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. |
|
|
2019/01/13 19:06:05
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
Money = production.
Productions goes up - money goes up.
Capitalism basically just decided those at the top get the majority of the money. A modified capitalism is required where those that produce make money but so do those who don't (because we don't need them to produce anymore). You can still have an incentive based system where those that produce make more money but those who can't can still surive and have happy lives.
Money isn't just a concept that helps us decided how we divid up the pie.
|
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 |
|
|
|
2019/01/13 19:12:44
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
Azreal13 wrote:The improvements don't even have to be incremental.
IBM have this week unveiled the System One Q, a commercially available (eventually) quantum computer.
It's in a 9' tall glass cabinet, it needs a lot of space much like early conventional computers, but if the development of quantum follows the evolution of binary, we could be seeing home machines, and then handheld devices as normal before the next century.
Once that tech becomes more robust and portable, AI and robots will make a massive (quantum?) leap forwards.
Breaking down your sentence, you started with the unknown; namely 'if the development....we could'. But then that turned into 'Once that tech becomes'. In short, you went from uncertain hypotheses to a declarative statement of certainty. It begs the question, what if the evolution of quantum doesn't progress the way you anticipate? Or what if it does, but there's no further step beyond that?
The substance of my observation (in case it isn't entirely clear, judging by people's responses) isn't so much to argue about where the exact 'hard-point' of human technological invention can be drawn. It might well happen before robots are able to fully replace us, or it might not, that's impossible to say. Given we're talking at least a century plus in the future, you'd have to be an idiot to try and speculate seriously on that score.
No, my observation was merely that everybody treats the continued technological progress of mankind as a certainty; that invention will follow invention, that groundbreaking discoveries on a regular timetabled basis are mere inevitabilities. But both logically and mathematically speaking, that assumption is deeply flawed, and in a way, it is just as interesting to speculate what it means for society if robots can NEVER fully replace humans. If our advancements level off, and there always needs to be someone cleaning other people's toilets. What happens to our dreams of egalitarian utopia then?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/13 19:14:27
|
|
|
|
2019/01/13 19:27:40
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
Well obviously this entire discussion is based on assumptions of what will happen.
A giant asteroid could wipe us all next week.
It's probably best to confine the discussion to what we can see happening based on what's already occurred, what's happening now and it's relationship with what came before.
Quantum computing was theory only very recently, it has now advanced to the point where working units will be available to anyone with the cash and desire to own one.
We have an existing paradigm to describe how computing tends to develop, and so it seems that at this point a reasonable assumption that having reached a significant milestone on the same journey, it will proceed in a similar way. But nothing is certain, hence some of my language.
We already have, or at least can see on the road map, most of the tech needed to make most of the ideas discussed a reality, so to attach "if it happens" to many of them would be redundant and is probably already assumed by most posters.
If there's a hard limit to mankind's progression, I'd posit it's well ahead of most of the concepts discussed here.
|
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
|
|
2019/01/13 20:13:57
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine
Between Alpha and Omega, and a little to the left
|
Personally I'm less worried about all jobs being replaced so much as what Paragrine describes being the norm: Skill based jobs being filtered out and replaced with menial ones that pay less, resulting in a lower quality of life as people compete for jobs that could barely live on to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
2019/01/13 20:21:31
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
Azreal13 wrote:
We already have, or at least can see on the road map, most of the tech needed to make most of the ideas discussed a reality, so to attach "if it happens" to many of them would be redundant and is probably already assumed by most posters.
If you honestly think that we already have the road map and most of the tech required for robotics to feasibly replace all of mankind in all jobs; I think you're wildly over-optimistic to the point of complete delusion. I don't say that to be offensive (honest, I'm not trying to be snarky or chuck out bait here), but because it just completely doesn't match up at all with even the current intense requirements of the quantum computing which you're proffering as a potential solution.
Nobody has yet built a computer capable of true artifical sentience or self-awareness (which is what would be required as a bare minimum to replace all humans in all jobs). Nobody even knows how to produce that effect as of yet. And that's literally the first step. Even if we assumed that the quantum computers now within reach are capable of doing the job, do you know what the intense cooling requirements of those things are? What their electricity requirements are? How physically large they are? The vast difficulties around keeping 'noise' out even in specially constructed custom buildings?
To try and contain all of that into a machine the size of a human brain which can operate autonomouslyin an external environment (requiring further advances still in battery technology, shielding, etc) would require theoretical and engineering advances that are about as far away from us right now as the equipment used back in the 1880's is from what we use today. At the least. And that's all making a massive assumption that quantum computers can do the job. What if they can't? What if the ones that could are either physically impossible, or would be restricted to building sized machines?
We have absolutely no idea at this stage if there'll be Star Wars droids wandering around in a hundred years, or if we'll hit a technological barrier so fast we'll get whiplash in eighty.
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2019/01/13 20:50:08
|
|
|
|
2019/01/13 20:30:15
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
There don't need to be enough robots to replace all human workers, just to replace enough human workers to create a huge pool of permanently unemployed people and allow employers to set the terms of employment to burn out the "lucky ones" for unlivable wages. Automatically Appended Next Post: Luke_Prowler wrote:Personally I'm less worried about all jobs being replaced so much as what Paragrine describes being the norm: Skill based jobs being filtered out and replaced with menial ones that pay less, resulting in a lower quality of life as people compete for jobs that could barely live on to begin with.
Looks to me like we're almost there already, except the menial jobs are also going away.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/13 20:31:27
|
|
|
|
2019/01/13 20:53:11
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
Ketara wrote: Azreal13 wrote:
We already have, or at least can see on the road map, most of the tech needed to make most of the ideas discussed a reality, so to attach "if it happens" to many of them would be redundant and is probably already assumed by most posters.
If you honestly think that we already have the road map and most of the tech required for robotics to feasibly replace all of mankind in all jobs; I think you're wildly over-optimistic to the point of complete delusion. I don't say that to be offensive (honest, I'm not trying to be snarky or chuck out bait here), but because it just completely doesn't match up at all with even the current intense requirements of the quantum computing which you're proffering as a potential solution.
Nobody has yet built a human brain-sized computer capable of true artifical sentience or self-awareness (which is what would be required as a bare minimum to replace all humans in all jobs). Nobody even knows how to produce that effect as of yet. And that's literally the first step. Even if we assumed that the quantum computers now within reach are capable of doing the job, do you know what the intense cooling requirements of those things are? What their electricity requirements are? How physically large they are? The vast difficulties around keeping 'noise' out even in specially constructed custom buildings?
To try and contain all of that into a machine the size of a human brain which can operate autonomouslyin an external environment (requiring further advances still in battery technology, shielding, etc) would require theoretical and engineering advances that are about as far away from us right now as the equipment used back in the 1880's is from what we use today. At the least. And that's all making a massive assumption that quantum computers can do the job. What if they can't? What if the ones that could are either physically impossible, or would be restricted to building sized machines?
We have absolutely no idea at this stage if there'll be Star Wars droids wandering around in a hundred years, or if we'll hit a technological barrier so fast we'll get whiplash in eighty.
Who's to say we need to make something the size of a human brain? Why do robots need to resemble humans at all? I suspect it would be possible for many jobs to have the robot's "personality" networked rather than have everything be stored in the machine itself. A robot never needs to leave the environment necessary to perform its job. We already have quantum computers that don't need special rooms etc, that's the signicance of the IBM machine I mentioned. Well, at least nothing special beyond your typical office server room at least.
But the point remains that this is a theoretical conversation, and saying "what if it doesn't happen" essentially just undermines the central conceit of the whole discussion. You could go back and quote every single post and counter it with "what if that doesn't happen?" It's pretty much a given that it might not, and discussing it is kind of redundant.
|
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
|
|
2019/01/13 21:05:14
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex
|
Azreal13 wrote:
Who's to say we need to make something the size of a human brain? Why do robots need to resemble humans at all?
The line was 'ALL' jobs. That means that they need to look like people (if they're going to replace counsellors, sex workers, teachers, and all other jobs which might require in depth human interaction).
But the point remains that this is a theoretical conversation, and saying "what if it doesn't happen" essentially just undermines the central conceit of the whole discussion. You could go back and quote every single post and counter it with "what if that doesn't happen?" It's pretty much a given that it might not, and discussing it is kind of redundant.
If 'What if it doesn't happen' is all you're getting out of my posts, then communication is probably eluding us here. No worries.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/13 21:05:19
|
|
|
|
2019/01/13 21:21:43
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
Ketara wrote:
I think this is a fun area to explore and very relevant to this thread. We hear many statements along the lines of the above; but what evidence are they based upon? How can we test their veracity?
There is this general assumption that mechanisation and robotics will continue to improve continually and endlessly; that it will become ever more intelligent/capable, that new innovations will carry on spitting out fresh new components which do the jobs of the older ones marginally better ad infinitum.
But.....says who? How do we not know that there we aren't heading towards a 'hard limit' beyond which we won't be able to improve the processors of computers? Why do we assume that there's a code we'll be able to devise which will mimic sentience sufficiently well to replace people? Where does this unbridled faith in the apparently infinite potential of technology to achieve absolutely anything come from?
The fact that we've managed to innovate as far as we have is really no guarantee of anything at all. Thinking critically/logically, there must be an end point at which we cannot proceed any further, after all. Where there are no more large discoveries to be made, no great advances in material sciences and engineering left to occur. Why do we presume that this 'hard limit' is going to be at the level of some sort of post-scarcity society? And not say, a hundred years from now?
People in the West in this day and age are raised with the unquestioned assumption that because technology has changed our lives so radically and quickly in comparison to those of our immediate ancestors; that it will continue to do so indefinitely. It's virtually a faith at this point. 'Donate some money, and we can beat -medical condition here- forever'. But...can we? Is it possible that there are diseases we can suffer from which no technology will ever fix? A degree of sentience no machine will ever mimic? Engineering challenges that will forever be out of our reach to execute?
As a corollary; what would that mean for society once we hit that 'hard limit'?
I sure hope so, and I hope it happens soon.
|
Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children
Instagram: nagrakali_love_songs |
|
|
|
2019/01/13 21:30:22
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
Ketara wrote: Azreal13 wrote:
Who's to say we need to make something the size of a human brain? Why do robots need to resemble humans at all?
The line was 'ALL' jobs. That means that they need to look like people (if they're going to replace counsellors, sex workers, teachers, and all other jobs which might require in depth human interaction).
But the point remains that this is a theoretical conversation, and saying "what if it doesn't happen" essentially just undermines the central conceit of the whole discussion. You could go back and quote every single post and counter it with "what if that doesn't happen?" It's pretty much a given that it might not, and discussing it is kind of redundant.
If 'What if it doesn't happen' is all you're getting out of my posts, then communication is probably eluding us here. No worries.
Do they need to look like humans to do those jobs? I mean teachers and counselors already conduct remote sessions over Skype etc. There isn't a huge leap to the face in the screen being artificial. Maybe sex workers need to look human (depends on the human I guess, the local Anne Summers has plenty of stuff that only looks like bits of a human) but again, no need for the "brain" to be contained in the physically form. Can easily network to the cloud, much like we already have with the variety of smart assistants.
Equally, if you can delineate the difference between "what if there's a hard limit beyond which technology cannot be advanced" and "what if none of this happens" beyond some semantics and specific cases, we'll probably be more on the same page.
|
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
|
|
2019/01/13 22:11:01
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle
|
There's a major component to this issue which no one has addressed: demographics. Automation would not be quite such a foregone conclusion if the populations of industrialized nations weren't shrinking and growing older. The pool of native born, working age people in first world nations like Japan, the US and European countries is not going to be enough to meet labor demands in the near future, especially as the current population grows older and gets out of the workforce. In our system of global neoliberal capitalism this is very bad as gdp growth, credit and an an appreciating real estate market are the financial drugs we've become addicted to, and a withdrawal from those things would be nearly fatal and wipe out trillions of dollars of value for investors. Part of the reason there's such a big push for immigration in industrialized nations is because people know this and are rushing to replace the aging population to meet (or even create) those demands. I wouldn't be so certain that this system won't find a way to sustain itself at pretty much any cost, because the landlords who we all rent everything from these days have everything to lose from letting gdp or real estate growth falter.
If liquidity can be maintained through automation then it will be, and we will go on with this weird late stage capitalism until the debts finally get called in somehow and it collapses. Automation itself is only part of the equation though because they need to increase housing demand and consumption otherwise the markets crash and they lose everything. So even if robots take up the slack as far as labor goes, everything will be done to preserve the current system no matter how little it makes sense in the long term. Robots won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back because the camel is already dead and zombified and the real question is how long its desiccated corpse can crawl around until it finally decays.
|
|
|
|
|
2019/01/13 23:03:49
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
Grey Templar wrote:Not Online!!! wrote:Situation in scenario: worker can't even work anymore, ergo the state intervenes because he has a duty torwards the small, and look at that, he could just use this new cheap labour of robots to do anything at minimal cost, making socialism possible for the first time.
Sure, it sounds good on paper. The problem is that the socialism state can only function through taxes. You've still got to pay the few people who are working, but those are also the only people you can tax. And there is also no incentive for people to even do those few jobs because the can just have all their needs provided for free. Why work and have your pay taxed out the wazoo when you can just do nothing and have all needs taken care of?
So because the system doesn't work, the system collapses and you have starving masses rioting in the streets.
There's going to be starving masses rioting in the streets when there's no jobs for people to earn pay with, and under capitalism it's not only right to let them starve, but necessary to reduce the surplus of labor and increase it's value.
|
CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. |
|
|
|
2019/01/13 23:13:24
Subject: Re:Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Grey Templar wrote:Nothing about limiting automation requires a totalitarian regime or a planned economy. It just requires a regulatory organization which enforces standards regarding how much a process can be automated. It could even be a relatively simple set of guidelines. Such as "At least X% of your machinery has to be incapable of doing anything without human input". No requirements about how many humans you need to have, just requirements that you have X% of your equipment be non-automated.
You can still have a mostly capitalist system with this type of regulation. Heck, we have regulations today that are far more invasive and strict than this in other areas.
Let's assume that you manage to limit automation and we still have a "free and open" capitalistic system (according to your ideal scenario). What do you think the people with the money will do? Will they abide by those regulations and build those factories like your laws would postulate or will they just build their factories in the next country over there where such a regulation doesn't exist? And what then, a trade war? That should be fun.
Ah, okay, got it. To that I would say that before that happens we'd probably already have enough other problems that will cause us to restructure society to be less capitalistic when it comes to fundamental survival needs (food/shelter). From what I remember even now we make more food that we need but due to the need to "make profit" on something that's so fundamental to survival we have a rather uneven distribution (first world countries are throwing away huge amounts of food (I think it was about 50+%), and third world countries lack food). Similar issues exist for housing where a lot of housing is empty but we also have homeless people. If those issues were to get a lot worse than they are now, we (meaning: everyone) would probably slowly reduce those inefficiencies to create a new (and more socialised) equilibrium because the profit motive is extracting value by creating suffering on the side of poor people.
Ketara wrote:Are we? Perhaps you specifically were (without re-reading the thread I couldn't say); but the overall premise of the thread is robots taking 'ALL' the jobs. Not just some. The lot. And it's that concept (or anything close to it) that I'm addressing here.
I think we can both agree that robots being able to perform any and every function better than a human can do for cheaper is far beyond a mere re-application of existing technologies. Incremental advances and refinements only take you so far. It would require extremely considerable advances; both from a knowledge perspective and a material sciences one. Certainly farmoreso than the question of the space elevator (which really isn't that far away as compared to previous jumps in material sciences over the last two centuries).
I think the idea that robots will take all the jobs would really need some sort of technological singularity (more SF than reality at the moment) but as long as incremental progress is happening, it means that automation will keep eliminating working class jobs (for the most part). And you don't need to eliminate 100% of those jobs to create a situation where a country gets into real problems. I can't remember what the exact number was (or what the baseline was, I think the article I read was about US numbers) but I think it was something along the lines of an additional 10–15% of long term unemployment would cause real damage to the economy and tax situation of a country.
The unemployment numbers everywhere look better than they actually are due to what counts as you being unemployed. Too many people don't have sufficient savings or are a mild problem away from disaster. Add more unemployed people and a reduction in social safety nets and services and you don't need robots to replace 100% of us to get a serious problem. They just need to nibble away at enough of our jobs. In a way, a 100% replacement would actually be good because it would mean we wouldn't need to work at all and it would instantly question the viability of capitalism at this point. It would mean we have really cheap supply of what ever we want. I think the dangerous part of automation is that it could have a subtle destabilising effect over time without us really noticing it that much and prolonging the suffering of huge amounts of people just because we stuck with what we knew instead of rethinking how our society should deal with those issues.
The economies of developed countries have all already shifted more towards a service economy (and are slowly (and partly) moving towards the unstable version: the gig economy) and everybody else is catching up fast (salaries in China have also made significant chunks of automation viable over there). Inequality keeps rising, taxes get sidestepped by those who actually have money, and jobs for a regular person are not as plentiful as a few decades ago. The question is: What's the next shift after industrialisation and the shift to a service economy? And with service economy being such a wide reaching term will there even be a shift? Will it all be about millennials occasionally sending each other some money via Patreon and GoFundMe so they can pay rent?
|
|
|
|
2019/01/13 23:19:51
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
Jjohnso11 wrote:More or less I foresee robots working along side humans to provide both the muscle and database without the creative design or imagination. The amount of factory jobs vs service jobs are already skewed in developed countries as it is.
True, but how many people have any talent for creative design? I imagine a fair number of gamers could manage, but could Joe Six-Pack, whose work consists of repetative actions and whose entertainment consists of vegetating in front of the T.V. with a beer?
And with the vast increase in communications capability we've created even now, why would you WANT any but the handful who are the very very best at it doing that work in the first place? Automatically Appended Next Post: Luke_Prowler wrote:Personally I'm less worried about all jobs being replaced so much as what Paragrine describes being the norm: Skill based jobs being filtered out and replaced with menial ones that pay less, resulting in a lower quality of life as people compete for jobs that could barely live on to begin with.
I have bad news for you.
It's already happening, and has been for quite some time.
Ask accountants what happened to the profession in the eighties, when the PC hit the workplace...
Heck, it goes back way farther than that. A skilled tailor used to make big bucks making (for example) a suit of clothes. It was so expensive that few people could AFFORD more than two outfits. Now, much of the work is mechanized, there are few dedicated tailors left (although they still make big bucks)... and what you have is a bunch of seamstresses in third-world sweatshops making less per month than American minimum wage per HOUR.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/13 23:29:39
CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. |
|
|
|
2019/01/14 00:04:47
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Wicked Warp Spider
|
Ketara wrote:
nou wrote:Our rate of progress is the exponential part. The part of exceeding our comprehension comes from the very nature of exponential functions - at some point they progress so fast, that they are practically vertical. We cannot fathom a reality in which human knowledge doubles daily or on per hour basis and that is a logical conclusion of ever speeding progress that already doubles every 15 years. That is why I fundamentally agree with you - there always exist some hard limit for exponential growth. And I'm not talking only about biological species - we do not know about any instances of endless exponential growth - even cosmological inflation had an end to it. The last perfect illustration of how exponential growth leads to inevitable collapse is last years Bitcoin bubble. The only way to go past the exponential era unharmed is if it slows down to some kind of asymptotic growth.
So what do you imagine would be the logical consequence of it in the field of technology (in the broader academic sense)? Speculating broadly, there would inevitably be a levelling off as actual invention gave way more to innovation (it will take some time to re-consider/refine everything from several angles and squeeze every last bit of knowledge juice and utility from discoveries made). But what does it mean for society when it hits?
That highly depends on the exact stage of knowledge "end of progress" or collapse of exponential growth happens at, so probable answers are many, to many to even briefly name all of those, there is a whole section of futurology and philosophy dedicated to answer such questions and resolve Fermi Paradox - which is ultimately what this thread is all about.
If it happens after practical quantuum computation but before we get rid with stock market economy, then capitalism will end in Flash Crash magnitudes larger than the one in 2010 or fully blown economic wars, we will be thrown into barter trade for a short while and then restart capitalism from scratch somewhere at XVIII-XIX century levels (because despite what all socialist and communist say, the biggest strenght of capitalism is that it is an emergent property of trade and happens spontaneously with complex enough trade net).
If it happens before practical quantuum computation, then growth economics model will collapse due to both demographics strain (as Luciferean rather aptly pointed out) and lack of necessity of replacing products with newer generations of those same products due to only small innovations not being enough to justify replacement. It is much harder to predict what happens afterwards, but the most probable result is a global conflict that resets us back a century or two and we restart capitalism again...
If by any chance we manage to avoid collapse scenario, then we will find ourselves in stagnation and slow decay reality and that will in relatively short time lead to resource wars and in effect only delay collapse and restart scenario.
But what has to be said in such futurological context, is that we probably face a much bigger problem of post-antibiotic era much sooner than we face "post-technological advance era". Post-antibiotic era inevitably reduces global population rapidly and restores it to XVIII-XIX levels, changes model of habitation back to sparse and ends the whole women emancipation trend that started with penicilin.
The common denominator of all those scenarios is that stable level of human advancement and sustainable economy is more likely to look like XVIII century than like XXX century we imagine today. I don't believe in any Orwelian like dystopias of global oppresive state nor in communist utopias of "greater good" oppresive state as "ends of history", as both are fundamentally incompatible with human species and both are not naturally stable. There might be a way to alter human species behavior due to pharmacology and other biological manipulation means and end up somewhere close to Huxley's vision, but that would be a trully best case, one in a million chance result.
And IMHO we will never even reach Type I level on Kardashev scale.
|
|
|
|
2019/01/14 03:24:59
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Infiltrating Broodlord
|
Totalwar1402 wrote:I recently went to a tech conference where they talked about all the advances AI have made and how it’s likely that most human jobs will have disappeared within the next few decades due to automation.
How would that work? If nobody can work then nobody has any money. If they have no money then they can’t buy things. If they can’t but things then, it doesn’t matter how productive or cheap the goods get as a result of automation. Companies will have nobody to sell to and would go bankrupt. How would say, Amazon, or McDonalds function if 60 plus percent of its consumer base became destitute? There wouldn’t be all the exchanges of money and capital to make it work. It’s not just going to be one industry but a vast swath of humanity rendered unnecessary and without worth. But wouldn’t it probably hurt a lot of companies that are aimed at selling to a mass market?
The more "robots/technology" we have, the more jobs we'll have.
How do I know this? All of human history. Right now, in America, at this very point in time, there are more jobs available than people within the borders.
So, when work hours were reduced by technology some 100ush years ago, there were people screaming the new robots are taking away the jobs. What happened, though? Because people worked less hours, two entirely new industries opened up - restaurant and vacation industries.
People had free time to enjoy life, so they took vacations and ate out. Two things that didn't exist for all of human history for roughly 95% of humanity.
Should I even bring up the internet? How this technology, run by servers and robots, "employs millions of bloggers, entertainers, journalists, marketers, etc..."
Let me put it this way - if anyones idea of "perfect humanity" is less robots, all you have to do is pass a law that forbids farm robots and machines. With that one stroke of a pen, you have now employed the entire planet back to working 7 days a week, starving and dying on farms.
I mean, I can being up countless examples.... You now have millions of artists able to draw, play music, write poetry and make a living doing so, when in the past, it was only a handful of families in nearly life long employ of aristocrats. Today, anyone can start a band online and sell their music for a good profit, when only 10 years ago, you had to struggle, and before then, you had to deal with the two of three large music publishers who ran your future through record deals.
More robots, the better for humanity. Why? Humans are thinking animals, not beasts of burden. We flourish when we have free time to plan for our future, not when we die on a farm by age 10 of a tooth ache like some beast of burden.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/14 03:26:40
Ayn Rand "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality" |
|
|
|
2019/01/14 04:10:58
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
BuFFo wrote:
Today, anyone can start a band online and sell their music for a good profit, when only 10 years ago, you had to struggle, and before then, you had to deal with the two of three large music publishers who ran your future through record deals.
Sure, today anyone can sell their music online. But make a profit? Unless you have a sufficient fanbase you're not going to actually make enough money to survive without having another job. Best case it's a hobby that pays for itself and gives a little extra spending money, but very few can actually make it their full time job.
It is highly unlikely that you could transition to having 90%+ of your population employed as entertainers and have them all making enough money to sustain themselves. Afterall, if everybody is an entertainer, who is being entertained? You still end up with a situation like we have today, where very few actually make it big in the industry and most people who try end up not getting much of a following(and thus a source of income).
As it is today, there are too many "Artists" of all types for our overall society. Most people who try to make it big, or even just enough to be professionals, will find no demand and a crowded job market. There are only so many spaces for musicians to play at live venues for pay, and only so much $ to pay them with. There are only so many art galleries, and only so many people willing to buy art. There are only so many sports teams and only so many spots they can take. There is only so much demand for video game designers.
For every person who is good enough to be able to make a living creating their Artwork, there is going to be several people who weren't good enough. Or who might have been good enough, but all the spaces were full and nobody would buy their stuff.
More robots, the better for humanity. Why? Humans are thinking animals, not beasts of burden. We flourish when we have free time to plan for our future, not when we die on a farm by age 10 of a tooth ache like some beast of burden.
Look, nobody is suggesting that we should go back to the dark ages. We're just saying that there is such a thing as too efficient. Eliminating work entirely is completely uncharted territory, and outside of wishful fantasy writing it doesn't exist. And everybody who has tried to move towards a completely collective society has utterly failed, so why do people keep trying?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/14 04:11:55
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
|
|
2019/01/14 07:13:22
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Terrifying Rhinox Rider
|
Vulcan wrote: Jjohnso11 wrote:More or less I foresee robots working along side humans to provide both the muscle and database without the creative design or imagination. The amount of factory jobs vs service jobs are already skewed in developed countries as it is.
True, but how many people have any talent for creative design? I imagine a fair number of gamers could manage, but could Joe Six-Pack, whose work consists of repetative actions and whose entertainment consists of vegetating in front of the T.V. with a beer?
Forgetting robots entirely, the purpose of a socialized economy where everything is publicly owned is the maximization of every individual’s potential.
In the wartime economies of the tens, thirties, and forties, massive numbers of people were either in the military or employed in war industries. However people were fed clothed and housed to the standard of a capitalist economy, and in the countries that weren’t under siege as Britain and Germany were, austerity was largely voluntary. The total number of working hours needed to provide for the population was absolutely nowhere near the total working hours available.
All of this was still happening with the inefficiencies of capital accumulation and capitalist overproduction.
We have similar conditions in peace time, where many people do meaningful work 40+ hours a week but have limited time for recreation, education, or raising children and doing house work or home improvement, but many other people do marginal or no work, and also don’t have the money for those other things.
Now imagine that instead of everyone either working 45 hours a week to provide, or doing war work, or living in destitution, everyone worked 14 hours a week and spent the rest of the time painting their elderly neighbors’ house, jumping off a rope swing into the swimming hole, or taking chemistry courses.
Many of the better firefighters at my old combination department were in senior positions in management, finance, and engineering. They did the job 18+ hours a week because they craved stimulation and meaningful work, and their parasitic levels of remuneration allowed them to swan in and out of their offices and spend time on their hobby job because their car was always fixed and they didn’t have the same problems and stresses as the “joe six packs” who “vegetate” because of some apparent moral inadequacy instead of you know, having been gak on by capitalism.
If you have a PhD you should drive a garbage truck six days a month and if you drive a garbage truck you should get to race rally and stock cars when you feel like it. Nobody’s the boss of you.
|
|
|
|
2019/01/14 07:55:31
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Douglas Bader
|
Grey Templar wrote:And everybody who has tried to move towards a completely collective society has utterly failed, so why do people keep trying?
Because it's the only option once capitalism and greed create massive numbers of unemployable people. In a capitalist system there is no choice with automation, you either automate your manufacturing to reduce costs or you get out-competed by your rivals who did and you go out of business. The fact that they'll eventually wreck the system isn't much comfort when your company is bankrupt right now. So once capitalism has created this disaster the question is how do you resolve it. And there are two possible options: socialism, or violent overthrow of the capitalist system followed by socialism. Because the people who are permanently unemployable aren't going to peacefully starve to death, they're going to take the wealthy s with them. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ketara wrote:Are we? Perhaps you specifically were (without re-reading the thread I couldn't say); but the overall premise of the thread is robots taking 'ALL' the jobs. Not just some. The lot. And it's that concept (or anything close to it) that I'm addressing here.
The literal interpretation of the thread is not particularly interesting because well before robots take over 100% of the jobs they will have taken over a large enough percentage to cause massive social change, the same sort of social change that would accommodate a world where they get 100%. The relevant question is what happens when they take a large, but not total, share of the jobs and the number of available jobs becomes much smaller than the total population. Can capitalism survive in a world of permanent 75% unemployment? We'd better answer that question, because that point is not as far off as some people think. And getting there is a matter of incremental improvements on existing technology.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/14 08:00:35
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. |
|
|
|
2019/01/14 19:06:06
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Keeper of the Flame
|
I remember that one time in the 90's when capitalist industry managers said "Hey, lets completely eliminate our customer base!"
Oh, that didn't happen? Probably right, because a capitalist economy operates off of three tenets: supply, demand, and profit. If there's no demand, no profit is to be made, so no supply will be created. Pretty basic. On the same tenet, however, no supply will be made if there's no profit. BOTH of those conditions are created with complete automation.
The popular thought on here is that the manufacturing industry will keep happily pounding out products while simultaneously getting most of their income fleeced by the government to give to people so they can buy the products being produced. In most cases, the people producing their goods will wind up losing money in the process. You've just eliminated any incentive to produce goods.
Then what? Government seizes means of production and starts hammering out goods to give away out of the kindness of its heart? That gives me a good laugh. If you thought poverty was bad NOW...
Removed - BrookM
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/14 22:12:57
www.classichammer.com
For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming
Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
|
|
|
|
2019/01/14 19:33:32
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
Glasgow
|
Just Tony wrote:
The popular thought on here is that the manufacturing industry will keep happily pounding out products while simultaneously getting most of their income fleeced by the government to give to people so they can buy the products being produced. In most cases, the people producing their goods will wind up losing money in the process. You've just eliminated any incentive to produce goods.
No one is arguing that. Suggesting that automation will take over most manufacturing jobs is not synonymous with suggesting that manufacturing will continue to operate in exactly the same way and at exactly the same rates as now.
Removed - BrookM
This shames you.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/14 22:12:59
|
|
|
|
2019/01/14 19:40:23
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
Just Tony wrote:I remember that one time in the 90's when capitalist industry managers said "Hey, lets completely eliminate our customer base!"
Oh, that didn't happen? Probably right, because a capitalist economy operates off of three tenets: supply, demand, and profit. If there's no demand, no profit is to be made, so no supply will be created. Pretty basic. On the same tenet, however, no supply will be made if there's no profit. BOTH of those conditions are created with complete automation.
Being the native of a former company town, nah, they not only did this they ran off the cliff like they were leading disney's lemmings.
Xerox and Kodak? Remember them? The idiots who let the entire digital age walk out of their labs and not develop any of it themselves? And then stopped developing their most popular units because they weren't making enough off indivdual sales and thusly lost any brand recognition they once had. Refused to adapt to changing market trends because they knew better... seriously I can go on for weeks, I got to grow up under the "Are my parents still employed" cloud for my entire childhood. Lucky enough they managed until I was out of college.
If capitalism is so easy... what the hell happened to the middle class?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/14 19:43:15
|
|
|
|
2019/01/14 22:15:29
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Can you overthrow the wealthy once automisation is at 100%?
Good luck defeating their robot armies, fleshling! And even if you win remember that the rich guy owns the media and can write off their attempted social cleansing as an AI uprising and blame the robots.
It is my theory that in the 40k Men of Iron apocalypse it wasn't the machines that rebelled. Instead it was the wealthy using their robots to try eliminate the jobless poor.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/15 11:04:49
|
|
|
|
2019/01/14 23:30:33
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
BuFFo wrote: Totalwar1402 wrote:I recently went to a tech conference where they talked about all the advances AI have made and how it’s likely that most human jobs will have disappeared within the next few decades due to automation.
How would that work? If nobody can work then nobody has any money. If they have no money then they can’t buy things. If they can’t but things then, it doesn’t matter how productive or cheap the goods get as a result of automation. Companies will have nobody to sell to and would go bankrupt. How would say, Amazon, or McDonalds function if 60 plus percent of its consumer base became destitute? There wouldn’t be all the exchanges of money and capital to make it work. It’s not just going to be one industry but a vast swath of humanity rendered unnecessary and without worth. But wouldn’t it probably hurt a lot of companies that are aimed at selling to a mass market?
The more "robots/technology" we have, the more jobs we'll have.
Then it should be easy for you to start listing the jobs we'll have that robots wont be able to do.
|
CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. |
|
|
|
2019/01/15 01:18:08
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain
|
no, I dont think capitilism will survive full automation, but something akin to a monetary system will unless we come up with another system that actually works in its stead.
|
|
|
|
2019/01/15 06:51:52
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot
|
It will transform into something like caste society, mayber returning to aristocracy. Or alternatively, capitalism will mutate into communism. But it is not clear how those who are now own all the wealth will allow it.
|
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
|
|
|
|
2019/01/15 07:32:28
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
Glasgow
|
Interesting conclusion. Why?
mayber returning to aristocracy. Or alternatively, capitalism will mutate into communism. But it is not clear how those who are now own all the wealth will allow it.
Aristocracy isn't a political or social system - it's a demographic that still exists. Do you maybe mean feudalism?
|
|
|
|
2019/01/15 07:49:28
Subject: Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Freakazoitt wrote:It will transform into something like caste society, mayber returning to aristocracy. Or alternatively, capitalism will mutate into communism. But it is not clear how those who are now own all the wealth will allow it.
Easy, kill of all the poor and the remaining rich share their means of production between themselves and voila! Communism for the rich
Reminds me of that book Four Futures: Life After Capitalism
|
|
|
|
2019/01/15 08:09:15
Subject: Re:Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot
|
Interesting conclusion. Why?
As far as can be judged by what is happening in the world, all freedom, democracy, liberalism comes to an end. There comes a rigid hierarchical system, where there are people of the lower class and the highest. And the whole economy belongs to the upper class. All laws exist for the upper class. All technologies are developed for the upper class.
Aristocracy isn't a political or social system - it's a demographic that still exists. Do you maybe mean feudalism?
Feudal = aristocrat. Some aristocrats remained because the bourgeois did not manage to chop off their heads.
Easy, kill of all the poor and the remaining rich share their means of production between themselves and voila! Communism for the rich
Sounds very anti-utopic. But poor people can revolt and try to destroy elite and their robots? Maybe they will sabotage robots turning them into killing machines
|
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
|
|
|
|
2019/01/15 08:16:28
Subject: Re:Can capitalism work if robots take all the jobs?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
Glasgow
|
Freakazoitt wrote:Interesting conclusion. Why?
As far as can be judged by what is happening in the world, all freedom, democracy, liberalism comes to an end. There comes a rigid hierarchical system, where there are people of the lower class and the highest. And the whole economy belongs to the upper class. All laws exist for the upper class. All technologies are developed for the upper class.
That isn't a caste system but ok i see what you mean.
Aristocracy isn't a political or social system - it's a demographic that still exists. Do you maybe mean feudalism?
Feudal = aristocrat. Some aristocrats remained because the bourgeois did not manage to chop off their heads.
Feudalism is not synonymous with aristocracy and the bourgeoisie didn't chop the heads of aristocrats. The bourgeoisie had their heads removed by proles. Unless the terms used to mean something different during the French Revolution and bourgeois didn't always mean an oppulent and affluent class. Again, I see where you're going, it's just the terms that confused me.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/15 08:31:26
|
|
|
|
|