Please don't confuse jobs (work for pay) with work. If you don't see the stark difference, you can ask almost any woman on the planet!

As a young retired person ( reluctantly with a medical problem), I see both sides of the work issue. Work is imperative to young people for growth. Its that simple. Everyone needs to work when they are young.
机器人将会取代很多人类的工作，但是人类总是需要做看护。如果能有一个“帮手”来做一些简单的事情，比如倒垃圾、开车去约会、买杂货，那就太好了。这些看护人需要维持生活的工资。This is where government can step in with basic wage help for non workers and more for
working caretakers.

正如齐泽克经常指出的那样，“他们”总是让你相信任何命题中只有两个极端的对立面，但实际上，这是对我们“人性”最坏一面的巧妙诉求，目的是让我们忽略“他们”不希望我们考虑的真正解决方案。事实是，机器人和其他所有替代劳动力和就业的技术都极大地提高了生产率(正如经济学家所定义的那样)，甚至提高了社会的收入。美国是一个非常非常富有的国家。解决人们没有工作的问题的办法是更好地分配国家的财富。一个有保障的国民收入将是一个解决方案(不要再担心“人们不会有来自工作的高贵和自尊”。我总是很惊讶地发现，很大一部分美国人都是非常优秀的艺术家，或者真的能把某种乐器演奏得很好，或者对某些学术课题非常了解，或者能自己修理汽车或船……)我不允许任何人的年收入超过100万美元(看在上帝的份上，这已经够多了)，我还要求公司将利润以100万美元的上限向下传递给每个体育明星。如果你给每个体育明星的年薪上限从20万美元到100万美元，所代表的技能不会减少;所有的玩家都在玩。当然，将会有全民医疗保健(全民医疗保险，保险公司可以选择覆盖高端治疗)，以及所有州立大学的免费教育。一切都是由税收资助的，而不是雇主。 Anyone making $70,000 or less pays no taxes at all. After that its 30%. Of course this cannot be brought about by using the "American" style of democracy: but as Naomi Klein has predicted, capitalism will disappear when confronted by what is happening to the earth; and the social systems set up to mindlessly exploit the earth will crumble. WWIII which is all about this will intensify by the declining livability and habitability problems, combined with the ever more devastating armament in the hands of those pushed too far. So, it isn't a debate between "work is a human right" and "more profits raise all boats." Because there is no one in power who wants to really address, and solve, the income inequality problem.

我相信我们都同意，事情不会像我们想象的那样发展。世界上有如此多的爆炸性技术，如果其中任何一种起飞，它将改变我们所知道和做的一切。量子计算机、电动自动驾驶汽车、人工超级智能、CRISPR等等。这只是我们目前所拥有的一系列技术;谁知道10年或20年后会打破什么。

What we always seem to forget is the meaning of exponential growth. When you connect brains together like we have with the internet, then integrate artificial intelligence, then use the connection, human brains, and computers to improve the entire system you get exponential growth. By no means am I saying the exponentiality is perfect, but it’s real, and it’s fast!

Everything we’ve achieved thus far has been done within the confines of our tiny individual brains. Soon, with CRISPR and melding with technology we’ll be able to fundamentally redefine who we are.

不，我们不应该认为全民基础和自动化最终会对我们当前的自我构成极端挑战。相反，我们应该努力理解，一旦我们生活的头骨裂开，人类将变成什么样的生命形式;一旦我们智力和连接的限制变得可以改变。我们应该更加努力地去实现它，不管我们有多么害怕。

Think of how Ants life their lives as compared to Humans. That’s the sort of comparison you should draw between humans today and humans 50 years from now. While automation is causing us pain now we don’t like to drastically change economic systems quickly or without significantly more pain. If you speak with WW2 veterans, they will say we are not in enough pain currently to change. With continued improvements to our standards of living arguable out pacing the hurt from automation, it is unlikely we will have the motivation to change the current economic model any time soon.

50年是一个经济模式完全改变的精确时间尺度，而且，从我们现在的蚂蚁到我们可能成为的提升人类的变化。除非我们把自己炸飞，但是，这一直是一个选择。

个人是否可以选择成为技术上有能力、无能或多余的3个社会阶层，JK Galbreath预测?如果是，那么人类的工作将会继续。如果选择被政治控制所取代，那么工作的历史就结束了，休闲社会也就结束了。

我不能说我感到无聊或不安，因为我已经失业近十年了。从我25岁开始，我从未像现在这样濒临破产，但我觉得很无聊?不宁?啊——我苦心经营了29年的有偿工作，有时很有趣，有时又令人沮丧，但这从来都不是我的定义。现在，我写哲学是为了享受，也是为了锻炼脑力——工作比我曾经尝试过的任何东西(也许除了诗歌)都更有价值。我哥哥说他可能永远不会有孙子了。我觉得他后悔了，尽管他有两个优秀的儿子，他们都很成功。我没有孩子，我们的家族血脉也因此失去了。然而，作为一个实际问题，它并不那么重要。家族的姓氏和基因会延续下去，很可能会延续到可预见的未来。

Most of them will have to work. Some, however, may not. I wonder if THEY will be bored. Or restless..., or, if boredom and restlessness will be obsolete? We can make it so. Brother writes some damned fine poetry.

谁控制牲畜、雇佣的工人和机器人?我们知道这是个反问句，但我还是想说出来……

I am no Pollyanna, in the strict term the folks at IBM imagined it, so I cannot see any alternative than we the people going from the working livestock to pets, and when our numbers are to great to feed and clean up after, we will be sent to the shelter like all unwanted pets.

If we can look to the past, say for instance when the folks cooped up on the British Isles coined the term "Surplus Population" some 400 years ago, then we can be sure of the fact when the time comes around again for that term to become commonplace, the circumstances will be worse by orders of magnitude.

The moment someone doubts that what was done in the past can't be done in the future, run. When they capitulate and agree it could happen again, but could not be worse, run faster.

In the last century there were numerous predictions that the work week would be reduced because of automation and that would free up people to expand themselves through art, education and the like. At the moment what we see, instead, is a lot of people working multiple jobs at minimum wage.

但是，如果全民基本收入成为现实，我们就不太可能看到人们涌向自我发展。是的，有自我激励的人，但更有可能选择感官享受和娱乐。因此，随着全民所得，我们将发现，可能更多的是通过燃烧学习，在人们的生活中需要有结构和问责。一开始这可能会是一些工作，但最终会受到严厉的批评。最终，我们都可能会被人类互动类型的追求所吸引。

这将留下“呆伯特”类型的人。但我们的技术的发展、维护和运行仍然需要它们。他们的薪水会很高。

有许多工作需要比目前分配的人员更多的人员。其中一项工作就是教学。出于规模经济的考虑，学校的规模越来越大，直到一小群教师负责一大批学生，而学生们必须被严格管理，以保持学校的秩序和运转。需要更多有特殊需要的学生的教师，以及音乐和艺术教学的教师，以及其他因经济原因被排除在课程之外的学科的教师。当然，机器人正在被引入教学事业，但它们不能适应个别学生的需求，因此它们有助于提高水平和标准化，这不利于基于人际关系和关怀的最好的教学。仅仅是教老师这样的一对一的指导，就需要付出巨大的努力，涉及到许多令人高度满意的工作。
For myself, my own writing has been a free-time enterprise that I continue to find satisfying, but it was my paying job as a college teacher that has given me the most pleasure and satisfaction - as well as some displeasure and dissatisfaction - over the course of a lifetime. Finding the meanings and pleasures of literary works from Shakespeare to Toni Morrison, and conveying these to classes of students, has been my life's work. This pleasure has been wrapped up with the pleasures of human interaction with colleagues, and with students outside of class, including former students who contact me occasionally for friendly interactions. Teaching could, I think, occupy a good deal of the manpower freed up by the mechanization of labor, but I think there is work to be done in every field that will be hard to mechanize, and that will provide satisfaction to those called to the work.
真正的问题是要发现为什么我们的社会如此执着于发明机器来完成所有人类的工作。当然，企业预期会节省开支，但企业避免的成本只会转嫁到纳税人身上，纳税人将不得不为失业工人支付他们再也无法获得的收入。在这种情况下，政府资助的大学和实验室资助那些忙于生产机械代替人类劳动的人的工作怎么会符合他们的利益呢?

所以，我再问一遍:当没有工作可做的时候，我们会做什么?如果这意味着我们都将成为艺术家;诗人;哲学家，记者，等等，这如何与熵的概念相一致?因为，如果除了我上面提到的那些事情之外，没有人在做任何事情，那么可能的结果将是混乱，最终(早而不是晚)，混乱。我们所知道的功，实际上是一个系统，在热力学意义上，在我看来。当系统崩溃时，事物开始向各个方向飞行。概率主义者一直在玩这类游戏，但我不知道他们的“雷达”上是否有这种确切的偶发事件。还有其他人知道吗?那么，这应该是一件重要的事情吗?