Daniel Boyd

Hoorn, Netherlands

About Daniel

Languages

English

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

203971
Daniel Boyd
Posted 9 months ago
Educated people should not consider themselves too good for unskilled labour
My point is not so much that everyone should labour for wages, but that they should labour for goods. Money is just the middle man - an expression of value which can be applied to labour of goods. People don't want benefits to have the money, they want them for the goods they can buy with that money. The question is whether you have a right to valuable goods and services if you are not prepared to produce any goods or services.
203971
Daniel Boyd
Posted 9 months ago
Educated people should not consider themselves too good for unskilled labour
Certainly 'work for wages' hasn't been with humanity from the start (since money wasn't either) but in pre-industrial times I think communities also expeted people to pull their weight rather than just sitting back enjoying themselves and expecting to be fed/clothed/protected etc (ok, with the exception of the aristocrasy....) Money is only a mechanism that formalises it. The underlying point is whether you can expect to get something for nothing. And work may not set you free, but I do think that it is good for a person's psychological well-being and self-valie to feel valued in a group, which is not likely if you just sit around doing nothing.
203971
Daniel Boyd
Posted 9 months ago
Educated people should not consider themselves too good for unskilled labour
Too true that the fact that someone is not working does not equate directly to laziness, though I think it really must always e possible to do something productive as long as you are able-bodied. I guess what it all boils down to is attitude, whether or not someone is at least motivated to contribute rather than parasitically reaping the benefits with the conscious attitude "If I don't have to work, why should I?"
203971
Daniel Boyd
Posted 9 months ago
Is there really a difference between a robot and soldier making a kill?
There's an interesting dichotomy in this thread. On the one hand, Poch sees pitting robots against human soldiers as 'cheating. On the other, Nadav sees replacing humans with robots as a good thing because it reduces human suffering. Rationally, its hard to disagree with Nadav. But emotionally I lean towards Poch. It does seem rather ungentlemanlyr to go into battle trying to kill enemy soldiers without entailing the same risk yourself. When it gets really interesting is when both sides replace humans with robots, because that shakes the very foundations of warfare. After all, why do wars exist? To try to force an opponent into submission by killing more enemy soldiers than you loose yourself or causing other forms of human suffering. If only robots are fighting, there is no loss of life or suffering, so why should one side ever surrender? I suppose a war would then become more of an technical/economic show of power, with one side loosing when it's factories are unable to produce enough robots to compensate for losses in battle. In fact, what would be the point of starting a war if both sides just send in robots? Utopic, perhaps, but maybe that will be the point at which humanity finally realises the idiocy of any form of war and disbands all its armies.....
203971
Daniel Boyd
Posted 9 months ago
Educated people should not consider themselves too good for unskilled labour
True that some have an inherent work ethic while unfortunately many/most don't. But that doesn't mean that society needs to accept and support what can be seen as laziness. Should we accept that someone would prefer not to work rather than getting their hands dirty, as you put it? I think not. If we can think of something useful for them to do, I reckon they haven't reallly got reason to complain.
203971
Daniel Boyd
Posted 9 months ago
Educated people should not consider themselves too good for unskilled labour
Aha! A new take on the question! Good point to distinguish manual labour (which is often highly skilled in spite of not being taught in the classroom) from activities that require few special skills of any type. The discussion concerns the latter type, since many highly educated people would lack the ability to do the former, which makes it all the more inappropriate for them to look down on others who do have such skills. This links in with the related but different issue of the differential monetary value placed on different skills in our society. It is certainly not always the case that more skill equates to more money. In general ( with the exception of sport) intellectual skills are valued above physical ones.
203971
Daniel Boyd
Posted 9 months ago
Educated people should not consider themselves too good for unskilled labour
I guess a lot of the elitism is a simple consequence of tha fact that people with a particular specific skill are scarcer and therefore market forces push up their price. If they are then given work to do that does not require specific skills it will pay less and probably not support the life style they are used to. On the other hand, even a scarce resource has little value if no-one wants it, so having a specific skill cannot be a guarantee for success.