demand for food has actually reduced its value strangely

because its gotten so much easier to produce

demand didn't make it cheaper, the cost of production went down

i supose

and the laborers producing it didint see much benefit from that

farming seems to be historically unfriendly for labor

its often the work of slaves in history, when its not, usually farmers would be disrespected by land owners

sometimes you get a society with respect for farming but doesent seem to last

it doesn't last because automation is just so much better at it

i mean, how do you value a farm that produces much less per season, with no major advantage to it, and costs like 8 times as much?

it takes up lots of space, usually isn't that environmentally friendly, is very hard labor

its all around not a good job

very few if any people liked it, so we made a culture of viewing it as not that great

I think we agreed that the development of automation cannot be stopped. If you want to argue for what feels almost like pity jobs, ones that would probably end up being given out by the state due to the ridiculous cost to yield over automation, or a new version of the Amish, then i wish you luck. I still have hope that society evolves itself around the problem we suspect automation will cause.

because right now, for all we know, automation just might open up a different kids of manual labor job we haven't though of yet.

i super dont agree that the development of automation cannot be stopped, however i do conceed its not easy and youd have to change society

you'd have to undermine humanities competitive nature, and their want to do less work

look at how well stopping global warming has gone. and you think something whos tag line is "cheaper everything" will somehow go over better?

But I must take my leave for now. Have to go to the gym for an hour.

you wont be able to solve this problem thinking purely economicly because economicly you cant compete with "everything you want for less" this is why no form of economic system has ever competed with capitalism. you could tell people that basicly they will lose all their jobs if they try something but people will shoot back at you that they will just go on welfare and they will be right that in the best case scenario that means they never have to work but still have the same standard of living (theoreticly).

the only way you can compete with this idea is by teaching people to care more about something other than their own financial well being, this is where communism went wrong and ironicly where fascism and national socialism actually did something right for a change. communism tried to compete with capitalism by basicly saying anyone who wanted something would get it in their system promissing that their progress would increase while also they would end wealth disparity, they couldent actually deliver either promiss. what the nazis and fascists promissed though wasent immediate success or the end of wealth disparity rather they restructured their social system by making important things other than wealth and consumerism which changed the relationship between different classes (to some extent). it was kind of like religion to some extent which was another tool throughout history which managed to be something that the working class of a nation would care about more than their own finantial status.

if you want people to work when they would not normally need to work you need to both highlight parts of working class labor that are already positive toward the working class besides basic survival in a monitary system and additionally you must fortify these highlights with new social benefits, make them feel like valued people in a society, status does not have to be tied to economy and when its not you get people to do things without them realisticly having an economic reason to

ultimately what you need to do is also broker the proper labor to wage ratio that the working class deserve, this is something that communism did try to promiss but i disagree with their methodology and their failure shows. you cant get the results you need by completely replacing the upper class with new people what you have to do is use the lower classes to convence the upper class to take a smaller cut of production values. not so much that they will shut down and some WILL shut down at first, but a balance needs to be struck in a fight against rampent consumerism thats basicly causing people to buy more, products cost less, working class paid less, population go down, production skyrocket, and resources drain like sand through our open fingers

attempting to engineer society never ends well

well, unless you view humans killing each other as ending well, then it usually works perfectly

humans will kill eachother anyway

true, but we've been on a violence decline for some time now, for whatever reason

people working to maintain peace at any cost

that "at any cost" should stand out

that is a radically different goal than making sure everyone has some kind of work

as being a soldier is a job

seems like a tangent then

social engineering does work when it works, as i pointed out it did work for the nazis and fascists, it even worked for the nationalist japanese. all 3 of these groups did go to war with the rest of the world but that wasent because they managed to successfuly socially engineer the populations to care about something more than financial success (though that helps a tramendous degree) it was because the people up top had a plan for directing the future of the nation in a direction which required more resources then they could realisticly get from out of their small, sometimes resource poor regions.

religion is social engineering

its worked for longer than the concept has been in nomiclature

the idea of the warrior culture is a form of social engineering where their is a social benefit associated with being part of a militia or army beyond that of the economic motivation that is lumped onto it

the easiest form of social engineering, is to convince people there is a common enemy

`Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?`

each one of those examples pretty much required putting a group at the bottom, and telling everyone else to destroy them.

they didn't fix the problem of the welfare class by putting them to work, they fixed the problem by putting them to death.

they made a welfare class out of other humans. they made or relied on the existence of another group.