This is by far the most common attitude on HN but would be one of the least common in the reality based community. Does this sort of view come from too much science fiction or something? I love science and have never come to these kinds of views but its hard me to find that exact common reason where this view comes from. So working for money is the most sadistic thing imaginable because there is some imaginary machine that could do the work? Torturing people is sadistic, paying people to work is not. On the one hand we have some strange indignation that seems to be rooted in the idea that we no longer have scarcity or something another. The other seems to be, ironically, a lack of realization of where technology is currently at; it is little more than a promissory note, Kurzweil notwithstanding.
> This is by far the most common attitude on HN but would be one of the least common in the reality based community. Does this sort of view come from too much science fiction or something?This is by far the most common attitude on HN but would be one of the least common in the reality based community. Does this sort of view come from too much science fiction or something?
Probably because HN audience tends to be less bound by conventional wisdom and all kinds of irrationality. As far as politics go, I'm anarcho-communist (thus anti-capitalist), but on HN I often find comments (although this account is just a few days old, I've been reading HN for years) on economic and political issues from people who are very pro-capitalist with which I can agree (although we would probably disagree on motives and goals). For example in this discussion. It's very hard to find this in general population.
> So working for money is the most sadistic thing imaginable because there is some imaginary machine that could do the work? Torturing people is sadistic, paying people to work is not.
This is a strawman. First, I did not say it's the most sadistic thing imaginable. But yes, it is sadistic because that kind of work typically brings significant distress and because it's unnecessary. It doesn't matter how good or bad the wage is. This kind of dreadful work ties a person's mental and physical potential which could be otherwise used to add great value to society and the individual. Having a base income would efficiently untie a lot of reasons for this deadlock which is overwhelmingly of political nature. Do I think it's likely to happen, even though it's stupid and harmful not to? No, but why would that stop me from contemplating it and doing whatever I can to help bring about some change?
> On the one hand we have some strange indignation that seems to be rooted in the idea that we no longer have scarcity or something another.
We don't have scarcity in a lot of areas. The problem lies in not having political will to rationally distribute unscarce resources.
> The other seems to be, ironically, a lack of realization of where technology is currently at
It is certainly at a sufficient level to eliminate a huge number of distressful jobs. That it can't, at this moment, eliminate all such jobs is no reason to dismiss possible solutions. From a slightly different technological domain: just because not all long haul travel is via space, doesn't mean we should dismiss all other forms of transport and just stay put until space planes become reality.
