Yeah, somebody has to do that. But it doesn't have to be one person. I wouldn't mind digging a ditch or handling some sewage every once in a while. If everyone did a little of everything without commitment or paperwork or whatnot, I bet we'd be much better off. Utopian, sure, but I'm certain it could be made to work. (Even the worst slackers would start doing things when there's no blame, expectations or obligations.)
Also, I'm afraid that when the robots finally do everything, we the people will still be left with paper-shuffling jobs. As robots gain ground, jobs will be lost and new pointless jobs invented for the sacked. That's been happening for decades now. It's like boiling a frog: we won't even notice when we get to the point where robots are doing everything and the only reason we're still working is because we're keeping each other's artificial jobs going.
Kind of hard to explain this point. Think insurers insuring managers who manage insurers, only more widespread and complex. Think circular references in a reference-counting garbage-collected environment: objects that are completely unnecessary but things have gotten so complex that it's hard to see it.
Then of course there's the question of who owns the means of production: if corporations had to pay for the robots, they won't just make them do everyone's work for free. Quid pro quo, right? And this doesn't take malice: the frog will be boiled very gradually.
(I know you can't boil frogs like that. That's not the point.)
Also, I'm afraid that when the robots finally do everything, we the people will still be left with paper-shuffling jobs. As robots gain ground, jobs will be lost and new pointless jobs invented for the sacked. That's been happening for decades now. It's like boiling a frog: we won't even notice when we get to the point where robots are doing everything and the only reason we're still working is because we're keeping each other's artificial jobs going.
Kind of hard to explain this point. Think insurers insuring managers who manage insurers, only more widespread and complex. Think circular references in a reference-counting garbage-collected environment: objects that are completely unnecessary but things have gotten so complex that it's hard to see it.
Then of course there's the question of who owns the means of production: if corporations had to pay for the robots, they won't just make them do everyone's work for free. Quid pro quo, right? And this doesn't take malice: the frog will be boiled very gradually.
(I know you can't boil frogs like that. That's not the point.)