“We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living.

It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. [...]

The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”

— R. Buckminster Fuller (March 1970, _New York_ magazine)

@mattdm

and, how is it then, the people doing the essential chores to keep us all functioning often are not paid well enough to be earning a living, while horrid humans amass ridiculous wealth, take it from the rest of us, and believe that means they make the rules for the rest of us

Disturbing data: The rich and powerful get their policies adopted, even if opposed by most voters

Whether or not a government policy is favored by most Americans “matters not a whit,” an eminent political scientist tells a University of Minnesota audience.

MinnPost

@mattdm

And Bucky wrote that in 1970. He was a genius. All his ideas could be profitably revisited. 🙂

@Su_G @mattdm you could say it's a ballsy statement.
@mattdm But in America, you need a job so you can get crappy healthcare benefits

@mattdm

The fruits of previous technological breakthroughs, that used to go to governments to enrich and sustain nations, now go to billionaires to sustain a system that puts private wealth above democratic citizenship,

@mattdm "We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist." The phenomenon of bullshit jobs in a nutshell.
@mattdm oho? Of the Buckminster Fullerine, or Bucky Ball?
Which is not a Marvel 'shippers joke, I swear

@mattdm Many thoughts about this 👀

1. I agree in principle

Many people merely accept that they must work for decades to survive, which I find depressing. It may be functionally true, but there are many ways to explain and ground this necessity.

Do you work out of obligation to get that bread (monetary and social worth)? Or are you part of a community, where you're valued regardless of your current contributions?

1/4

Visually, you can imagine that the current need to work is just one node. I'm interested in the framework in which this node is embedded. What sort of philosophy do you have to explain why we're here and what we're working towards?

Designing that takes creativity, a view of the future, and above all, human connection.

2/4

2. We aren't freeloaders

I disagree with the idea that geniuses single-handedly make things that magically support everyone. These innovations must be shared, engineered to fit specific use cases, and improved when undesirable and unforeseen effects surface. This is a huge enterprise. We each have a role in speaking up, and adapting these technologies to our local contexts.

So I don't think they are 'supporting the rest', as we all make up this wider infrastructure of support.

3/4

3. Minor point about school

Some people don't want to go back to school. They like making things, helping people, chasing ambitions. We should recognise these pursuits too.

4/4

@skirov @mattdm no, we work by obligation because we need money, because powerful people have declared that money is now required to get basic necessities. Who works for fun? This is the greateat fallacy ever.
@f4grx Some people work for reasons beyond obligation. Their impact shines through, even in shitty and exploitative systems. These people are the core around which communities gather, and demand change from the powerful.

@mattdm "go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living"

okay, that was beer & getting laid

but I still think there was a lot of untapped potential in those ideas...

@mattdm This concept is frequently used to justify giving disabled people less money's to survive on, than ableds would get with a full time minimum wage job (which is in turn now in most places below what's considered a real living wage) even as it's pretty widely known that living as a disabled person is more expensive not less than an abled. Within this system is also the artificial cliff separating disabled non-employed vs disabled employed, which harms so many #disabled and their abled loved ones. *This cliff not being very much related to the disabilities themselves & mostly related now to how much or little support the disabled person has.

If we got rid of this ridiculous notion set & likewise had a floor of a universal living money set, then we'd be able to remove that cliff & help allow for fuller societal integration.

@mattdm@hachyderm.io:

Does one need a subscription to read the full article?
@mattdm I wonder if anyone has a link to the full text of this article (or a freestanding copy of the text, such as a PDF)?
New York Magazine

New York magazine was born in 1968 after a run as an insert of the New York Herald Tribune and quickly made a place for itself as the trusted resource for readers across the country. With award-winning writing and photography covering everything from politics and food to theater and fashion, the magazine's consistent mission has been to reflect back to its audience the energy and excitement of the city itself, while celebrating New York as both a place and an idea.

Google Books

@dedicto

I also remember reading something similar in one of his books, but it was a long time ago....

I love that guy; my Science Hero.

@mattdm