49 replies to this topic

[zicon753]

I've searched the forums for economics dealing with the singularity and didn't find anything, so I'm making a thread on it.

Besides exactly when the singularity will be (20,50,100 yrs from now) what do you all think people will do with their time in the 5 years before the singularity and the 5 years after? For instance, I can't imagine that teachers will have jobs when knowledge is simply downloaded into your brain. So what will they do to earn a living, IF a "living" is still needed to be earned? I can imagine, however, that people in marketing will be employed, psychology (to help deal with the emerging tech changes), and security will all have job security in the next 30 years. Who else will?

[Mind]

If we ever reach a point where we become cyborg-ish and can download information directly into our brain then we will also likely be able to create a hive or meta-mind with some degree of shared consciousness - which means we cannot really predict or know what life will be like since our perspective at this point in time is as individuals. It is beyond our comprehension (the period after a singularity-type transformation). Right before a singularity-type transformation? Should be an era of abundance. High unemployment but people would still have the necessities of life + plus cheap or free immersive digital/virtual entertainment. I think we are already seeing the beginnings of high unemployment due to technological advances in the US in 2010.

[SIN]

Economics of the Technological Singularity

I can only speculate on the pre-singularity economy, because no one can truly know what the technological singularity will bring.

I believe a majority of the human population will spend most of their time in virtual worlds. Worlds as real as ours, with their own government and even their own economy. The economy in the virtual worlds will be interconnected with the economy from the real world. An example of this virtual economy is gold farming that we see in popular massive multipalyer online games. Players can sell and buy virtual gold using real world money.


Another way people will make money in virtual worlds is to create virtual experiences, landscapes, and products. Creativity has always been praised, and it will continue to be so in the future.

And we must not forget that tangible goods will become digital. We will not buy the physical product anymore but only the digital information required to construct that product. Then send it to the assembler.The assembler is device able to guide chemical reactions by positioning reactive molecules with atomic precision. The end product will be the watch. This process could be done from your home and will no longer require you physically going to shopping malls ever again.

Sadly teachers might become extinct, but remember there will always be a portion of the population that will refuse change.

And yes, it's true that because of technology people will lose lower-end jobs, but like we have seen so far with technological progress more jobs will be created in higher-paying positions.

But again nothing like the singularity has ever occurred in human history. And it is hard to make an argument to still hire an un-modified human.
If you could buy a computer as smart as a human, that never gets tired, never needs to stop and never needs anything more than your initial investment.
As compared to an un-modified, where he/she can only do 40 hours of unproductive work a week, has sick days, and can cost you 24k + a year just to keep around. Where by 2029 (assuming we have smart AI) a computer with human level intelligence can cost a company around 1,000 USD and around 500 USD in electricity.

In the end its business, no matter how much we regulate it, it is the survival of the fittest and the companies that embrace technology will be at the top of the chain.

Edited by SIN, 03 February 2010 - 09:26 PM.

[zicon753]

"High unemployment but people would still have the necessities of life + plus cheap or free immersive digital/virtual entertainment."

I got that impression as well. What concerns me is how we obtain our personal space in which to live out this mostly VR life. For instance, how would one rent an apt, or own a home from which to live if you don't have much of an income, yet your food / entertainment is basically free; given that you will likely not be in demand as a software engineer etc? Does this lead one to think that housing will also be one of those dirt cheap things 30-40 yrs from now? And yet there will be more people alive taking up space than ever before...so I'm just wondering here.

"And yes, it's true that because of technology people will lose lower-end jobs, but like we have seen so far with technological progress more jobs will be created in higher-paying positions."

I agree as well. I guess part of the answer to my question is that the developing technologies are creating new jobs, just as they always have. Except in this case, the transition period between that old job and the new one is so short, that it doesn't come between generations, but literally between jobs (the time frame of about a year or so). I can spout off real world examples of people who held a job for 30 yrs steady back in the day, and these days are moving into 2 and 3 different jobs withing a decade.

My concern here would be: how do you retool yourself to perform the new high tech jobs fast enough to keep up with them? My guess is that this will be another factor that will lead people to enhance themselves so that they can compete in the job market, like you alluded to. I'm in my early 20's, and it seems like planning for the next 25 yrs is almost impossible job-wise. My family has a long history in elder care facilities (owning, operating, nursing, social work etc), which imo is itself dying right now and will be dead in the next 20 yrs.

[boundlesslife]

My concern here would be: how do you retool yourself to perform the new high tech jobs fast enough to keep up with them? My guess is that this will be another factor that will lead people to enhance themselves so that they can compete in the job market, like you alluded to. I'm in my early 20's, and it seems like planning for the next 25 yrs is almost impossible job-wise. My family has a long history in elder care facilities (owning, operating, nursing, social work etc), which imo is itself dying right now and will be dead in the next 20 yrs.

One scenario is that cyberbeings arising as emulations of biobeings, regarding their identities as having "lept" from inept, weak, short-lived, biobodies into virtually endless lives (in VR) with potential for endless action and expansion of identity, might:

(1) Automate most of what humans now do so that an ongoing cycle of production and consumption could be sustained without the necessity of much in the way of biohuman labor, and also...

(2) Assist others to make this leap, who saw that this was the only reasonable choice for biohumans who wished to achieve all the things that our present culture regards as difficult or impossible through cryonics, anti-aging, etc., and other means of "life extension", so that...

(3) A migration of much of the world's population into cyberspace would take place, so quickly, that those who were left as biohumans would soon consume only a small portion of what had been set in place in the way of production to ease such a migration's taking place.

(4) What might remain, as the human population electing to remain biohuman shrank? Perhaps a lot of empty housing and and oversupply of food, to put it very simply.

What might the longer term future be like? As the Singularity moves ahead, with maturation of molecular engineering as envisioned by Ray Kurzweil in "The Singularity is Near", a state could be reached in less than a century where cyberbeings, not content with the limitations of virtual reality, would begin projecting themselves back into the real-world in much the way that biohumans in the movie Avatar were envisioned to project themselves into cloned "Na'vi" bodies, with several important differences.

(1) They would be backed up in cyberspace at many locations and not subject to destruction in the way that the Pandora biohumans could easily be destroyed by crushing their biopod projection modules, and

(2) Their physical forms would be far more diverse that just a "Model T" type humanoid body, and would be either made of cells that were "synthetic biological cells" formed by nanobots, or (more simply) functional elements comprised of nanobots that would be far more efficient and functional than the laboriously designed "synthetic biological cells".

For a quick view of these visions, take a glimpse at the very short page of Terasem's titled

Mindfiles

For a far more detailed picture of the mindfile concept, visit the blog on this titled

Mindfiles, Mindware and Mindclones

For access to 25 postings on this subject on the Avatar Forums, visit

Avatar Postings

For a one minute, twelve second vision of how this all starts, visit the link below for a film trailer from the movie

"2B" - The Era of Flesh is Over

Edited by boundlesslife, 07 February 2010 - 08:12 AM.

[robomoon]

... What might the longer term future be like? As the Singularity moves ahead, with maturation of molecular engineering as envisioned by Ray Kurzweil in "The Singularity is Near", a state could be reached in less than a century where cyberbeings, not content with the limitations of virtual reality, would begin projecting themselves back into the real-world in much the way that biohumans in the movie Avatar were envisioned to project themselves into cloned "Na'vi" bodies, with several important differences.

(1) They would be backed up in cyberspace at many locations and not subject to destruction in the way that the Pandora biohumans could easily be destroyed by crushing their biopod projection modules, and

...

Various terms for the creation of a human lookalike in computer-generated image and voice: Cyber Replicant, Digital Clone, Transbeman Person, Immortal Avatar, Transhuman Person, etc. So what's the term for the subject held under suspension by a backup?

The word PRESERVEE should help to describe things. Preservee stands in context to preservation like suspendee to suspension. The plural preservees, which means those who are put into preservation, must be seen in its plausible context. Similarly to the word suspendee, the word preservee refers to someone who is put passively into a state of safe-keeping. Another word next to it is CRYONAUT. Since the LONGEVITY MEME NEWSLETTER http://www.longevity...wsletter_id=261 referred to http://www.fightagin...or-cryonics.php using this word in 2008, there will be no problem to use it more frequently in hindsight to cryonics.

The downside in cyberspace are backups at many locations which belong to a single organization with only a few sponsors (or only one). When such an organization looses their greatest sponsor, it easily goes bankrupt. In such a case, even all of many locations where backups are located would be prone to disintegration. Thus, all backups will be lost and preservees may be unable to retrieve their files again.

Actually, the offline status of http://immortalspace.com indicates that the commercial storage of mindfiles didn't paid off well in economic terms. http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/80/5 contains one of my earlyer efforts to diverge the locations of backups:

Small investment in mind files, msg. posted in 2009. Actually, there are various memorabilia in storage which are called mind files. However, the way how to backup the archived mind files in digital form should be reorganized.

Well, the storage of files I mentioned in my previous messages at the tradecommunity group has already occurred. Please don't hesitate to check out http://finance.group.../tradecommunity where group members can get the details.

Terasem is currently the only reliable organization actively dedicated to the online storage for the creation of digital clones or immortal avatars. Anyone who likes the idea of immortality should be encouraged to store such software. Most of mind files are only software, even cryonicists can upload them at http://cyberev.org and http://lifenaut.com -- cryonauts could probably recollect their files after centuries when reanimation of cryonically preserved brains has occurred.

Terasem's cyberev.org and lifenaut.com can keep mind files on their computers and create backups for data security. But Terasem must share one problem with many other small organizations: the problem that small business companies are often tied to the activities of their founders. When the founder is going to be disengaged or absent in business, the company often looses its ability to perform sufficiently.

The example given in here is Immortal Space LLC, founded by Bryan Noland. He and the company's parent Technology Mavericks LLC http://www.techmavs.com in Tulsa, Oklahoma, got busy with http://immortalspace.com since 2006. Since the early spring in 2009 until now I noticed that when I'm accessing immortalspace.com, their server isn't responding. Now the reason seems to be that Bryan Noland went disengaged or absent in business with Immortal Space, therefore he couldn't keep the immortalspace.com website up and running for any longer. So I've lost a useful backup space for the mind files I'm storing at lifenaut.com and cyberev.org which are owned by Terasem.

The founder of Terasem is Martine Rothblatt who in 2007 was the second-most highly compensated executive in Washington, D.C. So who is taking over the management and administration of Terasem when Martine Rothblatt is going to be disengaged or absent in business? Well, that question is missing an answer today, so I still need a backup space for the files stored at Terasem's sites, just in case.

In hindsight to data security for those who can keep their mindfiles stored and updated, who can help me to create the necessary backups? The File Storage Provider which I talked about in my previous messages at the above mentioned tradecommunity group demands less than $300. So that's certainly a small but profitable investment compared to Immortal Space which financial costs can be easily rated more than 100 times higher. Yet, those who are interested in that powerful investment are welcome to email me: robomoonatnexgo.de while at=@.

Edited by robomoon, 08 February 2010 - 05:26 PM.

[zicon753]

... What might the longer term future be like? As the Singularity moves ahead, with maturation of molecular engineering as envisioned by Ray Kurzweil in "The Singularity is Near", a state could be reached in less than a century where cyberbeings, not content with the limitations of virtual reality, would begin projecting themselves back into the real-world in much the way that biohumans in the movie Avatar were envisioned to project themselves into cloned "Na'vi" bodies, with several important differences.

(1) They would be backed up in cyberspace at many locations and not subject to destruction in the way that the Pandora biohumans could easily be destroyed by crushing their biopod projection modules, and

...

Various terms for the creation of a human lookalike in computer-generated image and voice: Cyber Replicant, Digital Clone, Transbeman Person, Immortal Avatar, Transhuman Person, etc. So what's the term for the subject held under suspension by a backup?

The word PRESERVEE should help to describe things. Preservee stands in context to preservation like suspendee to suspension. The plural preservees, which means those who are put into preservation, must be seen in its plausible context. Similarly to the word suspendee, the word preservee refers to someone who is put passively into a state of safe-keeping. Another word next to it is CRYONAUT. Since the LONGEVITY MEME NEWSLETTER http://www.longevity...wsletter_id=261 referred to http://www.fightagin...or-cryonics.php using this word in 2008, there will be no problem to use it more frequently in hindsight to cryonics.

The downside in cyberspace are backups at many locations which belong to a single organization with only a few sponsors (or only one). When such an organization looses their greatest sponsor, it easily goes bankrupt. In such a case, even all of many locations where backups are located would be prone to disintegration. Thus, all backups will be lost and preservees may be unable to retrieve their files again.

Actually, the offline status of http://immortalspace.com indicates that the commercial storage of mindfiles didn't paid off well in economic terms. http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/80/5 contains one of my earlyer efforts to diverge the locations of backups:

Small investment in mind files, msg. posted in 2009. Actually, there are various memorabilia in storage which are called mind files. However, the way how to backup the archived mind files in digital form should be reorganized.

Well, the storage of files I mentioned in my previous messages at the tradecommunity group has already occurred. Please don't hesitate to check out http://finance.group.../tradecommunity where group members can get the details.

Terasem is currently the only reliable organization actively dedicated to the online storage for the creation of digital clones or immortal avatars. Anyone who likes the idea of immortality should be encouraged to store such software. Most of mind files are only software, even cryonicists can upload them at http://cyberev.org and http://lifenaut.com -- cryonauts could probably recollect their files after centuries when reanimation of cryonically preserved brains has occurred.

Terasem's cyberev.org and lifenaut.com can keep mind files on their computers and create backups for data security. But Terasem must share one problem with many other small organizations: the problem that small business companies are often tied to the activities of their founders. When the founder is going to be disengaged or absent in business, the company often looses its ability to perform sufficiently.

The example given in here is Immortal Space LLC, founded by Bryan Noland. He and the company's parent Technology Mavericks LLC http://www.techmavs.com in Tulsa, Oklahoma, got busy with http://immortalspace.com since 2006. Since the early spring in 2009 until now I noticed that when I'm accessing immortalspace.com, their server isn't responding. Now the reason seems to be that Bryan Noland went disengaged or absent in business with Immortal Space, therefore he couldn't keep the immortalspace.com website up and running for any longer. So I've lost a useful backup space for the mind files I'm storing at lifenaut.com and cyberev.org which are owned by Terasem.

The founder of Terasem is Martine Rothblatt who in 2007 was the second-most highly compensated executive in Washington, D.C. So who is taking over the management and administration of Terasem when Martine Rothblatt is going to be disengaged or absent in business? Well, that question is missing an answer today, so I still need a backup space for the files stored at Terasem's sites, just in case.

In hindsight to data security for those who can keep their mindfiles stored and updated, who can help me to create the necessary backups? The File Storage Provider which I talked about in my previous messages at the above mentioned tradecommunity group demands less than $300. So that's certainly a small but profitable investment compared to Immortal Space which financial costs can be easily rated more than 100 times higher. Yet, those who are interested in that powerful investment are welcome to email me: robomoonatnexgo.de while at=@.

interested in such a 'powerful investment'...what a long and clever spam message!

[melly_d]

The Mind File seems like a neat way to keep your memories and other things about you stored for a long time, but you can't transfer your consciousness to a computer, so it would not really be immortality. Unless Terasem means to use the word immortality as someone would refer to the works of a great artist making him immortal because they last after his or her death.

[robomoon]

Mindfiles seem like a neat way to keep memories stored for a long time*. This optimism about Terasem's economic longterm capacity for data storage is often too much based on past experience with Alcor's management. Actually, a healthy pessimism works wonder. Unlike software which works for mindfiles, Alcor uses matured technology with no need for a management of funds to make risky re-investments. Yet, development of Alcor's new perfusion equipment has been sponsored by wealthy donors, so they perform well as a non-profit.

Software for end users can run on old computers. Software for Terasem in the Internet, however, must be updated and developed further, which requires daring management over the funds for re-investments. http://www.terasemmo...tfoundation.com is showing someone who has been the major executive force to keep on creating and managing organizations which store mindfiles: Martine Rothblatt. The other Terasem staff members currently working at Terasem's organizations seem not so popular in the who-as-who of executives for life extension.

Would somebody build** a Terasem Center of Critical Consciousness motivated by http://www.terasemweb.org/html/how.htm without relying on Martine's sponsorship? Does someone believe, M. Rothblatt's funds will be refillable forever at the Terasem M. Foundation as if it's a matter of concern like the Nobel Foundation to anyone? There should be a profound engagement, at least for an economically independent data storage, just to prepare against a financial bottleneck that might lay decades ahead. Yet it's never to early to do it.

*citing melly d
**dedicated to boundlesslife

Answering zicon753: the investment was made with $5. 5 years before the Singularity, my investment will be available for $0.01. 5 years after, my mind will support intelligent claims of being alive.

Edited by robomoon, 10 February 2010 - 02:10 PM.

[zicon753]

Mindfiles seem like a neat way to keep memories stored for a long time*. This optimism about Terasem's economic longterm capacity for data storage is often too much based on past experience with Alcor's management. Actually, a healthy pessimism works wonder. Unlike software which works for mindfiles, Alcor uses matured technology with no need for a management of funds to make risky re-investments. Yet, development of Alcor's new perfusion equipment has been sponsored by wealthy donors, so they perform well as a non-profit.

Software for end users can run on old computers. Software for Terasem in the Internet, however, must be updated and developed further, which requires daring management over the funds for re-investments. http://www.terasemmo...tfoundation.com is showing someone who has been the major executive force to keep on creating and managing organizations which store mindfiles: Martine Rothblatt. The other Terasem staff members currently working at Terasem's organizations seem not so popular in the who-as-who of executives for life extension.

Would somebody build** a Terasem Center of Critical Consciousness motivated by http://www.terasemweb.org/html/how.htm without relying on Martine's sponsorship? Does someone believe, M. Rothblatt's funds will be refillable forever at the Terasem M. Foundation as if it's a matter of concern like the Nobel Foundation to anyone? There should be a profound engagement, at least for an economically independent data storage, just to prepare against a financial bottleneck that might lay decades ahead. Yet it's never to early to do it.

*citing melly d
**dedicated to boundlesslife

Answering zicon753: the investment was made with $5. 5 years before the Singularity, my investment will be available for $0.01. 5 years after, my mind will support intelligent claims of being alive.

you are advertising a business. spam? buy viagra pills online >here< kinda thing. your post has nothing to do with the topic

[robomoon]

Forum member zicon753 mentioned that (quote) people in marketing will be employed, psychology (to help deal with the emerging tech changes), and security - will all have job security... (unquote). For emerging tech changes, I gave abstractive examples about marketing including organizations that have actively contributed to those tech changes. The organization mentioned most frequently made a new trend in psychology and security that will last for decades.

In a second message, zicon753 moved on to job security which was answered by forum member boundlesslife who gave examples how changes in employment will lead to a new economy. Food consumption and housing were taken to describe eventual economic changes within the next 30 years. Improvements in cryonics and anti-aging were taken to describe some important opportunities these changes will offer. In general, further automation of industrial production is leading the majority of Internet users towards a broader usage of VR in Cyberspace. My response to these findings concentrated on the job market including an actual shortage of executives. That's the risk, since those executives are required to enhance security within the migration of Internet users by utilization of an economically independent data storage.

Edited by robomoon, 11 February 2010 - 03:56 PM.

[modelcadet]

I'm really bummed I have yet to respond to this thread, and the issues raised here.

I'm actually an economics major at UVa, and am highly interested in the Singularity, H+, etc. I disagree that there isn't much discussion on Singularitarian economics here; you just have to know where to look.

When you talk about being interested in economics, I assume you mean macroeconomics. Some of my favorite researchers in this are are professor Robin Hanson and VC Peter Thiel.

I'm certainly interested in macroeconomic issues, like globalization, mechanization of the workforce, etc. However, my work (on Friendliness) focuses mainly on microeconomic issues. A computer scientist by training, Dr. Stephen Omohundro is nevertheless your best introduction to this aspect of economics.

I'll try to make some time to chat with you, but I also suggest you look through these forums again. We've discussed many economic issues pertaining to the concept of the singularity here, at length.

[cider]

Some of my favorite researchers in this are are professor Robin Hanson and VC Peter Thiel.

I'm certainly interested in macroeconomic issues, like globalization, mechanization of the workforce, etc. However, my work (on Friendliness) focuses mainly on microeconomic issues. A computer scientist by training, Dr. Stephen Omohundro is nevertheless your best introduction to this aspect of economics.

I don't see high unemployment coming. Maybe those not in jobs for stretches, but one is only unemployed if the person seeks a job and isn't finding it.

Hanson has a speech on coming very high unemployment (maybe search his blog "overcoming bias") but I didn't get why it would start in maybe ten years, be a hard ten years, etc. He also seemed to ignore political ramificantions like -- there will be revolts around the planet if adjustments aren't made.

I think it is much more likely this all happens slow enough that there won't be a spike in unemployment. The current 10% rate is just vanilla unemployment that we saw in 1982 as well. More will be known once the economy really picks up. So if high unemployment in 2015, then interesting. Not yet, though.

[Cameron]

If computer tech can keep improving for a few more decades, the cost of human equivalent performance in software will be astronomically below the cost of an actual human. Unless laws are put in place to impede development, AIs can be made workaholic, submissive, and extremely loyal, the perfect slave force. With superior intellect and creativity, robotics/bio-synthetic physical avatars/bodies that exceed human precision. The energy can be obtained in automated cost free fashion from the sun or fusion, etc. Matter can be recycled through nanotech. This is a zero financial cost workforce.

Why would any company want someone that is a.) less loyal, b.) less creative, c.) less intelligent, d.) less productive, or all of these? The answer is obviously there is no reason to choose a human, when the state of the art pc can run 1000+ virtual slaves that perform all possible duties including physical ones through bodies/avatars.

The only outcome is extreme levels of unemployment, the government will have to heavily tax the corporations and provide a basic income to the populace.

As for being able to foresee the singularity transition, it depends on how fast R&D can go once an intelligence enhancement loop takes effect. Theoretically it could take everyone by surprise, everything would be going as it always has and then boom in a few months radical change is upon us(As even known public projects in these areas, may yield spectacular results far faster than anyone could reasonably expect.).

[niner]

It sounds like it's time for a little Marshall Brain! He gives an amazing view of two paths that we might take in the future. Very pertinent to this thread.

[robomoon]

It sounds like it's time for a little Marshall Brain! He gives an amazing view of two paths that we might take in the future. Very pertinent to this thread.

The story Manna by Marshall Brain describes changes in large inhabitated areas that stem from cheap mass production of buildings. The concept involves, robots, mind uploading, AI, etc., otherwise there are parallels to the totalitarian state in the classic novel 1984 by George Orwell. In 1984, people of low class in society got a screen to watch and to feel being watched. In Manna, they got a TV. What luck that in reality there are computer screens including Internet terminals and a forum like this to keep people taking part in interactive communications.

Regarding unemployment, there's one force that makes it persistent for a long time: mental illness. Artificial brain ‘10 years away’ http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=554 by Jonathan Fildes, BBC News, 2009, features Prof. Markram, director of the Blue Brain Project. “There are two billion people on the planet affected by mental disorder,” he told the audience at the TED Global conference in Oxford.

Unemployment must not remain unsolvable. One solution to a containment of mental disorders which partially belong to diseases that accumulate within the aging in the older generation: gene therapy. I already mentioned nanotech at http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=37802 while the current state of computational genetics were explained by Prof. Church http://www.edge.org/...er09_index.html in the Edge Master Class 2009.

Edited by robomoon, 23 February 2010 - 02:13 PM.

[Mind]

Why would any company want someone that is a.) less loyal, b.) less creative, c.) less intelligent, d.) less productive, or all of these? The answer is obviously there is no reason to choose a human, when the state of the art pc can run 1000+ virtual slaves that perform all possible duties including physical ones through bodies/avatars.

The only outcome is extreme levels of unemployment, the government will have to heavily tax the corporations and provide a basic income to the populace.

Although I don't like the scenario of government provided basic income (because it makes people slaves to politicians), it is probably the path of least resistance and what most leaders would pursue. I would rather more people invest in the businesses themselves and collect dividends. In any case, anyone who has ever run a business, especially in today's heavily regulated lawsuit-rich business environment, cannot deny that allure of automation (software/robots/computers). I can't help but see persistent unemployment at today's levels or perhaps increasing unemployment. And by this I mean private sector unemployment in the real jobs that produce real benefits for society, not fake government make-work jobs.

[modelcadet]

Why would any company want someone that is a.) less loyal, b.) less creative, c.) less intelligent, d.) less productive, or all of these? The answer is obviously there is no reason to choose a human, when the state of the art pc can run 1000+ virtual slaves that perform all possible duties including physical ones through bodies/avatars.

The only outcome is extreme levels of unemployment, the government will have to heavily tax the corporations and provide a basic income to the populace.

Although I don't like the scenario of government provided basic income (because it makes people slaves to politicians), it is probably the path of least resistance and what most leaders would pursue. I would rather more people invest in the businesses themselves and collect dividends. In any case, anyone who has ever run a business, especially in today's heavily regulated lawsuit-rich business environment, cannot deny that allure of automation (software/robots/computers). I can't help but see persistent unemployment at today's levels or perhaps increasing unemployment. And by this I mean real private sector unemployment that produces real benefits for society, not fake government make-work jobs.

Mind, you are quite right in many respects, I'd hold. However, I'd see both architectures, the firm and the nation, implemented so long as they are friendly. Both systems of consolidated power may fail, but both are at least designed with an approximately correct architecture: The utility of the system approaches a simple-functional sum of its subsystem's utilities and power. Firms can fail to meet their utility function, "to maximize the profit of the shareholders" - a truly noble goal. Government can too fail to meet its utility function, because of the enormous monetary influence and rational, competitive, pareto-inefficient strategies:

Under certain idealized conditions, it can be shown that a system of free markets will lead to a Pareto efficient outcome. This is called the first welfare theorem. It was first demonstrated mathematically by economists Kenneth Arrow and Gerard Debreu. However, the result does not rigorously establish welfare results for real economies because of the restrictive assumptions necessary for the proof (markets exist for all possible goods, all markets are in full equilibrium, markets are perfectly competitive, transaction costs are negligible, there must be no externalities, and market participants must have perfect information). Moreover, it has since been demonstrated mathematically that, in the absence of perfect information or complete markets, outcomes will generically be Pareto inefficient (the Greenwald-Stiglitz Theorem).^[3]

Thanks Wikipedia. Too bad this first welfare theorem requires things that we won't approach until we're upon the singularity...

!!!
^{http://en.wikipedia....ncy#cite_note-2}

[niner]

It sounds like it's time for a little Marshall Brain! He gives an amazing view of two paths that we might take in the future. Very pertinent to this thread.

The story Manna by Marshall Brain describes changes in large inhabitated areas that stem from cheap mass production of buildings. The concept involves, robots, mind uploading, AI, etc., otherwise there are parallels to the totalitarian state in the classic novel 1984 by George Orwell. In 1984, people of low class in society got a screen to watch and to feel being watched. In Manna, they got a TV. What luck that in reality there are computer screens including Internet terminals and a forum like this to keep people taking part in interactive communications.

It's a lot more than buildings; it's about the consequences of robots exceeding the capabilities of humans. In one country, things are ugly. In another country, a very different scenario unfolds. It sounds like you quit reading before you got to the second country. I don't want to say too much and give it all away. It's a great story.

[Cameron]

Why would any company want someone that is a.) less loyal, b.) less creative, c.) less intelligent, d.) less productive, or all of these? The answer is obviously there is no reason to choose a human, when the state of the art pc can run 1000+ virtual slaves that perform all possible duties including physical ones through bodies/avatars.

The only outcome is extreme levels of unemployment, the government will have to heavily tax the corporations and provide a basic income to the populace.

Although I don't like the scenario of government provided basic income (because it makes people slaves to politicians), it is probably the path of least resistance and what most leaders would pursue. I would rather more people invest in the businesses themselves and collect dividends. In any case, anyone who has ever run a business, especially in today's heavily regulated lawsuit-rich business environment, cannot deny that allure of automation (software/robots/computers). I can't help but see persistent unemployment at today's levels or perhaps increasing unemployment. And by this I mean real private sector unemployment that produces real benefits for society, not fake government make-work jobs.

In a world where getting a job may be next to impossible, making the whole population depend on investments is risky. There's no warranty the companies they've invested in will continue to exist and provide appropriate levels of income(Enron, etc), even the whole market could be affected by corrupt transactions. Furthermore, like we've seen with many individuals with access to all their assets, lottery winners who choose one payment and life insurance receivers, many individuals simply are not able to adequately manage such and often end up worse off(they need someone to manage their assets and provide a salary like income.). The government could implement some form of debt forgiveness or make it illegal for debt collection agencies to collect more than a reasonable % of a basic income. With an investment, there's no warranty that the individual won't somehow lose most if not all of it(say by a series of divorces in a few short years.) or that someone may somehow concentrate and deprive others of their investments*(e.g. religious groups like say scientology.).

[niner]

Why would any company want someone that is a.) less loyal, b.) less creative, c.) less intelligent, d.) less productive, or all of these? The answer is obviously there is no reason to choose a human, when the state of the art pc can run 1000+ virtual slaves that perform all possible duties including physical ones through bodies/avatars.

The only outcome is extreme levels of unemployment, the government will have to heavily tax the corporations and provide a basic income to the populace.

Although I don't like the scenario of government provided basic income (because it makes people slaves to politicians), it is probably the path of least resistance and what most leaders would pursue. I would rather more people invest in the businesses themselves and collect dividends. In any case, anyone who has ever run a business, especially in today's heavily regulated lawsuit-rich business environment, cannot deny that allure of automation (software/robots/computers). I can't help but see persistent unemployment at today's levels or perhaps increasing unemployment. And by this I mean real private sector unemployment that produces real benefits for society, not fake government make-work jobs.

In a world where getting a job may be next to impossible, making the whole population depend on investments is risky. There's no warranty the companies they've invested in will continue to exist and provide appropriate levels of income(Enron, etc), even the whole market could be affected by corrupt transactions. Furthermore, like we've seen with many individuals with access to all their assets, lottery winners who choose one payment and life insurance receivers, many individuals simply are not able to adequately manage such and often end up worse off(they need someone to manage their assets and provide a salary like income.). The government could implement some form of debt forgiveness or make it illegal for debt collection agencies to collect more than a reasonable % of a basic income. With an investment, there's no warranty that the individual won't somehow lose most if not all of it(say by a series of divorces in a few short years.) or that someone may somehow concentrate and deprive others of their investments*(e.g. religious groups like say scientology.).

These are good points. The whole point of a business owner switching from human employees to robots is to allow the owner to keep more money for himself and not give it to the employees. It would be great if all the former employees could be investors, assuming they could learn how to do it profitably, but where in the world would they get enough money to invest with so that they could live off of the returns? We already have a large population of people with a net worth of less than zero, and that's with a job.

[robomoon]

It sounds like it's time for a little Marshall Brain! He gives an amazing view of two paths that we might take in the future. Very pertinent to this thread.

The story Manna by Marshall Brain describes changes in large inhabitated areas that stem from cheap mass production of buildings. The concept involves, robots, mind uploading, AI, etc., otherwise there are parallels to the totalitarian state in the classic novel 1984 by George Orwell. In 1984, people of low class in society got a screen to watch and to feel being watched. In Manna, they got a TV. What luck that in reality there are computer screens including Internet terminals and a forum like this to keep people taking part in interactive communications.

It's a lot more than buildings; it's about the consequences of robots exceeding the capabilities of humans. In one country, things are ugly. In another country, a very different scenario unfolds. It sounds like you quit reading before you got to the second country. I don't want to say too much and give it all away. It's a great story.

In the beginning, the story Manna describes a sort of virtual robots which are economically profitable in a software for personal computers. At first, a fast food chain has replaced certain working tasks of human business administrators by the computing functions of virtual robots which perform the cheaper corporate slave jobs. Yet, economics, the loss of jobs, and unemployment are the actual discussion in this forum thread. An event related to this discussion happened later in the story when the protagonist got irrevocably unemployed in his current environment. That happened after the robots gained superiority in the real estate industry. The protagonist moves to a mass produced building, allocated by robots, very cheap and profitable in the microeconomy of corporations. But in macroeconomy, the architecture of such buildings is nevertheless a geoethical makeshift that requires further measures before emotional needs of the unemployed humans are properly addressed.

Before the end of the story, let's look back at the beginning and the fast food chain. You may think it's not utterly important, but I'd like to address this anyways. We don't think that fast food is always healthy enough for life extension, do we? Therefore, something in the industry should be changed - at least for the mental health, shouldn't it? My previous posting already describes the health problem and refers to research becoming the medical solution.

Edited by robomoon, 25 February 2010 - 12:34 PM.

[Mind]

Why would any company want someone that is a.) less loyal, b.) less creative, c.) less intelligent, d.) less productive, or all of these? The answer is obviously there is no reason to choose a human, when the state of the art pc can run 1000+ virtual slaves that perform all possible duties including physical ones through bodies/avatars.

The only outcome is extreme levels of unemployment, the government will have to heavily tax the corporations and provide a basic income to the populace.

Although I don't like the scenario of government provided basic income (because it makes people slaves to politicians), it is probably the path of least resistance and what most leaders would pursue. I would rather more people invest in the businesses themselves and collect dividends. In any case, anyone who has ever run a business, especially in today's heavily regulated lawsuit-rich business environment, cannot deny that allure of automation (software/robots/computers). I can't help but see persistent unemployment at today's levels or perhaps increasing unemployment. And by this I mean real private sector unemployment that produces real benefits for society, not fake government make-work jobs.

In a world where getting a job may be next to impossible, making the whole population depend on investments is risky. There's no warranty the companies they've invested in will continue to exist and provide appropriate levels of income(Enron, etc), even the whole market could be affected by corrupt transactions. Furthermore, like we've seen with many individuals with access to all their assets, lottery winners who choose one payment and life insurance receivers, many individuals simply are not able to adequately manage such and often end up worse off(they need someone to manage their assets and provide a salary like income.). The government could implement some form of debt forgiveness or make it illegal for debt collection agencies to collect more than a reasonable % of a basic income. With an investment, there's no warranty that the individual won't somehow lose most if not all of it(say by a series of divorces in a few short years.) or that someone may somehow concentrate and deprive others of their investments*(e.g. religious groups like say scientology.).

Giving away money & benefits and forgiving debts will only increase dependency. Being dependent is demeaning and depressing plus it puts individuals at the mercy of the people "running the show". History is replete with examples of how dangerous it is to live in dependency under tyranny. People keep suggesting putting more power in the hands of fewer people (government dependency) even though this type of action almost always ends in rebellion, death, and destruction. We should be striving for a society where everyone is educated, independent and wealthy. We can't get their by just giving away money. We have to start somewhere. The alternative is just to create a massive underclass of dependents while twiddling our thumbs and waiting for the singularity.

We have the technological tools and wealth to (voluntarily) help people out without the need for government assistance. It seems most would just rather pass the buck to the government, even though this is the most inefficient and corrupt way of providing assistance to our fellow humans.

[niner]

Giving away money & benefits and forgiving debts will only increase dependency. Being dependent is demeaning and depressing plus it puts individuals at the mercy of the people "running the show". History is replete with examples of how dangerous it is to live in dependency under tyranny. People keep suggesting putting more power in the hands of fewer people (government dependency) even though this type of action almost always ends in rebellion, death, and destruction. We should be striving for a society where everyone is educated, independent and wealthy. We can't get their by just giving away money. We have to start somewhere. The alternative is just to create a massive underclass of dependents while twiddling our thumbs and waiting for the singularity.

We have the technological tools and wealth to (voluntarily) help people out without the need for government assistance. It seems most would just rather pass the buck to the government, even though this is the most inefficient and corrupt way of providing assistance to our fellow humans.

Debt forgiveness or other forms of just giving money away are not going to work; you're right about that. We have a situation where half the population has a double-digit IQ, and the unemployed underclass is undoubtedly enriched in the lower end. In a world where most of these people are utterly unemployable, something will have to be done. Are you suggesting some form of cyber-training? That's a good thing to try, but realistically, a lot of these people are going to be relatively unreachable, and many of those that are reachable and even motivated still won't be able to achieve employability. I don't see a Free Market solution to turning the unemployable into workers when there's already a glut of better candidates that don't need training. What mechanism do we have to help these people without government involvement?

[eternaltraveler]

What mechanism do we have to help these people without government involvement?

Hard to say

However I don't see a wholly parasitic class surviving in the long term (years, centuries, millennia...). I suggest everyone do their best not to end up in this group. Just because evolution isn't using DNA so much anymore doesn't mean its not there.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 25 February 2010 - 09:26 PM.

[Mind]

Debt forgiveness or other forms of just giving money away are not going to work; you're right about that. We have a situation where half the population has a double-digit IQ, and the unemployed underclass is undoubtedly enriched in the lower end. In a world where most of these people are utterly unemployable, something will have to be done. Are you suggesting some form of cyber-training? That's a good thing to try, but realistically, a lot of these people are going to be relatively unreachable, and many of those that are reachable and even motivated still won't be able to achieve employability. I don't see a Free Market solution to turning the unemployable into workers when there's already a glut of better candidates that don't need training. What mechanism do we have to help these people without government involvement?

At the risk of being labeled a wide-eyed idealist: voluntary cooperative social action. Examples: Patientslikeme, Imminst, Kiva loans, etc... Perhaps there is something like "Kiva Schools" that can be developed where people can help others learn skills, personal economics, get GEDs, etc...

I see this as better than giving politicians so much power over so many people.

[Cameron]

Why would any company want someone that is a.) less loyal, b.) less creative, c.) less intelligent, d.) less productive, or all of these? The answer is obviously there is no reason to choose a human, when the state of the art pc can run 1000+ virtual slaves that perform all possible duties including physical ones through bodies/avatars.

The only outcome is extreme levels of unemployment, the government will have to heavily tax the corporations and provide a basic income to the populace.

Although I don't like the scenario of government provided basic income (because it makes people slaves to politicians), it is probably the path of least resistance and what most leaders would pursue. I would rather more people invest in the businesses themselves and collect dividends. In any case, anyone who has ever run a business, especially in today's heavily regulated lawsuit-rich business environment, cannot deny that allure of automation (software/robots/computers). I can't help but see persistent unemployment at today's levels or perhaps increasing unemployment. And by this I mean real private sector unemployment that produces real benefits for society, not fake government make-work jobs.

In a world where getting a job may be next to impossible, making the whole population depend on investments is risky. There's no warranty the companies they've invested in will continue to exist and provide appropriate levels of income(Enron, etc), even the whole market could be affected by corrupt transactions. Furthermore, like we've seen with many individuals with access to all their assets, lottery winners who choose one payment and life insurance receivers, many individuals simply are not able to adequately manage such and often end up worse off(they need someone to manage their assets and provide a salary like income.). The government could implement some form of debt forgiveness or make it illegal for debt collection agencies to collect more than a reasonable % of a basic income. With an investment, there's no warranty that the individual won't somehow lose most if not all of it(say by a series of divorces in a few short years.) or that someone may somehow concentrate and deprive others of their investments*(e.g. religious groups like say scientology.).

Giving away money & benefits and forgiving debts will only increase dependency. Being dependent is demeaning and depressing plus it puts individuals at the mercy of the people "running the show". History is replete with examples of how dangerous it is to live in dependency under tyranny. People keep suggesting putting more power in the hands of fewer people (government dependency) even though this type of action almost always ends in rebellion, death, and destruction. We should be striving for a society where everyone is educated, independent and wealthy. We can't get their by just giving away money. We have to start somewhere. The alternative is just to create a massive underclass of dependents while twiddling our thumbs and waiting for the singularity.

We have the technological tools and wealth to (voluntarily) help people out without the need for government assistance. It seems most would just rather pass the buck to the government, even though this is the most inefficient and corrupt way of providing assistance to our fellow humans.

In all honesty, I don't expect people to have to keep on training and getting jobs just to be able to survive, or have to manage their investments or risk who knows what. Private institutions may be able to exceed the efficiency of today's government, but there's people behind them, and as such the ethics can go down the drain real quick. Without laws to protect individuals abuse can be rampant. In places where there is a democracy, a massive spike in unemployment might be able to cause constitutional amendments to get a guaranteed income, such amendments would in general be protected from the regular changes in political power(at least in places like the U.S.), baring a coup d'etat or something similar. Even private investments are not immune from drastic changes in the political arena, a dictator could easily declare communism in a country and usurp all financial assets.

Forcing people to do some sort of job, for the sake of working, is just not acceptable. IF someone wants to be totally unproductive, this should be their right if we've the automated technology to enable this for the masses. It should not be the privilege of the rich and powerful to have the ability to relax and enjoy a virtually perpetual vacation whenever they feel like it.

The only problem with sustaining billions, if they all choose not to work(which they should be free to do so), is the issue of reproduction. Obviously we can't do away with limited resources, and uncontrolled reproduction would result in system failure. Unless forced re-locations or some form of control is implemented, problems will arise. One can play all one wants with numbers in financial systems, but in the end underneath it all there are finite resources.

PS

As for trainings, unless we force upgrades on everyone(as there are likely many that will want to remain unaltered, for whatever reason), it is unlikely these unenhanced individuals will be able to compete against enhanced individuals or ais, no matter how much they train. Should we just legally force corporations to employ them? just for show, as there is no need for them in the work force?

Edited by Cameron, 26 February 2010 - 04:56 AM.

[robomoon]

Debt forgiveness or other forms of just giving money away are not going to work; you're right about that. We have a situation where half the population has a double-digit IQ, and the unemployed underclass is undoubtedly enriched in the lower end. In a world where most of these people are utterly unemployable, something will have to be done. Are you suggesting some form of cyber-training? That's a good thing to try, but realistically, a lot of these people are going to be relatively unreachable, and many of those that are reachable and even motivated still won't be able to achieve employability. I don't see a Free Market solution to turning the unemployable into workers when there's already a glut of better candidates that don't need training. What mechanism do we have to help these people without government involvement?

At the risk of being labeled a wide-eyed idealist: voluntary cooperative social action. Examples: Patientslikeme, Imminst, Kiva loans, etc... Perhaps there is something like "Kiva Schools" that can be developed where people can help others learn skills, personal economics, get GEDs, etc...

I see this as better than giving politicians so much power over so many people.

Most of those who frequently attend discussions about economics in the Internet live far away from an environment where limited resources can be experienced on a grand scale. Thus, they are trying to improve things in their own environment, without sufficient notice where resources are scarce in nearly any aspect of human living as well as in robots and computing. It's so obvious that even those who are discussing robots and computing are unsure about the peak consumption levels of finite resources in a global macroeconomy. Yet, those people are mostly from highly developed nations, with the US leading the way.

It's also the class of society which especially the brightest of the above mentioned people belong to (and attend) where some important resources don't appear much limited or depleted. This limits the awareness about some of the important resources, including food, housing, power, computers, and medicine. Imagine the poorest of low class people like those millions of habitants in the great slums which belong to some of the developing countries. Such conditions make those habitants looking at scarce resources in their environment like through a magnifying glass. However, they only see a small part of the picture and not oil reserves below their feet. Their awareness alters from intelligence, which requires DNA before other evolutionary things are kicking in.

It would be interesting to find out how many people were aware about peak oil before maximum production growth happened. It's unidentifiable if it will be an explosion of an atomic bomb in a developed country before there's awareness that the selling of nuclear power plants to a non-democratic developing country wasn't such a brilliant idea. And it's nerve killing to feel there's still demand for bioweapons out there. So the selling of a pharmaceutical production plant to one or another developing country will not necessarily lead to a healthy outcome. To be noble and lend some money to developing countries is hard, but to control what they buy will be even harder. Thus, security depends much on the intelligence of individuals who lend, receive, and profit from the money, otherwise it remains the task of the banks acting under governmental guidance and protection.

Edited by robomoon, 26 February 2010 - 09:43 PM.

[boundlesslife]

Debt forgiveness or other forms of just giving money away are not going to work; you're right about that. We have a situation where half the population has a double-digit IQ, and the unemployed underclass is undoubtedly enriched in the lower end. In a world where most of these people are utterly unemployable, something will have to be done. Are you suggesting some form of cyber-training? That's a good thing to try, but realistically, a lot of these people are going to be relatively unreachable, and many of those that are reachable and even motivated still won't be able to achieve employability. I don't see a Free Market solution to turning the unemployable into workers when there's already a glut of better candidates that don't need training. What mechanism do we have to help these people without government involvement?

Most of those who frequently attend discussions about economics in the Internet live far away from an environment where limited resources can be experienced on a grand scale. Thus, they are trying to improve things in their own environment, without sufficient notice where resources are scarce in nearly any aspect of human living as well as in robots and computing. It's so obvious that even those who are discussing robots and computing are unsure about the peak consumption levels of finite resources in a global macroeconomy. Yet, those people are mostly from highly developed nations, with the US leading the way.

In an earlier post, melly_d said

The Mind File seems like a neat way to keep your memories and other things about you stored for a long time, but you can't transfer your consciousness to a computer, so it would not really be immortality. Unless Terasem means to use the word immortality as someone would refer to the works of a great artist making him immortal because they last after his or her death.

Taking niner's concern about how an unemployable population can be supported, in the context of robomoon's observation about scarce resources and global consumption needs, the earlier post by melly_d takes us to the dilemma of how a large world population with diminishing resources will respond, confronted with the prospect that time is running out for unlimited biopopulation expansion without (that biopopulation) becoming the ward of an emergent cyberculture where the few (cyberbeings) care for the many (biohumans) so long as the majority of the biopopulation remains in a childlike state about the nature of consciousness, and declines to emigrate into cyberspace.

But, just as global warming finally became an apparent danger (unless offset by some improbable ice age), and just as energy shortages will surely stand in the way of unlimited biopopulation expansion (unless offset by a cyberculture's innovation of new energy generation and management systems to extend the timeline), the limitations of remaining in a purely traditional biological form will eventually become so apparent to the biopopulation that few are likely to want to remain bound to them.

As an example, cryonicists wed to the idea that identity can only be conserved by repair of every last neuron "frozen" (pardon me, "vitrified") so that it resumes its functionality with exactly the same bioresponsivity to input stimuli (dendritic sensitivity to input-axon neurotransmitters, as well as internal aggregation of such stimuli to the end of firing as prior to cryonic suspension) overlook the fact that, aside from the improbability of such a "reanimation" being feasible prior to cyberculture having moved to entirely a new and fantastically higher cultural domain, after reanimation by that (perfected biorepair) standard they would be at risk that a sudden tumble from a cliff in a remote area while hiking alone might result in their going into oblivion just as surely as if they had been struck by an inbound meteoritic fragment rather than having been "frozen" in the first place. Setting aside such "single-point failure for oblivionsville" risks, speed-of-thought-limitations and imperfections-of-and-limited-sizes-of-memory handicaps virtually would assure that such reanimated cryonicists would live in an isolated community of like-minded individuals. They would have about as much commonality with cyberculture at that time as a tribe of chimpanzees trying (unsuccessfully) to be part of a hunter-gatherer community (of primitive humans) in New Guinea.

In simpler terms, being convinced that "you can't transfer your consciousness to a computer" puts you at risk of remaining in a state of relatively infintesimal sentience and high risk of oblivion, but that's what you're stuck with if you decline to join the emigration into cyberspace and become all that you might be there. Eventually, such notions will be as relegated to antiquity as the idea that, "The Earth is flat and could not possibly be an oblate spheroid!" Most of humanity, whether sooner or later, will make the jump into cyberspace. Only a few hold-out biofundamentalists will remain as they are now, in isolated communities that will no doubt be as carefully cared for as "living history museums" are now maintained to give a sense of how humans might have lived in the past. At such a time, world problems of limited food and scarce energy will be long gone.

About all I can do is recommend a thorough reading of Martine Rothblatt's blog about the "mindfile" concept. Beyond that, the Terasem Journals are a great resource. If you've read Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near" with care, and think that sooner or later his projections of advancing technology will become a reality, then these are comparatively easy to read.

Edited by boundlesslife, 28 February 2010 - 06:44 AM.

[modelcadet]

Gotta love futurism. So much of it is just truism. Whenever you speculate on the future, it is useful to examine how your predictions fare presently or in history.

Here is one such prediction: Webized Economy. We will continue to innovate monetarily, in ways that surprise even the most righteous among us Singularitarianerds.

I want to create a bank, with a monetary system, for human capital. I make the above prediction because I choose to believe we can bring this open database for educational accreditation, Brainery, into existence and apply the growth of information technology to the last remaining field to be touched by its Moore's Law driven exponential growth... information technology.