I do not think everything needs to be automated. Rather, we just need to reach a certain level of efficiency: as soon as one person can produce enough of something for, say, several thousand--something completely reasonable with today's technology--you start reaching the point where you do not need everybody working.
Just because your power plant employs some people--and it probably really is just a handful--does not mean everybody has to work. The same is true for agriculture; one farmer is already extremely effective, and with the advent of cheap robotics[1] they are poised to become more efficient yet.
"Whom to pay" is a loaded question--we have already reached, or are rapidly reaching, a point where society can exist happily without everybody pitching in. Why should anybody's saying their creation powers things actually matter?
Of course, my argument isn't really about getting rid of payment or even the capitalistic system. Rather, it is about extending a recent trend: the increasing minimum standard of living. In a perfect world, you would be able to subsist comfortably without working. Of course, there are plenty of other ways to motivate people: status, luxury items...etc.
So, given increases in efficiency and different sources of motivation, I do not see why a capitalist society with plenty of people not working is impossible. Now, I doubt transitioning there would be easy: too many people are emotionally set against freeloaders. If we actually needed everybody to work, this would be great; however, as technology progresses and this is needed less and less, it stops being great.
Of course, there is one glaring whole in my argument (or, at least, one I'm pointing out): we may not be at the requisite level of efficiency yet. However, if recent trends continue, I thin we will reach it some time soon even if we are not there yet. And when we do--and well after--the cultural aversion to "freeloading" will persist even though it is less and less needed. Which is unfortunate.
Just because your power plant employs some people--and it probably really is just a handful--does not mean everybody has to work. The same is true for agriculture; one farmer is already extremely effective, and with the advent of cheap robotics[1] they are poised to become more efficient yet.
[1]: Something like: http://www.harvestai.com/
"Whom to pay" is a loaded question--we have already reached, or are rapidly reaching, a point where society can exist happily without everybody pitching in. Why should anybody's saying their creation powers things actually matter?
Of course, my argument isn't really about getting rid of payment or even the capitalistic system. Rather, it is about extending a recent trend: the increasing minimum standard of living. In a perfect world, you would be able to subsist comfortably without working. Of course, there are plenty of other ways to motivate people: status, luxury items...etc.
So, given increases in efficiency and different sources of motivation, I do not see why a capitalist society with plenty of people not working is impossible. Now, I doubt transitioning there would be easy: too many people are emotionally set against freeloaders. If we actually needed everybody to work, this would be great; however, as technology progresses and this is needed less and less, it stops being great.
Of course, there is one glaring whole in my argument (or, at least, one I'm pointing out): we may not be at the requisite level of efficiency yet. However, if recent trends continue, I thin we will reach it some time soon even if we are not there yet. And when we do--and well after--the cultural aversion to "freeloading" will persist even though it is less and less needed. Which is unfortunate.