Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is actually a rather obscure (but still really good) book written by a Silicon Valley entrepreneur that sides with your way of thinking. (Whether you got your ideas from it, I don't know) If the argument you are making was a college course, this would be its text-book.
There is actually a rather obscure (but still really good) book written by a Silicon Valley entrepreneur that sides with your way of thinking. (Whether you got your ideas from it, I don't know) If the argument you are making was a college course, this would be its text-book.
I highly recommend it to anybody, especially those debating against him/her.
Thanks for your comments and the book recommendation. I thought it was fairly obvious that increased efficiency is the enemy of full employment. My point really is that unemployment may not necessarily be a bad thing for society as a whole as it is actually a sign that society has advanced to the point that not everyone needs to work to produce for the whole of society. Some of us can be chronically unemployed (or chronically on vacation - why not?). This view is counter-intuitive, but I believe unemployment is actually a luxury that primitive hunter gatherer societies didn't have.
Thanks for your comments and the book recommendation. I thought it was fairly obvious that increased efficiency is the enemy of full employment. My point really is that unemployment may not necessarily be a bad thing for society as a whole as it is actually a sign that society has advanced to the point that not everyone needs to work to produce for the whole of society. Some of us can be chronically unemployed (or chronically on vacation - why not?). This view is counter-intuitive, but I believe unemployment is actually a luxury that primitive hunter gatherer societies didn't have.
The problem, though, is that the unemployed don't have a way of supporting and providing for themselves. It's only a "vacation" if you have the bankroll to get by.
The problem, though, is that the unemployed don't have a way of supporting and providing for themselves. It's only a "vacation" if you have the bankroll to get by.
That's true, and the unemployed/unproductive can certainly be accused of "free-loading" (exploiting the productive). If everyone decided to be a free loader, society will grind to a halt. No one will be working to produce food, drill for oil, take care of the sick, build homes etc. At least this is the argument.
But in a fully automated world, it is certainly possible that these functions can be taken over by machines/computers. Taking the relentless pursuit of efficiency to its logical conclusion leads to full automation as the ultimate outcome. These machines can be our producers - slaves if you will. We will be the ones "free loading" on them. But we aren't violating their human rights since they are simply machines.
Now, despite the fact that machines will do 100% of the work, there will still be some people who would like to work out of a sense of purpose and enjoyment. That's fine, you are free to work as you wish. But you wouldn't have to. Work will become voluntary. You may not even call it "work" anymore, but rather "play". Doing something you enjoy doing is play, not work.
That's true, and the unemployed/unproductive can certainly be accused of "free-loading" (exploiting the productive). If everyone decided to be a free loader, society will grind to a halt. No one will be working to produce food, drill for oil, take care of the sick, build homes etc. At least this is the argument.
But in a fully automated world, it is certainly possible that these functions can be taken over by machines/computers. Taking the relentless pursuit of efficiency to its logical conclusion leads to full automation as the ultimate outcome. These machines can be our producers - slaves if you will. We will be the ones "free loading" on them. But we aren't violating their human rights since they are simply machines.
Now, despite the fact that machines will do 100% of the work, there will still be some people who would like to work out of a sense of purpose and enjoyment. That's fine, you are free to work as you wish. But you wouldn't have to. Work will become voluntary. You may not even call it "work" anymore, but rather "play". Doing something you enjoy doing is play, not work.
how would one earn the means to purchase goods and pay for shelter?
Thanks for your comments and the book recommendation. I thought it was fairly obvious that increased efficiency is the enemy of full employment. My point really is that unemployment may not necessarily be a bad thing for society as a whole as it is actually a sign that society has advanced to the point that not everyone needs to work to produce for the whole of society. Some of us can be chronically unemployed (or chronically on vacation - why not?). This view is counter-intuitive, but I believe unemployment is actually a luxury that primitive hunter gatherer societies didn't have.
I agree with you. Though this text makes the argument that lack of employment due to increasing technology is a threat, I do have the belief that isn't necessarily the case. The other case that the book makes in requisite is how technology is affecting employment, which I think the author does make an outstanding argument.
In theory, if AI is at level that meets or exceeds human intelligence, is sentient and is able to carry out those tasks due to robotics, it's entirely likely that ALL forms of human labor will become obsolete. There are some who believe that could happen in as little as two decades. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7248875.stm Of course, this is a very controversial issue/claim subject to much criticism.
In a fully automated world, where would the funds come from to distribute the income? It sounds like a horrible idea, anyways. Individuals in society will always need the potential to earn more.
In a fully automated world, where would the funds come from to distribute the income? It sounds like a horrible idea, anyways. Individuals in society will always need the potential to earn more.
In that kind of world, in theory, life would be practically free. When goods/services are free or practically free, a monetary economy essentially becomes obsolete. Post scarcity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I made this same argument that nmfmdlf is making on the Houston forum some time ago. I got accused of being a communist later on in the thread. It's a hard issue for some to swallow.
In that kind of world, in theory, life would be practically free. When goods/services are free or practically free, a monetary economy essentially becomes obsolete. Post scarcity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I made this same argument that nmfmdlf is making on the Houston forum some time ago. I got accused of being a communist later on in the thread. It's a hard issue for some to swallow.
But how about resources that are scarce by nature, like land, and more importantly, the housing that will be built on it? If someone wants/needs a bigger home, how can they earn the financial means to justify the upgrade? And how would we decide who gets to live in the more desirable locations vs. who has to live out in the boonies?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
