The abolition of work
inspiracy.com
inspiracy.com
I think it might sound more profound than it actually is.
1. To help people around things they might at that moment like to do,
2. then let people do things only as much as they want,
3. then suggests that, for things things almost no one would choose to "play" at, there's people with "aberrant and perverse penchants" who would likely do them. He suggests an example of organizing (or, compelling, i.e. making someone work) small hordes of children that like playing in the mud, to clean bathrooms and toilets.
The author is, disconnected, I think.
I'd quote Billy Madison at this point but it wouldn't be polite. I'm a bit disappointed this post is making its way up the front page.
What these philosophers, if you can call them that, miss is that history has a number of horrific things we learned from fucking everything up over and over again and killing each other. I'm not sure we're done yet but if we don't learn from those mistakes and hypothesize about just blasting all social contracts away, we're idiots.
Society is fragile. Move one chess piece at a time.
If the author of the linked article were to just be expressing those sentiments that would be fine. The author goes far beyond the pale, losing himself and his thesis in the process.
>As [Adam] Smith observed: The understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose life is spent in performing a few simple operations… has no occasion to exert his understanding… He generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become.”
If we agree that abolishing forced labor should be our goal, we can start working towards making that possible. I see automation and basic income playing a big role in this for example.
Consider the implications of most western people having more free time. If we had an extra billion people on the planet who didn't work full time but decided to dedicate some of their free time to trying o solve some of the issues you're advocating we spend our time on, that would be a net win wouldn't it?
mkay, so maybe not all deserve so much free time, because it would be spent entirely selfishly. who will decide who gets more and who less? heck, give me more free time, and I'll travel more, have more adventures in life. some greater general good ain't the priority here, more focused on closest people around me. what about coming up with some way to reward more challenging work more, reward more people who bring benefits seemed most worthy to community? and make this reward interchangeable so they can use their rewards to fulfill their needs and wishes? sounds slightly familiar...
so please, if you come up with some shiny & chrome new theory how to solve everything and even more, just sit down a bit before, and think how can you change THIS world with REAL achievable steps into whatever fantasy world you dreamed today. as for me, this place is mkay. not perfect, but that was never the plan
You're against people behaving 'selfishly' and improving the quality of their own life, you just want to increase the quantity of everyone else's life.
What's so wrong with people living their own lives? When did the world suddenly become about extending everyone's lifespan? Why is quantity so much better than a personal definition of quality? If people get the most enjoyment out of watching TV or drinking, why are you allowed to judge them inferior?
> the problem is, most people on this planet (over 90% that's for sure) with current mentality wouldn't work for some mythical greater good when given more free time.
Facts not in evidence. Ie. can you substantiate your claim? What meaning does your 'work' have there, given the very careful definition of 'work' in the OP.
> they would be sitting in front of TV more, been drinking more etc.
Arguably absent new TV shows coming online, and rapid reduction of beer availability, they may get a few friends together and start generating entertainment, or brew their own beer, etc.
> gotta love these theories for 12 year olds which work with these theoretical people units of some star trek era. Real people with hate, greed, massive egos, slacking around, not giving a franction of a fk what will happen to this world after them, and so on.
This assertion reveals more about you than about the author of the original article.
> mkay, so maybe not all deserve so much free time, because it would be spent entirely selfishly. who will decide who gets more and who less?
Are you suggesting that you're happy with the way that it's currently decided?
> heck, give me more free time, and I'll travel more, have more adventures in life. some greater general good ain't the priority here, more focused on closest people around me.
An interesting claim. Have you had periods of your life, between jobs, after school / college, etc - where you were working less than at other times?
I'm curious why you think that given more free time, you'd focus it on the people closest to you. I thought the evidence suggested that volunteerism rates go up, social circles expand, and so on. This actually makes more sense to me -- if I had less free time, then I'd, as you say, focus more on the people closest to me, at the expense of people I knew less well.
> what about coming up with some way to reward more challenging work more, reward more people who bring benefits seemed most worthy to community? and make this reward interchangeable so they can use their rewards to fulfill their needs and wishes? sounds slightly familiar...
Again I'm moved to ask if you're happy with the way that various societies currently identify and evaluate challenging work, or the 'most worthy to community' and then reward it.
Are you proposing that the current system(s) are satisfactory for everyone, and/or that they're satisfactory for you, and/or should they be satisfactory for everyone (else)?
The current system has led us to a point where there is a massive imbalance of wealth and resources - and with no sign that it'll be re-balanced any time soon. There's no evidence it's fair, and no reason to believe it's stable or a long-term tenable trend.
I hope we're all suitably convinced by now that revolution doesn't seem to work that well, which leaves some kind of iterative evolutionary approach.
For that to work, you'd need it to be feasible for a small group of non-workers to see better outcomes than they got from working, while still interoperating with the (much larger) group of workers.
So what would that look like?
Changing because this guy talked about something on his blog isn't certainly the thing I want. Funny that that's exactly how real-life politics works: just people talking with little backup of actual data.
While what you want from Black is hard data, he wants from you to think and discuss. It's not a post in a blog, it's not a paper, it's an essay and that's what it aims.
That's not to say the successor system would be any better. They often are not. Perhaps society sometimes needs that clean slate approach though.
I'm beginning to think our hyper-dependency on financial institutions to the point of fear of punishing them for wrongdoing is unfixable in our current system. It's too corrupt.
I don't think that this has generally been the case.
A total dissolution of social and legal structures tends to make conditions very conducive to psychopaths and sociopaths.
Your dickhead boss, who previously could only make your working life a living hell, can now scale up his ambitions.
That conniving neighbour from the block association is suddenly on the Committee for Public Safety.
Everyone who dreams of revolution dreams of one in which they are the selfless, noble heroes, overthrowing the monomaniacs who control the evil system. Then everyone is surprised when the most ruthless people of all rise to the top in very short order.
Basically, revolution is a fantasy. The actual outcomes are abysmal. The more intense the revolutionary outburst, the worse it goes for the common person.
The French revolution was bloody but ended immense corruption and repression on the part of the aristocracy. Again, this led to France being declared a constitutional Republic.
Even the Bolshevik revolution. It was corrupted later but it began positively.
Nobody is saying revolutions are clean or even desirable. I'm definitely saying that they seem inevitable at a point though. People can only take so much shit before they snap.
But all of the ones you cited support my argument: the process of revolution is brutally destructive and rapidly promotes psychopaths into positions of murderous authority.
Reform is often possible without them, which is why (fortunately) true revolution is relatively rare.
I don't think they do. Both the English and French revolutions led to better societies for the average citizen in spite of the bloodshed and chaos that was present initially.
I would go so far as to say it was necessary. What group of powerful elites will relinquish total control willingly?
I think we're already seeing much discussion elsewhere on what's most probably the best way there -- the UBI. There are some historical results that are either too modest, or too inconvenient, to refer to or rely upon. But many more experiments seem to be on the near horizon.
One such story was posted on HN a few days ago[1] -- and in turn it was a toe-dipping exercise to proper UBI, in that only welfare recipients would receive the payment (so more BI, less U). Still, lots of people will be watching, talking, and thinking -- all good things.
> I hope we're all suitably convinced by now that revolution doesn't seem to work that well, which leaves some kind of iterative evolutionary approach.
Out of curiosity do you mean it doesn't work well in transition or just in terms of results? The transitional phase is rarely much fun, but I'd be curious if there's any evidence for it being ineffective. (Note, I'm not a fan, but historically these things aren't usually a heads-or-tails option for the people involved.)
This is related to the growing trend, or rather movement, to redesign central databases in terms of blockchain-based, cryptoeconomic systems. As the vast majority of the world's Internet, its economic, political, and legal institutions, are built in a way that concentrates management of central databases between vested authorities, there is now a very real threat to re-appropriate, if not entirely automate into irrelevance, the state's most important functions.
This is profound on many levels since it doesn't depend on the currently existing system. You don't need to believe in the futility of the current system. It's not set in stone. It can be challenged in a very realistic sense. In truth, the most essential aspects of economic life and governance can all be re-created and re-engineered in the code of social networks. All this can all be done without violence. All this is possible without trusting a single politician.
If that's not a recipe for revolution, then nothing is.
Kinda goes downhill from there.
"Life will become a game, or rather many games, but not — as it is now—a zero/sum game. An optimal sexual encounter is the paradigm of productive play. The participants potentiate each other’s pleasures, nobody keeps score, and everybody wins. The more you give, the more you get. In the ludic life, the best of sex will diffuse into the better part of daily life. Generalized play leads to the libidinization of life. Sex, in turn, can become less urgent and desperate, more playful. If we play our cards right, we can all get more out of life than we put into it; but only if we play for keeps."
Does the phrase "Sexual politics" ring a bell? Battle of the sexes? How about negotiations within interpersonal relationships?
This sounds a lot like "In the future, I will never have to do things that I do not like doing. Instead life will be just a game of relative pleasures." but maybe I missed something.
These Utopian bric-a-brac essays should really take a look at the independently wealthy in our societies. There's certainly enough of them. Guess what? They either become inconsequential dweebs or decide that there is some personal struggle worth living for. In fact, some of the cornerstones of psychiatry and philosophy are the ownership of personal meaning and the journey towards realizing that meaning. As one study said recently, there is a choice between being happy and having meaning in your life. They are not always the same. Meaningful lives involve struggle.
I'm really happy to see more folks starting to consider how technology and robotics will change our lives. It'd be good to see most of them level-up, however. If every essay is going to be troubled by entry-level problems we don't have much of a chance of actually getting anywhere in the conversation.
Maybe. But if you have a boss, he can fire you anytime. (If you don't have a boss it's unlikely you have "colleagues".)
How you spend your time shouldn't depend on someone else's arbitrary decisions.
No, let's assume we get there as well and everybody is free to choose whatever the hell they want to do with all their free time -- that kind of world. Assume that you wake up in that kind of a world and decide that today you will climb Mt. Everest, because well, you know, you can !
So you train virtually, buy all the needed supplies and get them delivered to your house with no human intervention automatically, book your flights, get on a plane that flies itself and land at the base camp. Now what ? well you have to find a sherpa and hire him ...why ? because you just can't do something for the first time all by yourself even if you have all the tech in the world. Work (although not as we normally define it) is simply another way to say 'having experience with a certain skill for a sufficiently long amount of time and doing it at a sufficiently reasonable level of proficiency that it is of value others that do not have the experience'.
The sherpa example is just for making a point but even if we limit the discussion of machines doing all 'work' -- who will build the machines that build the machines ? who will look after the machines that look after the machines ? who will teach those who build and look after the machines ? ...and why would any of these people to do any of these things that obviously don't come naturally but require time, patience and perhaps some skill to master ?
And if you need people to go on your big adventure with you, then you should be able to round up some other fool-hearty adventurers for the trip.
These two principles greatly help with keeping the open source world spinning, and are quite distinct from what we consider 'work,' normally. Interesting, long-term difficult projects can happen without the threat of failing to meet basic needs; we can still make beautiful, functional things and perhaps even be better people without engaging in coerced or mandatory labor.
Far from it. I wanted to highlight the fact that certain things that we do require a certain level of skill acquired over time via practice and persistence. These have value (for others) and will be traded (in return for value) and that's what comes to be known as work.
Replace sherpa with doctor if you may and Mt. Everest with heart surgery. Yeah, I could possibly find some talented medical practitioners who study the human body for the love of it (that's how the field of medicine was born to begin with). However, if I needed a heart surgery, what would be (a) my motive to go with one specific individual among them and (b) their motive to operate on me ?
Yeah, open source exists. So does indie music, underground/unpublished books/comics, art, etc etc but the argument I was making is that the product of all of these (ie: knowledge of medicine, software, music, art..etc etc) also holds 'value' to those who are not skilled at these and this value will be traded and that does become work -- 'the doing what you love doing and getting paid for it' type of work. At the end of the day, I will differentiate between 2 cooks who indulge in cooking for the love of it and offer some sort of 'trade-in' so that the better one prepares food for me, in return for something that I love doing (although maybe, possibly, not as well as a peer).
You see what I am getting at ? Work is a consequence of acquiring something (a.k.a skill) not the reason behind acquisition of something (money/relaxation/lifestyle...blah blah).
I don't think 1 to 1 value exchange necessarily has it's place though. Does it matter that it's the person you helped that helps you? Does it even matter that get as much value as the amount you're giving out? I believe that offering value has value in itself if you know what I mean. I'm sure a friend of yours (or yourself) has once spent hours carefully making you understand something they knew well to the maximum of their ability, and loved it. People like to share, especially knowledge.
Anyway, wouldn't a medical surgeon actually like to perform surgery? If anything else wouldn't he go looking for people?
Everyone likes to hone their skills, and it seems more likely that heart surgeons go looking for patients to help and gladly accept to perform surgery on them (you let me work on you, and I'll fix you up) rather than go shoot a couple animals in the wood to patch them up afterward.
I think there will be a completely new notion to service and favors anyway, without scarcity and ego.
Regarding your other questions: Humans will build the machines that build the machines. In fact they do it now. Then we will build machines that can build machines based only on a design. That's the future.
The thing with the machines is a little bit different, but essentially it is much better to work from an office 2-4 hours a day, controlling a mining machine compared to actually mining.
Once a person can read there is almost no need for anyone else to teach him anything. I never listened in class, didn't have a notebook and got A's when I wanted to. I was reading the books that we were supposed to, but I prefered to explore them my way and I usually read them before it was needed. I know other people like me. I also know that people are curious in general and like to explore if given the opportunity.
And here comes my last answer - these people will do that because they want to see the result. Because they will enjoy doing it. And when they no longer find it interesting they will move on to something else. Because not doing anything is depressing. Doing it against your will - even more.
Think about it for a while, it might blow you away (and I'm not saying that ironically, it sure as hell had an impact on me), what if you had to go to a Sherpa settlement, talk with them, and try to find a friend that is willing to help you?
Sharing knowledge is something beautiful, most people like to talk about what they know.
Personal Robots are available for the extremely wealthy and be used against everyone else to keep people off "their" resources. There will be no human labour, simply because states will be built up from rulers and robots.
The other scenario is everyone gets robots, humanity's only bottleneck will be human imagination, much like today's internet. Easy access to power will be a security nightmare not different to the internet's except in the much higher physical stakes.
In fact, capitalism will take happiness and convert it into economic output. This is why people in the developed world have such high rates of depression and why we make terrible decisions when it comes to our own happiness.
In the old days, to be happy, you just had to be able to satisfy your basic needs. Today, you HAVE to satisfy your needs, but you also need to satisfy your 'wants' and in some cases, your 'shoulds'.
I think with today's technology (in the developed world) we are already more than capable of satisfying all of our needs without having to work much at all.
I think the biggest evils of today's society are:
1. Marketing
2. Nepotism
3. Debt
The doctor is well informed through word of mouth in the doctor community should give them some advice that should include information about your product. That happens without any explicit marketing.
Same with a lot of other things. Before the invention of mass media and modern marketing there was still marketing, but it was not mass media, and it was more implicit than explicit. It was more organic. That's really all that you are hoping for... nothing more than that. Marketing is natural. Mass media is not.
Most of these kinds of propositional ramblings engender a handful of predictable responses - including the dubiously authoritative 'I can't imagine how this will work, qed it can't work', underlying which is an assumption that the proposition needs to (or indeed can) be enacted in isolation of any other cultural changes.
So here's a bit of anecdata back to you. One day in the not too distant I'm intending to build my own house. Because of local regulations I need a plumber (and electrician, etc) to vet all the work performed, but not necessarily perform that work. Unrelated to either regulation or cost, I'm looking forward to performing as much of the work as I can. It is, basically, an opportunity to obtain new understanding and skill, explore some new problem domain, and given the scale (one abode and surrounds) not expected to be especially onerous.
Point being, I expect it'll be fun and personally fulfilling.
However you've fallen into the trap I described - you seem to believe that our cities (I assume you live in the US or EU) need or should be preserved in their current state, and/or that they would be a requisite to such a change.
My gut feel is UBI / end-of-work / etc - involve a tacit understanding that we'd reverse the trend of the past century, and decentralise. I think, but have not thought deeply on the subject, that many of the problems people immediately respond with when first exposed to this (or indeed UBI) are irrelevant in a less urban, less concrete, less centralised society.
Not to mention that by losing the convenience of highly urbanized environment you force the more productive members of society to waste considerably more time on the things they are un-productive in (e.g. driving 2 hours to a doctor instead of taking a 15-minute detour on the way from work).
Even allowing that it is, the distinction to my mind is that the work is distributed amongst many (in the case of a less urban environment), and the imperative / compensation balance is tilted in that environment more towards the individual, as they have a greater interest in maintaining water and food supplies, handling waste etc.
To suggest that one of the advantages of work is that you can visit a doctor on your way to work ... well, I'm not sure if you're being funny with that one.
A less centralised or urban society doesn't necessarily mean that you're further away from someone with medical skill. You may acquire more skills yourself, people with those skills may also be keen to escape the centre of cities, technologies may provide a mechanism for you to obtain mostly remote access to the relevant knowledge and skills, etc.
Plenty of non-urban citizens of western countries have sufficient and satisfactory access to doctors, for example.
Aside, and I realise this sounds snarky but the intent is not -- would you mind defining (or at least providing some examples of) the 'more productive members of society' in your assertion there? I'm guessing you don't mean the health professionals that they are consulting.
If you've got a tedious job that you need doing, at the moment there are four options:
* Pay enough that someone wants to do it.
* Make the job sufficiently interesting that someone wants to do it.
* Do without.
* Rely on someone needing the money enough that they'll do it anyway.
Basic income removes the last option, adding extra incentive to the others. I've never been in a position where I've been forced to take a job doing something I hate for too little money just to get food on the table, and I'd very much prefer never to be put in that position. I don't want to put other people in that position either.
Three of your options involve persuading someone else doing it, the fourth is having it not done.
Why is there not an option of doing it yourself?
Plenty of people working in sewage, collecting rubbish and so on do it because they think it makes an important contribution to society, same as people in the army. I find it hard to disagree that their contribution is more important than software development in some ways -- I'd rather have streets clear of rotting rubbish and rats than a new version of office.
I'm not sure there's a reasonable way to argue in the affirmative.
There are upwards of 2 billion people who don't have sanitation and sewage professionals looking after their waste. I'm not suggesting we'd all want to live in our own filth, any more than I'm suggesting everyone without access to plumbers lives in their own filth.
Wander out into the country (or even some slightly advanced sub-urban areas) and admire the low-maintenance standalone septic systems, humanure outhouses, etc.
If you don't have to work - would you really feel the need to live within ten metres of several other families, in a concrete box, limited sight of or access to open space, etc? Is the location you currently choose to live predicated upon your requirement to work, and a pragmatic decision on the best location to that end - a trade-off between comfort and commute?
I have wandered "in the country" and there are either - areas where the services are set up in the same way as in the city (large amount of "sanitation and sewage professionals" are involved) - areas where you have to cope with a subpar standards of living
Decreasing population density simply serves to make us less productive. And really, the author's argument only sounds like it's reasonable because of the massive increases in productivity an the technological advances we've had as a race, through our obsession with work and achievement.
I don't think many of those 2 billion people would say they prefer to poo in a box hanging over a river, then have to get their drinking water out of that river, over more sophisticated alternatives like separate potable, gray- and blackwater management.
> Folks with septic systems still need them cleaned, and outhouses need to be regularly evacuated.
Indeed.
So, the OP suggested we could (if not now, then in the not too distant) stop working, or at least stop doing this 40-hour a week for 40 years thing.
Some people suggested 'but who cleans my toilet?!'
I suggested that if you decentralise that task, then you don't actually need to employ a handful of people to clean 4 million people's toilets.
You're now saying 'outhouses need to be regularly evacuated' - which is true, but regular and frequent are often conflated, and humanure systems need to be emptied out regularly every 6-12 months ... it's dry, non-identifiable compost at that point.
But we're at severe risk of missing the point.
If the only retaliation someone has to 'we should start to think about how to consciously engineer our society such that we don't all have to work 40 hours a week for 40 years' with 'I don't want to spend two hours every 6 months moving composted poo around' ... then that person has missed the point.
> Decreasing population density simply serves to make us less productive.
As you get older you realise the imperative to be (exclusively, solely) more productive is somewhat misguided.
> And really, the author's argument only sounds like it's reasonable because of the massive increases in productivity an the technological advances we've had as a race, through our obsession with work and achievement.
This does not devalue the proposition - it merely puts it into context.
> I don't think many of those 2 billion people would say they prefer to poo in a box hanging over a river, then have to get their drinking water out of that river, over more sophisticated alternatives like separate potable, gray- and blackwater management.
You're doing that thing again. I quote myself, from the message that you responded to:
>> I'm not suggesting we'd all want to live in our own filth, any more than
>> I'm suggesting everyone without access to plumbers lives in their own filth.
That is not the author's thesis. His thesis is that having to trade your time for money is wrong.
If what you've said above is what you took away from the linked writing, I think you're projecting your own beliefs onto the author position, and we should stop this argument because I'm not against changing our relation with work. I just think this author is a bit of a nutter.
> As you get older you realise the imperative to be (exclusively, solely) more productive is somewhat misguided.
Economic productivity is what allows us to increase the quality of life and standard of living in a community. Reducing economic productivity reduces, eliminates or reverses those improvements.
> This does not devalue the proposition - it merely puts it into context.
Given that the author's proposition is to dismantle a system that for millennia bore specialists who make possible technological advance, and replace it with a system that rears general hobbyists, yes I believe it does devalue the proposition.
> You're doing that thing again. I quote myself, from the message that you responded to: [...]
That quote doesn't actually contribute to either your position or the discussion. You say 2bb people don't have plumbing, then say you don't think we shouldn't have plumbing, then go onto something else. Or is your alternative that we should all have pit toilets?
We should be discussing the broken alternative proposition of the author, but: those 2 billion folks that don't have sanitation and plumbing would likely choose sanitation and plumbing if they could. They obviously live in areas where pit toilets and outhouses aren't enough to deal with the human waste they produce, or they'd just be digging latrines and outhouses and using those.
So, if your position is that we can get by without professional sanitation and pluming industries, they would seem to be the counterpoint.
Fundamentally, do you really agree we'll get more scientists, engineers, professional specialists, innovating and advancing our society and the same or greater pace, if everyone just stops working and "pursues their passions"?
Ok so, for the garbage collector, you imply a few things :
- Garbage collection in the centralized sense is necessary. By centralized I mean that one person or a group would be tasked to collect all the garbage within big communities. Now, in a world where I had all the free time I wanted, I would not care a bit to take my car around my neighbours/family/friends houses and collect it myself, it would simply be much more organic. Worst case scenario, it's gonna be up to you to take care of that, and with all the free time you have, it should be a minor inconvenience if any.
- Garbage will be as much a problem as it is now. It's pretty ridiculous the amount of garbage we create, and it sure as hell isn't sustainable. The article mentions junk food, feminine hygiene deodorant and the like, I expect this should have to go, or at the very least be distributed in a more suitable manner.
- Garbage collection can not be automated We already have cars driving by themselves around town, I don't think automatic garbage collection would be any problem.
- Nobody would ever like to be a garbage collector I and many other find the laborious taks to be a bit meditative and rewarding in some way (not unlike a game). I'd urge you to take a look at the sales of the videogame 'Viscera : Cleanup Detail' (As of this post around 200k people bought the game for around 10$ on the steam platform alone). It's a game about cleaning up with friends, it's literally nothing but cleaning up, and it's a lot of fun. Just imagine how it would be if it actually accomplished something. I'm not saying that millions would dream to become garbage collector or even that I myself would seriously consider it (that's also why it's the last point I make), but it's not so ridiculous an idea as you may think.
I believe a lot of work similar to garbage collection would happily be done by the residents within smaller community without any sort of rules or scheduling necessary.
I hope you catch my point, and I realize this isn't about garbage collection. It's about the fact that the all the menial tasks I can think about are either unnecessary, automatable in the very near future or able to be carried by willing individuals without any hassle.
It might seem utopic to you, but bear in mind that without the dozens of hours spent doing a job you hate every weeks and all the stress caused by the monetary system, most of us will slowly ease out of our angry and sad little egoballs identity, and the idea that you're twice as effective as your neighbor in the maintenance of your community will not mean anything to you.
You do realize that sometimes plumbers have to wallow through raw sewage under a house? It's not all fun and games like on "This Old House".
For the foreseeable future robots will be machines and have no will.
Robots don't need to be nearly as intelligent as humans in order to replace us in many areas. Nearly 100% robotized factories are already a reality[1].
Self-driving vehicles are at the verge of removing 3.6 million jobs[2] from the US transportation industry.
The dumb, slow, reliable "general purpose robot" (e.g. car mechanic) and his cousin the specialized, "intelligent appliance" (e.g. self-driving car) will change our world long before any kind of robot-consciousness might become technologically viable.
[1] http://www.scmp.com/tech/enterprises/article/1786484/buildin...