Support NeoGAF

[water_wendi]

Here's what will happen.

Robots will replace all jobs, except the executives of the companies who use the robots and some technicians to fix the robots if they break. These people will become obscenely rich.

"There are many bromides applicable here - too much of a good thing, tiger by the tail, as you sow so shall you reap. The point is that too often man becomes clever instead of becoming wise, he becomes inventive but not thoughtful - and sometimes, as in the case of Mr. Whipple, he can create himself right out of existence. Tonight's tale of oddness and obsolescence from the Twilight Zone."

 

[Puddles]

I always thought the logical twist for The Matrix series would be for the heroes to find out that the humans put themselves in the matrix by choice. That would have been better than the New Testament retelling that they ended up going with.

 

[grumble]

The "old guys" won't get us anywhere and haven't done so. The only justification for the ultra-rich is that they serve as a source of funding, but funding itself is fungible. "Production" comes from the workers who turn natural resources into products we use. "Innovation" comes from scientists, engineers, designers and artists who by and large are not the super-rich.

The idea that the super-rich are carrying us on their backs is brain-dead Randian philosophy that needs to die a quick death.

Well, the rich do often provide coordination and leadership that allows the potential of the workers to be realized.

 

[Zzoram]

I always thought the logical twist for The Matrix series would be for the heroes to find out that the humans put themselves in the matrix by choice. That would have been better than the New Testament retelling that they ended up going with.

The Matrix made no sense to begin with. Humans or any life on Earth being used as an energy source is ridiculous, all energy on Earth is from the sun or from the core. All energy humans have is a result of consuming food that got it's energy from the sun through photosynthesis of plants at some point. The more steps you put between energy and use, the more energy is lost in the transfers.

If the sun was blocked out, the machines would just work to clean the sky while tapping into the core heat for energy and using nuclear energy. They would also build a network of solar satellites to put above the atmosphere and collect solar energy, and have them connect down to base stations on Earth with thick cables to penetrate the cloudy skies.

 

[Puddles]

Well, the rich do often provide coordination and leadership that allows the potential of the workers to be realized.

And for this they are clearly deserving of 90% of all human wealth.

 

[mkenyon]

A hybrid between capitalism and socialism sure. But there are always fields that need innovation, and healthy controlled capitalism is most compatible with leading to competition that results in higher rates of innovation. Corrupt relations between businesses and government are the real issues of today.

For example, who makes these robots? Who adds features? Why would someone want to pursue a career of hard work in science and engineering to improve these features when in a purely socialist society they could kick back and take a far less demanding job?

I think you might be interested in Market Socialism. If you are the type of person to really like reading this kind of stuff, check out David Schweickart's After Capitalism.

Also, when you look at an advanced capitalist economy, is there really any more competition than if government handled such an important industry like infrastructure? In effect, how can you trust an organization that is ultimately autocratic (private enterprise) any more than a system that is ultimately accountable to the public (government), especially if that private enterprise is in a market with almost zero competition? Two businesses striving for the money in your wallet is far from the classical definition of market competition.

 

[Something Wicked]

As along as there are people who study more, train harder, and work longer than their peers, and expect to be rewarded for such work/specialization, a near economically "equal society" is an eternal pipedream.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

The human condition is one of the most important aspects to market competition. As computers continue to advance, so will competition because technology is a spillover effect. Every company can take advantage of it. But human skills of ingenuity, inventiveness and creativity will be in demand by markets because they the ability to differentiate themselves from the competition.

The problem with technological advantages is that anyone can access them. So there will never be a complete technologically homogeneous state because it's counter productive to the profit equation.

 

[mkenyon]

As along as there are people who study more, train harder, and work longer than their peers, and expect to be rewarded for such work/specialization, a near economically "equal society" is an eternal pipedream.

Non-alienating labor is humanly rewarding. Humans requiring financial rewards for their hard work is not universal. It is a socially learned response.

 

[dinazimmerman]

So there will never be a complete technologically homogeneous state because it's counter productive to the profit equation.

What do you mean by technological homogeneity? Everyone having access to the same technology?

 

[HarryHengst]

Well, the rich do often provide coordination and leadership that allows the potential of the workers to be realized.

Hmm yes, because clearly people cant do shit unless some rich old white dude is telling them what to do.

As along as there are people who study more, train harder, and work longer than their peers, and expect to be rewarded for such work/specialization, a near economically "equal society" is an eternal pipedream.

This is what capitalism promotes yes.

 

[Puddles]

As along as there are people who study more, train harder, and work longer than their peers, and expect to be rewarded for such work/specialization, a near economically "equal society" is an eternal pipedream.

What happens when there are people who study just as hard, train just as hard, and work just as hard, and all they get for all that effort is a meager paycheck that won't support a family followed by watching the job get outsourced to a country where someone will do it for $2/hr in a place where the cost of living is less than $5/day?

Oh wait, that already happened.

 

[teh_pwn]

I think you might be interested in Market Socialism. If you are the type of person to really like reading this kind of stuff, check out David Schweickart's After Capitalism.

Also, when you look at an advanced capitalist economy, is there really any more competition than if government handled such an important industry like infrastructure? In effect, how can you trust an organization that is ultimately autocratic (private enterprise) any more than a system that is ultimately accountable to the public (government), especially if that private enterprise is in a market with almost zero competition? Two businesses striving for the money in your wallet is far from the classical definition of market competition.

I think central planning and government ownership of established industries makes sense (insurance, power, roads, trains), and social safety nets are essential to keeping society stable.

But I'm not sure the government should own all industry. While that gets rid of the CEO aristocracy, it also gets rid of your Warren Buffets and Bill Gates. I think kind of industries the government needs to be a strict referee on the sidelines that is absolutely separated from any financial dealings with these industries. I think the failure of this separation is what causes problems because businesses use their wealth to buy out votes to redirect tax dollars to their financials rather than innovating to increase profits. The explosion of wireless technology was delayed due to companies like AT&T lobbying to prevent use of the wireless frequencies we use today. Sort of parallels with how internet companies are stagnating innovation today.

No matter whether Democrats or Republicans are in office, it seems like the same backdoor dealings are made, we just get different social policies and a bunch of political theater. The corruption between the Federal Reserve and the large banks is precisely the same no matter who is in office.

I also think there should be way more funding of scientific research but also a greater separation of government directing where the funding goes based on policies resulting from lobbying.

This sort of stuff does interest me, but I've convinced myself so much that the financial interaction between large, lazy businesses and government is the problem. Maybe I would see the other problems when this is corrected.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Non-alienating labor is humanly rewarding. Humans requiring financial rewards for their hard work is not universal. It is a socially learned response.

Exactly. The act of doing something, anything to keep yourself busy is innately rewarding.

Getting paid for it, and doing it being the only means to make a living is a socially learned response.

How many people here would prefer to spend their time having discussions on gaf, playing sports, writing short stories, watching movies, playing board games, building with legos, playing with your kids, playing videogames whatever it is that interests you, rather than working if they still get paid and get their needs cared for?

All those things are rewarding, and can qualify as labor, but they are labor we pursue out of interest rather than out of necessity.

People in a post work society will still do things, they will just be doing the things that they actually want to do.

 

[Puddles]

In such a society, I'd rather that we limited creativity to humans. Even if robots can eventually do it better (a dubious prediction IMO), I'd rather that creative output, at least on the artistic side of things, came from humans.

I'm a writer, and if I couldn't write horror novels because robots did it better, I'd probably end myself.

 

[empty vessel]

Well, the rich do often provide coordination and leadership that allows the potential of the workers to be realized.

Well, but that's only because they are rich, not because of who they are. It is the accumulated capital that allows for coordination, not the people who are awarded its control.

As along as there are people who study more, train harder, and work longer than their peers, and expect to be rewarded for such work/specialization, a near economically "equal society" is an eternal pipedream.

Not at all. Indeed, your premises could all be true, and it would still be false to say that a "near economically equal society" is unobtainable.

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

In other words technology is potentially causing and enabling us to seriously, globally question the matter of what a human being is fundamentally for.

Incidentally I live in a town with some of the lowest employment in the UK. Jobs here are generally either retail or (in large part) public sector - but there are legions here who simply do not work, never have and never will.

They get by alright on the state. It's a pretty naff way of life, one which I have experienced myself while I've lived here, but it does let people live.

Ironic that a lot of the public sector work revolves around providing services for these people (it's amazing the amount of free shit they get in exchange for a little dignity). Somehow what we might call the normal economy of buy / sell / trade value has been thrown into reverse.

The interesting point for me is that, while the scroungers only scrounge because it's what they've come to expect from life, at this point the workers only work for exactly the same reason. There are few needs being satisfied by working other than common expectation - I work because it's what you do, isn't it?

But there's very little point, if you care to look closely. Those on the dole seem to have just come to terms with life support and permanent leisure time. Really they're the pioneers, it seems.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

In other words technology is potentially causing and enabling us to seriously, globally question the matter of what a human being is fundamentally for.

Incidentally I live in a town with some of the lowest employment in the UK. Jobs here are generally either retail or (in large part) public sector - but there are legions here who simply do not work, never have and never will.

They get by alright on the state. It's a pretty naff way of life, one which I have experienced myself while I've lived here, but it does let people live.

Ironic that a lot of the public sector work revolves around providing services for these people (it's amazing the amount of free shit they get in exchange for a little dignity). Somehow what we might call the normal economy of buy / sell / trade value has been thrown into reverse.

The interesting point for me is that, while the scroungers only scrounge because it's what they've come to expect from life, at this point the workers only work for exactly the same reason. There are few needs being satisfied by working other than common expectation - I work because it's what you do, isn't it?

But there's very little point, if you care to look closely. Those on the dole seem to have just come to terms with life support and permanent leisure time. Really they're the pioneers, it seems.

You are absolutely right. European "socialism" as the tea partiers in the US like to scream about, is just the first hint of what is to come.

Parts of Europe have advanced enough where the society will function just fine, and meet the needs of all the citizens, even with a segment of the population not having to work at all.

But that segment of the population is going to multiply and multiply at an alarmingly pace as the situation I am talking about approaches. Either society will resist it and denounce the freeloaders and try to kick them off the govt. dole, or they will see what is to come, and they will embrace a post-labor society. I am hoping it will be the latter.

 

[empty vessel]

In other words technology is potentially causing and enabling us to seriously, globally question the matter of what a human being is fundamentally for.

Incidentally I live in a town with some of the lowest employment in the UK. Jobs here are generally either retail or (in large part) public sector - but there are legions here who simply do not work, never have and never will.

They get by alright on the state. It's a pretty naff way of life, one which I have experienced myself while I've lived here, but it does let people live.

Ironic that a lot of the public sector work revolves around providing services for these people (it's amazing the amount of free shit they get in exchange for a little dignity). Somehow what we might call the normal economy of buy / sell / trade value has been thrown into reverse.

The interesting point for me is that, while the scroungers only scrounge because it's what they've come to expect from life, at this point the workers only work for exactly the same reason. There are few needs being satisfied by working other than common expectation - I work because it's what you do, isn't it?

But there's very little point, if you care to look closely. Those on the dole seem to have just come to terms with life support and permanent leisure time. Really they're the pioneers, it seems.

I'm not sure I agree with the framing of this exactly, but it does raise the question of what purpose an economy serves. An economy is, in fact, supposed to provide leisure. Work was first done to survive (find/grow food), and when those needs became satisfied (i.e., most people no longer had to work at all for their own food), then for convenience. We build things to make human life easier or more entertaining for us. The work is intended to be a means to this end, not an end in itself.

One thing we also need to acknowledge is that, even now, the economies that developed countries have are not intended to employ everybody. Capitalism intentionally maintains unemployed people. It is odd, then, that we have a social tendency to excoriate people who are unemployed, given that that is designed into the system.

The ultimate goal will indeed be to have a society in which human labor is no longer needed at all, i.e., where our needs and desires are satisfied without our having to work for it. Once our needs and desires can be satisfied, the need to do work completely vanishes. At that point, every human becomes an artist, because everything a human does will be for the pleasure of himself/herself or others.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I believe this will happen ONE day.

But you bet your ass that the super rich will do as much as possible to fight this.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Money would still be necessary for things machines can't do, such as entertainment. Who will make the video games, the movies, the TV shows, etc.? But the system will not reach the point you speak of because for that we need progress, and for progress we need money. If people are out of work, businesses aren't making money, and if they aren't making money they can't build the machines. It will be a perpetual series of recessions until we change everything.

Also, as soon as someone wants something he cannot be given, he'll have an incentive to work.

 

[dinazimmerman]

One thing we also need to acknowledge is that, even now, the economies that developed countries have are not intended to employ everybody. Capitalism intentionally maintains unemployed people. It is odd, then, that we have a social tendency to excoriate people who are unemployed, given that that is designed into the system.

Not really. Unemployment is coordination failure; it arises spontaneously in market economies. Firms with vacancies would love to hire unemployed workers, but they either never meet due to search frictions or vacant firms/unemployed workers don't like the terms offered by the other party. Full employment can be forcibly arranged by some central authority. Also, hatred for free riders is not specific to capitalistic societies (look up "strong reciprocity").

I do, however, agree with your utopian vision of a workless economy. Not sure if it will be realizable any time soon, though.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Money would still be necessary for things machines can't do, such as entertainment. Who will make the video games, the movies, the TV shows, etc.? But the system will not reach the point you speak of because for that we need progress, and for progress we need money.

There is no fundamental reason why an advanced enough AI can't make video games, movies or tv shows.

There is currently a kickstarter project underway to develop a game that where all events and outcomes are determined by the trending topics on twitter. If it's possible to make a game out of that, why isn't it possible for a much more highly advanced version of Watson, one that learns from its own past mistakes and modifies it's own algorithm to reflect this learning, to make a game as well.

Money too doesn't neccesarily have to be tied to labor. In post labor world, everyone could be rewarded with a certain number of credits each month, to do with as they please, for doing essentially nothing.

Perhaps a few driven people who can perform some functions that machines still aren't very good at yet, could continue to work to earn additional credits, but eventually we will reach a point where there is nothing that a machine can't simply do better.

 

[captmorgan]

The ultimate goal will indeed be to have a society in which human labor is no longer needed at all, i.e., where our needs and desires are satisfied without our having to work for it. Once our needs and desires can be satisfied, the need to do work completely vanishes. At that point, every human becomes an artist, because everything a human does will be for the pleasure of himself/herself or others.

Really? The day all work vanishes robots do everything the human race will get very VERY bored very quickly. Everyone seem to think people with unlimited free time will be artists or writers. Bullshit. Lets ignore the fact that most if not all great art seems to born out of strife, struggling and hardships for a moment.

People especially young people will start to seek greater and greater highs. The way I see it is it will basically start out how we spend our free time now, drinking, clubing, sex, some extreme sports, then as time goes on those everyday things will get boring so you turn the notch up one. Heavier drinking longer parties, more depraved sex, more dangerous sports.
I believe this would continue getting more and more extreme just for something to do day in and day out.

I honestly believe you would end up with half the people either forming huge gangs just to rape pillar and plunder for shits and giggles, and the other half doing nothing, I mean literally nothing at.

 

[theBishop]

Maybe it's inevitable in the sense that there's an untenable disproportion of workers vs owners. But it's not going to happen without in intervention of individuals.

Time and time again history throws us systemic crises in Capitalism, but Communism doesn't simply burst forth out of the wreckage. The managers of our economy are incredibly adept at papering over the flaws in the system, moving them around geographically, spreading them out so thin that they seem to disappear, and moving them into other seemingly unrelated sectors of the economy through "innovations" in the banking system.

David Harvey has a lot of interesting things to say about this topic.

And I think you're dead wrong about the European welfare state. On the contrary, the current trend is toward so-called austerity policies. European citizens are going to have to organize large scale resistance just to keep the programs they have.

 

[empty vessel]

Not really. Unemployment is a coordination failure; it's spontaneous. Full employment can be forcibly arranged by some central authority. Also, hatred for free riders is not specific to capitalistic societies (look up "strong reciprocity").

Except they aren't free riders in capitalism, because it isn't coordination failure. The Fed intentionally manipulates currency to maintain unemployment under the guise of maintaining price stability. This is straight from the horse's mouth:

The goals of monetary policy are spelled out in the Federal Reserve Act, which specifies that the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee should seek “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” Stable prices in the long run are a precondition for maximum sustainable output growth and employment as well as moderate long-term interest rates. When prices are stable and believed likely to remain so, the prices of goods, services, materials, and labor are undistorted by inf lation and serve as clearer signals and guides to the efficient allocation of resources and thus contribute to higher standards of living. Moreover, stable prices foster saving and capital formation, because when the risk of erosion of asset values resulting from inf lation—and the need to guard against such losses—are minimized, households are encouraged to save more and businesses are encouraged to invest more.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_2.pdf

So, price stability > full employment. It's a choice that capitalists have consciously made, and they have designed it into a system. (Maintaining some unemployment (a reserve labor pool) also helps keeps labor bargaining power (and hence wages) artificially lower and profits for capitalists artificially higher.)

I do, however, agree with your utopian vision of a workless economy. Not sure if it will be realizable any time soon, though.

Yeah, I don't expect it anytime soon. May be thousands, or tens of thousands, of years in the future. And achieving it will depend upon whether capitalism results in our blowing ourselves up first. I think we often lose perspective of just how young/primitive we are as an intelligent life form. We're still in the crib.

 

[Wray]

This is going to happen by the end of this century. Probably alot sooner. Fully functional robots that do most tasks a human can do will be available to the average consumer or business by 2050.

 

[Ether_Snake]

There is no fundamental reason why an advanced enough AI can't make video games, movies or tv shows.

There is currently a kickstarter project underway to develop a game that where all events and outcomes are determined by the trending topics on twitter. If it's possible to make a game out of that, why isn't it possible for a much more highly advanced version of Watson, one that learns from its own past mistakes and modifies it's own algorithm to reflect this learning, to make a game as well.

Money too doesn't neccesarily have to be tied to labor. In post labor world, everyone could be rewarded with a certain number of credits each month, to do with as they please, for doing essentially nothing.

Perhaps a few driven people who can perform some functions that machines still aren't very good at yet, could continue to work to earn additional credits, but eventually we will reach a point where there is nothing that a machine can't simply do better.

Your argument basically comes down to "What if machines could do everything humans could, BUT BETTER!" which is dumb, because it's like saying "What if someone invented Big Macs that are TASTIER than Big Macs??". It's a bit of a pointless discussion if it always comes down to "but they can do it better!".

 

[dinazimmerman]

Except they aren't free riders in capitalism, because it isn't coordination failure. The Fed intentionally manipulates currency to maintain unemployment under the guise of maintaining price stability. So, price stability > full employment. It's a choice that capitalists have consciously made, and they have designed it into a system. (Maintaining some unemployment (a reserve labor pool) also helps keeps labor bargaining power artificially lower and profits artificially higher.)

The relationship between inflation and unemployment is not that simple. Also, unemployment still existed before the Fed was established (because of search/coordination frictions), so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Oh and I never said that unemployed workers are free riders. I don't think most people see the unemployed workers as free riders either, since they can imagine being laid off themselves. People who live off unemployment insurance and welfare ("handouts" derp), on the other hand, are not looked at very favorably.

Unemployment did exist before then, and it was critiqued as market manipulation then, too. The Fed just institutionalizes it. But let's even assume that it isn't intended, what does it matter if it is perfectly natural? Whether intended or natural, unemployment in capitalist modes of production exists. It isn't the fault of the people who are unemployed (because, remember, to even count as unemployed you have to want and be looking for work).

I explained in a previous post: "Firms would love to fill their vacancies and unemployed workers would love jobs, but vacant firms/unemployed workers either never meet due to search frictions or don't like the terms offered by the other party." So in the end, it's not anybody's fault; it's just a tragic reality that sucks for both workers and firms.

 

[empty vessel]

The relationship between inflation and unemployment is not that simple. Also, unemployment still existed before the Fed was established (because of search/coordination frictions), so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Unemployment did exist before then, and it was critiqued as market manipulation then, too. The Fed just institutionalizes it. But let's even assume that it isn't intended, what does it matter if it is perfectly natural? Whether intended or natural, unemployment in capitalist modes of production exists. It isn't the fault of the people who are unemployed (because, remember, to even count as unemployed you have to want and be looking for work).

 

[remnant]

The "old guys" won't get us anywhere and haven't done so. The only justification for the ultra-rich is that they serve as a source of funding, but funding itself is fungible. "Production" comes from the workers who turn natural resources into products we use. "Innovation" comes from scientists, engineers, designers and artists who by and large are not the super-rich.

The idea that the super-rich are carrying us on their backs is brain-dead Randian philosophy that needs to die a quick death.

If this is the case, where was the huge technological innovation from communist/socialist states after they threw the capitalists out?

There is nothing a human can do that an intelligent machine cannot do in principle. Current machines are primitive and the field of A.I. has had many false starts, but even things like writing novels and making music are things that an A.I. will eventually be able to do better than a human can.

If a machine can do that, then fine but it wouldn't destroy a market, requiring us to become socialists or whatever. As long as humans can sell a product that is uniquely there, there is a market there to be sold.

A human writes a book. We will call it book A. You create an AI that can write novels. No matter how advanced it is it can't replace and destroy book A. It has to write book B. You now have a market of competing products. One can be sold for a profit, and an inequality of wealth is created.

It seems like a logical step for humanity to progress as a species. Unless you want to remain xenophobic whilst firing diamond-tipped arrows from your ivory tower..

Xenophobes can build robots. There is nothing in in the concept of nation states that would prevent robots from developing.

I believe this will happen ONE day.

But you bet your ass that the super rich will do as much as possible to fight this.

As yes the long fight between technology and the upper class. If only they weren't such luddites, they to could have nice things like cars, planes and the internet.

 

[Puddles]

If this is the case, where was the huge technological innovation from communist/socialist states after they threw the capitalists out?

Wait, are you talking about Russia, which had serfs until the early 1900s, lost 20 million people in a war and was ruled by some of the most corrupt and brutal dictators ever, China, which was a nation of peasants that got completely dominated by comparatively-tiny Japan in WW2, Vietnam, a nation of jungles and rice paddies, and Cuba, a tiny little island that's been destroyed by trade embargoes?

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Communism is a disease which should be wiped out from the face of the Earth. Has anyone here arguing for communism actualy lived in a communist country? Each communistic system is nothing but a nightmare for smart and bright individuals. It is a system that argues for equality between the inteligent and the mediocre minds and as such, it does nothing but destroy a country by devouring it's culture, it's tradition and all of it's best individuals.

 

[remnant]

Wait, are you talking about Russia, which had serfs until the early 1900s, lost 20 million people in a war and was ruled by some of the most corrupt and brutal dictators ever, China, which was a nation of peasants that got completely dominated by comparatively-tiny Japan in WW2, Vietnam, a nation of jungles and rice paddies, and Cuba, a tiny little island that's been destroyed by trade embargoes?

throw in Venezuela and north Korea as well.

Europe had been ravaged by war for years. Mercantilism rises, the war (relatively) end until napoleon arrives and they enter economic booms. America has a civil war that destroys half of the country, and then immediately a period of economic boom. If capitalists or the old men aren't needed, why did the capitalistic states bounce back while the others,with no middleman between production and innovation not?

 

[LProtag]

Communism is a disease which should be wiped out from the face of the Earth. Has anyone here arguing for communism actualy lived in a communist country? Each communistic system is nothing but a nightmare for smart and bright individuals. It is a system that argues for equality between the inteligent and the mediocre minds and as such, it does nothing but destroy a country by devouring it's culture, it's tradition and all of it's best individuals.

There's a difference between communism on paper and communism in practice. I know it's a rather tired to thing to say but: There hasn't been a true communist society, only dictatorships pretending to be communist.


In any case, this is why I've ventured into the humanities. No robot's going to take my job.

Spoiler

I don't think anyone would trust a robot to make them a good latte.

 

[theBishop]

Communism is a disease which should be wiped out from the face of the Earth. Has anyone here arguing for communism actualy lived in a communist country? Each communistic system is nothing but a nightmare for smart and bright individuals. It is a system that argues for equality between the inteligent and the mediocre minds and as such, it does nothing but destroy a country by devouring it's culture, it's tradition and all of it's best individuals.

Do the workers own and operate their workplaces democratically in these "communist" countries?

 

[Professor Beef]

There's a difference between communism on paper and communism in practice. I know it's a rather tired to thing to say but: There hasn't been a true communist society, only dictatorships pretending to be communist.


In any case, this is why I've ventured into the humanities. No robot's going to take my job.

Spoiler

I don't think anyone would trust a robot to make them a good latte.

But don't they already have latte machines!?

Also, this entire topic has made me think of that graduation speech from Lisa's military school in the Simpsons.

"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."

 

[LProtag]

Have you had a latte from a coffee machine? Horrible.

 

[dinazimmerman]

By the way, I found a very interesting and readable paper that touches on some of the topics being discussed in this thread:

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/19948/1/We...hange_on_the_Demand_for_Low_Skill_Workers.pdf

The jobs that people do today are dramatically different from those done by people 50, 100, 200 or 2000 years ago. There is little doubt that the main driving force behind these changes is technology that is complementary to some tasks (e.g. makes possible things like brain surgery that simply could not be done before) and a substitute for others where machines can do things much better than humans (no-one in industrialised countries now cuts corn with a scythe).

Given this, it is not surprising that there is a long history of economists speculating about the impact of technology on the demand for labour. Some of this has been about the impact of technology on the absolute demand for labour and some of it about the impact on the relative demand for different sorts of labour. For example, Adam Smith (1986, p383) in the Wealth of Nations, wrote that “all such improvements in mechanics…are always regarded as advantageous to every society” so that he was firmly of the view that technology acted to increase the demand for labour. This view was shared by among others Keynes (1931, p364) who in his essay ‘Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren’ (written in the depths of the Great Depression) predicted that “the standard of life in progressive countries one hundred years hence will be between four and eight times as high as it is today”, the result, he argued, of techincial change and capital accumulation.

In contrast other economists have argued that the application of technology acts to reduce the total demand for labour. Perhaps the most celebrated example of this is the immiserisation hypothesis put forward by Karl Marx in Capital and other writings (e.g. see Marx, 1965, in which he wrote that “in the course of development there is a double fall in wages: firstly, relative in proportion to the development of general wealth; secondly, absolute since the quantity of commodities which the worker receives in exchange become less and less” – quoted in Rowthorn (1980)).

The consensus today among economists is that the impact of technology on the absolute demand for labour has been to raise it. The reason is the enormous increase in the real wages over time together no discernible trend in unemployment rates. It is hard to reconcile these stylized facts with the view that technology and capital accumulation reduce the demand for labour. Why then does the view that technology destroys jobs continue to have so much hold over the popular imagination (see for example, Rifkin,1996)? The explanation is probably that there are almost always both winners and losers from the introduction of new technology and the losers are often much more visible than the winners.

One very powerful reason for thinking that the future impact of technology on the demand for labour may be different from the present, is that we have seen changes in the nature of technological progress in the past. For example, the current consensus view among economists (see Goldin and Katz, 1998 or Acemoglu, 2002, for recent summary discussions of this) is that the impact of technology in the early days of the Industrial Revolution was to reduce employment among skilled artisans (and the wage declines that resulted from this can be argued to be the origin of Marx’s immiserisation hypothesis, another lesson about the dangers of extrapolation from the past into the future).

Another particularly pertinent example is the decline in the employment of servants in the middle of the 20th century. The jobs done by servants were non-tradeable and dependent on the presence of the rich in exactly the same way that I have argued is increasingly characteristic of the employment of the low-skill workers today. But, the share of workers in domestic service declined rapidly from a peak of 8.2% in England and Wales in 1931 to 1% in 1971 and from 6.5% in the US in 1930 to 1.7% in 1970 (figures from Singelmann, 1978, who also has data from other countries that show a similar trend). The most common explanation for this collapse is the invention of the vacuum cleaner, the washing machine and other domestic appliances i.e. technological change (though declining wage inequality may also have played a role). If that has happened in the past, then it can happen again.

So, let us consider what would happen if machines could be cheaply employed to do mundane human tasks like cleaning the house. This is not beyond the bounds of possibility: in the field of robotics there is a lot of research about designing machines that can do hand-eye coordination and 2003 saw the launch of the RoomBa RoboticFloorVac a moving disk that can be left alone in a room to clean it. The manufacturer’s web-site is full of praises for it though one must realize it still has considerable limitations as it can only traverse “uneven floor transitions up to one half-inch tall” (i.e. if you want it to go upstairs, forget it) it can’t do thick carpets and it might occasionally throw itself down the stairs, all characteristics one might think of as problematic in a human cleaner. The nature of technological progress is partly determined by what is scientifically possible but also by what is economically worthwhile (see Acemoglu, 2002, for a recent analysis of this). For example the Economist of March 13th 2004 contained an article entitled ‘the gentle rise of the machines’ about the increasing use of robots and quoted the inventor of the first industrial robot (Unimate, employed by General Motors in 1961), Joe Engelberger as saying that care of the elderly is the opportunity the robotics industry should be pursuing as “every highly industrialized nation has a paucity of help for vast, fast-growing ageing populations”, something that can be readily understood from the main argument in this paper.

But, while these technological changes might happen this is probably not something that that will happen anytime soon (that has a bad track record - compare the representation of the year 2001 in the film ‘2001’ made in 1968 with the reality) or of anything that will inevitably come to pass. So let us think about it in a ‘what if’ kind of a way: that is why it might best be described as science fiction economics. Science fiction is generally concerned with transformations of society (otherwise it is just fiction) but the economics in most science fiction is terrible.

It is a common theme in science fiction that machines will come to be intelligent and have a ‘mind of their own’ and then, through some act of revolution, come to dominate humans – a good recent example would be ‘The Matrix’. In economic terms one is envisaging in this film a violent change in property rights with a change from humans owning machines to machines owning people but, in that film, humans are then used as a source of energy, suggesting that the machines’ understanding of the laws of economics was somewhat deficient as humans could not possibly be an efficient source of energy.

But this emphasis in science fiction on change through violence underestimates the potential impact of change through the laws of economics. For example, in science fiction the problems for humans often start when machines get as intelligent as them and have a ‘mind of their own’. In contrast, an economic approach would suggest that the problems will be worse when they are not that intelligent and do not have a mind of their own. One of the big problems with employing humans to do jobs is that they do have a mind of their own, so that the extraction of labour from labour power (as Marx put it) or incentivizing workers (as business school professors put it) is a problem. An obedient machine is far more of a threat to most humans than a thinking machine.

In a world where menial jobs can be done more cheaply by machines than humans the demand for the labour of the least-skilled would collapse, quite conceivably below the ‘cost’ of creating and maintaining a human. Unless they own capital they would be unable to obtain an adequate source of income by selling their factor endowments. We would finally have ended up in the world of Marx’s immiserisation hypothesis in which the wages of many workers would decline in absolute terms and the levels of inequality between humans are determined by inequalities in the ownership of capital. In this scenario it is the distribution of capital ownership that is crucial and it is important to know whether this tends to become more or less unequal over time. Recent papers on France (Piketty, 2003) and the US (Piketty and Saez, 2003) suggest that progressive taxation (and, less optimistically, wars) may be able to put a brake on rising inequality in capital income but, left unchecked the distribution of wealth would tend to become more unequal.

empy vessel will really like the paragraph I bolded. Going beyond what was said in this paper, the most positive future I can imagine is one where low/middle income people own (or have contractual agreements with) a large percentage of the robots that exist, and firms have to rent the robots from households. This is how labor works today; households own labor-hours and sell them to firms. In the best of all possible futures, households will sell the labor-hours of their robotic slaves instead.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

There's a difference between communism on paper and communism in practice. I know it's a rather tired to thing to say but: There hasn't been a true communist society, only dictatorships pretending to be communist.


In any case, this is why I've ventured into the humanities. No robot's going to take my job.

Spoiler

I don't think anyone would trust a robot to make them a good latte.

And here's the thing: The brightest minds of any country will NEVER become communists. Communism arises from the poor areas, with most members being low payed, little educated individuals. People such as those cannot run, let alone create, a sustainable and a rightous society. Persons who truly believe in in the textbook communism are also usualy the first decleared "people's enemy" and sent to labor camps or executed by their communist "breathren". The people who end up running the communist system were in 99% of the cases scum of the earth, considered society's margin in the system before.

 

[dinazimmerman]

And here's the thing: The brightest minds of any country will NEVER become communists.

Eh, I remember my well-read, history-loving friend once telling me, "Most communist revolutions have been led by the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat." I think he's right. It's funny how history works.

 

[Puddles]

throw in Venezuela and north Korea as well.

Europe had been ravaged by war for years. Mercantilism rises, the war (relatively) end until napoleon arrives and they enter economic booms. America has a civil war that destroys half of the country, and then immediately a period of economic boom. If capitalists or the old men aren't needed, why did the capitalistic states bounce back while the others,with no middleman between production and innovation not?

What the fuck are you talking about?

The states that became communists were ass-backwards and at least a hundred years behind America/Europe. This is pretty painfully obvious.

 

[theBishop]

And here's the thing: The brightest minds of any country will NEVER become communists. Communism arises from the poor areas, with most members being low payed, little educated individuals. People such as those cannot run, let alone create, a sustainable and a rightous society. Persons who truly believe in in the textbook communism are also usualy the first decleared "people's enemy" and sent to labor camps or executed by their communist "breathren". The people who end up running the communist system were in 99% of the cases scum of the earth, considered society's margin in the system before.

Would you say that the best artists, scientists, professors, historical figures, etc lean Left or Right?

 

[Sirpopopop]

And there you fucking have it. Will not ever happen.

I'm not dissing this star trek fanfic because I don't want it, but because the theory completely disregards all the major obstacles it faces. You guys presume all politicians joyfully agree to basically give their power away, religions to submit and nations uniting as a single front to battle hunger and injustice.

Things that we as a human race could've erased millenias ago if it ever was about technology or resources.

Under the aegis of an alien threat, such obstacles would quickly disappear.

 

[msv]

AI is nothing but calculations put on calculations put on calculations. Technically an Ai could do this stuff, but so much about creativity comes from experience and emotion. You could teach a computer how to write a song, but that computer can't explain why it's beautiful, it's can't explains why it works.

This is a pretty baseless assumption. Fact remains that our are brains are computers, and these computers can produce it. If you're stating that emotions or creativity is something untangible and impossible to reproduce (which we already do every time a child is born by the way). The only difference being that we use different parts of our body to produce it.

Those songs we write and scripts we read and build up are born of life's experiences. If a computer doesn't have that than I don't think it could be more efficient.

There's no reason a computer couldn't have life experience.

 

[Something Wicked]

Wait, are you talking about Russia, which had serfs until the early 1900s, lost 20 million people in a war and was ruled by some of the most corrupt and brutal dictators ever, China, which was a nation of peasants that got completely dominated by comparatively-tiny Japan in WW2, Vietnam, a nation of jungles and rice paddies, and Cuba, a tiny little island that's been destroyed by trade embargoes?

Brilliant Russian and Chinese scientists and engineers helped build their respective countries, tyrants like Stalin and Mao only held them back from greater heights and innovations.

People especially young people will start to seek greater and greater highs. The way I see it is it will basically start out how we spend our free time now, drinking, clubing, sex, some extreme sports, then as time goes on those everyday things will get boring so you turn the notch up one. Heavier drinking longer parties, more depraved sex, more dangerous sports.

On second thought, fuck it- let's go the Commie route!

 

[empty vessel]

And here's the thing: The brightest minds of any country will NEVER become communists. Communism arises from the poor areas, with most members being low payed, little educated individuals. People such as those cannot run, let alone create, a sustainable and a rightous society. Persons who truly believe in in the textbook communism are also usualy the first decleared "people's enemy" and sent to labor camps or executed by their communist "breathren". The people who end up running the communist system were in 99% of the cases scum of the earth, considered society's margin in the system before.

So, if I'm reading this right, you believe poor people to be the scum of the earth. Serious question: do you consider yourself a fascist?

Brilliant Russian and Chinese scientists and engineers helped build their respective countries, tyrants like Stalin and Mao only held them back from greater heights and innovations.

You really just say what you're trained to say, huh?

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Would you say that the best artists, scientists, professors, historical figures, etc lean Left or Right?

Let's be clear here - leaning left isn't the same as supporting communisms. It is natural thing for highly inteligent to also be highly idealistic, thus believing in equality of all. This especialy holds true for artists. But among the general highly educated population I'd say communism isn't a very popular philosophy. Especialy not now when nobody truly believes communism is viable anymore.

And, as I said, the people who end up ruling in communist systems are not those scientist, artist etc. They end up dead or imprisoned.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Really? The day all work vanishes robots do everything the human race will get very VERY bored very quickly. Everyone seem to think people with unlimited free time will be artists or writers. Bullshit. Lets ignore the fact that most if not all great art seems to born out of strife, struggling and hardships for a moment.

People especially young people will start to seek greater and greater highs. The way I see it is it will basically start out how we spend our free time now, drinking, clubing, sex, some extreme sports, then as time goes on those everyday things will get boring so you turn the notch up one. Heavier drinking longer parties, more depraved sex, more dangerous sports.
I believe this would continue getting more and more extreme just for something to do day in and day out.

I honestly believe you would end up with half the people either forming huge gangs just to rape pillar and plunder for shits and giggles, and the other half doing nothing, I mean literally nothing at.

LMAO. Was this a joke posts. People go into gang rape because they're bored?

I think people will coalesce with others with similar interests. You spend one day a week hanging out with buddies that love to play boardgames like Catan or party games like Cranium. One day hanging out with people with similar movie tastes to yours. Basically whatever your interests are you will coalesce with others with similar interests. Maybe more people will turn to sex or drugs but sex will be safe and consequence free by then and drugs will probably be as well. I just found a cool website on this...

http://hedweb.com/

Some of what you fear may come to be, but it won't be that bad. And technology will certainly reduce the number of people getting gang raped.

 

[Wray]

It won't be like the self check out. It will be you telling your house robot what you want, and it will go to the grocery store, buy what you asked for and will even stock the groceries into the fridge for you all with a smile on it's face (and this will be early version, the whole process will get even more advanced with time).

Correct. This will be common place within 30 years.

Beyond that though, grocery stores wont even exist. We'll be 3d "printing" our groceries in the privacy of our own home for instant or near instant access to every day items and food.