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.
Basic income, and shorter working hours. But really its the transition to that thats going to be crazy. I've actually considered writing a book about it.
If you are going to write a book and want to do research I can suggest a classic piece of economics that deals with the situation Captialism will find itself went it runs its course. It was written by Karl Marx and his collaborator Fredrick Engles and it is called Das Kapital (The Capital).
Interesting question. Ultimately, I suppose the question would find its terminus as, "What will happen to our civilization/society when there is no longer a need for human labor of any sort?" The automation of the automated.
What sort of society would that be (for humans)? What would its inhabitants "do"? What if there were no need for any sort of task on the part of any inhabitant? ...everything was automated and everyone lived, presumably, as royalty did 500 years ago, except without any sort of responsibility to anyone or anything...
For some, it would mean that they would be free to pursue whatever their personal passions are without a need to worry about deriving income from it. For those who are already free of any responsibility, very little would change. But for the presumed majority, I believe they would be completely lost and unable to function healthily under those conditions. Their identity is so closely linked to the task they perform in society that they would feel useless and unable to find meaning from within.
People have always been doing things; creating, exchanging, building, designing, growing, helping one another, etc... The tools have always changed.
Royalty is a completely different situation. Having more tools at ones disposal does not make someone royalty or relieve them of responsibility nor caring. Royalty is about hierarchy. You speak of classes. Older people especially tend to confuse tech with luxury, as well. It is not the same.
Humans are very adaptable. They have always been changing identities, as well. One does not expand if one cannot get above basic survival or have any kind of life quality.
People have always been doing things; creating, exchanging, building, designing, growing, helping one another, etc... The tools have always changed.
Royalty is a completely different situation. Having more tools at ones disposal does not make someone royalty or relieve them of responsibility nor caring. Royalty is about hierarchy. You speak of classes. Older people especially tend to confuse tech with luxury, as well. It is not the same.
Humans are very adaptable. They have always been changing identities, as well. One does not expand if one cannot get above basic survival or have any kind of life quality.
Yes, but if we were to take automation to its extreme limit--to where every aspect of what we do as "employment" now was no longer necessary--there would be no required functionality on our part. Yes, this is a hypothetical, but it's an interesting hypothetical from a psychological point of view, I think. Because many of us self-identify as a "workman" of some sort (some functionality within our "world"), it would be interesting to see where the situation would lead. Everything is provided and done by some sort of machine or computer and nothing ever breaks or needs an upgrade or any interaction with us at all other than we are provided for.
What would you do with your time? I think some of us would have severe issues in such a world. Many would see it as a "waste," I'm sure. Labor based class distinctions would be gone completely and no work would be required from anyone (that is why I mentioned the royalty thing--we'd all be royalty, so to speak, with technology as our surfs). It's an intriguing scenario.
I dont think this is as large of an issue as you might think. Technology is drastically changing the availability of resources. Oil used to be of massive concern to us, but now we're looking at exporting it!
Water? Theres better purification technology coming out regularly.
We really do have the possibility of a post scarcity economy eventually
A post scarcity world is a world that does not have to solve the scarcity problem (i.e Who gets the few items produced ). Setting prices and wages will serve no purpose and so will the socalled Free Market.
So it will have to be "Each according to his needs and from each according to his abilities". Imagine there is no countries, it isn't hard to do, nothing to kill or die for ... no need for greed or hunger ...
Originally Posted by DRob4JC I guess this is example 1.
Your assumption is that 100% of the drivers will give up driving. That's not happening. Totally unrealistic.
But for arguments sake - let's proceed. Well looking at the rest of your list, it pretty hard to take this seriously.
There will be a ton of maintenance personnel required. A car is still a car... needs gas, oil, transmission fluid, tires, etc... do you account for bad weather - will the cars need to be adjusted for snowy weather - who does those adjustments? What if a program malfunctions... does the car stop in the middle of the road... if it's a single lane road - traffic ceases until someone moves the car... I could go on. Your scenario is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michigantown
Your not think very far ahead in the future. Especially sense you mentioned gas. Car won't be running on gas in the future.
They have been saying the same thing for over 100 years, yet here we are. We have nothing that can replace the power output of fossil fuels. In 1976 Carter said we would run out of natural gas within 20 years, yet here we are 40 years later in a natural gas glut.
I'm a firm believer in abiotic oil, and that the earth is an oil producing mechanism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
I dont think this is as large of an issue as you might think. Technology is drastically changing the availability of resources. Oil used to be of massive concern to us, but now we're looking at exporting it!
Water? Theres better purification technology coming out regularly.
We really do have the possibility of a post scarcity economy eventually
You and I rarely agree, but on these points we do completely.
Yes, but if we were to take automation to its extreme limit--to where every aspect of what we do as "employment" now was no longer necessary--there would be no required functionality on our part. Yes, this is a hypothetical, but it's an interesting hypothetical from a psychological point of view, I think. Because many of us self-identify as a "workman" of some sort (some functionality within our "world"), it would be interesting to see where the situation would lead. Everything is provided and done by some sort of machine or computer and nothing ever breaks or needs an upgrade or any interaction with us at all other than we are provided for.
What would you do with your time? I think some of us would have severe issues in such a world. Many would see it as a "waste," I'm sure. Labor based class distinctions would be gone completely and no work would be required from anyone (that is why I mentioned the royalty thing--we'd all be royalty, so to speak, with technology as our surfs). It's an intriguing scenario.
All hobbies, all day. Instead of learning one instrument, we would learn many. There would be workshops of all varieties for us to learn new skills, which will keep us active and thinking. The arts would explode, since we're all exploring new avenues for expression.
The future doesn't have to suck. It only sucks for those who think within the confines of capitalism. What most people don't realize is, Karl Marx was writing a playbook for centuries into the future. Post industrial era when the means to production is largely irrelevant, and almost a liability. It will take America awhile to figure it out, but eventually folks will get sick of not having money to keep the heat on in winter, or eating low quality meals that leave their bodies starved of nutrients and energy.
There will be something closer to a utopia than what we have today. Much closer. It won't be without it's faults either, and it will require stages and tons of effort before we even begin taking meaningful steps towards achieving it. Unfortunately, humans are not smart enough to realize their full potential, and money lust only interferes with that. It's a great motivator, but when money becomes the prime focus, society as a whole is never the prime benefactor. Beyond that, it's prime usefulness as a rationing tool loses it's fair value when it falls into the hands of a few, no matter what course of action a regulatory body pursues.
There will be something closer to a utopia than what we have today. Much closer. It won't be without it's faults either, and it will require stages and tons of effort before we even begin taking meaningful steps towards achieving it. Unfortunately, humans are not smart enough to realize their full potential, and money lust only interferes with that. It's a great motivator, but when money becomes the prime focus, society as a whole is never the prime benefactor. Beyond that, it's prime usefulness as a rationing tool loses it's fair value when it falls into the hands of a few, no matter what course of action a regulatory body pursues.
If you think the wealthy liberals are going to support 7+ billion people, most of whom they regard as 'useless eaters', you're going to be unpleasantly surprised.
The future is most likely going to be the rich living in the big cities (which will be closed off) while everyone else fights for scraps in the wasteland outside of it. It's been happening already, just look at the COL for places like NYC or SF and how it keeps out the "undesirables".
I don't see the rich or corporations (who already complain about taxes) handing over money for some basic income system.
Most places in the world do not have a "middle class". It's either super rich or dirt poor. The middle class in America (which is quickly dwindling) was only created due to union protectionism and the fact that after WW2 we were in prime shape while the rest of the world was rebuilding. There is no way an American worker (who demands a living wage of 20+ an hour, benefits, and pension) is going to be able to compete with third world workers that die at their machines and are quickly replaced.
Getting regulation out of the way and the silly notion of "intellectual property" ,or all private property for that matter, would yield a self-sufficient populous.
But alas, we insist on playing this archaic game of "capitalism".
Why do you think a person does not have a right to their "intellectual property?"
Why do you think there should be no private property?
What do you think would be the benefit of not protecting "intellctual property" and of no right to private property?
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.
