Socialism in an A.I. World

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Socialism in an A.I. World

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

The thing is, a central economy where all resources are allocated by the state requires either: A) economic growth to always exceed population growth; B) a willingness of all participants to accept a lower standard of living if A) doesn't come true (down to, say, Mumbai Slum Dweller levels); or C) population control through either direct or indirect methods.

Europeans are currently balking at the idea of sharing a limited pool of state benefits with millions of economic migrants and refugees, so it's probably best to just assume that the technological miracle that will make strong AI possible will also take care of A.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Mar 9, 2016

# ¿ Mar 9, 2016 22:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 05:13

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

McDowell posted:

I'm a big fan of Plan C. As I said - we live in overabundance. Too many things, too many people, and none of the balance sheets really add up.

Hopefully the central planning AI can also tell us which people need to be forcibly sterilized or aren't worth expending medical care resources on.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2016 22:48

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Woolie Wool posted:

A market economy requires an even greater amount of growth because it must support a class of parasites who extract money from workers who use their property, often a very large proportion of the total value of production. A capitalist economy will collapse if it does not grow, even though the needs of the planet demand that we drastically shrink our economies.

It's weird how people are willing to let random chance and individual decisions determine who lives in abundance and who dies, rather than a central politburo of technocrats and their pet AI, huh?

RuanGacho posted:

Socialism is ultimately a movement about sustainability as opposed to making sure everyone has equally grandiose and unnecessary extravagance.

So is that B) or C)?

# ¿ Mar 9, 2016 23:00

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

RuanGacho posted:

I'm not convinced that's a choice that has to be made with the amount of waste currently in the system. The only thing that really needs to change in the Western diet is the focus on beef and outside of that I think we could elevate all of the existing rest of humanity to probably not equal but comparable and fair living standard.

The world is vast and much of our "capital" is misallocated.

So despite the fact that a billion Chinese people bootstrapping themselves from a virtually agrarian economy to a somewhat modern industrial one has constituted one of the most significant man-made environmental disasters in recorded history, you think that we can uplift the rest of the world's expanding population to a similar standard of living, with no significant downsides, by eating less beef and "eliminating inefficiencies." OK good luck with that.

McDowell posted:

I don't think it needs to be forcible. Most 18 year old guys would accept a free vas deferens valve - the tricky thing is setting up licensing for reproduction - the criteria and the number of licenses issued annually might be the work of a computer.

I don't think eugenics is a particularly palatable idea even when a computer does it.
Also, lol at the idea that Catholics and observant Muslims, just to name two, are going to go for a surgically implanted valve that limits their ability to bear children unless they're approved by the state.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Mar 10, 2016

# ¿ Mar 9, 2016 23:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Socialism in an A.I. World