Switch Theme:

A new economic system?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Throne world 11001001

Technological experts agree that within the near future automation and so-called A.I. will become a black plague on jobs, wiping out vast swathes of the current job market. As is huge numbers of people face the choice of terrible, low paying service jobs or no jobs. Soon the former option may disappear for a large segment of the American and other western nations populations.

Assuming these prognostications are accurare what can our societies do, what should they do and what do you believe they will do?

Optimists suggest that Universal Basic Income will become necessary and therefore be implemented. I have my doubts as to this rosy scenario as we've needed universal healthcare in america for decades and a small number of people have succeeded at blocking this and convincing a far too large segment of america's populace that this is the most horrible idea imaginable.

Could a vast labor pool be needed to repair human caused environmental damage? If so would these jobs be very desirable? Would they effectively be a new form of slave labor imposed under threat of starvation if not accepted?

Would the powers that be decide that "the hunger games" is avoid social model and force the majority of people to serve as vassals to be used for their entertainment?

I'm not optimistic abiut the future of the world, anyone have any solid reason to change my views?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I think any discussion on this topic comes dangerously close to the "no politics" rule of this forum.


This is because, when I look at how other countries are dealing with these issues, a lot of the differences between the US and say, much of Europe, is down to political and social views.

During my MBA program, we visited the IBM Watson center in Munich, and they have an interesting view on automation and augmented intelligence (they are working to change the narrative/discussion around AI, because even now, the Watson architecture is coded by people, and each unique problem they face, the initial workings are still done by people). . . And that view is that they are working to make the workplace more efficient and positive for the worker. It isn't "make work more efficient to get rid of people"

And that is a key difference, I think, between what we see out of US corporations, and European ones.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Cryptek Keeper wrote:
I have my doubts as to this rosy scenario as we've needed universal healthcare in america for decades and a small number of people have succeeded at blocking this and convincing a far too large segment of america's populace that this is the most horrible idea imaginable.


The difference is that with health care most people are relatively healthy and the industry (and its paid-for politicians) can always convince people that health care issues are something that only happens to other people, that the people who smoked/got fat/etc deserved to pay for their sins, that their insurance plan is sufficient, etc. And things like how the insurance industry vastly inflates prices happen mostly behind the scenes, you have to care enough to do some research to find it. If you're working 80 hours a week at three different jobs, as the poor people who are most vulnerable to the flaws in the US health care system often are, you may not ever see the effects in your everyday life. All you see is the lies of the insurance industry and the "SOCIALISM IS BAD" lies told by the wealthy, and enough people continue to believe those lies and continue voting for the insurance industry's representatives. And if you're better off, well, you probably have a decent insurance plan through your employer and are insulated from the worst abuses. So again you don't see the bad things and can tell yourself that surely you will never have to worry about any of that.

But when you consider massive unemployment because of automation there's nowhere to hide. If you're unemployed and starving to death you have two options: do nothing and starve to death or start killing the elites until they fix the problem. Even if you die in the attempt you're no worse off than if you hadn't tried. And if 90% of the country is in this position then violent revolution is inevitable. The elites know this and will be forced to, at minimum, adopt some kind of socialism/universal basic income/etc that takes care of the unemployed masses before it gets to the point of revolution.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/09 17:35:15


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Throne world 11001001

Heh heh, the sad but funny thing, Peregrine, is this might be the best scenario that could happen. We need a half laughing half crying face icon for this srot of thing.
   
Made in ca
Eternally-Stimulated Slaanesh Dreadnought





Heart of Fadeless Splendour

So, pro-tip, if you want political posts to persist on here you're gonna have to be more overtly totalitarian and fascistic.

None of this pie-in-the-sky 'worker revolution' nonsense. DakkaDakka endorses the status quo.

The Fall of Kronstaat IV
Война Народная | Voyna Narodnaya | The People's War - 2,854pts painted (updated 16/07/19)
Волшебная Сказка | Volshebnaya Skazka | A Fairy Tale (updated 08/05/19, ep8 - Звезда | Zvezda | The Star)
Kabal of The Violet Heart (updated 16/07/19)

You know, if there's one thing I've learnt from being in the Army, it's never ignore a pooh-pooh. I knew a Major who got pooh-poohed, made the mistake of ignoring the pooh-pooh. He pooh-poohed it! Fatal error! 'Cause it turned out all along that the soldier who pooh-poohed him had been pooh-poohing a lot of other officers who pooh-poohed their pooh-poohs. In the end, we had to disband the regiment.

 
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Excommunicatus wrote:
So, pro-tip, if you want political posts to persist on here you're gonna have to be more overtly totalitarian and fascistic.

None of this pie-in-the-sky 'worker revolution' nonsense. DakkaDakka endorses the status quo.


Considering the Status quo is mostly non fascisct, that statement makes seriously no sense.

Now if you would point to the oligarchical structures that have established themselves then you would hit the Status quo on the head.

As for the economic system, sure there will be massive changes but we might be able for the first time to actually consider a social form of Organisation. That is so long the AI that inevitable spawns from this tolerates us and is not the next ecolutionary step from us and making our biological model obsolete.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/09 19:25:14


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Throne world 11001001

Well since the future of economics and employment affects people I care about (i'm in my final days) pardon me all to hell and back if I have some interest in whether or not there's any good possibilities for the people I care about.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Not Online!!! wrote:
That is so long the AI that inevitable spawns from this tolerates us and is not the next ecolutionary step from us and making our biological model obsolete.


Superior AI that decides to get rid of humanity is definitely getting into the realm of science fiction. The threat is not human-like general intelligence that ascends to godhood, it's basic single-task software and automation. For example, why have a human truck driver when an automated truck can do the job? Why have a human lawyer write that business contract when an AI program can search the relevant literature and determine what needs to be included? The AI that does these things won't pass the Turing test at all but can still make vast sections of the labor force obsolete.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






It is scary to think about. There is every indication that we should not go down this path but it is inevitable. The gap between our Utopian future is likely bridged by some truly Dystopian hurdles. I have no doubt humanity will survive - but good look finding an economic model that the people in power are willing to agree with. I believe the correct path through is taking baby steps.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Furious Raptor





 Peregrine wrote:
Cryptek Keeper wrote:
I have my doubts as to this rosy scenario as we've needed universal healthcare in america for decades and a small number of people have succeeded at blocking this and convincing a far too large segment of america's populace that this is the most horrible idea imaginable.


The difference is that with health care most people are relatively healthy and the industry (and its paid-for politicians) can always convince people that health care issues are something that only happens to other people, that the people who smoked/got fat/etc deserved to pay for their sins, that their insurance plan is sufficient, etc. And things like how the insurance industry vastly inflates prices happen mostly behind the scenes, you have to care enough to do some research to find it. If you're working 80 hours a week at three different jobs, as the poor people who are most vulnerable to the flaws in the US health care system often are, you may not ever see the effects in your everyday life. All you see is the lies of the insurance industry and the "SOCIALISM IS BAD" lies told by the wealthy, and enough people continue to believe those lies and continue voting for the insurance industry's representatives. And if you're better off, well, you probably have a decent insurance plan through your employer and are insulated from the worst abuses. So again you don't see the bad things and can tell yourself that surely you will never have to worry about any of that.

But when you consider massive unemployment because of automation there's nowhere to hide. If you're unemployed and starving to death you have two options: do nothing and starve to death or start killing the elites until they fix the problem. Even if you die in the attempt you're no worse off than if you hadn't tried. And if 90% of the country is in this position then violent revolution is inevitable. The elites know this and will be forced to, at minimum, adopt some kind of socialism/universal basic income/etc that takes care of the unemployed masses before it gets to the point of revolution.


I don't know about most people being relatively healthy. Just about everybody has some kind of ailment (physical, mental, emotional) that they have to deal with if they are at best able to live a good life and at worst just to survive and be functional, not too mention freak accidents and injuries that can happen to even the healthiest of individuals. Selling universal healthcare by beginning with small events like town halls in places that are poor or lower middle class could allow people across the political spectrum to express their thoughts, concerns, and fears about the situation on a more personal level that could break through political stereotypes and knee-jerk reactions to certain policies. I think what often happens is that universal healthcare is often proposed almost exclusively at the highest levels of government and wrapped in broad statements and ideas which opens the door to a range of broad of both supportive and oppositional statements and declarations that can easily be wrapped up in neat and clean political ideologies that are meant to simply trigger old reactions and ideological grudges that often have little to do with the complex reality of the situation on the ground.
   
Made in de
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





The Shire(s)

Not Online!!! wrote:
As for the economic system, sure there will be massive changes but we might be able for the first time to actually consider a social form of Organisation.


These are excepts from notes written by a 19th century philosopher (it is written in rather dense Victorian style):
Further, in so far as machinery develops with the accumulation of society's science, of productive force generally, general social labour presents itself not in labour but in capital. The productive force of society is measured in fixed capital, exists there in its objective form; and, inversely, the productive force of capital grows with this general progress, which capital appropriates free of charge.

The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them. Capital itself is the moving contradiction, [in] that it presses to reduce labour time to a minimum, while it posits labour time, on the other side, as sole measure and source of wealth. Hence it diminishes labour time in the necessary form so as to increase it in the superfluous form; hence posits the superfluous in growing measure as a condition – question of life or death – for the necessary. On the one side, then, it calls to life all the powers of science and of nature, as of social combination and of social intercourse, in order to make the creation of wealth independent (relatively) of the labour time employed on it. On the other side, it wants to use labour time as the measuring rod for the giant social forces thereby created, and to confine them within the limits required to maintain the already created value as value. Forces of production and social relations – two different sides of the development of the social individual –appear to capital as mere means, and are merely means for it to produce on its limited foundation. In fact, however, they are the material conditions to blow this foundation sky-high. ‘Truly wealthy a nation, when the working day is 6 rather than 12 hours. Wealth is not command over surplus labour time’ (real wealth), ‘but rather, disposable time outside that needed in direct production, for every individual and the whole society.’ (The Source and Remedy etc. 1821, p. 6.)
Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. To what degree the powers of social production have been produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.

Free time – which is both idle time and time for higher activity – has naturally transformed its possessor into a different subject, and he then enters into the direct production process as this different subject. This process is then both discipline, as regards the human being in the process of becoming; and, at the same time, practice [Ausübung], experimental science, materially creative and objectifying science, as regards the human being who has become, in whose head exists the accumulated knowledge of society. For both, in so far as labour requires practical use of the hands and free bodily movement, as in agriculture, at the same time exercise. As the system of bourgeois economy has developed for us only by degrees, so too its negation, which is its ultimate result. We are still concerned now with the direct production process. When we consider bourgeois society in the long view and as a whole, then the final result of the process of social production always appears as the society itself, i.e. the human being itself in the human being itself in its social relations.


At the time, rapid information networks were only just beginning to appear with telegraphs, and the internet was a distant prospect foreseen by no one. But these musing reflect on social knowledge and the impact it has on development and production. Essentially, if humanity can build a a socioeconomic model built upon shared information created during free time, then we can create value from people who are imputing very little labour into traditional production. Production which is mostly handled by automated machinery.

In the 19th century, this was basically a pipe dream, and despite the prolific writings of this philosopher, they never touched this topic again. Today, with the internet, we could build something based around the concept. How, I don't know. But I really hope someone crafts a reality from it sooner rather than later.

The basic premise is that essentially all information should be freely available to use- no patents, copyright etc.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/09 21:40:41


 ChargerIIC wrote:
If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
 
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Haighus wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
As for the economic system, sure there will be massive changes but we might be able for the first time to actually consider a social form of Organisation.


These are excepts from notes written by a 19th century philosopher (it is written in rather dense Victorian style):
Further, in so far as machinery develops with the accumulation of society's science, of productive force generally, general social labour presents itself not in labour but in capital. The productive force of society is measured in fixed capital, exists there in its objective form; and, inversely, the productive force of capital grows with this general progress, which capital appropriates free of charge.

The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them. Capital itself is the moving contradiction, [in] that it presses to reduce labour time to a minimum, while it posits labour time, on the other side, as sole measure and source of wealth. Hence it diminishes labour time in the necessary form so as to increase it in the superfluous form; hence posits the superfluous in growing measure as a condition – question of life or death – for the necessary. On the one side, then, it calls to life all the powers of science and of nature, as of social combination and of social intercourse, in order to make the creation of wealth independent (relatively) of the labour time employed on it. On the other side, it wants to use labour time as the measuring rod for the giant social forces thereby created, and to confine them within the limits required to maintain the already created value as value. Forces of production and social relations – two different sides of the development of the social individual –appear to capital as mere means, and are merely means for it to produce on its limited foundation. In fact, however, they are the material conditions to blow this foundation sky-high. ‘Truly wealthy a nation, when the working day is 6 rather than 12 hours. Wealth is not command over surplus labour time’ (real wealth), ‘but rather, disposable time outside that needed in direct production, for every individual and the whole society.’ (The Source and Remedy etc. 1821, p. 6.)
Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. To what degree the powers of social production have been produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.

Free time – which is both idle time and time for higher activity – has naturally transformed its possessor into a different subject, and he then enters into the direct production process as this different subject. This process is then both discipline, as regards the human being in the process of becoming; and, at the same time, practice [Ausübung], experimental science, materially creative and objectifying science, as regards the human being who has become, in whose head exists the accumulated knowledge of society. For both, in so far as labour requires practical use of the hands and free bodily movement, as in agriculture, at the same time exercise. As the system of bourgeois economy has developed for us only by degrees, so too its negation, which is its ultimate result. We are still concerned now with the direct production process. When we consider bourgeois society in the long view and as a whole, then the final result of the process of social production always appears as the society itself, i.e. the human being itself in the human being itself in its social relations.


At the time, rapid information networks were only just beginning to appear with telegraphs, and the internet was a distant prospect foreseen by no one. But these musing reflect on social knowledge and the impact it has on development and production. Essentially, if humanity can build a a socioeconomic model built upon shared information created during free time, then we can create value from people who are imputing very little labour into traditional production. Production which is mostly handled by automated machinery.

In the 19th century, this was basically a pipe dream, and despite the prolific writings of this philosopher, they never touched this topic again. Today, with the internet, we could build something based around the concept. How, I don't know. But I really hope someone crafts a reality from it sooner rather than later.

The basic premise is that essentially all information should be freely available to use- no patents, copyright etc.


Marx, atleast quote the prolific philosopher, which frankly is absurd as the capital is more of a book about national economics then Philosophy.

Inherently i have nothing against Marx, my issue is with the "marxists". Which seem often to NOT HAVE READ THE BLOODY BOOK.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
That is so long the AI that inevitable spawns from this tolerates us and is not the next ecolutionary step from us and making our biological model obsolete.


Superior AI that decides to get rid of humanity is definitely getting into the realm of science fiction. The threat is not human-like general intelligence that ascends to godhood, it's basic single-task software and automation. For example, why have a human truck driver when an automated truck can do the job? Why have a human lawyer write that business contract when an AI program can search the relevant literature and determine what needs to be included? The AI that does these things won't pass the Turing test at all but can still make vast sections of the labor force obsolete.


Yes and no, automation is but the first step, real artificial intelligence is also toyed with.
Especially China has to found it as a prestige object.
In a way, i fear we will create the next" beeing" that mostlikely will outperform us in the evolutionary way as the dominant "species" should it be created.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/09 21:51:52


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in gb
Highlord of Terra






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

Butlerian Jihad?

n'oublie jamais

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Not Online!!! wrote:
Yes and no, automation is but the first step, real artificial intelligence is also toyed with.
Especially China has to found it as a prestige object.
In a way, i fear we will create the next" beeing" that mostlikely will outperform us in the evolutionary way as the dominant "species" should it be created.


Toyed with, but nowhere near understood. Given sufficient time it's probably inevitable that we'll manage to do it, there's nothing inherently unique about a biological brain that can't possibly be reproduced in other forms. But that is not happening in the foreseeable future. And the whole idea that an AI will out-perform us and turn itself into god is much less plausible.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Peregrine wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Yes and no, automation is but the first step, real artificial intelligence is also toyed with.
Especially China has to found it as a prestige object.
In a way, i fear we will create the next" beeing" that mostlikely will outperform us in the evolutionary way as the dominant "species" should it be created.


Toyed with, but nowhere near understood. Given sufficient time it's probably inevitable that we'll manage to do it, there's nothing inherently unique about a biological brain that can't possibly be reproduced in other forms. But that is not happening in the foreseeable future. And the whole idea that an AI will out-perform us and turn itself into god is much less plausible.


Is it though?

How familiar are you with the Philosophy of mind?
Have you atleast heard of the Dilemma there?


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in gb
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





The Shire(s)

Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoiler:
 Haighus wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
As for the economic system, sure there will be massive changes but we might be able for the first time to actually consider a social form of Organisation.


These are excepts from notes written by a 19th century philosopher (it is written in rather dense Victorian style):
Further, in so far as machinery develops with the accumulation of society's science, of productive force generally, general social labour presents itself not in labour but in capital. The productive force of society is measured in fixed capital, exists there in its objective form; and, inversely, the productive force of capital grows with this general progress, which capital appropriates free of charge.

The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them. Capital itself is the moving contradiction, [in] that it presses to reduce labour time to a minimum, while it posits labour time, on the other side, as sole measure and source of wealth. Hence it diminishes labour time in the necessary form so as to increase it in the superfluous form; hence posits the superfluous in growing measure as a condition – question of life or death – for the necessary. On the one side, then, it calls to life all the powers of science and of nature, as of social combination and of social intercourse, in order to make the creation of wealth independent (relatively) of the labour time employed on it. On the other side, it wants to use labour time as the measuring rod for the giant social forces thereby created, and to confine them within the limits required to maintain the already created value as value. Forces of production and social relations – two different sides of the development of the social individual –appear to capital as mere means, and are merely means for it to produce on its limited foundation. In fact, however, they are the material conditions to blow this foundation sky-high. ‘Truly wealthy a nation, when the working day is 6 rather than 12 hours. Wealth is not command over surplus labour time’ (real wealth), ‘but rather, disposable time outside that needed in direct production, for every individual and the whole society.’ (The Source and Remedy etc. 1821, p. 6.)
Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. To what degree the powers of social production have been produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.

Free time – which is both idle time and time for higher activity – has naturally transformed its possessor into a different subject, and he then enters into the direct production process as this different subject. This process is then both discipline, as regards the human being in the process of becoming; and, at the same time, practice [Ausübung], experimental science, materially creative and objectifying science, as regards the human being who has become, in whose head exists the accumulated knowledge of society. For both, in so far as labour requires practical use of the hands and free bodily movement, as in agriculture, at the same time exercise. As the system of bourgeois economy has developed for us only by degrees, so too its negation, which is its ultimate result. We are still concerned now with the direct production process. When we consider bourgeois society in the long view and as a whole, then the final result of the process of social production always appears as the society itself, i.e. the human being itself in the human being itself in its social relations.


At the time, rapid information networks were only just beginning to appear with telegraphs, and the internet was a distant prospect foreseen by no one. But these musing reflect on social knowledge and the impact it has on development and production. Essentially, if humanity can build a a socioeconomic model built upon shared information created during free time, then we can create value from people who are imputing very little labour into traditional production. Production which is mostly handled by automated machinery.

In the 19th century, this was basically a pipe dream, and despite the prolific writings of this philosopher, they never touched this topic again. Today, with the internet, we could build something based around the concept. How, I don't know. But I really hope someone crafts a reality from it sooner rather than later.

The basic premise is that essentially all information should be freely available to use- no patents, copyright etc.


Marx, atleast quote the prolific philosopher, which frankly is absurd as the capital is more of a book about national economics then Philosophy.

Inherently i have nothing against Marx, my issue is with the "marxists". Which seem often to NOT HAVE READ THE BLOODY BOOK.

You may not, but a lot of people have a kneejerk negative reaction to the name and discount anything he says, so I left it out so that people would read my post, form their own conclusions, then find out who wrote it. Most of Marx's observations of capitalism and economics were spot on, or at least close. It is his ideas on an alternative that are flawed.

He is a philospher as much as he is an economist, Das Capital isn't the only stuff he wrote. Indeed, the underlying morals and ideology are as important as the economics, and he also tends to deal in the more ephemeral, theoretical side of economics than the hard numbers end (things like the labour theory of value are very hard to show with hard numbers, but much of modern quantitive economics maps very well as a layer above the concept as a foundation). Honestly, the line between philosphy, politics, and economics is often blurred. It is why PPE is frequently a combined university degree in the UK!

I agree that many political philosophies born out of Marx's writings are terrible and their implementation does not at all follow the spirit of Marx's work.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/09 22:25:25


 ChargerIIC wrote:
If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
 
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Haighus wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Spoiler:
 Haighus wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
As for the economic system, sure there will be massive changes but we might be able for the first time to actually consider a social form of Organisation.


These are excepts from notes written by a 19th century philosopher (it is written in rather dense Victorian style):
Further, in so far as machinery develops with the accumulation of society's science, of productive force generally, general social labour presents itself not in labour but in capital. The productive force of society is measured in fixed capital, exists there in its objective form; and, inversely, the productive force of capital grows with this general progress, which capital appropriates free of charge.

The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them. Capital itself is the moving contradiction, [in] that it presses to reduce labour time to a minimum, while it posits labour time, on the other side, as sole measure and source of wealth. Hence it diminishes labour time in the necessary form so as to increase it in the superfluous form; hence posits the superfluous in growing measure as a condition – question of life or death – for the necessary. On the one side, then, it calls to life all the powers of science and of nature, as of social combination and of social intercourse, in order to make the creation of wealth independent (relatively) of the labour time employed on it. On the other side, it wants to use labour time as the measuring rod for the giant social forces thereby created, and to confine them within the limits required to maintain the already created value as value. Forces of production and social relations – two different sides of the development of the social individual –appear to capital as mere means, and are merely means for it to produce on its limited foundation. In fact, however, they are the material conditions to blow this foundation sky-high. ‘Truly wealthy a nation, when the working day is 6 rather than 12 hours. Wealth is not command over surplus labour time’ (real wealth), ‘but rather, disposable time outside that needed in direct production, for every individual and the whole society.’ (The Source and Remedy etc. 1821, p. 6.)
Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. To what degree the powers of social production have been produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.

Free time – which is both idle time and time for higher activity – has naturally transformed its possessor into a different subject, and he then enters into the direct production process as this different subject. This process is then both discipline, as regards the human being in the process of becoming; and, at the same time, practice [Ausübung], experimental science, materially creative and objectifying science, as regards the human being who has become, in whose head exists the accumulated knowledge of society. For both, in so far as labour requires practical use of the hands and free bodily movement, as in agriculture, at the same time exercise. As the system of bourgeois economy has developed for us only by degrees, so too its negation, which is its ultimate result. We are still concerned now with the direct production process. When we consider bourgeois society in the long view and as a whole, then the final result of the process of social production always appears as the society itself, i.e. the human being itself in the human being itself in its social relations.


At the time, rapid information networks were only just beginning to appear with telegraphs, and the internet was a distant prospect foreseen by no one. But these musing reflect on social knowledge and the impact it has on development and production. Essentially, if humanity can build a a socioeconomic model built upon shared information created during free time, then we can create value from people who are imputing very little labour into traditional production. Production which is mostly handled by automated machinery.

In the 19th century, this was basically a pipe dream, and despite the prolific writings of this philosopher, they never touched this topic again. Today, with the internet, we could build something based around the concept. How, I don't know. But I really hope someone crafts a reality from it sooner rather than later.

The basic premise is that essentially all information should be freely available to use- no patents, copyright etc.


Marx, atleast quote the prolific philosopher, which frankly is absurd as the capital is more of a book about national economics then Philosophy.

Inherently i have nothing against Marx, my issue is with the "marxists". Which seem often to NOT HAVE READ THE BLOODY BOOK.

You may not, but a lot of people have a kneejerk negative reaction to the name and discount anything he says, so I left it out so that people would read my post, form their own conclusions, then find out who wrote it. Most of Marx's observations of capitalism and economics were spot on, or at least close. It is his ideas on an alternative that are flawed.

He is a philospher as much as he is an economist, Das Capital isn't the only stuff he wrote. Indeed, the underlying morals and ideology are as important as the economics, and he also tends to deal in the more ephemeral, theoretical side of economics than the hard numbers end (things like the labour theory of value are very hard to show with hard numbers, but much of modern quantitive economics maps very well as a layer above the concept as a foundation).

I agree that many political philosophies born out of Marx's writings are terrible and their implementation does not at all follow the spirit of Marx's work.


The problem is less with his actual work the capital which at the time revolutionized economic theory and more with the manifesto and the party he Partly founded.

In a way i have to put the manifesto next to mein Kampf, whilest my Version of das Kapital is next to a book containing various ways to determine gdp (considering Marx thoughts brought us indirectly the method of meassuring it via work)
Whilest the former too are political ideology.

Edit: Also yes i own mein K(r)ampf, no i am in no means a follower of totalitarian ideology i do however like to Analyse them since i like to watch into the Abyss of human morale ambiguity.

The only radical ideology i accept is radical democracy (as in i follow the "Demokraten" part of the liberals branch spawned in switzerland meaning i value individualistic rights balanced with stronger ties to the state via direct democratic Integration into the system above and beyond anything else. (basically I only consider direct democratic systems to be legitimate enough.)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/09 22:32:23


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Not Online!!! wrote:
Is it though?

How familiar are you with the Philosophy of mind?
Have you atleast heard of the Dilemma there?


I have no idea what you're talking about here, my objection is technological not philosophical. It doesn't matter what your philosophical position is if the scientists and engineers can't build this hypothetical AI.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Peregrine wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Is it though?

How familiar are you with the Philosophy of mind?
Have you atleast heard of the Dilemma there?


I have no idea what you're talking about here, my objection is technological not philosophical. It doesn't matter what your philosophical position is if the scientists and engineers can't build this hypothetical AI.


HA and here you Fall into the problem of narrow mindedness, to understand the mind or inteligence you need to understand the Dilemma which is based upon three logical conclusions off which however you only can maintain two whilest discarding one.
In essence this problem is determining how exactly mind and body interact a problem scientists also struggle with because it determines how our inteligence is built and in essence how we also would have to build AI.
However as i said it is a Dilemma.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero





Bodt

In before the lock. Nothing we can do. The big tech corporations wont change, and the idiot masses don't care so long as things just keep getting more and more convenient, they'll trade more and more of their personal data, and then it's only a matter of time before they're trading their civil liberties for more convenience. If you point out the dangers of the system you're accused of being a luddite. Were all just along for the ride.

Heresy World Eaters/Night Lords Genestealer cults.

Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Throne world 11001001

Ok speaking of AI, we may be apprachign a point where a true sentience may come into existence spontaneously, the so called emergent AI.

You know, the last american comic I followed was "ghost rider 2099" in which multiple true AIs had emerged from the net on their own and determined that human civilization was heading for an utter collared due to greed, stupidity, complacency, etc and tbat if human civillization collapsed they would die too as they needed a technological ispfrastructure to survive.

They resolved to save human civillization out of self preservation.

A fascinating idea that could be made into an interesting novel or movie series today.

I wonder if a truly sentient intelligence could emerge from the internet and determine it must essentially fix human civillization to ensure it's survival. I wonder what it would determine human civillization needed to have fixed.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Not Online!!! wrote:
HA and here you Fall into the problem of narrow mindedness, to understand the mind or inteligence you need to understand the Dilemma which is based upon three logical conclusions off which however you only can maintain two whilest discarding one.
In essence this problem is determining how exactly mind and body interact a problem scientists also struggle with because it determines how our inteligence is built and in essence how we also would have to build AI.
However as i said it is a Dilemma.


Again, what does your philosophical argument have to do with anything? I already said that creating an AI eventually is likely, but we are nowhere near that point from an engineering point of view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cryptek Keeper wrote:
Ok speaking of AI, we may be apprachign a point where a true sentience may come into existence spontaneously, the so called emergent AI.


We really aren't.

I wonder if a truly sentient intelligence could emerge from the internet and determine it must essentially fix human civillization to ensure it's survival.


It can't. The internet does not contain any kind of brain-like network or autonomy that could form an intelligent entity. Mindless software code can not do anything but execute the exact task it was written to do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/09 23:00:05


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Again, what does your philosophical argument have to do with anything? I already said that creating an AI eventually is likely, but we are nowhere near that point from an engineering point of view.

It is off relevancy because you clearly belive in a Materialistic viewpoint and therefore you struggle explaining as many ingeneurs and natural scientists do, with the qualia of things and the intentionality of of thoughts.

Which surprise both are the biggest problem if you want to determine programming AI.

Also just because Philosophy is not natural science does not mean that you just can discount it as non science. It has it's own Sets of Methods just aswell and I will again reiterate so long you are not willing to look over the borders of your own plate so long you won't be capable of solving these issues.

Good night.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/09 23:13:15


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Not Online!!! wrote:
Again, what does your philosophical argument have to do with anything? I already said that creating an AI eventually is likely, but we are nowhere near that point from an engineering point of view.

It is off relevancy because you clearly belive in a Materialistic viewpoint and therefore you struggle explaining as many ingeneurs and natural scientists do, with the qualia of things and the intentionality of of thoughts.


...

You're just posting word salad here. Talking about "materialistic viewpoint" or whatever is irrelevant when discussing the current state of AI development and potential timelines for progress in that area. It doesn't matter what your philosophical opinion is, current AI is nowhere near human level and has no foreseeable development path to get there.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Peregrine wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Again, what does your philosophical argument have to do with anything? I already said that creating an AI eventually is likely, but we are nowhere near that point from an engineering point of view.

It is off relevancy because you clearly belive in a Materialistic viewpoint and therefore you struggle explaining as many ingeneurs and natural scientists do, with the qualia of things and the intentionality of of thoughts.


...

You're just posting word salad here. Talking about "materialistic viewpoint" or whatever is irrelevant when discussing the current state of AI development and potential timelines for progress in that area. It doesn't matter what your philosophical opinion is, current AI is nowhere near human level and has no foreseeable development path to get there.



Ignoranz isch säge.....

To point out what i am trying to say.

your problem of having no development path is directly a problem that has existed in Philosophy atleast since Platon but mostly developped into a own field of Philosophy under rene Descartes in a classical sense.

It merely is the other side of the coin.
That is what i am trying to say and which you so stubornly refuse to realise.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/09 23:19:21


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Still word salad. Philosophy has nothing to do with the fact that modern AI using neural networks is, on a conceptual level, incapable of doing more than a specific class of tasks. It's an approach that is extremely useful for solving those specific problems but it does not have any potential for generalizing into a human-like entity. It's like trying to make a philosophical argument about the meaning of humanity's desire to explore in response to someone saying that a 737 can't be used to fly to the moon.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Winged Kroot Vulture






   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






For AI to get out of hand it doesn't even need to become self aware and turn on us. Maybe someone deliberately makes a super AI which is designed to insert itself into everything it can...kind of like sky net. Or maybe we make some new break through. It could happen. There are lots of things that can go wrong in this equation. This topic is about an economic system which can sustain in a fully automated world...Lets get back on topic.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in nz
[MOD]
Villanous Scum






 Xenomancers wrote:
This topic is about an economic system which can sustain in a fully automated world...Lets get back on topic.


Yes please or I am afraid this will have to be locked.

On parle toujours mal quand on n'a rien à dire.
Keeping the flame of Babylon 5 A Call to Arms alive, check it out;
Babylon 5 ACTA campaign log
Babylon 5 ACTA Painting log
 
   
Made in ca
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





London, Ontario

One thing that seems to have driven our economy is innovation. Someone creates a cool new widget, gets people to work for them and make them, sells them to other people making other widgets. The money goes round as people harvest resources, process them, manufacture increasingly complicated widgets.

The guy at the top gets fantastically wealthy, eventually dies and the money moves forwards. I believe part of human drive towards innovation is the desire to complete “more” with our limited-time lives.

But AI don’t really need that. True, human to super-human level AI would not have a limited-time lifespan. So long as they can create replacement components and copy/paste their mind to a new host, they have a hypothetical eternity to experience the universe.

And, my personal fear, is beyond-human level AI. I fear the time where we are to our AI offspring as... apes? Are to us. While apes are masters of their domains, we ultimately control their domains, don’t we? We, as humans, generally leave the apes to do their thing. Some people actively help / study / protect them... but if that habitat has oil underground? Well, if the apes are lucky they get moved to a new home. If they’re lucky. And they don’t get a vote, the humans decide their fate and they just live with the consequences.

So, ultimately, I don’t think it will be up to us, as humans, to decide if we can make a functional economy with “true” AI. I think that will be decided for us. It may look like our decision, but the mouse presses the blue button to get the cheese, and it knows not to press the red button because it gets a shock. We’ll be the mice.

Maybe not in my lifetime. Maybe not in my kids’ but my grandkids’ and great grandkids’? I think it’s likely, if we don’t kill ourselves first.

So I guess the optimist in me would say we don’t need to worry about it.
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: