Print

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

[NJW2000]

Here's an interesting video about how people will become economically obsolete: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Economic obsolescence is not obsolescence.

That's why I said economic obsolescence. And it still has massive ramifications in our capitalist society. People will become unemployable.

Aren't a lot of people already unemployable? And anyway, if humans do become economically obsolete and, theoretically, everyone becomes unemployable then I've got a feeling that jobs will become far less important.

Yeah, or the majority of the population will have to depend on a rapidly shrinking benefits pool while the state shrinks or gets into massive debt due to the rich not only automating all industries and growing still richer, but also lobby with said riches to pay fewer taxes, possibly relocating their production/etc and the small amount of skilled labour they need to more tax-free countries, this scenario ending with the government and populace in so much debt to the megacorporations that they have complete control over them, or with the rich elite simply cutting off anything not vital for their own survival.

Ninja'd: HB said it bettter.

[King Kitteh]

People seem to have gotten the idea that I think technology progressing and people becoming economically obsolete is inherently bad.

I don't think that, I just think it's inevitable and bound to cause a change in how society functions, for better or worse. We need to be prepared.

Maybe we will reach a Utopia where people can relax all day and sing campfire songs.
Or maybe we'll all be driven to poverty by an incredibly rich 1% that owns all the machines.

Perhaps I am pessimistic, but I don't have as much faith as you guys that the first option will occur. People are (perhaps inherently) selfish, greedy and vile.
Once there is no need for the masses will they really support us?

[Orange Wizard]

Or maybe we'll all be driven to poverty by an incredibly rich 1% that owns all the machines.

This is how revolutions happen.

[Frumple]

Once there is no need for the masses will they really support us?

Lest they be eaten, yes.

[King Kitteh]

Or maybe we'll all be driven to poverty by an incredibly rich 1% that owns all the machines.

This is how revolutions happen.

I sure hope we win then.

Although I do count the military in that 1% so I'm not too hopeful of winning. We're pretty much talking terminators at this point. We will be fighting machines, stronger, faster, smarter and worst of all, completely interconnected.

Of course this is all speculation, hopefully our governments will foresee the mass unemployment that will occur and set up support programs so we achieve that utopia.

Edit: Although perhaps we can create some kind of high-tech revolution-bot to do our work for us! After all, I really wanted to catch up on Brooklyn 99.

[King Kitteh]

Anyway, if we do manage to achieve a utopia where everyone has infinite free time for their entire life.

What would you guys do?

Personally, I have no idea. Read books, listen to music. I'd probably evolve into a (literate) sloth.

[Harry Baldman]

Or maybe we'll all be driven to poverty by an incredibly rich 1% that owns all the machines.

This is how revolutions happen.

But then there's the uncomfortable fact that killer robots will in one way or another be a thing in the future, which may put a damper on poor people overthrowing the people with the resources and, presumably, plenty of killer robots as a consequence.

The issue as I see it is that having resources in this hypothetical future will afford increasingly large amounts of power and independence to the point where the balance of power will be so far off that a popular revolution in a first world country may become a more ridiculous concept than it already is.

[Frumple]

Anyway, if we do manage to achieve a utopia where everyone has infinite free time for their entire life.

What would you guys do?

Assuming I'm still alive, music, games, reading, talking to folks, spending time with family, volunteering with local things of particular worth, whatever creative endeavors catch the eye. Basically, y'know, all the stuff I'm interested in but work concerns get in the way of.

Honestly, I'd probably have been a lot more productive and active with my life up to this point if I hadn't had to spend as much time worrying about and trying to stave off starvation and homelessness.

[Orange Wizard]

Except it's the 1% doing the revolutioning. Revolutions of the past were fought between wealthy/noble leaders, with the  middle-class sometimes rioting, and the poor peasants usually get the honour of being cannon fodder in the schemes of political leaders. The romanticised idea of the masses rising up is largely fiction.

Anyway, if we do manage to achieve a utopia where everyone has infinite free time for their entire life.

What would you guys do?

Assuming I'm still alive, music, games, reading, talking to folks, spending time with family, volunteering with local things of particular worth, whatever creative endeavors catch the eye. Basically, y'know, all the stuff I'm interested in but work concerns get in the way of.

Basically this, yeah.

[Sonlirain]

Yeah but if the rich fire everyone and just use robots in production then literally noone will buy their products (because they are jobless and busy eating tree trunk for subsistence rather than getting a new iPad).

TBH a Neo socialist society would probably work in that scenario and if the divide between the rich and poor gets to wide thare's always the chance of the people getting prissy and communism becoming relevant again and maybe even working if most of the workforce is robots.

And then you have the political scene that actually has to worry about the populace at large getting prissy and electing someone else because they obviously failed to prevent a 70% unemployment rate.

As for revolutions. In the past people didn't have a sliver of coordination people today would have.

[Yoink]

I sure hope we win then.

Although I do count the military in that 1% so I'm not too hopeful of winning. We're pretty much talking terminators at this point. We will be fighting machines, stronger, faster, smarter and worst of all, completely interconnected.

We have John Connor.

[TempAcc]

The ~revolutions~ that need to happen for something akin to an utopia to happen are more akin to, say, the industrial revolution rather then some sort of political revolution. I mean sure, political revolutions will happen, but only as a result of the revolutions that will have to happen first in order for something utopia-ish to happen.

We'll have to change our idea about human labour altogether, just like our concept general efficiency will have to change (it'll become a lot more important overall). As a result of this, the basic structure of states will have to change to accomodate the technological changes.
We're already past the point that government regulations are a good way to take care of problems that arise from technological progress, too. Soon it'll be the technological progress which will dictate the need and ways to deal with problems that arise from government regulations/structure and society.

For example, you can't just go "omg AI is scury" and outlaw the development of generalistic AI on your nation because other nations will keep developing it, and then your nation will be at a major disadvantage, and the only way of dealing  with that kind of scenario is also "be part of the problem" (like the nuclear weapons issue, you can't just outlaw and destroy it on your country and then hope everyone else will).

IMO, an actual utopia will only be somewhat possible when we have a full grasp of nanotechnology, which would put us at a star trek eske post-scarcity scenario thing. Only then we'll be truly able to live/maintain society without the constant need for human labor. Support programs are ok, but they don't work forever, since scarcity is a thing that happens to exist (something apparently a whole shitton of people don't seem to understand), and humans don't generally enjoy being piss poor.

So, as long as scarcity exists, social inequality will also exist, because people always want to live confortable and as worry-free as possible lives, and in every society there are people who are way more able of achieving that, either due to personal skill, advantageous position or more avenues of opportunity than others.

So ye, you can go and make robots work and set up support programs for the people to live off from, but that isn't going to work forever. Shit's gonna go down sooner or later.

[Yoink]

Why are humans saying 'we should wipe out humanity'
what

Well, we are a pretty noxious pest. But we shouldn't be replaced with some super-advanced race of machine people, either.

[King Kitteh]

Man, all this discussion is making me tired. I sure wish I had a 'super advanced AI automatic discussion-bot' to make me look smart for me.

[Frumple]

Eh, you kinda' do, it's just on shittily made biological firmware with even worse optimized software. Give it some time, we'll manage something that hits a higher benchmark (in everything, as opposed to just some thing) sooner or later.