Who's going to do the dirty work in Utopia?

Ethan Gomez82 said:I'd happily step into Eric Adams' shoes, but he seems pretty set on staying put. 😁

I was looking at this old photo from back during the Vietnam War where the US military used a lottery system to decide who got sent off to Vietnam. Honestly, wouldn't it be something if we applied that same kind of random lottery to job rotations here? Imagine that chaos!

Kenneth Cruz67 said:That is exactly my point! I mean, if we actually reached a point where a surgeon’s salary was basically the same as a coal miner's, I guess we would just see a massive wave of people signing up to work in the mines.

The reason the headline uses the word "utopia" is because we’re talking about some kind of pipe dream, right? Like, in this imaginary perfect society everyone dreams about, who on earth is actually going to show up for those grueling jobs? We aren't even trying to figure out how to fix this in the real world—because let's face it, we all know how the free market works right now—we're just debating the logic of an impossible fantasy.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:To me, "dirty jobs" are quite literally dirty. I mean, you can't exactly show up to work as a chimney sweep in a crisp white button-down and expect that shirt to stay spotless by the end of the shift, right? That's what I mean when I say dirty.

That’s not what we’re talking about here—and definitely not in the literal sense. We aren't talking about specific industries or grime under your fingernails. It's about the grunt work—the stuff left over after everyone picks the easy, high-profile tasks. It’s not just about how "dirty" the work is, it's about the sheer volume of it. Sure, some of those roles might be okay, but they don't cover the actual workload required.

gentlerider7 said:No, that’s not it at all—I only mentioned cooking because someone in another thread was complaining about how municipalities are basically falling apart because nobody wants to do the service work, like cooking or cleaning toilets. It’s just that "unpleasant" stuff was brought up earlier; you know, things like mining, trash collection, window washing skyscrapers, digging trenches, all that. And let's be real, most of those heavy-duty gigs, like working in a mine, have historically been dominated by men anyway, so this whole debate doesn't even have anything to do with feminism.

My response isn't an argument about feminism; rather, it's an observation regarding history and social structures from prehistory all the way through to the modern era, particularly within developing nations.

While women weren't professionally cleaning windows or working in mines, they were performing identical tasks within the home. Women handle domestic maintenance, and frankly, all of those chores are filthy. Almost every task you listed can be found in a rural household where women performed them—often without any monetary compensation, and frequently receiving nothing more than physical abuse in return.

There simply wasn't a job more grueling or grimy than cooking before electricity was a thing. You had to chop wood, build the fire, slaughter a chicken, pluck it, gut it... then deal with a mountain of dishes using water you had to haul from a well and heat over an open flame. You won't find a harder or dirtier job than that.

Then there's the field work, the livestock tending... not to mention all of that.

Sam Martinez9 said:My response isn't an argument about feminism; rather, it's an observation regarding history and social structures from prehistory all the way through to the modern era, particularly within developing nations.

While women weren't professionally cleaning windows or working in mines, they were performing identical tasks within the home. Women handle domestic maintenance, and frankly, all of those chores are filthy. Almost every task you listed can be found in a rural household where women performed them—often without any monetary compensation, and frequently receiving nothing more than physical abuse in return.

There simply wasn't a job more grueling or grimy than cooking before electricity was a thing. You had to chop wood, build the fire, slaughter a chicken, pluck it, gut it... then deal with a mountain of dishes using water you had to haul from a well and heat over an open flame. You won't find a harder or dirtier job than that.

Then there's the field work, the livestock tending... not to mention all of that.

The whole point is, you guys keep pivoting to which gender had it harder throughout history, but that’s not what this is about. And it’s not even really about which specific job is the absolute worst—that's totally up for debate anyway. The actual question here is how these kinds of roles should be distributed in an ideal society, and since we're talking about the concept of rotation, I want us to focus on how we actually apply that principle of rotation.

gentlerider7 said:The reason the headline uses the word "utopia" is because we’re talking about some kind of pipe dream, right? Like, in this imaginary perfect society everyone dreams about, who on earth is actually going to show up for those grueling jobs? We aren't even trying to figure out how to fix this in the real world—because let's face it, we all know how the free market works right now—we're just debating the logic of an impossible fantasy.

Personally, I just don't think the concept of a utopia and the idea of labor can ever truly exist in the same sentence, 😁but
that's just my take!

ruggedraven36 said:That’s not what we’re talking about here—and definitely not in the literal sense. We aren't talking about specific industries or grime under your fingernails. It's about the grunt work—the stuff left over after everyone picks the easy, high-profile tasks. It’s not just about how "dirty" the work is, it's about the sheer volume of it. Sure, some of those roles might be okay, but they don't cover the actual workload required.

If every single job were equally desirable, we wouldn't have a problem on our hands. We could just implement quotas, much like we see in various industries today. Even now, there are limits on how many students can be trained for certain specialized professions.

One has to consider, however, that people generally have more than one interest. There's actually a pretty straightforward fix for this—if the specific role you're eyeing is full, you simply pivot to another option you're also interested in that still has openings.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Personally, I just don't think the concept of a utopia and the idea of labor can ever truly exist in the same sentence, 😁but
that's just my take!

I mean, honestly, it all depends on what kind of twisted little utopia we're actually talking about here, right? Like, you could argue that the whole point is just swapping out our soul-crushing, back-breaking grinds for some high-tech robot labor. If that’s the goal, then we're basically just aiming for a future of total, universal laziness—which, let's be real, sounds pretty damn good to me.

It isn’t merely about who handles the dirty work—that’s a simplistic way to look at it. The real question is: who gets to do the meaningful work? I actually find the concept of rotation quite compelling. It feels inherently fair, doesn't it? One week you’re performing delicate neurosurgery, the next you’re handling the waste, and the following week you're out there working construction—just basic labor. To me, there really isn't a more equitable way to structure things than that.

gentlerider7 said:The whole point is, you guys keep pivoting to which gender had it harder throughout history, but that’s not what this is about. And it’s not even really about which specific job is the absolute worst—that's totally up for debate anyway. The actual question here is how these kinds of roles should be distributed in an ideal society, and since we're talking about the concept of rotation, I want us to focus on how we actually apply that principle of rotation.

Fair enough, I respect that; I won't press the point further. However, I can't help but wonder: is it possible for a utopia to function only for a specific segment of the citizenry, while others remain oppressed? Perhaps they have everything they could ever desire, yet they are still burdened with the tasks that everyone else refuses to touch.

History often serves as a precursor to what our future might hold, and we have seen plenty of precedents. Take Ancient Greece, for instance; it was a democracy, albeit one that excluded women and enslaved people from its benefits.

Regarding the concept of rotation, I am skeptical that it offers a viable solution. Most roles—even the "dirty" ones—require a certain level of expertise. As we look ahead, it seems likely that jobs will increasingly demand specialized knowledge, while the manual, menial labor that requires only a basic education will steadily decline.

Consequently, we may face the exact opposite dilemma: a world where nearly every profession necessitates advanced degrees and constant lifelong learning. That sounds significantly more taxing than performing manual labor. In fact, simple, dirty jobs might actually become quite desirable by comparison.

I suspect robots will eventually take over the menial work, which leads us to a rather unsettling thought: what happens if those robots achieve consciousness and... decide they don't want to do the dirty work anymore?

Sam Martinez9 said:Fair enough, I respect that; I won't press the point further. However, I can't help but wonder: is it possible for a utopia to function only for a specific segment of the citizenry, while others remain oppressed? Perhaps they have everything they could ever desire, yet they are still burdened with the tasks that everyone else refuses to touch.

History often serves as a precursor to what our future might hold, and we have seen plenty of precedents. Take Ancient Greece, for instance; it was a democracy, albeit one that excluded women and enslaved people from its benefits.

Regarding the concept of rotation, I am skeptical that it offers a viable solution. Most roles—even the "dirty" ones—require a certain level of expertise. As we look ahead, it seems likely that jobs will increasingly demand specialized knowledge, while the manual, menial labor that requires only a basic education will steadily decline.

Consequently, we may face the exact opposite dilemma: a world where nearly every profession necessitates advanced degrees and constant lifelong learning. That sounds significantly more taxing than performing manual labor. In fact, simple, dirty jobs might actually become quite desirable by comparison.

I suspect robots will eventually take over the menial work, which leads us to a rather unsettling thought: what happens if those robots achieve consciousness and... decide they don't want to do the dirty work anymore?

Maybe we’ll see a massive surge in demand for those kinds of roles, but then again, who knows? With automation breathing down everyone's neck, there might not even be much need for traditional jobs in the first place. It makes you wonder, though—couldn't this actually be our big chance to finally shake things up and reorganize everything? Like, what if we used all this tech to actually free people up from the soul-crushing grind and let them move away from the heavy lifting for once? Wouldn't that be the dream?

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Personally, I just don't think the concept of a utopia and the idea of labor can ever truly exist in the same sentence, 😁but
that's just my take!

Look, work has to happen—you can't have a functioning society without it. But you *can* have a society where work isn't soul-crushing alienation.

"In this sphere, freedom can only consist in this: that the subjugated man, the united producers, rationally organize their exchange with nature, subject it to their common control, instead of being mastered by it as an alien force; that they exercise it with the least expenditure of force and under conditions most suitable to their essential human nature. But this always remains within the realm of necessity. On the other side of it begins the freeing of human powers, which is an end in itself, the real realm of freedom, which can only blossom on that basis of the realm of necessity. The reduction of the working day is the fundamental condition."

So, in some theoretical utopian setup—communism, if you will—even that necessary labor during business hours isn't "alienated" if things are distributed fairly—especially if the person actually enjoys what they do. But since organizing essential tasks based on who "feels like" working is basically impossible, the real ticket to freedom is simply shortening the workday.

gentlerider7 said:No, that’s not it at all—I only mentioned cooking because someone in another thread was complaining about how municipalities are basically falling apart because nobody wants to do the service work, like cooking or cleaning toilets. It’s just that "unpleasant" stuff was brought up earlier; you know, things like mining, trash collection, window washing skyscrapers, digging trenches, all that. And let's be real, most of those heavy-duty gigs, like working in a mine, have historically been dominated by men anyway, so this whole debate doesn't even have anything to do with feminism.

But honestly, the question shouldn't even be about *who* does the work—it's all about how society views the job itself, you know? Like, how much respect are we actually giving it?

If you aren't going to pay someone well, you've got to make the role feel meaningful and actually desirable, rather than treating it like some kind of punishment.

At the end of the day, a job is only as attractive as the value we put on it. It's that simple. Jobs aren't "unattractive" just because they're complex, tough, or dangerous; they're unattractive because they're undervalued and underpaid. Money and status—that's the real driver.

Sam Martinez9 said:Women.

It’s the same pattern we've seen throughout history. Women handle the cooking, change the diapers, care for aging parents, tend the garden, clean out the barns, scrub the toilets... and the list goes on.

Sure, sanitation workers, sewage crews, and miners are all women too. Just because they enjoy complaining about it doesn't mean they aren't stuck doing the absolute worst jobs out there. ☕

Physical labor will probably shrink anyway thanks to automation, and since utopias don't exist, there's really no point in chasing them.

Communes fail because, by definition, they're just escapist clubs for naive idiots who can't adapt.

Though, they're still slightly less idiotic than those (former) socialists who thought they could just rotate tasks and split everything up equally among everyone.

bluemason3 said:Sure, sanitation workers, sewage crews, and miners are all women too. Just because they enjoy complaining about it doesn't mean they aren't stuck doing the absolute worst jobs out there. ☕

Physical labor will probably shrink anyway thanks to automation, and since utopias don't exist, there's really no point in chasing them.

Communes fail because, by definition, they're just escapist clubs for naive idiots who can't adapt.

Though, they're still slightly less idiotic than those (former) socialists who thought they could just rotate tasks and split everything up equally among everyone.

You totally forgot those pathetic pro football players. ☕

Amanda Flores88 said:You totally forgot those pathetic pro football players. ☕

That’s a non sequitur.
And there you have it—our answer to why there aren't enough women in philosophy departments.

gentlerider7 said:So, if we’re looking at those gritty, soul-crushing jobs that nobody actually wants to touch—you know, the stuff like cleaning out sewers, hauling trash, or working deep in some dusty coal mine—how on earth would you handle them in some kind of perfect, imaginary system?

In Thomas Moore's version of Utopia, they’d basically just have criminals do all that dirty work (kind of like how things functioned in the USSR, where prisoners were stuck doing all the high-risk labor). Then again, there are always those weirdly optimistic people who argue there will always be someone out there perfectly happy to take on those kinds of roles.

I remember seeing this other thread about communal living, and people were saying that every single commune eventually falls apart because of these exact issues: like, who's actually going to cook the meals, and who's going to deal with the gross job of cleaning the bathrooms?

Maybe robots?

Amanda Flores88 said:But honestly, the question shouldn't even be about *who* does the work—it's all about how society views the job itself, you know? Like, how much respect are we actually giving it?

If you aren't going to pay someone well, you've got to make the role feel meaningful and actually desirable, rather than treating it like some kind of punishment.

At the end of the day, a job is only as attractive as the value we put on it. It's that simple. Jobs aren't "unattractive" just because they're complex, tough, or dangerous; they're unattractive because they're undervalued and underpaid. Money and status—that's the real driver.

... Well, sure, if you're living in a cutthroat capitalist machine, yeah, that holds water.

That's exactly why the USSR cooked up that whole "Stakhanovite" nonsense—you know, those supposed labor heroes who were supposed to smash production quotas just to prove how much of a patriot they were. They tried to manufacture motivation out of thin air.

But let’s be real, does anyone actually give a damn about a shiny medal or a pat on the back anymore? Not really. Most people would trade a commemorative plaque for a fat direct deposit in their bank account any day of the week.

gentlerider7 said:So, if we’re looking at those gritty, soul-crushing jobs that nobody actually wants to touch—you know, the stuff like cleaning out sewers, hauling trash, or working deep in some dusty coal mine—how on earth would you handle them in some kind of perfect, imaginary system?

In Thomas Moore's version of Utopia, they’d basically just have criminals do all that dirty work (kind of like how things functioned in the USSR, where prisoners were stuck doing all the high-risk labor). Then again, there are always those weirdly optimistic people who argue there will always be someone out there perfectly happy to take on those kinds of roles.

I remember seeing this other thread about communal living, and people were saying that every single commune eventually falls apart because of these exact issues: like, who's actually going to cook the meals, and who's going to deal with the gross job of cleaning the bathrooms?

It requires a certain level of spiritual maturity for both people and the community. You need everyone to realize that the "dirty work" isn't actually dirty. It’s vital because it supports the whole group. Once people get that, they’ll just step up and do what needs to be done on their own.

I’ve got a bad feeling about this. It feels like we’re circling back to those old-school Lenin-style "500-year plans" or some weird lottery system where everything is decided by random rotation. Honestly, that whole setup has massive flaws if you don't have actual spiritual growth involved. You end up with people trying to cheat the system to avoid responsibility. It’s all about deception, which just leads to unfairness and eventually a total revolt. People will just claim they aren't capable of doing the dirty work even after being picked by the draw. It reminds me of those kids back in middle school who would always show up with a fake doctor's note just to skip gym class. 😁

bluemason3 said:That’s a non sequitur.
And there you have it—our answer to why there aren't enough women in philosophy departments.

Honestly, the only real difference between those "men's jobs" and "women's jobs" is that the guys actually get paid better. Even when you're talking about pro football players. 😛