Paragraph 1, 2, 3, and then conclusion obviously.
Livingston points out the one big caveat in his arm-chair ideology:
Can we let people get something for nothing and still treat them as our brothers and sisters – as members of a beloved community?
Short answer: no. How would you provide incentive to the people who will do productive work for the functioning of society while just handing an obligation-free life to others? Fields such as engineering, the sciences, healthcare, and basically any forward thinking career paths would inevitably stagnate without incentive. There are also millions of labor jobs that are currently still incapable of being automated, so what will we do with those jobs that nobody really wants because they are physically demanding and grueling? Who determines who is allowed to do whatever the fuck they want while others are still obligated to work and support them?
I have more answers to what he posits as rhetorical questions. This one here for instance:
To begin with, what purposes could we choose if the job – economic necessity – didn’t consume most of our waking hours and creative energies? What evident yet unknown possibilities would then appear? How would human nature itself change as the ancient, aristocratic privilege of leisure becomes the birthright of human beings as such?
I am going to base my answer to this question on the large body of sci-fi that actively explores post-technology eras. Many intelligent and prophetic thinkers have crafted stories that contain societies with low levels of human contribution, the automated production of necessities, and the allowing of humans to indulge in their creative fancies. In the majority of cases, we see complete societal stagnation to the point that eventually leads to ruin.
History itself even shows proof of a similar stagnation pattern brought upon by luxury, though mostly in the ruling class because circumstances in the past did not (and still dont) allow for the majority to do as they please. Livingston asks these questions as if he is the first person to ever posit the idea of upsetting the correlation of survival and work. 'Unknown possibilities' could be negative instead of positive, but Livingston's rose-tinted glasses do not even allow for him to consider the negative ramifications of an ensuing societal stagnation. Imagine growing up in a world where you are allowed to not have a sense of purpose and drive. Someone whose life has been the active result of hard work through study and achievement may have problems seeing the perspective of growing up in this theoretical "utopia". This man is practically proposing the eventuality of a real world Idiocracy.
Though even without the added pressure of justified incompetents, I think our current society is already in a period of stagnation. Colleges have morphed from being the epicenter of intellectual growth to being glorified daycare centers that are more self-affirming than truly stimulating. I have had people tell me that the pinnacle of society is good entertainment. Is Netflix the endgame of the industrial revolution? Is donating a dollar to starving kids in Africa and then going to marathon a TV series with your girlfriend an appropriate daily activity? Livingston is providing dangerous rhetoric to failing college students who want to live a world of luxury without truly earning it. It's a pandering piece in a time of societal stagnation, and I wont fall for it. Society needs drive to flourish, and a life like something out of an Asimov Robot novel is not the solution. If progress stops, so will mankind. We cant survive without striving for a better future, and to do so every member of mankind who can work and think is needed to drive the initiative. Without added pressure, our race as a whole will not survive.
