In the West work is a proxy for purpose, value and citizen. But, as you said, that's about to change. Drastically. An unprecedented disruption. So then what? And if not, then what?
Of course there might be new occupations around the corner, but given that most of every material and cultural need is already satisfied, except for eternal life, I don't see what occupations billions of people could transition to that people or businesses would pay money for.
Couldn't that be said in every point in history?
Were the farmers losing their jobs in the early 1900s thinking to themselves, "man, I could really go for an interconnected network of computers right now"? I'd be surprised if it even crossed their mind. But eventually, with not having to work on the farm anymore, they had the time to sit back and come up with the idea and implementation. Now, in 2016, it is difficult to imagine living without it.
I find it hard to believe we've reached the pinnacle of human achievement.
For the vast majority of humans, what they can reasonably accomplish in their lifetimes is surpassed by automated systems today, at least that which pertains to the things that in the past were requisite for everything to function (farming, transportation, common services like cooking, cleaning, etc).
It's not hard to imagine the need for paying jobs will drop to zero as everything humans normally need is captured by monopolistic automated systems. From whence comes the need to take care of our own? What's to stop most humans from becoming like the horse, that which no longer has capitalistic meaning? Our overwhelming love for each other (/sarcasm)?
This friction starts when the 100s "push back." You don't have to be a genius to raise hell, do you?
Previously we just shifted from the fields to the factories, and when that was done, to the offices and service industry.
If those are done too, there will be few, or no, replacements.
There's no contract we signed with the universe or the "laws of economy" that there will always be new jobs found to replace automated ones.
Certainly there is no contract with the universe, but seeing as how people have pretty much worked most of the time for all of human history it seems like the height of hubris to think that RIGHT NOW things are going to fundamentally change.
Lets take horses. They were essential for many areas, for a very long time. Once a horseless carriage was constructed, horse ownership declined. After a tipping point, the cost for a horse, in terms of food, water, lodging cost more than the horseless carriage.
Eventually, horses were unemployable. They were still animals - strong animals at that. But the cost of maintenance and upkeep was more than they could output. So many went to the sausage and glue factories.
Some people still have them, and they are huge money-sinks. Their owners know it, and budget accordingly. But none use them for actual labor - machines are much more efficient.
So, what do we do when human labor is less than the resources to keep said human alive? Sausage/glue factories for them as well?
(edit: spelling)
The Soylent factory for me, please!
But to answer your question: there's going to have to be a rewrite of taxation and laws - see experiments with basic income - to cater for a world in which wealth is still being created but is being distributed less as the labour isn't required.
Whomever commands the robots of the future is probably looking at a big tax bill.
Nah. There will always be demand for people to do things. People want all kinds of goods and services. Not all of them will be automate-able. People will do those things. And they'll get paid for it.
Humans are not just tools. Thinking of them in that way leads to conclusions that don't make sense.
Capitalism views humans as a resource to be used and exploited. When that equation no longer makes sense for that person/group, they are gotten rid of. Look no further than factories that move elsewhere to lower their costs.
I'm from Indiana, and I'm sure you've heard of that Carrier factory debacle. They initially made the decision to move because it would make them $2 billion more per year. It was a purely numbers-driven solution. That's all that capitalism can "see".
And frankly, humans are "unquantifiable". No measurement, no data, and no decisions on that. It's the same with the environment as well - if there's no data that ties directly to me, who cares (even if we all take part). It's the tragedy of the commons. And we in the end, all suffer.
There are a lot of people out there who want to limit reproduction. And these days, they have better arguments.
To continue your analogy, "put them out to pasture". It could be argued that what is good for us as a people, is not always good for our conscious. What to do?
"There are things we can't conceive" is not a very convincing argument.
Sure.
There are also things we can conceive fairly well.
It's not that automation will eliminate all jobs, just that automation will eliminate most jobs in every field faster than humans can be trained to do them.
The worry is that humans will become the horses of the 21st century -- and we seem on track to be. Understandably, many humans are concerned by this prospect.
AI is not just tools. AI replaces brains as well. This breaks the cycle. You know what they saw about past results and future returns? Apply that heavy and frequently.