|
Typical Pubbie posted:I'm trying to wrap my head around why this would hold true in the long-term. At least, I don't see how this is really a problem for the capitalists. As the unemployment rate increases and wealth becomes more and more concentrated the capitalist will shift production to follow the money. If revenues do drop from a lack of demand it will be because wealth has become so concentrated that the rich have more money than they could ever possibly spend. If you're a capitalist, great, you now own shares in the new hyper-oligarchy. Funnel enough of your wealth into the economy to keep the unemployed masses from chopping your head off and you're set. The problem being that there is ideological resistance against that very idea, and it is a very rigid set of ideals. Looking at the Middle East, I could see the elite prefer mass anarchy and warfare rather than "giving in" to a welfare state.
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:keep the unemployed masses from chopping your head off and you're set. Better yet, chop their heads off and never worry about anything ever again. RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:Better yet, chop their heads off and never worry about anything ever again. Well keep around some minimal population for household servants and maybe some "creatives" to work as slaves on your behalf. I mean kicking a robot servant just isn't as fun as a human.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The problem being that there is ideological resistance against that very idea, and it is a very rigid set of ideals. Looking at the Middle East, I could see the elite prefer mass anarchy and warfare rather than "giving in" to a welfare state. Yep. The unworthy and unwashed masses are too easy set upon themselves in a cannibalistic frenzy of one type or another. Only rarely do they ever coalesce into a threat that can't be dismantled or diverted with some threats, bribes, and violence. The super-rich live in a bubble of privilege and exclusivity and they only see their peers and family as anything worthy of substantiate attention, good or bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Yep. The unworthy and unwashed masses are too easy set upon themselves in a cannibalistic frenzy. Only rarely do they ever coalesce into a threat that can't be dismantled or diverted with some threats, bribes, and violence. Yeah but it is also why there is no stable end point because there will always be further competition that needs to be beaten. It is also why the world of 1984 would have eventually fallen apart, there would eventually be a party rift that would lead to mass infighting (Russian and Chinese history provide examples).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
I dunno I could see actual world peace arising from a small population with absolute abundance. Like if we get to the point where we essentially have replicators there would be no need for competition. Add in the fact that our utopic society will most likely be a virtual society (as in, on another plane of reality, a "virtual reality" if you will) and the abilities of man will be god like. Even the fundamental issue of scarcity, a good mate, will exist in abundance. "I like Tom's virtual gently caress buddy better than mine! Siri, copy that image and lets get to work!"  RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:I dunno I could see actual world peace arising from a small population with absolute abundance. Like if we get to the point where we essentially have replicators there would be no need for competition. Add in the fact that our utopic society will most likely be a virtual society (as in, on another plane of reality, a "virtual reality" if you will) and the abilities of man will be god like. Even the fundamental issue of scarcity, a good mate, will exist in abundance. Human nature is why that or a Star Trek future wouldn't work, humans aren't driven just by scarcity but a desire for dominance. You could have everything you could dream of in both the real or virtual world but there will always be that other fucker is just sitting out there and you just wish you could slit his throat. The elite will be as kind to each other as they were to the underclasses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Try playing around with this BI calculator. I had trouble coming to an acceptable yearly pay without adding a lot of theoretical funding. This kinda put me off from BI specifically in the US. I'm not sure I like that calculator. For one thing, unless I'm misunderstanding it, it seems to be trying to replace services with BI. That's fine if you're talking ultra-long term (where the economy is vastly bigger and we can hit higher BI numbers, like $20+k), but it's very much not okay if you're talking about anytime soon. It's not how you would start implementing basic income, and so those current numbers aren't useful to look at. If you're starting a basic income program today, you're looking at something modest, like $6k per year. You're not eliminating any existing programs, but the payouts are correspondingly reduced. Remember Romney's 47%? That's the percentage receiving some assistance in this country. So if we're introducing basic income, we're only talking about a new cost for, conservatively, 70% of the population, since we're already giving income to the rest. Up marginal income taxes so the people right at the top 20% break even. Now you're only having to pay for less than 50% of the population. At 6k that's like $900 billion a year we'd have to find, and that's an extremely conservative estimate. Probably much less. There's a ton of things I haven't accounted for (for instance, fiscal multipliers), all of which are in basic income's favor. Thing is, we can accomplish that number with just Picketty's 2% wealth tax. And really, what better way to pay for it?  God, I'd love to see the CBO study what a basic income would really cost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Human nature is why that or a Star Trek future wouldn't work, humans aren't driven just by scarcity but a desire for dominance. You could have everything you could dream of in both the real or virtual world but there will always be that other fucker is just sitting out there and you just wish you could slit his throat. In a virtual world, you have no way of telling the difference between yourself "actually" taking all of the other guy's stuff, or having a filter applied so it seems to you alone that the other guy's stuff was taken.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:In a virtual world, you have no way of telling the difference between yourself "actually" taking all of the other guy's stuff, or having a filter applied so it seems to you alone that the other guy's stuff was taken. Doesn't matter if you manually disconnect him from the other end. My point is that "real world" is going to matter it is an avenue of leverage and dominance over others. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Doesn't matter if you manually disconnect him from the other end. How are you going to manually disconnect him when you're in the virtual world? Like you do understand that being in a virtual world implies the ability for whoever really operates the system to tell your brain whatever they want right? "Simulated Rich Guy #456 wants to kill Simulated Middle Class Guy #49593; erase SMCG #49593 from SRG #456's VR in the future".
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:I dunno I could see actual world peace arising from a small population with absolute abundance. Like if we get to the point where we essentially have replicators there would be no need for competition. Add in the fact that our utopic society will most likely be a virtual society (as in, on another plane of reality, a "virtual reality" if you will) and the abilities of man will be god like. Even the fundamental issue of scarcity, a good mate, will exist in abundance. The Diamond Age figured this one out already. Capital owns an artificially scarce amount of replicators and the proles pay them for a turn at it like it's a university's mainframe in 1975.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:How are you going to manually disconnect him when you're in the virtual world? Like you do understand that being in a virtual world implies the ability for whoever really operates the system to tell your brain whatever they want right? Granted, it is going to be ultra rich guy and another ultra rich guy. The ultra rich guy would get rid of the other ultra rich guy by having more drones than him in the real world and/or having the other guy be so distracted he is able to knock out his drones before he realizes it. However it require some type of awareness of the "real world."
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Hopefully some point automation/AI/other computer magic would, like other technologies, get cheap and ubiquitous enough that the general public can get their hands on it and meet their needs without needing to placate their tycoon-god. Just need to dodge the drone death squads and nerve stapling long enough to get there
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
Don't we already have the answer in the the concept of 'bare life'? As the productive value of humanity corrodes the 'human' value will be removed and value will be found in subsistence of the body: as prisoners, as refugees, as enemy combatants, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:How are you going to manually disconnect him when you're in the virtual world? Like you do understand that being in a virtual world implies the ability for whoever really operates the system to tell your brain whatever they want right? I'm with you on this. Imagine you are a god. You control an entire universe of complex diverse beings. You've controlled this reality for your entire existence. On a whim the infinite swells and contracts; all existence conforms to your desires. If you want love or companionship, vengeance or justice, it is yours with no effort. Infinite contentedness by the satisfaction of all your desires. But there's a catch, this reality is unreal. A complex simulation that supersedes the ability of your mind to comprehend it in any way. Through its links with all other artificial realities it exists on a higher plane than you and the reality itself is your god. All the beings in your universe besides you are a reflection of this reality-god. They are your (and its own) paint on its canvass. Imagine you are able to somehow disconnect. Through some miracle you've pulled your brain out of your artificial reality and back into the one we inhabit now. There Keanu Reaves looms above and and removes the feeder/simulation mask from your face. You see, hear, smell, taste, and feel the real world for the first time. He leans in close. You see an unrecognizable, pale, flaccid face reflected back at you from his chrome sunglasses. He asks you, "Have you ever heard of… the Wyld Stallyns?" 
RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:The Diamond Age figured this one out already. Capital owns an artificially scarce amount of replicators and the proles pay them for a turn at it like it's a university's mainframe in 1975. Which of course is a ridiculous proposition. In a society where an individual has any measure of power at his command, attempts at artificial scarcity always fail. Eventually someone will steal one or bribe someone into giving him a replicator, and he'll start making copies of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:I dunno I could see actual world peace arising from a small population with absolute abundance. Like if we get to the point where we essentially have replicators there would be no need for competition. Who is going to control the replicators? Ardennes posted:Human nature is why that or a Star Trek future wouldn't work, humans aren't driven just by scarcity but a desire for dominance. You could have everything you could dream of in both the real or virtual world but there will always be that other fucker is just sitting out there and you just wish you could slit his throat. While true in general, one thing that truly distinguishes the elite from the poor is that their elite status is an instant common ground they can use to form a friendship or even a business partnership. After all, they are by definition a small minority, surrounded by the unwashed masses who dislike or even hate them. They also hang out at the same venues (golf clubs, yatch clubs, etc.) and they can leverage the connections they make to further gently caress over the poor and middle classes and amass wealth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Entropia posted:Which of course is a ridiculous proposition. In a society where an individual has any measure of power at his command, attempts at artificial scarcity always fail. Eventually someone will steal one or bribe someone into giving him a replicator, and he'll start making copies of it. For my one wish I wish for infinite wishes. Ardennes posted:Granted, it is going to be ultra rich guy and another ultra rich guy. But why would people be in charge of the future? Soon computers will outthink us in ways we can't even comprehend. Sure there will be periods of great abuse by those in power using these tools to their end, but then these devices will surpass even them and become independent/self-governing/self-replicating. We're talking about computers programming and creating more computers. Human interaction will be entirely removed from the equation. All humans will be surplus and its either be cast away like garbage or put into storage like an old toy. enraged_camel posted:Who is going to control the replicators? They control themselves! Who would want power over a population of people lost in their own virtual worlds? Who would want power and control over a species of gods who live in an entirely separate reality? What do you do all day? There is no one around. Nothing to do. Everyone else will forever leave you alone and you don't need to compete over anything. And most importantly, why aren't you in there too, lording over entire universes if that's your desire? Let the robots maintain the world and do the drudgery. There are pleasures unfathomable awaiting you... RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Entropia posted:Which of course is a ridiculous proposition. In a society where an individual has any measure of power at his command, attempts at artificial scarcity always fail. Eventually someone will steal one or bribe someone into giving him a replicator, and he'll start making copies of it. Unlicensed replicators would be treated like nuclear weapons for the purposes of proliferation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Automate everything, free everything, outlaw money, use unintelligent robots for stuff and make intelligent robots to hang out and get high with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:free everything, outlaw money I think this is the thing I have the most difficulty with. These things won't exist. Physical goods are on the way out. The future is digital worlds. There you can have/do anything. You won't need a replicator or magic surplus machine. You'll have an adaptable os synced with all other os's that is exponentially improving itself. You will barely participate in this world at all. What are the things humans absolutely need to survive? Nutrients and shelter? Feeding via tube, catheter/colostomy bag? The only thing I haven't figured out is fighting atrophy. How will we keep our bodies alive? Some sort of chair/bed that will move your body around for you? Everything else can be simulated using chemicals/tricking your brain to simulate sensations. edit: Crane Fist posted:It sure will be cool if the future is like the Matrix only get this we're the robots I don't know if it'll be "cool." Its not exactly my idea of a utopia, but it seems, to me, like the logical outcome, right? Like, I've felt vertigo playing video games. I've had my body pump adrenaline. I've "felt things" just through the vibrations of a gaming pad. The Oculus is coming out soon. If people can make virtual worlds more alluring than real life, which reality would you choose? If computers can be made that can program themselves and improve themselves what would a virtual reality be like? Plenty of people already spend significant proportions of their time on the web or in games, i.e. primitive virtual worlds. What will life be like in 50 years? Biplane to spaceship and all that, right? RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Aug 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
It sure will be cool if the future is like the Matrix only get this we're the robots
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:While true in general, one thing that truly distinguishes the elite from the poor is that their elite status is an instant common ground they can use to form a friendship or even a business partnership. After all, they are by definition a small minority, surrounded by the unwashed masses who dislike or even hate them. They also hang out at the same venues (golf clubs, yatch clubs, etc.) and they can leverage the connections they make to further gently caress over the poor and middle classes and amass wealth. Once the poor are eliminated as a threat then it becomes a question of "who next?" Also, the assumption is there really won't be much of a middle class to speak of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:I think this is the thing I have the most difficulty with. These things won't exist. Physical goods are on the way out. The future is digital worlds. There you can have/do anything. You won't need a replicator or magic surplus machine. You'll have an adaptable os synced with all other os's that is exponentially improving itself. You will barely participate in this world at all. What are the things humans absolutely need to survive? Nutrients and shelter? Feeding via tube, catheter/colostomy bag? The only thing I haven't figured out is fighting atrophy. How will we keep our bodies alive? Some sort of chair/bed that will move your body around for you? Everything else can be simulated using chemicals/tricking your brain to simulate sensations. There's a lot less food needed and a lot less waste you need to deal with once you start chopping off the unneeded bodies from the heads connected to the NotMatrix environments. I mean, why bother leaving the virtual world if you aren't a member of the upper upper class in that case?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I mean, why bother leaving the virtual world if you aren't a member of the upper upper class in that case? Why bother leaving if you are? Aren't the rich the first ones to have all this stuff anyway? What is in this world that is better than what can be simulated in another? What earthly pleasures can Nirvana not reproduce? I mean, I'm with you in that many people see a large die-out of humans occurring sometime. Whether its self inflicted or from climate change I don't know. Is it possible that when elites have abundance and automated weapons that are superior to humans they'll turn on us? Sure. We've all heard the clip from the Republican Debates where a man shouted his advocation to allow a man without health insurance die. What will that man say when its food? What will the elite say? "Earn your bread and if you try to take it from us robocop here will robomurder you?" I'm just wondering if people will choose this world or the other. You seem to post quite a bit on SA which means you already spend a pretty significant time in a virtual world. You do it voluntarily because you enjoy it. We all spend time in virtual worlds. TV, smartphones, computers, games. These things will only increase their presence in our lives. Your personal favorite thing, google glass, and augmented reality will be next. And then simulated reality. Why leave the house when you can be anywhere/see anything from you couch? I don't pretend to know what the future holds, but life is already pretty crazy and radically different than 100 years ago. Even more radically/crazy different than 200 years ago. My personal opinion is that we'll have our Jetson future, it just won't be on this plane of existence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Once the poor are eliminated as a threat then it becomes a question of "who next?" Also, the assumption is there really won't be much of a middle class to speak of. The poor won't be eliminated, they'll just be kind of shuffled out of the cities where the highly educated workers who run the system live. Sort of like combining San Francisco and Rio De Janeiro, then putting it into a futuristic setting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
on the left posted:The poor won't be eliminated, they'll just be kind of shuffled out of the cities where the highly educated workers who run the system live. Sort of like combining San Francisco and Rio De Janeiro, then putting it into a futuristic setting. Eliminated as a threat ie it is hopeless for them to put up resistance. Simply put there is never going to be an "end of history" even if the elite has every single thing in their favor because then parts of the elite will may sure to shred the rest of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
The thing that strikes me here is that the real ruling force isn't going to be the mega-rich in these hypothetical worlds, it will be the vendors and operators of the autocops being used to commit mass genocide and produce heaps of bodies. There will presumably be someone, because despite everything, being super rich does not automatically make you Batman and capable of doing everything so well you can confound even gods.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The thing that strikes me here is that the real ruling force isn't going to be the mega-rich in these hypothetical worlds, it will be the vendors and operators of the autocops being used to commit mass genocide and produce heaps of bodies. There will presumably be someone, because despite everything, being super rich does not automatically make you Batman and capable of doing everything so well you can confound even gods. Why can't the owners of Robo Inc also be mega-rich? They would just be happen to be the most rich of all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Why can't the owners of Robo Inc also be mega-rich? They would just be happen to be the most rich of all. If only rich people could turn some of their godlike dominance powers to preparing for the future! If only the Czar knew about this, he'd surely fix it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Nessus posted:But then all the other rich people, driven blindly, like sharks, to compete and be supreme, would also go into autocop work, so that they can reap the profits. Of course, this involves pirating, which will lead to more and more dead rich people. Eventually there will be one guy left, surrounded by automatic police officers. He will drink a beer and be shot by one of the Qatar models, which had been programmed to enforce sharia law. Don't worry, he is going to fix it. I know it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Don't worry, he is going to fix it. I know it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I'm trying to wrap my head around why this would hold true in the long-term. At least, I don't see how this is really a problem for the capitalists. As the unemployment rate increases and wealth becomes more and more concentrated the capitalist will shift production to follow the money. If revenues do drop from a lack of demand it will be because wealth has become so concentrated that the rich have more money than they could ever possibly spend. If you're a capitalist, great, you now own shares in the new hyper-oligarchy. Funnel enough of your wealth into the economy to keep the unemployed masses from chopping your head off and you're set. The 1% will be fine but the paradox of thrift means nearly everyone else won't be. Just because one has a job that isn't something that can be automated doesn't make you safe from the effects of automation, if your job in some way meets a demand of the wider population then you are in trouble. A Fox News reader for instance can be pretty confident a robot won't be able to replace them but if the masses have been rendered so poor they can't buy anything no one will advertise on Fox News and so they're out of a job. Even smaller CEOs who are very comfortable and secure right now are in considerable danger of losing everything as the basis of their wealth disappears or the mega rich use their hyper advanced versions of high frequency trading algorithms to wipe out all the merely rich's investments in picoseconds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:Why bother leaving if you are? Aren't the rich the first ones to have all this stuff anyway? What is in this world that is better than what can be simulated in another? What earthly pleasures can Nirvana not reproduce? Lotus-eater future seems like a pretty meaningless existence to me honestly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
I think it's a bit dramatic to suggest that some cabal of rich folks would welcome the mass murder of "95%" of the population of the earth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
tbp posted:I think it's a bit dramatic to suggest that some cabal of rich folks would welcome the mass murder of "95%" of the population of the earth. No one is saying they would, what is being said that if the majority of the population rattled their cage about automation leaving them impoverished and without a future the rich would have both the capability and will to commit mass murderer to maintain their position. The death squads of South America would be an indicator of this. However when the death squads were active committing wholesale mass murder was economically unappealing, the victims of the mass murder might generate labour in the present or future. If those people had been wholly replaced by robots the death squads would likely have shown even less restraint.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
I do very specialized work that is really unlikely for a long time to be taken over by some code so I'm pretty happy about that when they finally get around to it I'll be old and grey and I won't really mind any more, I can live off my savings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
tbp posted:I do very specialized work that is really unlikely for a long time to be taken over by some code so I'm pretty happy about that when they finally get around to it I'll be old and grey and I won't really mind any more, I can live off my savings. You might want to look into the paradox of thrift; unless you do something that directly benefits the elite AND they're going to need just as many people doing that job as now you could still lose your job to the effects of automation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
There is a problem with automation that gets overlooked. Automation can make eventually make professional knowledge scarce. This isn't something that happens immediately. Initially you get a glut of people who are no longer needed because their jobs have been replaced. All these people retire, find something else to do, end up jobless, etc. But people stop going in to the field, because there are fewer jobs. The people who were in the field who didn't lose their jobs get promoted, eventually retiring. New people (most but not all the jobs disappear) start in an environment where the automation already exists. They don't understand the processes behind the automation, mostly because they don't have to. But then there are problems when companies try to do new things. Things the automation wasn't initially designed to do. And the base of professionals who understood the basic process is mostly gone. So you get old retired guys consulting and younger people they train to do this. But that whole process takes like two full generations of employees, think 4-5 decades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2014 15:51
|
|
