> exclusive limited resources like land

I think you almost hit something more important there. Desires like mating, respect, status etc can only exists with the entities that needs it, but what if the existence of those entities is fundamentally no longer needed? Why then should "the society" maintain it? It's known that a society less burden advances faster, and it's also known that countries need to move fast to stay competitive.

I believe future is much grimmer for people currently living, because if productivity can increase without the import of human labors, then eventually the humans will simply not be kept alive. Meaning, shrink in human population, and even more intense competition for fewer still competitiable resources etc. Of course you'll are not hanging out, you're too busy doing hard labor the robots still can't yet do.

All of this is easy to see if you understand that human societies are not built to advance and provide, instead they are fundamentally built to fairly distribute resources from ones who's non-productive, to ones are. And most type of societies that is alive and well today is very good at that.

Also, off-topic here: most people confused the word "productivity" with something like "hard work", it's not that. I'll give you the readers some examples: Elon Musk can build and launch rockets that carries actual people to space safely, but you can't (so far) no matter how hard you work, and thus Elon Musk is more productive than you; Jeff Bezos (so far) deliver goods to millions of people or more each year, but you can't no matter how hard you try, and thus Jeff Bezos is more productive than you. That's what "productivity" actually mean, not "I work my ass off everyday so I deserve to get paid more". And that's the real reason why these guys are rich and you're not, not because rich people are evil, but because they found their way to be productive and thus they get rich.

▲

autoexec 5 days ago | parent [-]

> Elon Musk can build and launch rockets that carries actual people to space safely, but you can't no matter how hard you work, and thus Elon Musk is more productive than you

Elon Musk can't build shit. All he can do is pay people to do it for him while he sits on his ass and takes a cut from all of the worker's knowledge and labor. He just makes sure he gets the credit (https://sciencesensei.com/heres-who-really-invents-the-amazi...). Jeff Bezos doesn't deliver goods to anybody at all. He underpays low wage drivers who actually deliver goods and he makes them piss in water bottles so that he can stuff his pockets with the pennies it would cost if they could take bathroom breaks and have a shred of human dignity. The companies they own aren't run by them either. They pay a bunch of people better skilled and qualified to manage the operations.

The special skill that the people with the most have is exploitation. Most of them were born into money, a few of them lucked into it, but they took that money and they found ways to take as much as possible from the people who actually have the skills and put in the work to make things happen, and they do it while claiming all the credit for labor they didn't spend a minute of their lives actually doing. What you call "productive" is literally just exploitation and self-marketing. Marketing that you fell for hook line and sinker.

▲

nirui 5 days ago | parent [-]

> The special skill that the people with the most have is exploitation

If you're non-exploiting, then you should start a company to compete with the people who do. This is how the world actually work, don't just demanding, compete too. And if it worked, it could show that you don't need to be exploitative to remain competitive, it'll be a much greater world if everyone sees that.

	▲	autoexec 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		> it could show that you don't need to be exploitative to remain competitive You can't be "competitive" by not fucking over others when that's the entire game being played. You'll never get to be #1 at "who sits on largest pile of money" by paying people an honest wage while your opponents are using slaves. The best you can hope for is that government steps in to change the game, and act as referee in order to keep everyone playing fairly. At that point the winner won't be the person with the most money, it will be the person who does the most good. The game right now rewards whoever puts out the cheapest garbage at the highest price. Companies who make a good product enshitify it so they can make more money. They move production into countries that use slaves to build products that poison consumers with heavy metals and are designed to fail so they have to be replaced. They remotely disable features you paid for and turn them into subscriptions. They buy up or bankrupt competition so that consumers have less choice and they become increasingly unavoidable. They drive down wages and costs at every opportunity and their wealth grows at unprecedented rates. The game we should be playing would reward the person whose company produces the best products at the lowest prices. It should reward the workers who do the most work. The craftsmen who create works of art. The companies who rise to the top should be the ones who have earned the most trust and loyalty from consumers. You should never hear another person say "I feel horrible about buying anything from that company, but I don't know what else do to!" There should be no products made using slaves. There should be no companies hiding the fact that their products are poisoning consumers. There should be no employee working 40 hours a week who still needs welfare to meet their basic needs, and no one being forced to piss in bottles. No need for suicide nets. We don't need robber barons and parasites to have nice things, and what we're still allowed to own will only get worse until we rid ourselves of them, but until they are finally gone they will do everything in their power to make certain that no one who is wiling to do it without exploitation can threaten their ability to take more and more and more from everyone else.