893 replies to this topic

[niner]

I don't think that the singularity will be the fundamental problem.  I think most of the problems will come before the singularity.  If the singularity is really a super-intelligence, it will figure out how society should be structured to optimize functionality and human happiness.  Of course, we probably wouldn't listen to it, but it should be smart enough to trick us into doing what is best for us.

[mag1]

It is good that we got the singularity out into the open.

Robotic transport is only a small instance of the potential of the singularity force to disrupt human society. This small instance would likely dislocate hundreds of millions of humans.

How far off is the main event: the singularity event? The preliminary lead-up might only be 10 years away. Any comments?

[niner]

The date "2045" gets tossed around a lot.  I think it was probably pulled out of a rabbit hat, more or less, given the difficulty of long range predictions in an extremely (by definition!) non-linear domain.  If we define the singu larity (I am sick of those idiotic links that get inserted every time I write "that word" without a space in it) as the point when AGIs become able to modify and improve themselves, and quickly become much much smarter than humans, well... First we need a decent AGI.  At the rate we're going, that could take a while.   The thing is, AGI is the sort of thing that doesn't work, until it does.  The whole point of a mathematical sing ularity is an explosive, hyper-nonlinear response.  It's inherently difficult to predict when it will happen.  My guess is that ten years is too soon.  2045 sounds like as good a guess as any.

[mag1]

Yeah, I was thinking more that in ten years people will start to feel a noticeable storm a brewing. When the (S word; don't want the underline either) actually arrives it will be like meeting divinity. As the approaching S word nears it will feel more like a gale force wind.

Possibly the real question is how strong will be the force trying to stop the singularity. What might happen if virtually every advanced nation would reverse the law that makes germ cell therapy illegal. Whoever gave government the right to force its citizens to be afflicted with devastating genetic illnesses when the obvious and relatively easy technical fix of genetic engineering would solve their problems? When citizens are technologically illiterate they are unknowingly denied freedom from their afflictions.

If we wanted to move the S word forward we could always genetically engineer a world of sheer genius. Considering recent developments in mRNA technology this might not require those of us already born to miss out on being geniuses. Such genetic engineering is already possible, why are people avoiding the approaching singularity? Genetic engineering of humans will be necessary for the S word event to be a positive force in people's lives. Many comments on this thread are about the devastating consequences that likely will result
if the current genetic makeup of humanity is not changed before the big event. For many the approaching changes will unfortunately be ac curse and not a blessing.

I think the S word might also be moved forward, if a large swimming pool was filled with human neural stem cells with the intent of creating a massive, eternal human super intelligence. Might this forum be interested in creating such a Big Brain project?

[Danail Bulgaria]

Very futuristic idea for the massive super human brain, taking the volume of a swimming pool. Something like the Zerg Cerebrate in the Star Craft PC game? Idea is interesting. Pity, that we don't have the money to realize all of our ideas. How will you make it eternal?

 

[mag1]

I thought the massive human brain in the swimming pool was also pretty cool.

In one story line that I imagined, a university research project might start out by trying to grow a conscious blob of neural matter in their school's swimming pool with the intention of developing a conscious and intelligent life form.

{A human brain has about 1000 cc = 1 liter of brain volume.
An Olympic sized swimming pool has about 2.5 million liters.}

Many amusing plots could develop from the basic setup.

For example, after consciousness was established the superbrain (also known as The Big Brain), would rapidly assimilate humanities knowledge. At some point, The Big Brain might encounter growing pains due to the perceived limitations of only having 2.5 million human brain equivalent computational power. With this sense of inadequacy Big Brain might create circumstances in which its brain power could increase. In one happily ever ending, Big Brain might develop dominance of the planet's economic and social resources with the aim of growing an ever larger cranial capacity. Big Brain's neural volume might increase from the volume of a swimming pool, to a large pyramid structure to ultimately the entire volume of the planet. It would then become known as World Brain.

It would not be unexpected that at some point Big Brain would single-handedly create a singularity event. However, this would be a true human singularity event. The problem with thinking about computers generating the singularity is that computers might never really get the point of being human. Already computers could be employed to create perfectly safe highway transport. The only difficult point is that now the robotic computer controlled cars would now have to share the road with humans. This makes the problem tough. Computers would also have conceptual difficulties in understanding love.

Big Brain could have many adventures exploring its humanness including love, power etc..

[mag1]

Brain cells do not normally divide. Recent research has found a way to increase telomeres. The super brain would constantly want more brain cells added to improve its intelligence. By moving away from biological pumps and circulatory systems which have serious design issues the super brain would be expected to exist into the distant future.

And of course, it is the superbrain. These problems of it immortalizing itself would be trivial to solve for the superbrain.

[Elus]

"...it’s rare to find people in the AI field openly fret about their work resulting in the elimination of millions upon millions of jobs. So it was interesting, indeed alarming, to find not one but two AI and machine intelligence experts raise serious concerns this week about the potential impact of recent advances on the labor market."

 

Now, Even Artificial Intelligence Gurus Fret That AI Will Steal Our Jobs

 

 

[mag1]

I do not see how this technology could not cause massive job dislocation.

When I walk around my neighbourhood there are many retail outlets which tempt me to walk in and buy something (mostly selling food items). When I think of what such a walk would be like once robotic transport arrives, I shudder: none of these locations would offer such a temptation to me. For miles in every direction from where I live (in a densely populated urban area) these retail stores would have minimal future prospects. The same logic would also apply on a planet wide scale.

Local convenience stores are able to charge a premium for goods because it is usually not worth the effort to travel farther for a better deal. The robocars would solve this last mile problem. The price competition that would emerge from robotic technology would be intense. Delivery of items within a city with self-driving vehicles likely would cost less than $1, possibly only pennies. Economies of scale would quickly push almost all of these local retail businesses out of business. The consequences of the lost revenues for local governments from taxes on these retail stores would be considerable.

[niner]

Mag1, I don't see how the walk changes if there are robocars in the street versus taxicabs and distracted drivers.  If anything, the robocars should make a more pleasant environment for pedestrians.  I don't see robocars pushing retail stores out of business, because people are going into those stores for entertainment, not just to get stuff.  People want to leave their pods and walk (or ride, or drive) around occasionally.  Robocars with small delivery droids to take packages out of the car and bring them to the doorstep might be the killer app that lets Amazon replace most stores that just exchange cash for goods without providing much of an experience.  I don't think they would have much luck putting Starbucks out of business.

[mag1]

Here's another vignette (perhaps somewhat melodramatic. I am not particularly adept with words or emotionally subtlety, though I will do my best.)

On many a dark and stormy night I have washed up at a local restaurant and have gladly been relieved of treasure in exchange for a well-cooked meal from a family from a far-a-away shore. Kind words between the restaurateur and me and a delicious meal for my whole family make the trade a joy for all.

I now imagine a walk on a dark and stormy night in the future. From a lurking shadow, someone approaches. My money will not be gladly given this time... it is my money or my ---. A sad beaten down person, once a proud business owner, no longer has anything to offer for my money. This time he needs to feed his family. And then there will be the hundreds of millions of other people also lurking in the dark, some even more desperate than the ex-business owner.



“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

What butcher, baker, or brewer? Robocars could displace our entire retail economy. Adam Smith never conceived of a world in which the small business owners of a community could plausibly be displaced by an overwhelmingly efficient transport technology. Unfortunately, too many of his protégés will continue to advance his brilliant ideas without contemplating the present circumstances. It has been mentioned that the singularity might be 30 years away, though already significant concerns about the economic relevance of much of our labour economy are being voiced.

I am worried about this.


“It is not from the benevolence of [me the customer] that I trade my wealth for dinner, but from [my] regard to [my] own self-interest. They address themselves not to [my] humanity but to my self-love, and never talk to me of their own necessities, but of my advantages.”

Much of the retail trade is about necessity, not amusement. Robocars will offer a tremendous relief from having to drag ourselves to busy stores with long checkout lines and filled parking lots after a long day at work. All this and at a more competitive price than could be offered by a local store will make the choice easy.

Already, buying supplements from California (half a continent away) is cheaper and easier than walking down my street. What would happen to our economy if shipping goods direct from China might cost almost nothing?

[Lewis Carroll]

I do not see how this technology could not cause massive job dislocation.

When I walk around my neighbourhood there are many retail outlets which tempt me to walk in and buy something (mostly selling food items). When I think of what such a walk would be like once robotic transport arrives, I shudder: none of these locations would offer such a temptation to me. For miles in every direction from where I live (in a densely populated urban area) these retail stores would have minimal future prospects. The same logic would also apply on a planet wide scale.

Local convenience stores are able to charge a premium for goods because it is usually not worth the effort to travel farther for a better deal. The robocars would solve this last mile problem. The price competition that would emerge from robotic technology would be intense. Delivery of items within a city with self-driving vehicles likely would cost less than $1, possibly only pennies. Economies of scale would quickly push almost all of these local retail businesses out of business. The consequences of the lost revenues for local governments from taxes on these retail stores would be considerable.

 

I feel like it's fair to say that the coming automation will, no doubt, result in "massive job dislocation". It's to be expected. Many industries will be dramatically impacted and forced to change - I just seem this as necessary and to be expected. When humans transitioned from horses to automobiles, there was also "massive job dislocation" as well as societal restructuring. Society as a whole adapted to a complete paradigm shift. I guess, I have a bit more of a positive forecast then yourself - In my opinion, the future will be quite wonderful, and technological advancement, such as the automation, is a step in the right direction.

[mag1]

Sure, sure the future does look wonderful. I am just so happy now. I can access the works of the world's leading scientists published in open access online journals. Posting on this forum is another experience that I derive considerable pleasure from. For me,(personally) I cannot wait for the singularity to happen (the sooner the better). I predict the time after the singularity event will be one of infinite personal wealth. Anything that I desire will be available to me --immortality, biotech enhancement,... I can definitely see the light coming.

My main concern is other people. For a surprising number of people, the only thing that separates them from homelessness is their next paycheck. How could people live like that? The labor turmoil that could result from robocars might not be far off. The resulting dislocation might require much more time to resolve than 1 or 2 paycheck cycles. Many people just do not seem cognitively wired for the age of intellect. They need to do things, be with people, move around. They psychologically need a job. Wave after wave of ever more impressive technology is approaching. How will other people cope?


The singularity is expected in thirty years. A time of essentially infinite technological progress which would likely completely displace human civilization. It will be very interesting when parents will need to tell their children that they will not be expected to graduate high school before a period of infinite technological progress will occur.

However, much before the main event people will feel the influence of the approaching storm. Supercomputers already can match human computation. It is expected that computer conducted Nobel caliber science is only 10 years away. Consider how such a technology alone could have transformative implications for humanity. The ability to produce an unlimited quantity of high caliber science would have far reaching consequences.

[Elus]

I feel like it's fair to say that the coming automation will, no doubt, result in "massive job dislocation". It's to be expected. Many industries will be dramatically impacted and forced to change - I just seem this as necessary and to be expected. When humans transitioned from horses to automobiles, there was also "massive job dislocation" as well as societal restructuring. Society as a whole adapted to a complete paradigm shift. I guess, I have a bit more of a positive forecast then yourself - In my opinion, the future will be quite wonderful, and technological advancement, such as the automation, is a step in the right direction.

 

I think that's the classic argument: Things will be fine because we've already had something like this happen during the industrial revolution, but displaced workers always found new jobs. 

 

Reasons why I think this argument isn't valid anymore:

 

1. Technological change has never happened at this rate before. Computers are getting exponentially faster, and AI/robotics will ride a Moore's law curve. People won't be able to adapt because these changes are simply happening too fast. Retraining 10s of millions, or potentially hundreds of millions of people will be completely useless if their training is outdated by the time they are trained. 

 

2. Artificial intelligence is different from mechanical muscles that we've seen during the industrial revolution. These machines are intelligent which is vast departure from the steam engine. These machines have the potential to displace knowledge workers, which is the very thing that makes humans uniquely suited to today's jobs. 

 

3. Horses that were displaced during when the car was invented didn't simply find new jobs. They became unemployable. New technology doesn't automatically mean new, better jobs for horses. It seems silly to even say that. Replace horses with humans and the point emerges. Humans aren't unique snowflakes. Machines can and currently are on the path to massively displace knowledge workers from a huge numbers of areas, precisely because they have vision and Artificial Intelligence. 

Edited by Elus, 02 February 2015 - 04:03 AM.

[mag1]

Could a future be imagined in which every possible good or service could be provided by some form of artificial technology?

If so, this would be a world of 100% human unemployment.

[Lewis Carroll]

 

I feel like it's fair to say that the coming automation will, no doubt, result in "massive job dislocation". It's to be expected. Many industries will be dramatically impacted and forced to change - I just seem this as necessary and to be expected. When humans transitioned from horses to automobiles, there was also "massive job dislocation" as well as societal restructuring. Society as a whole adapted to a complete paradigm shift. I guess, I have a bit more of a positive forecast then yourself - In my opinion, the future will be quite wonderful, and technological advancement, such as the automation, is a step in the right direction.

 

I think that's the classic argument: Things will be fine because we've already had something like this happen during the industrial revolution, but displaced workers always found new jobs. 

 

Reasons why I think this argument isn't valid anymore:

 

1. Technological change has never happened at this rate before. Computers are getting exponentially faster, and AI/robotics will ride a Moore's law curve. People won't be able to adapt because these changes are simply happening too fast. Retraining 10s of millions, or potentially hundreds of millions of people will be completely useless if their training is outdated by the time they are trained. 

 

2. Artificial intelligence is different from mechanical muscles that we've seen during the industrial revolution. These machines are intelligent which is vast departure from the steam engine. These machines have the potential to displace knowledge workers, which is the very thing that makes humans uniquely suited to today's jobs. 

 

3. Horses that were displaced during when the car was invented didn't simply find new jobs. They became unemployable. New technology doesn't automatically mean new, better jobs for horses. It seems silly to even say that. Replace horses with humans and the point emerges. Humans aren't unique snowflakes. Machines can and currently are on the path to massively displace knowledge workers from a huge numbers of areas, precisely because they have vision and Artificial Intelligence. 

 

 

I think you read too far into one sentence. I in no way believe that the coming automation or singularity will be comparable to the industrial revolution. However, I do standby everything I said - the impact will be drastic as well as paradigm shifting (though on an exponentially different degree then when it happened in the past). With that said, I agree with everything you said. As we've discussed, I think it's very likely that the majority of people will be out of work. A basic income seems like a very plausible variable of the solution

[mag1]

What we are probably all missing out on here is that the end result of the technological revolution that is nearing is the end of scarcity. Even more difficult than trying to understand infinite technological progress might be imagining a world in which our primate conception of limited resources simply did not apply. For all intents and purposes, infinite technological change will equal infinite prosperity. We might be about to witness the end of economics as understood by Adam Smith and others.

Consider what happens when the singularity event occurs and solar panels begin an innovation curve. Once the optimal design is sent to a 3-D printer, it would not take long before the price of electricity approached 0.0 cents per kilowatt hour. The most likely result of the singularity for the economy will be an extreme deflationary spiral. People will have all the things they need and it will cost almost nothing.

Such extreme deflation would likely occur in every industry. As has been mentioned on this thread, one of the likely consequences of robocars will be a friction free economy in which goods and services will be able to move to consumers at minimal cost.

Edited by mag1, 02 February 2015 - 05:42 AM.

[niner]

Could a future be imagined in which every possible good or service could be provided by some form of artificial technology?

If so, this would be a world of 100% human unemployment.

 

Yes, it could be imagined.  We're heading for a post-human world, so post-employment doesn't seem so weird in that context.  (by post-human, I mean a world where people will be chemically, biologically, electronically and mechanically enhanced, and where we will be in control of our biological destiny in ways never before thought possible.)   If a post-employment world is coming, we will need to find ways for people to occupy their time, to have a sense of usefulness, and to derive the intangible benefits of work.  Our entire economic system will have to be different.   Mathematically, singu1arities are messy.  They're probably going to be messy IRL too.  I wish we were wise enough to steer things in the right direction, but I think we are just too emotional and stupid.  I think that the post-singu1arity period will be great, because the super-AI that is the presumed hallmark of the Singu1arity should at least in principle be able to develop a societal model that would work for us.  It's that pre-Singu1arity world that worries me.

 

(Lame use of leet spelling in order to defeat the hated "keyword" system.)

[Elus]

I think you read too far into one sentence. I in no way believe that the coming automation or singularity will be comparable to the industrial revolution. However, I do standby everything I said - the impact will be drastic as well as paradigm shifting (though on an exponentially different degree then when it happened in the past). With that said, I agree with everything you said. As we've discussed, I think it's very likely that the majority of people will be out of work. A basic income seems like a very plausible variable of the solution

 

Yep, I think I read a little too much into it. I do think the adaptation part of it will, as you say, involve some form of basic income. 

[Elus]

Yes, it could be imagined.  We're heading for a post-human world, so post-employment doesn't seem so weird in that context.  (by post-human, I mean a world where people will be chemically, biologically, electronically and mechanically enhanced, and where we will be in control of our biological destiny in ways never before thought possible.)   If a post-employment world is coming, we will need to find ways for people to occupy their time, to have a sense of usefulness, and to derive the intangible benefits of work.  Our entire economic system will have to be different.   Mathematically, singu1arities are messy.  They're probably going to be messy IRL too.  I wish we were wise enough to steer things in the right direction, but I think we are just too emotional and stupid.  I think that the post-singu1arity period will be great, because the super-AI that is the presumed hallmark of the Singu1arity should at least in principle be able to develop a societal model that would work for us.  It's that pre-Singu1arity world that worries me.

 

(Lame use of leet spelling in order to defeat the hated "keyword" system.)

 

 

I have to agree that the pre-Singularity period worries me most. It's that period which will shape events to come. For example, we can either subjugate the masses while wealth continues to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands, or we could have a quasi-Utopian society whereby we all share in the abundance derived from the technology that we create. 

 

As for occupying ourselves... I think virtual reality and merging with technology will allow us to have greater capabilities and vaster experiences than we have today. I think the future could be a very interesting place if we find ways to augment our own intelligence and see the world in a new light. 

Edited by Elus, 02 February 2015 - 06:09 AM.

[Kalliste]

The date "2045" gets tossed around a lot.  I think it was probably pulled out of a rabbit hat, more or less, given the difficulty of long range predictions in an extremely (by definition!) non-linear domain.  If we define the singu larity (I am sick of those idiotic links that get inserted every time I write "that word" without a space in it) as the point when AGIs become able to modify and improve themselves, and quickly become much much smarter than humans, well... First we need a decent AGI.  At the rate we're going, that could take a while.   The thing is, AGI is the sort of thing that doesn't work, until it does.  The whole point of a mathematical sing ularity is an explosive, hyper-nonlinear response.  It's inherently difficult to predict when it will happen.  My guess is that ten years is too soon.  2045 sounds like as good a guess as any.

 

I recall that someone on LessWrong summed up the various dates proposed and matched them to the proposers own age and there was a very striking correlation. Almost everyone were betting it would happen when they were ~65yrs.

[mag1]

After reading many of the entries on the thread, I am surprised how many have predicted that the singularity will transfer power to the wealthiest in the community. Displacement of low skilled labor has been ongoing since the Great Depression. At this stratum of society, adjustment to the effects of technological change have been ongoing for many decades. It would seem that in the approaching years, the pressures of technological change will gradually work up the social ladder.

Many of those who might have thought they were immune to such technological changes will realize how untrue such an assumption was. For example, in almost every society teachers occupy a vitally important social position. The contribution that they have made to human civilization has, without question, been invaluable. Educators have been, undoubtedly, the primary agents of the spread of knowledge in our society. In many communities, educators form an elite power group with considerable power. The power of teachers stretches over much of human history and has increased greatly over the past century with universal educational opportunities for all citizens of modern industrialized societies.

Notwithstanding this glowing praise of educators as the illuminators of humanity, it is no great stretch of the imagination to predict that current technology has already seriously called into question the future role of teachers in education. Who on this forum has not already enrolled in a MOOC? MOOCs are free! How will the educational system cope with such competition? Given a choice between a traditional school environment and an online environment, who would now attend a physical schoolroom? I would not. The implications for education are profound. It is unclear, even now, whether the contributions of educators to humanity should be understood as something from the past and not the future.

[mag1]

Another aspect of this topic that should be addressed is how the singularity force could be used by advanced societies as a form of technological provocation. Advanced industrialized societies have been involved in conflicts (now for decades) with less advanced nations. Violence has been selected as the mode to prosecute these conflicts. Such conflicts have become increasingly hopelessly unsolvable as less and less rationality becomes forthcoming from either side. Considering the discussion on this thread, it might be useful for advanced societies to contemplate complexity challenges as a way of advancing our strategic objectives. Consider how a robotic complexifier might help to intellectually engage those who we now engage with violence.

Observant readers of this thread will have noted how powerfully the issues of the singularity event (and the possible unemployment of everyone in our community) has been able to psychologically engage those on the thread. The idea itself of the singularity event is acquiring considerable power. Perhaps if we could spread the Singularity thought virus to nations that we are in conflict they will realize that the real enemy is no longer other people, but technology. If they realize that we have common cause with them, they can stop attacking us and start attacking the machines! Such an argument would likely not be a difficult sell in many such nations. Many of them have not made the leap to a fully modern economy. Consider the profound level of economic dislocation that would result if they were to move away from a subsistence agriculture lifestyle.

It is possible that the occult reason for our present conflict with these nations is their confrontation of the singularity force in their own communities. If this were true, then we could reframe the conflict in order to discuss directly the challenges they are facing instead of avoiding the real conversation that should be taking place.

[Danail Bulgaria]

While reading your posts and thinking more about the singularity, I more and more get the strange feeling, that it will be not liked from the majority of the people here.

 

I don't want to get more in details, because it will be even more political. In brief, I will summarize, that now you stopped dreaming for communism or capitalism. Now you started to dream for fascism and military dictatorship.

[niner]

While reading your posts and thinking more about the singularity, I more and more get the strange feeling, that it will be not liked from the majority of the people here.

 

I don't want to get more in details, because it will be even more political. In brief, I will summarize, that now you stopped dreaming for communism or capitalism. Now you started to dream for fascism and military dictatorship.

 

This is kind of cryptic, but are you suggesting that the dictator will be an AI and the military will be robots (and humans, presumably enslaved) acting as the AI's enforcer?  As long as we don't program power-lust, greed, envy, xenophobia, nationalism, and all the other drivers of negative human behavior into the AI, then wouldn't we have a "benevolent dictatorship"?  That's widely agreed to be a very effective form of government, probably the best form.   A benevolent AI wouldn't enslave humans, but would design systems where humans had incentives to behave well.  There would still be bad humans, so we'd still need cops, robo- or not.

[Danail Bulgaria]

I may start with, that some agencies, would be interested very much, in the chips, that, the singularity people intend to implant in their heads. But I don't want to write more about that, because first it is only a theory (a conspiracy theory), and the interest of the governments in these chips may not actually lead certainly to establish a full control of the citizens, and these chips may not be used to deviate your mind, as the crazy people today think, and they may not be used to eventually kill you from a distance, by making the chip to disrupt certain parts of your brain, that control vital functions, etc., etc., and  second, because the topic became too political, and I am not a politician.

 

Plus, as I wrote previously, I don't care what the future system will be, as long as it makes me immortal lol.

 

I am out of this topic. I wish you a good luck in the future!

Edited by seivtcho, 03 February 2015 - 05:13 PM.

[Lewis Carroll]

Robots Will Steal Your Job - But That's Okay...

 

I'm a young technoptimist, so many may disagree with my overly optimistic view of the future. As I've mentioned before, I agree that there will be massive dislocation and other dramatic societal change. The process may get a bit messy, but I see a wonderful world of abundance on the the other side

 

Abundance Is In Our Future

[Elus]

Hi guys, I think we're getting a little off topic. I've marked the posts in this thread which I feel are straying a bit too far from the subject at hand. 

 

I didn't really make this thread to discuss the Singularity or conspiracy theories about the Singularity.

 

This thread is more about automation - while artificial intelligence is a part of that, I don't want this thread to devolve into speculation about the Singularity. Also, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is only tangentially related to the topic and is still very much outside our current capability. I'm fine with discussion about artificial intelligence (self driving cars, speech recognition, natural language understanding, etc) but let's leave terminator scenarios and AGI for another thread. 

 

Also, let's not make up stories or things of that nature. I want to keep the discussion in this thread somewhat grounded in reality. 

 

Let's keep discussion away from technologies that are speculative in nature (AGI, Nanobots, Atomic 3D printers, etc) and instead discuss ones that are already being demonstrated and/or entering the marketplace. 

 

I think being too speculative undermines the premise of the thread, which is that there are technologies currently out there that have the potential to massively disrupt the world's economy and the labor force. 

Edited by Elus, 03 February 2015 - 06:23 PM.

[Sanhar]

 

The New Communism would be different since the work would be done by robots that do not require motivation. The wealth would then be spread out evenly and no extra effort would be required by the people since they are no longer required to work.

The more you talk about it the more it sounds like a dystopian scenario.

This is why people don't like to think about this future.

There are more liberty friendly things that can be done instead of making 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 a reality.

 

If you want to make commodities free - that's fair enough - but there should always be something for people to strive for. In my opinion you're not solving the problem, you're intensifying it.

 

 

 

There is.  In my experience, when people are freed from having to concern themselves with basic needs they can be very, very intent on striving for what thy *want*.  I believe there are a lot of people who don't "fit in" to the usual work society who have tried to find a place in it, partly or not successfully, who would be able to contribute a lot more if they had a basic income coming in.

People who have ambition would still have it.  People who don't still won't.  All we are really doing is putting the issue of finding employment for people to bed once and for all.  As to the rich corporations?  They could look at the taxes they pay as operating costs to sustain the world they are clearly on top of as opposed to having it degrade and crumble away beneath them.  That's about the size of it, right?

 

[mag1]

Well, yeah I suppose many of my comments were somewhat off topic. This thread is destroying my positive-negative scores, so I will try and stay more focussed, though many of my posts were important enough to be expressed.

I think it might be helpful to mention some of the employment / economic developments that have recently arisen in my community due to the sweeping wave of technological change. Recently, our postal service has announced that due to rapidly declining postal volumes, door to door service will be suspended (I live in a major North American city). We now rarely ever receive mail. The union protecting the postal workers is widely considered the most militantly socialist union in the world.

It has not been that long ago that our government decided that half the hospitals in our city should be closed. Apparently, rapid technological advances had many most of the hospitals redundant. The government had resisted proceeding with the downsizing for decades due to political fall out that would result.

The same is true about our schools. Plunging fertility rates that has been ongoing for decades has made a substantial portion of our schools nearly empty. Political pressure has continued to defer any rationalization on this issue. However, as I mentioned earlier, the problem of surplus schools is no longer strictly about a demographic transition. I would expect that no one in my family from now to eternity will ever set foot in a brick and mortar school again. Such schools might make good museums. The educational experiences that I have had while taking courses from online universities have been at least an order of magnitude superior to those that I had in a physical school. Does anyone possibly think spending 30 minutes in class with other restless youth makes any sense? Most of my tutors from my online courses have expressed extreme amazement at the level of my course achievement (even though I have had no contact with other students or been provided any exceptional assistance). The online resources that I now have at my disposal from my home has resulted in my ability to extensively research any question asked on any of my assignments which has resulted in an extraordinary level of accomplishment in my courses.

The recent announcement that our government is pursuing the sale of our electric generating capacity should also not be startling. The entire North American electric generating capital infrastructure is expected to be cost uncompetitive with the arrival of more competitive solar cells within two years.

These are just some of the more obvious changes.