Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Primates are also quite capable of discerning the basic concept of money. I recall an experiment where chimps were given coins and taught that if they turned coins into the researchers they would be given fruit. So a rudimentary economy was born, and following that almost immediately, prostitution.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Primates are also quite capable of discerning the basic concept of money. I recall an experiment where chimps were given coins and taught that if they turned coins into the researchers they would be given fruit. So a rudimentary economy was born, and following that almost immediately, prostitution.

Followed by this guy... pimpin' ain't eazy...

This thread is making me hungry. I think I'm going to go "stimulate the economy" at burger king in a while.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Primates are also quite capable of discerning the basic concept of money. I recall an experiment where chimps were given coins and taught that if they turned coins into the researchers they would be given fruit. So a rudimentary economy was born, and following that almost immediately, prostitution.

The oldest occupation again

 CptJake wrote:
Not bizarre at all. We already see folks leaving the work force. In fact we see folks refusing to flip burgers for above current minimum wage because they do good enough without a job-provided income....

Yes, maybe, but mostly not really. The short answer on this is that you won't find an economist on Earth who won't recognise that welfare increases the amount a person would expect to be paid before they considered working, therefore a welfare system will increase unemployment... but you also won't find an economist on Earth that can point to a study that shows in any clear way unemployment rising as a result of a welfare system being establishment or increased... therefore the impact of a welfare on unemployment is likely to be very small, for any welfare system that might be created in the real world.

And more to the point, you're missing the fact that we're talking about a real world where very, very little labour is needed to fully exploit the natural resources available. In that world, it makes zero sense to talk about what is needed to incentivise everyone to work... because there isn't enough work for every single person. The only solution that's really been thought of for this reasonably likely future world is one where people are paid a citizen's wage giving them enough money to get by, while people who do the small number of jobs remaining get paid extremely well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Hmm, not sure I agree. "Human nature" gets thrown around a lot, particularly to justify capitalism, but the reality is that humans, in common with many primates, have an instinctual understanding of the value of generosity and reciprocity, and recent experiments have shown that understanding extends to a grasp of equality as well - lower primates are capable of recognizing and objecting when one member of the group receives disproportionate rewards, even if the tasks being performed are not identical.

Yes, like all primates we have empathy. Hence why we humans have conversations about the problem of "haves" and "have-nots" in the first place, because our empathy forces us to recognise someone else's poverty as a problem.

But just look at the world. Look at the discrepancy between wealth people in rich countries and poor countries. Don't think about capitalism or any other -ism, just realise that if people wanted to they could live more modest lives and give resources to effectively end the absolute destitution that is life for hundreds of millions of people across the globe. And yet they don't. We don't.

And unless you somehow invent a reason for that to change, then it will continue to be a constant as our technology and economic circumstances change.

Capitalism does not, as those who argue it is an inevitability would claim, harness "greed"(on which point, it was originally supposed to harness greed for the benefit of all, not merely the capital class, and the fact that it has proven incapable of doing so would seem to me to be a fundamental indictment of the whole construct), rather it revolves around displays of status; "peacocking" essentially. Studies have shown that once someone has enough money that money ceases to be a concern in their day-to-day life, further monetary reward can not merely fail to improve job performance, but actually can make performance worse and encourage poor decision making.

I've no disagreement that money simply stops adding to one's personal material utility very quickly, and soon becomes about status. But that doesn't change the basic observed reality about how people act - they keep on chasing more and more money for status. You don't get to point out something is silly and then just start pretending it isn't still there.

I don't buy the "infinite energy problem", it relies on too many assumptions some of which are demonstrably incorrect; that exponential population growth will continue even after we're capable of eliminating scarcity(a notion disabused by declining birth rates in developed nations which can be correlated almost entirely within those populations against relative wealth

Population growth is a red herring. Right now 90% of resources are used by 10% of the world's population. A population of 600 million is unsustainable given current practices, while a population of 10 billion would be sustainable if we lived lives of near poverty.

Most of our current energy needs, even assuming global consumption on the same level as the developed world, could be supplied by renewable energy (snip)/

Hopefully. But lots of technology has been a few decades away for, well, a hell of a lot of decades already. As some point you can't just keep accepting best case scenarios for what people hope will develop in the almost forseeable future, because technology pretty regularly makes technologists look silly by turning out pretty much nothing like what people had expected. The only somewhat reliable thing you can do is see what is coming out in production right now, and where those industries expect to be in the medium term, and work from that.

We can never truly eradicate scarcity in a universe in which entropy is a fundamental property of reality, but the functional elimination of scarcity is entirely possible over a time period that goes far beyond our ability to reliably foresee.

Of course it's a possibility. It's entirely possible right now, if we wanted it. And yet there's still poverty, which ought to tell you something about what people really prioritise.

 sebster wrote:


But just look at the world. Look at the discrepancy between wealth people in rich countries and poor countries. Don't think about capitalism or any other -ism, just realise that if people wanted to they could live more modest lives and give resources to effectively end the absolute destitution that is life for hundreds of millions of people across the globe. And yet they don't. We don't.

And unless you somehow invent a reason for that to change, then it will continue to be a constant as our technology and economic circumstances change.

...

I've no disagreement that money simply stops adding to one's personal material utility very quickly, and soon becomes about status. But that doesn't change the basic observed reality about how people act - they keep on chasing more and more money for status. You don't get to point out something is silly and then just start pretending it isn't still there.

...

Of course it's a possibility. It's entirely possible right now, if we wanted it. And yet there's still poverty, which ought to tell you something about what people really prioritise.

You'll have to help me, in what way is discussing something and acknowledging it "pretending it isn't there"? My point, perhaps not presented clearly enough, was not that the wealth-status link is "silly" or irrelevant in some way, but that it explains the success of capitalism better than capitalism's own philosophical constructs can. If humans are greedy by nature, as capitalist thought supposes, that is an insurmountable obstacle to virtually any other economic or post-economic system. However if, as recent research would suggest, the capitalistic conception of greed is just a flawed understanding of primate social dynamics, and the system actually exploits a behavioural mechanism that can be satisfied by things other than raw wealth, things become much more complex and more possibilities open up.

As for people's priorities, well, we know humans are idiots. Every single one of us makes poor decisions based on incomplete information, biases, preconceptions, and flawed logic. Climate change is another example; we could solve climate change right now, all we would need to do is live more modest lives and stop burning fossil fuels, but we don't, so does that mean we should declare that human beings are, by nature, incapable of doing anything about it? Of course not, because we expect that we can develop technological solutions which will either replace an existing process or product with a version that doesn't drive climate change without any appreciable difference to the end-user, or which can mitigate the impact of the end-user having to change their behaviour to the point that people stop objecting. There's absolutely no reason to assume that, uniquely, the core tenets of neo-liberal capitalist economic dogma are immune to technology; if we develop technology that removes the need for people to expend labour in order to survive, eventually the current order must fall, since wealth for its own sake would have no value any longer, and so would confer no social status, and so would no longer be a primary driver of behaviour. Rather people would do exactly what they already do right now when provided with education, opportunity, and enough resources to survive and flourish - seek social status from peers through personal development and social politicking.

 Yodhrin wrote:
. Climate change is another example; we could solve climate change right now,

Slight off topic, but I just want to interject here.

No we cannot.

Climate Change has occured for billions of years prior to our existance, and it will occur for millions after we are long gone. We cannot stop it. We can try to influence it in a way we view as better for us, but that is all.

I don't see this machine replacing any minimum wage burger flippers unless it's designed to spit in your food when you ask for a new burger because the one you ordered had onions when you only wanted lettuce and tomato.

 Necros wrote:
I don't see this machine replacing any minimum wage burger flippers unless it's designed to spit in your food when you ask for a new burger because the one you ordered had onions when you only wanted lettuce and tomato.

Have you ever worked at a fast-food restaurant before? Because I've never seen anybody spit in the burgers at any of the fast-food joints I've worked at.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Necros wrote:
I don't see this machine replacing any minimum wage burger flippers unless it's designed to spit in your food when you ask for a new burger because the one you ordered had onions when you only wanted lettuce and tomato.

Have you ever worked at a fast-food restaurant before? Because I've never seen anybody spit in the burgers at any of the fast-food joints I've worked at.

That's because your Canadien. Your fast food workers are to busy apologizing.

Lol, good one.

 Yodhrin wrote:
You'll have to help me, in what way is discussing something and acknowledging it "pretending it isn't there"? My point, perhaps not presented clearly enough, was not that the wealth-status link is "silly" or irrelevant in some way, but that it explains the success of capitalism better than capitalism's own philosophical constructs can. If humans are greedy by nature, as capitalist thought supposes, that is an insurmountable obstacle to virtually any other economic or post-economic system. However if, as recent research would suggest, the capitalistic conception of greed is just a flawed understanding of primate social dynamics, and the system actually exploits a behavioural mechanism that can be satisfied by things other than raw wealth, things become much more complex and more possibilities open up.

I think you're getting two things caught up. "Greed" is inherent, and capitalism turns that towards "material greed". The classic example is pre-mercantilist nobles, who would find status in having very large courts, so hundreds of people were maintained in court, basically doing nothing, meanwhile their manors were basically empty, filled with very basic furniture and very little of it. But with the wealth of trade goods suddenly emerging with vast growth in trade, status came to be derived more from owning exotic, master-crafted goods - so the old very large courts were abandoned in place of finely furnished manors.

So it becomes important to understand that the ways in which we might be self-interested and selfish in the future might change, but that fundamental desire to pursue our own interests and personal benefit first and foremost won't go away.

Climate change is another example; we could solve climate change right now, all we would need to do is live more modest lives and stop burning fossil fuels, but we don't, so does that mean we should declare that human beings are, by nature, incapable of doing anything about it?

No, but our failure to do anything meaningful about it so far tells us a lot about our future chance of doing something about it.

There's absolutely no reason to assume that, uniquely, the core tenets of neo-liberal capitalist economic dogma are immune to technology; if we develop technology that removes the need for people to expend labour in order to survive, eventually the current order must fall, since wealth for its own sake would have no value any longer, and so would confer no social status, and so would no longer be a primary driver of behaviour. Rather people would do exactly what they already do right now when provided with education, opportunity, and enough resources to survive and flourish - seek social status from peers through personal development and social politicking.

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying at all. I am not, for one second, saying that capitalism is absolutely here to stay. Any economic system only exists in the context of the technology and societies in place at that time. When those technologies and society change enough that capitalist economics simply no longer work and no longer make sense, we will adapt to some other form. But in speculating about what that form might take, we can't just remove basic human nature from those future models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Climate Change has occured for billions of years prior to our existance, and it will occur for millions after we are long gone. We cannot stop it. We can try to influence it in a way we view as better for us, but that is all.

There is a vast difference between the slow rate of naturally occuring climate change, and the rapid change experienced in the last few decades resulting from human industry.

 sebster wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
You'll have to help me, in what way is discussing something and acknowledging it "pretending it isn't there"? My point, perhaps not presented clearly enough, was not that the wealth-status link is "silly" or irrelevant in some way, but that it explains the success of capitalism better than capitalism's own philosophical constructs can. If humans are greedy by nature, as capitalist thought supposes, that is an insurmountable obstacle to virtually any other economic or post-economic system. However if, as recent research would suggest, the capitalistic conception of greed is just a flawed understanding of primate social dynamics, and the system actually exploits a behavioural mechanism that can be satisfied by things other than raw wealth, things become much more complex and more possibilities open up.

I think you're getting two things caught up. "Greed" is inherent, and capitalism turns that towards "material greed". The classic example is pre-mercantilist nobles, who would find status in having very large courts, so hundreds of people were maintained in court, basically doing nothing, meanwhile their manors were basically empty, filled with very basic furniture and very little of it. But with the wealth of trade goods suddenly emerging with vast growth in trade, status came to be derived more from owning exotic, master-crafted goods - so the old very large courts were abandoned in place of finely furnished manors.

So it becomes important to understand that the ways in which we might be self-interested and selfish in the future might change, but that fundamental desire to pursue our own interests and personal benefit first and foremost won't go away.

Climate change is another example; we could solve climate change right now, all we would need to do is live more modest lives and stop burning fossil fuels, but we don't, so does that mean we should declare that human beings are, by nature, incapable of doing anything about it?

No, but our failure to do anything meaningful about it so far tells us a lot about our future chance of doing something about it.

There's absolutely no reason to assume that, uniquely, the core tenets of neo-liberal capitalist economic dogma are immune to technology; if we develop technology that removes the need for people to expend labour in order to survive, eventually the current order must fall, since wealth for its own sake would have no value any longer, and so would confer no social status, and so would no longer be a primary driver of behaviour. Rather people would do exactly what they already do right now when provided with education, opportunity, and enough resources to survive and flourish - seek social status from peers through personal development and social politicking.

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying at all. I am not, for one second, saying that capitalism is absolutely here to stay. Any economic system only exists in the context of the technology and societies in place at that time. When those technologies and society change enough that capitalist economics simply no longer work and no longer make sense, we will adapt to some other form. But in speculating about what that form might take, we can't just remove basic human nature from those future models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Climate Change has occured for billions of years prior to our existance, and it will occur for millions after we are long gone. We cannot stop it. We can try to influence it in a way we view as better for us, but that is all.

There is a vast difference between the slow rate of naturally occuring climate change, and the rapid change experienced in the last few decades resulting from human industry.

I'm not getting two things caught up, I'm just evidently failing to explain my point. My contention is that "greed" in the sense you propose it, as it exists within capitalist thought, is a contrivance, a fiction, a failure to understand the real mechanism at play, and as a result of that it fails its stated objective of developing a system that works for the group as well as the individual. Therefore, there is no "remov[al] of basic human nature" in my speculation at all, indeed I would argue that any alternative economic/post-economic model which abandons the flawed greed concept for a more evolved understanding of primate social dynamics would be more compatible with "human nature" than capitalism is.

"Greed" essentially boils down to two things; the desire to display status("peacocking"), which under capitalism manifests as the acquisition of wealth, and the scarcity-driven desire to hoard resources to insure against future misfortune. Your argument was that greed would remain a constant regardless of technological change, but if my proposition is correct then that position is untenable. If automation advances to the level where all menial work is unnecessary, and all physical objects can be created with no "cost" beyond energy(which given sufficient automation is only limited by how much energy we are technically capable of extracting/generating, since the infrastructure would be considered physical objects and any fuel could also be extracted, processed, and transported automatically), then scarcity will have been functionally eliminated and people will no longer be driven to hoard resources to an irrational degree, so the latter part of the "greed construct" is no longer an issue. As for the former part, as I pointed out previously, we already know from research on the subject that, once an individual with a certain level of education feels all their material needs have been satisfied, the primary driver of behaviour changes from resource acquisition to intellectual, spiritual, or social enrichment.

Capitalism proposes that we are greedy by nature and that greed must be accounted for and harnessed by any system of economics/post-economics, my argument is that what capitalist thought understands as "greed" are in fact other behaviours which are driven by scarcity, and if correct then it necessarily follows that eradicating scarcity also eliminates behaviours driven by it.

feeder wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Primates are also quite capable of discerning the basic concept of money. I recall an experiment where chimps were given coins and taught that if they turned coins into the researchers they would be given fruit. So a rudimentary economy was born, and following that almost immediately, prostitution.

Followed by this guy... pimpin' ain't eazy...

This thread has taken a turn for Awesome.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I'm not getting two things caught up, I'm just evidently failing to explain my point. My contention is that "greed" in the sense you propose it, as it exists within capitalist thought, is a contrivance, a fiction, a failure to understand the real mechanism at play, and as a result of that it fails its stated objective of developing a system that works for the group as well as the individual. Therefore, there is no "remov[al] of basic human nature" in my speculation at all, indeed I would argue that any alternative economic/post-economic model which abandons the flawed greed concept for a more evolved understanding of primate social dynamics would be more compatible with "human nature" than capitalism is.

"Greed" essentially boils down to two things; the desire to display status("peacocking"), which under capitalism manifests as the acquisition of wealth, and the scarcity-driven desire to hoard resources to insure against future misfortune.

And what I'm telling you is that your claim above simply isn't true. There was greed long before there was capitalism. Capitalism gave that greed a specific materiality, but it didn't make greed appear out of nowhere. Greed is not simply selfishness or anything like that. The term used in economics is actually 'self interest', that I choose the things I am interested in over the things that you or anyone else is interested in.

Consider a small hunter gatherer tribe operating as a small communal society - they might share the food among themselves... but do you think for one second they might notice that they could use some of their food surplus to help the tribe over the river that has fallen on hard times? That's self-interest, choosing the benefit of one's immediate group over the benefit, and that's a basic constant of human nature.

Your argument was that greed would remain a constant regardless of technological change, but if my proposition is correct then that position is untenable. If automation advances to the level where all menial work is unnecessary, and all physical objects can be created with no "cost" beyond energy(which given sufficient automation is only limited by how much energy we are technically capable of extracting/generating, since the infrastructure would be considered physical objects and any fuel could also be extracted, processed, and transported automatically), then scarcity will have been functionally eliminated and people will no longer be driven to hoard resources to an irrational degree, so the latter part of the "greed construct" is no longer an issue. As for the former part, as I pointed out previously, we already know from research on the subject that, once an individual with a certain level of education feels all their material needs have been satisfied, the primary driver of behaviour changes from resource acquisition to intellectual, spiritual, or social enrichment.

What you're describing is the classic utopian assumption, that once we hit post scarcity then all materialism will disappear. And that theory works really well, as long as we actually reach post scarcity, a point where production is close to infinite. The point I'm making is that while we may at some point reach such true post scarcity, it looks quite likely that long before then we'll reach a point where we no longer need much labour due to robots, but we still have limits to our production due to natural resources, particularly energy.

Simply put, there is no reason to assume that every development in robot technology will be met with an equal expansion in raw materials. The development of a robot that makes hamburgers doesn't bring with it an increase in the efficiency of solar panels, or the discovery of a new source of lithium. And so it becomes possible that robot technology might replace human labour at a rate much higher than we expand our production of raw materials, producing an economy that simply no longer needs 60% of its population working to fully utilise the available resources.

At which point we have to ask how will society treat those people that neither own robots, nor continue to work.