Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

we're all working with perfect situations here, none of this is realistic.

Plenty of things we've discussed are immediately realistic. Some of the discussion of 3d printing and nano-disassembly and so forth has been highly speculative, but we're already using ATMs and automated checkout machines, atmospheric water condensers are real life things you can buy right now, etc. A lot of these things we're talking about are not far-off fantasy tech. Or, like SalmonGod has pointed out, some portion of jobs that exist now are pretty much pointless busywork. A cultural change to eliminate that kind of thing, I admit I don't know how you'd motivate that change, but there's no technical limitation preventing it. It's not a "fantasy perfect utopia" idea to suggest that maybe if we had a flat tax system we wouldn't need tens of thousands of tax accountants. Even if an end-game post-scarcity post-job-model society isn't something we can do right now, there are a lot of moves we definitely could make in that direction.

And as for the things that might not be realistic now, like MetalSlimehunt pointed out, that kind of technology can tend to sneak up on you. Makerbot isn't likely to change society, but it wouldn't take a whole lot of refinement for 3d printing to become a game-changer. Some of the things we're discussing might be speculative, but we're probably talking within a decade or two speculative, not centuries speculative.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Well I framed both the robot and the actual economics discussions, it's not my fault robotics is a more fun topic

Limited resources: 2 options. All have the same amount, or not all have the same amount. First is hard to implement and exploitable. If the latter, there are a few options for how to mete it out, but most agree Meritocracy is best.

Capitalism is a imperfect Meritocracy. Privilege, the right of a human to aid others, pass down money, and the right to use his money to eliminate competition rather then improve himself, are all

Before we continue further about Capitalism and whatnot, let me just restate some things:

First of all, no 'Capitalist' society exists today, the majority of western states practice socialism, whether or not they admit to it.

Socialism: political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.

Capitalism is an economic system in which capital assets are privately owned and goods and services are produced for profit in a market economy

You're thinking of the oft confused term "Welfare State", which is related but certainly not the same.

A welfare state is a "concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization. The sociologist T.H. Marshall identified the welfare state as a distinctive combination of democracy, welfare, and capitalism."

Certainly not the same.

A lot of things are owned by the community as a whole: public transport, healthcare, etc. You also forget that state ownership also consitutes social ownership

These things are in a welfare state, but I assure you I was referring to Socialism, the USA itself is a mixed economy.

[LordBucket]

Limited resources: 2 options. All have the same amount, or not all have the same amount. First is hard to implement and exploitable. If the latter, there are a few options for how to mete it out, but most agree Meritocracy is best.

There's a third option: have enough abundance that for the most part people don't care enough to keep track. I don't check to see if my neighbor uses more water or breathes more air than I do, for example.

The resources issue came up briefly earlier in the thread, but I think it's not really an issue. Bay12 has had whole threads dedicated to it, but I've never seen anyone give a convincing argument that it's a significant problem. Most raw materials exist in such abundance that they may as well be unlimited for practical considerations. For example, food scarcity is is not a resource shortage. We can easily make more. Dirt and sunlight are not in particularly short supply. Metals and things, there's no real shortage of them, and recycling can go a long way. There are only a very few things that don't exist in "practical limitless abdundance" and none of them are particularly important to running a society. I'm pretty sure live on planet earth would get along just fine if we ran out of yttrium, for example. This idea that "the rich are using up all the resources and there aren't enough for the rest of us" is basically silly.

And yet que the people who will immediately rush in to point out that the sun will eventually burn out. As if that had any useful bearing on the discussion. Yes, in hundreds of millions or billions of years our sun might burn out. And it's very likely that the human race wont' be there to see it happen. Anyone worried about the relative "scarcity" of resources that will lasts longer than the lifetime of our species...I think they're kind of missing the point.

[majikero]

Actually, industrial farming is limited by fertilizer production. Current production is enough though but that's resource distribution.

[Tack]

I'd like to point out that this discussion is beginning to verge on the brink of un-chill.
Everyone take a second to remember that not everyone can be convinced to your way of thinking.
And try not to let emotions rule your arguments. That is not how capitalism do.

[SalmonGod]

Just read pages 4 through 11. TL;DR : Automating everything and achieving utopia will be possible sometime in the future and that's why capitalism is bad right now, OR capitalism work and there's nothing to improve.

Seriously, people? Would've expected a bit more from Bay12 Remember, folks: Economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. Discussing capitalism means discussing economics, and just going SCARCITY SHALL BE OVERCOME is no substitute for, you know, actual workable* ideas.
Not that artificial scarcity is not something to think about, but I guess it's overblown. Just look at the Free Energy crowd and the likes. Air isn't scarce, but still free, right?




*In a reasonable timeframe.

A good chunk of the discussion has been this, but you're definitely overlooking some stuff.  I've intentionally avoided exactly what you're describing, for example by talking about the core nature of present day work, and much of the discussion regarding scarcity or automation has not been about far-off future hypotheticals or utopia visions.  It's been about how capitalism relates to the issues of scarcity and automation right now, and the turmoil we are absolutely going to face as the system fails to cope with those issues as they progress in the very near future.

[Thecard]

Well, if we eliminate scarcity we'll eliminate capitalism. So... I guess that's one way for the communist revolution to come around?

I mean, it's just as likely as the original idea.

Well, as likely as the original idea working.

[misko27]

I'd like to point out that this discussion is beginning to verge on the brink of un-chill.

I though we were retaining our chill composure? It's still fairly chill for a Bay12 "Fun with economics" discussion. And speaking relatively to the internet, it's so chill in here the cold has hypothermia.

[Tack]

I may be used to the B12 ye-olde values of 'chill'.
Where the relaxed states were permanently amplified and everyone was more amiable than a room full of tux wearing bunnies.

Regardless, it was just a nudge to the train before it started getting off the rails, rather than trying to put the pieces back together.

[scrdest]

Well, if we eliminate scarcity we'll eliminate capitalism. So... I guess that's one way for the communist revolution to come around?

I mean, it's just as likely as the original idea.

Well, as likely as the original idea working.

Communism tries to emulate post-scarcity, not the other way. Post-scarcity society would be neither capitalist nor communist, the whole distinction would become meaningless.

[10ebbor10]

Your decentralized water system has several key problems.
1) You're not eliminating the jobs, you're redistributing them. Instead of a few dedicated people working on something, you'll turn it into a task everyone has to spent some time upon. (Maintenance, checking filters,...). While this doesn't seem that bad, do note that the majority of human societal evolution has been made possible due to specialization of labour.
2) Water condensers will fail in cities and suburban areas. Not only will the water be slightly polluted due to the air pollution, there will also be distinct shortages. Your average American family uses 400 gallons (more than 1500 liter of water a day*). New York has population densities of 10 000 people/ km˛ (Meaning you're extracting 14.8 liter/ m˛. Which is a lot.). Belgium has a population density of 300 people/ km˛ and lower water usage, but it will still be problematic. And that's not counting industrial usage. It will have an enormous effect on weather patterns, agriculture and might make city centers unliveable.
3) You can't fill a tank forever. Once a septic tank is full, it needs to be emptied. (Doing this with trucks defeats the purpose) Alright, there are biological ways to filter water, but those don't work for chemically polluted water. (washing machine, dishwasher,...). And even then, these methods are fairly spacious, making suburbs and cities an impossibility, and further increasing land usage.

To demonstrate that, let's look at a ridiculous example: you brush your own teeth, right? So do I. What if, instead of brushing our own teeth, we were to create a toothbrushing service? Establish centers in every city, hire and train people to brush teeth, and have them drive every day to every house, and brush everyone's teeth. You know that this example is more appropriate for your septic tank solution than the central waste management system. Besides, you're not saving that much jobs. The filtration installations still have to be installed to take care of the waste.

Would this be more efficient or most cost effective, than simply having people brush their own teeth? Of course not.

Septic vs sewer cost comparisons
" when it comes to cost comparison of city sewer vs. septic systems – septic always wins. As we have discussed many times in the past, maintenance for septic systems only requires septic tank pump outs every 3 to 5 years. The cost for pumpouts ranges from $250 to $500."
Strange, apparently septic tanks are the best thing according to a compagny that sells them.

This should be obvious. A single on-location installation, once per house, and a cheap, easy pumpout every couple years....versus installed an underground pipe system across entire cities, along with sufficient accessways to maintain those systems, drivers and maintenance crews to maintain those systems year after year, dedicated water purification facilities along with crews to staff them...it should be obvious that the distributed water system I described would be less labor intensive than a centralized system. Septic tanks only remove 20%-40% of the polluatants, chemically polluted water(any cleaning products) have to be processed seperatly. So you still need the dedicated facilities. Adding to that, most of the lines have already been installed, and the sewage systems are of great importance to take care of rainwater as well. While rainwater tanks can serve as a buffer, they won't help during a long wet period, when input will greatly exceed demand.

You also conveniently ignore the fact that fairly large drainage fields have to be constructed, making this an effective impossibility in urban and suburban areas. Additionally widespread usage will result in oversaturation of the ground resulting in floods and undermining roads and buildings.

I was going to make a post on the decentralised water system, but 10ebbor10 pretty much said everything I was going to and more. This may also be relevant.

And see my response to 10ebbor10. Again, it should be obvious that building and maintaining all that infrstructure over entire cities would be more labor intensive than a simple distributed system.

Here is a septic tank:


You're conventiently showing a small tank, and ignoring uhe need for a spetic drain field and casually assuming that everyone uses biodegradable products.
Now, do you believe it will be more cost and labor intensive to:

A) Install one of those on every house and clean it out or replace it every 2-5 years

or

B) Install an underground sewer system that connects every single house across countless square miles to centralized purification centers, build those facilities, maintain staff to operate and maintain those facilities, and build and maintain the pumping stations required to keep the water flowing through those pipes.Considering the fact that the other option is impossible, B wins by default.

Spoiler: Summing stuf up (click to show/hide)

1. Septic waste needs additonal processing. Dedicated filtration installations remain.
2. Sewers are needed to prevent floods. (Rainwater tanks are not a solution. They're mandatory in Belgium, and stuff still floods.)
3. Septic tanks require drainage fields.
         -Large (Impossible in cites and some surburban areas)
         -Effects on water table if used en masse
4. Everyone has to use biodegradable products or the internal filtration process fails and polluted water is dumped into the drainage field

ote: the point of a septic tank is that most of the water is filtered out and dumped, hence why you can stuff so much waste in such a small area.

[SalmonGod]

We seem to be really stuck on this water treatment thing.

[10ebbor10]

We seem to be really stuck on this water treatment thing.

The rest of the discussion seems to be stuck on communism versus postscarcity versus captalism. at least the water treatment thing sees the addition ofn ew arguments.

[SalmonGod]

I still don't understand why the suggestion of anything besides capitalism is automatically named communism, or even just criticizing capitalism results in the discussion being labeled communism vs capitalism, even if there's been zero mention of communism until that label is applied...

[Darvi]

Because people are stupid and have no idea what either of these terms actually mean?