase, we will all have the dignified life of middle class westerners.

Meanwhile the country still does the same in international rankings as it did during the time of our dear leader. However more of the egalitarianism we had disappeared, and while some enjoy some semblance of prosperity in the heart of the major cities, the bulk of the nation has no job security and no future prospect but to be a cheap labor source for the west.

> he didn't get more "respect" for his labor (highschool teacher)

> we will all have the dignified life of middle class westerners

What a sad irony. If he was a highschool teacher in the US as now he could be struggling to pay rent and medical bills and get more or less the same "respect".

At the time there were two issues: - (I think) school teachers were better paid than now, relative to the average population - People in communism mostly knew the US through Hollywood films, which portray a way more glitzy version reality. Especially so in the 80s in popular sitcoms like Dallas.

Super interesting. I believe we have a kind of reflex to also find part of 'us' in our role in society. And that it's not just an american culture bug.

Striking a balance between the two is subtle I suppose.

> loss of identity in a society where "you are your job"

In a society where "you are your job" you already have huge problems even if there is full employment.

Doesn't the often given argument agains UBI that, 'work is important for dignity' have its roots in Christian ethics?

I's say work being part of people's identity is much older than Christianity.

If we're talking about the Western world, and in particular, the politics and culture of class (of which "work being part of people's identity" is a part) then Judeo-Christian influence is the only influence that matters.

And memes like the dignity of labor, the just world fallacy (that wealth and poverty have inherent moral dimensions) and welfare (or leftist/secular ideology) breeding laziness definitely have their basis in Christian influence. I've seen people quote the Bible directly ("If a man will not work, he shall not eat") when criticizing UBI.

The just world fallacy in particular is going to hit people hard. People who believe society owes them safety, stability, a job and a living wage simply because they worked hard and obeyed the law are going to be hit with a rude awakening when they realize how capitalism actually works.

I'm agreeing with everything you wrote (with the minor differentiation that this is mostly rooted in particular protestant branches, not Christianity per se), but in my understanding the opposition to UBI is not primarily about dignity, but about identity, hence my comment. People were displayed as their being their job, not just generic underlings to the king, on egyptian stela from 3000 BC.

> but in my understanding the opposition to UBI is not primarily about dignity,

Opposition to UBI (as well as healthcare for all, proper schooling for all, nutritional food for all, etc) is about not wanting to pay higher taxes and maintaining a competitive edge in being able to obtain resources over others in society (or the world).

Those with more wealth (or who think they are capable of gaining more wealth) want to prevent others from having it, predictably.

There are lots of reasons for not supporting those things. Some in-line with what you said. Others not. The issues are more complicated than you're making them out to be.

I used to think that, but over the years, in my cohort, the same group of people oppose any measures at wealth redistribution or anything that helps people who sell their labor.

Removing tax advantages of healthcare from employers? Oppose.

Removing exempt status or even raising the minimum salary under which an employer has to pay overtime? Oppose.

Lowering the cost of education? Oppose.

Parental or sick leave? Oppose.

Outlawing non competes? Oppose.

There's always some reason, which I believe to be a façade. The consistency and fervor with which they do not want labor to gain negotiating power is revealing. And, of course, always in support of tax cuts.

It's the all-too-common "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" [1] mentality. When asked about these things, people imagine themselves as millionaires and then say "Well, if I were rich I wouldn't think those things were fair, so therefore I currently don't think they are fair either!"

1: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Steinbeck

The examples you gave originally (UBI, healthcare for all, etc.) are totally different than the ones you listed here, which are much more tightly scoped.

Edit: I'm not supportive of the first group because the policies as stated are wishes, not actual policies. For example, any real healthcare for all solution has to have a plan for dealing with the millions of people who are employed by the current healthcare system (which admittedly sucks) and who will be replaced by a new one. Similarly for UBI. It requires completely overhauling massive federal and state bureaucracies that have a lot of power.

I agree with you that many people who are against those things are they way you're describing, but many are not as well.

Complete overhaul is necessary. For example, mental health facilities can only be addressed on a federal level, same as healthcare. Otherwise the governments that do address them will get swamped with benefit received from across the country without the ability to collect taxes from the whole country.

The big ideas seem like wishes, but I think it’s completely doable. But a sizeable portion of the population opposes even the baby steps I listed, and I can’t deduce any reason other than they like to imagine themselves in the owner class and want to keep down labor.

There's a debate around UBI that goes beyond bumper-sticker wisdom, and that's what krapp and me were talking about.

John Smith

Mark Miller

Sally Baker

etc...

There is no "west" and there is no "Judeo-Christian" culture.

There are, and has been, hundreds of different cultures. Some have similarities, some are profoundly different.

(I'm not trying to dismiss your whole point: I agree with everything else you wrote)

>There are, and has been, hundreds of different cultures. Some have similarities, some are profoundly different.

These cultures didn't emerge from a vacuum completely in isolation from one another. Their similarities and commonalities are what form the basis for these categories, broad though they may be.

That's shallow (funny, but shallow).

It's about stability. You carved a nice spot where you found joy and financial ... well .. stability. And now your life might go to the toilet. There's no guarantee that your next job will be

1. Fulfilling in itself

2. Provide the same income

3. Provide the same secondary benefits (colleagues, hours, boss, etc)

And.. automation is not even a guarantee that what your were producing is gonna improve (lots of chances it may but it can go the other way too: cheap commoditization)

Yes, all the unemployment/stock market value/income statistics all leave out the most important metric - the feeling of security, or insecurity I should say. Volatility is high, people can see it and feel it, and it shapes their decisions.

Volatility also open roads to predatory management. Last year I felt how job blackmail felt. It's near invisible, no one has to say a word. Your boss can just bully you and if you happen to like and need that job, you have to decide to harm your own daily life or suffer his ways.

> There's no guarantee that your next job will be

> 1. Fulfilling in itself

> 2. Provide the same income

>3. Provide the same secondary benefits (colleagues, hours, boss, etc)

Given how the job market is trending in favour of uber/postmates-style gig work (for people who aren't working in specific skilled trades) , I'd say it is guaranteed to be worse in all three aspects.

Ted Chiang made a similar point a few years back. (well not that phallic, but also about psychological projection as a reason for the AI fear)

"This summer, Elon Musk spoke to the National Governors Association and told them that “AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization.” Doomsayers have been issuing similar warnings for some time, but never before have they commanded so much visibility.[...]AI redesigns itself to be more effective, it might decide that the best way to maximize its output would be to destroy civilization and convert the entire surface of the Earth into strawberry fields"[...]

"This scenario sounds absurd to most people, yet there are a surprising number of technologists who think it illustrates a real danger. Why? Perhaps it’s because they’re already accustomed to entities that operate this way: Silicon Valley tech companies."[...]

"The idea of superintelligence is such a poorly defined notion that one could envision it taking almost any form with equal justification: a benevolent genie that solves all the world’s problems, or a mathematician that spends all its time proving theorems so abstract that humans can’t even understand them. But when Silicon Valley tries to imagine superintelligence, what it comes up with is no-holds-barred capitalism."

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tedchiang/the-real-dang...

You might enjoy Charles Stross (early 2000s) take on the same concept which he has published under a CC license here: https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/toast/t...

It is rather automation and not AI itself that will bring changes to the job market. And the article argues automation hasn't had the expected effect yet.

I usually stay away from this kind of topics, but this rubs me the wrong way and I have five minutes to burn. Probably because I expected better from him.

The mistake here is the nature of capitalism. In reality, when you see a bunch of companies beginning to turn everything into "a field of strawberries", something is going extremely right. Why? Because capitalism is working based on needs, and it means it found a way to satisfy a very deep (or very wide) need. At the end of the long chain there are people that are more satisfied with their lives than before.

As for being afraid of this? Hogwash. In nature every exponential curve is the beginning of a logistics curve. And the more complex the system, earlier the curve flattens. If you burn a forest it'l taper only when it has nothing left to burn. If you try something similar in a human society, it will find blockers long before that.

And that's why we should be more afraid of AI - there is the chance (small, true) that to an AI our society is as uncomplicated as a dry forest, and the feedback mechanisms that hold us in place just don't apply to it.

I don't think that no-holds-barred capitalism is the likeliest outcome for a superintelligent AI, but it is the one we need to be the most vigilant of. The abstract mathematician AI could just be allowed to live out its peaceful life proving ever-more-obscure theorems.

The mathematician AI may just as well decide to use the entire planet as fuel for its compute capacity.