Capitalism is fundamentally flawed. I know, you might be thinking I'm a dumb commie and that you know better and you'll easily refute my arguments but you couldn't be more wrong.
> Robots are taking the jobs
> Robots are advancing rapidly
> Robots will take most jobs soon
> High unemployment thanks to robots
> The economy crashes because nobody has money because all the jobs have been taken by robots
> Companies fail because nobody buys their products
> The countries that are affected enter a state of anarchy
> Capitalism imploded on itself
Good luck refuting what I just said.
Corporations take control or partial control of the government to benefit themselves. Here's a good example.
Now this is a flaw that plagues both communism and capitalism but it is so important it must be mentioned. Resource depletion.
I will note that since communism produces superior technology since the goal isn't to gain large but quantities of money but instead to develop superior technology, this is potentially less of an issue for communism.
>capitalism is fundamentally flawed
>has soviet flag
>good luck refuting me because of how right I am and stuff
The better technology gets, the more people consume. The more people consume, the more stuff is produced. The more stuff is produced, the more jobs are created. This is how it has always happened, and this is how it will always happen, you damn freedom-hating Communist.
>Capitalism is fundamentally flawed.
Every system is fucking flawed and always will be flawed. There is no such thing as perfection so in other words no shit you fucking retard.
>Hurr with capitalism robots will take over all sectors and then proceed to cause financial breakdown
>Being this fucking idiotic
While jobs get replaced new ones spring up. When we transferred from human operated switch boards to automatic guess what, new positions to maintain the auto switch boards came to light. Low skill shit is going to take over and if you can't even bother to get a highschool degree then you have no room to bitch.
>Corporations take control or partial control of the government to benefit themselves. Here's a good example.
And with Communism they take control of everything. Want you bottle of shit vodka....go blow Ivan, want to go see doctor Stalker for that injury....go blow Ivan, want to not to blow Ivan....tough shit you go blow Ivan and like it
>Another flaw: you pay more taxes than multi-billion dollar companies.
>300 million vs 2k
Ever heard this thing called quantity.
>Now this is a flaw that plagues both communism and capitalism but it is so important it must be mentioned. Resource depletion.
Every system will deplete some resource when they have the means to do. Its not some special disadvantage that exist in one or two ideology. It happens through out fucking history.
capitalism won't work. however, if we transition to a post-scarcity society and get rid of this naive view that everyone needs to work, we'd manage.
but that won't happen. gg society. give it 50 years or so.
In capitalism, you can only receive money by working for a company or owning a company. You won't have a job you fool. That's the point I'm making. Remember, demanding anything from the government is socialist.
> While jobs get replaced new ones spring up.
This can only happen while machines are either dumber or more expensive than people. After that we're in new territory where machines compete against us for work and energy.
The matter of who owns these machines will be a big deal, because they will control the future
if robots did all of the work in the world there would be no need for jobs
as we move towards an world that doesnt have scarcity of resources there is bascially no reason not to give people a living wage just for existing, similar to whats being talked about in europe right now
there is a plausible future where the only poeple who have to work to exist are those who want to go above and beyond
Everyone must contribute. Why the fuck would we even allow them to live otherwise? The goals can change but everyone must still contribute towards them.
The future needs top teir scientists to figure out space travel and genetic engineering and artificial intelligence and all that sci fi shit. People who cannot contribute or produce children who will contribute should just be sterilized.
Post-scarcity is a myth. There will always be competition for space and energy, if we covered the entire surface of the earth with solar panels we still wouldn't have the energy to, for example, mine every bitcoin.
To eliminate scarcity you need to eliminate competition.
>robotics and miniaturization develop fast and become available for the mayority as it has happened with tech during the last decades
>Most people has robots or robotic installations that do their basic jobs and provide food
>We'd have more leisure time as a result
>People just creates things and hang around while their robots do the job
Capitalism or Communism if this happens count me in
The one where the Soviet Union made the most powerful bomb in the world, became a super power after experiencing millions of deaths and billions of dollars in infrastructure damage, went to space first, developed the first tank armour that couldn't be penetrated with anti-tank rounds, and made the biggest and most powerful ICBM in the world.
> Robots are taking the jobs
It's called efficiency. I guess you're opposed to all technological advancement
> Robots are advancing rapidly
Yes they are.
> Robots will take most jobs soon
Robots can only take jobs in which they are cost effective to use compared to employee, thank a liberal for pushing the minimum wage up, also robots require a ridiculous amount of maintenance, new jobs
> High unemployment thanks to robots
We have high unemployment now and a labor force participation rate in the tank.
> The economy crashes because nobody has money because all the jobs have been taken by robots
Economy is going to crash anyway because of fiat monetary system.
> Companies fail because nobody buys their products
Economy crashing anyway, who gives a shit
> The countries that are affected enter a state of anarchy
Thank the Federal Reserve
> Capitalism imploded on itself
Socialism worked exactly 0 times in history.
BTW I designed industrial automation equipment. Knowing my systems produce better quality work at better prices brings a smile to my face.
>Communism produces superior technology.
The moon is still ours.
Seriously though, Soviet technology was fucking terrible. They destroyed an entire sea trying to irrigate a desert, which is if anything even farther from being irrigated today. Dangerous chemicals are still leaking from their old fleets in the Arctic Ocean.
>G-guys! It's not REGULAR communism, it's ROBOT communism!
whatever faggot. 95% of the world will never be a genius or contribute to society at all.
guess we should just wipe out 95% of the world because this faggot here thinks so.
They won't run out of money, because they'll just get new jobs, like they've always done.
So how is communism supposed to work with robots and automation?
Isn't your labor the only thing you have to offer? What then? Hmm?
It won't lead to anarchy. It's going to lead to guaranteed (supplemented) income.
Sure it is now. But what happens when having capital become the only way to make more capital? Robots do all most the labor, what jobs are left become filled with a 1000 person waiting list.
Literally the only way to make money will be to have money.
robots don't have creativity like humans(yet).
i.e they know how to play a symphony or do differential equations because they are programmed to do it, but they can't write one or invent calculus.
Not really true. Everyone contributes in some way if they aren't truly degenerates. The productive power that goes into a big project relies on the economy which is made of the people.
By your logic paying people to dig up a hole and fill it in would be a good way to build a society. Employing people to do redundant jobs is a silly way to run society, and impedes advancement.
> Companies fail because nobody buys their products
the market adjusts to such an action. The cost of products will fall to meet demand. Money will only have a greater purchasing power once we reach a point where most of societies jobs are automated. People will work less hours, but their money will buy more.
>If capitalists have their way, such a thing won't come to be. A capitalist cares only for money. That is a fact.
Communist only give a fuck about retaining their power and will do all means to keep which is a fact
>Insert every nigger country
Convert tax revenue to follow a corporate-like model and issue every natural born citizen a share (share in the sense of a share of stock). Now we're all capitalists making money off the robots. Checkmate, atheist.
Not OP, but the thing is thet with the current system in a future where robotsmake most of the work, only people who own means of production would be able to make a living, while everyone else cant get a job because a robot will do it better and cheaper.
Collective ownership of the means of production is a solution, but probably not the.only one.
>Good luck living off of free samples.
And what do you think people in the USSR was living off. I know damn well the shit we got at the bread lines wasn't fucking close to what I can get now. Go live in a Communist shithole you fucking faggot because I know damn well living it myself wasn't fucking fun
>i maek bomb
Yes, we all know how good communists are at destroying things.
Meanwhile the capitalist west was responsible for computer/information technology which is currently pushing us into another industrial revolution.
>he thinks mcdonalds employees, cashiers, and taxi drivers deserve a living wage because muh feelings
lmfao. get use to it. whether you like it or not, humans are being replaced. slowly, but surely. remember when >70% of people worked in agriculture? Yeah. those people lost their jobs when tractors became economically feasible for farmers, instead of having to hire tons of farmhands to do simple labor.
same thing will happen, whether you like it or not.
>communism producing better technology
m80, please go to north korea and marvel at all their fucking technological advances. seriously. take a good fucking look at what human nature is like. suck my cock.
Technological unemployment is a thing, but it will bring the cost of goods and services to near-free levels.However, there will be a transition period that will cause a lot of job less and suffering, anyone who denies this has their head in the sand.
Anyone who supports capitalism would understand that it is driven by constantly improving production efficiency. Capitalism will outgrow the need for human labor, whether mental or physical. There are quite a few debates and arguments on what can be done to curb the suffering from such a transition, but nobody truly knows how this is going to play out.
The main argument against the inevitability of technological unemployment is that the luddites of the industrial revolution foresaw the same thing and were wrong. The luddites were unable to understand that humans were not only needed as physical laborers, and could use their new augmented machine labor to pursue more abstract positions that used mental labor, which became the service economy, a majority form of work these days. However, we are now starting to see our mental faculties outperformed by machines. This rids us of our only remaining possible contribution to the economy, besides one thing.
In order for economic actors to consume, they must transfer wealth. The only source of wealth in today's economy is through some sort of mental/physical contribution - i.e. employment. The great unknown in this transition is how consumers will continue to consume without their traditional sources of income. Many have pondered this and many possible scenarios have been examined.
it could be that the economy of the future will separate into two parts, one human one machine, with the machine component (and its human attendants) leaving Earth and the rest of us behind
consider the Amish: their way of life has been outmoded for at least a hundred years, but they're still around
they have embraced the cosmic truth of valueless living, and that could be our future if automation continues to support the divergence of economies
Wow, what a fucking idiot. First of all, capitalism is NOT flawed in any way. If you are too fucking lazy to make enough money to shit on poor people, that's your problem. All of this class inequality nonsense is retarded. Poor people are only poor because THEY choose to be. No one is holding a gun up to their head telling them to be poor. Can't afford to go to college? Take out a loan; they're not very pricey. And robots? It has been proven that robots DO NOT work as efficiently as humans, no matter how retarded the human is. Robots just get bored too easily and they start fucking up. Employers are much better off hiring Down syndrome employees to do menial work for them because they won't get bored of repetitive shit. Robots are NOTHING to worry about, trust me.
>thinks it will end in anarchy
If we don't change the monetary system.
Social credit can neatly scale from basic factory work all the way fully robotic labor forces.
Each company, business, or self employed contract sells their product or service for X money. They pay out to their employees and investors at max Y money. However unless they have a 1:1 ratio between income and employee/investor pay they will have a cost factor of Z. Pic related.
So make 100, pay 75 to employees and investors, 25 to other costs. This creates a gap between the 100 sold product and the 75 paid income. The government creates 25 and distributes it.
You can operate your government without collecting any taxes, pay out a national dividend while keeping inflation at 0% because the only amount of money that can be created is the difference between production and pay.
Brother Nathanael talks about the same basic idea of the wealth of automation and comes to a similar but slightly different conclusion with the Chicago Plan. In the end it's just a less formalized system meant to do the same thing as Social Credit.
Tax loopholes are hardly an issue, those companies still pay an assload of taxes. If you wanted them to pay more you just increase the numbers they can't skate around. It would mean death to
small business but liberals have already presumed all businesses running today are going to run that way forever, and competition be damned we can just craft any multi-billion dollar corporation
a third leg out of tax payer dollars when they fuck up.
>Robotic automation lowers prices drastically
>People can work less hours or not work at all due to the lowered cost of living
>One step closer to post scarcity benevolent society
Who am I kidding.
>things produced by communists:
death, a satellite (made by German scientists that were captured by soviets), and the largest non-nuclear bomb (LOOK I MADE OF BOMB) 30 years after the capitalists made nukes.
>things made by capitalists
literally everything you use today
how does it feel that your idiotic ramblings are nothing short of some angsty teen who discovers marxist propaganda on some facebook page, and out of spite and (mostly jealousy) tries to push your shit here.
Communism has been /btfo/ everytime it is discussed here on /pol/. please stop.
Discrediting communism by telling me to look at North Korea's accomplishments amuses me. I suppose capitalists never made anything either because I look Mexico and I don't see any fucking innovations. Btw, North Korea isn't even communist you fool. North Korea also has a shitty leader who spends all the money on the military but never does anything. But ok, we can judge communism by looking at North Korea.
>being this retarded
>You can thank the idiots who came to power after Stalin. Those revisionists fucked up the USSR. Enjoy being let to starve to death if you can't find a job.
Oh how cute a fucking westerner telling me the history of the shit I was in. You have to be a complete dipshit to think Stalin was somehow the only person that would screw us. Nigger there has never been a regime that hasn't fucked it's citizens. You liberal western cuckhulds are fucking worst than Chechens. At least they know when something doesn't work do try something else. Here's a fact for ya since you obviously like to say that alot. Faggots who want communism tend to be mainly come from Western nations from a college that berates equality and liberal queefs....Fact
>North Korea also has a shitty leader who spends all the money on the military but never does anything
The failure of NK as a state has little to do with the policy of the government and everything to do with the almost 100% trade restrictions with the world.
They have about as high a standard of living as you could expect from a nation starved of the resources needed to operate at a higher level.
LOL people said this exact same fucking shit during the industrial revolution and obviously that resulted in a horrendous rise in the quality of life and even doubled life expectancy. Gee thanks capitalism.
keep being butthurt and throwing stones at the march of progress pinko.
"North Korea isnt communist.."
tell me.. what is communist? was soviet russia communist? are there no true scotsm- I mean communist countries? :^)
oh and Mexico..
top kek. took 4 seconds to google
tfw no true scotsman.
Yeah actually, the contemporary term for "negative income tax" is universal basic income, and it's a proposal that even many libertarians have come to support because of its simplification of the welfare system, and its unbiased approach. After eliminating all other forms of welfare, and even phasing out social security, a universal basic income would give each citizen a standardized stipend REGARDLESS of current income. This means that jamal and tyrone get the same stipend as william and mary, as well as billionaire banker Chaim Shekelstein. This is actually preferable to the current system that de-incentivizes work. Under a UBI, citizens who choose to get a job will still receive their stipend, eliminating the fraud and bias that comes with the current welfare state.
>tell me.. what is communist? was soviet russia communist? are there no true scotsm- I mean communist countries? :^)
Communism is a classless, governmentless, nationless state of total group ownership.
It's never been achieved. And I doubt it ever will.
>technological advancement destroys industries and livelihoods
>mass unemployment then anarchy ensues
Oh wait, this isn't what happens. What actually happens is that goods and services become cheaper, and new jobs are created. This whole "robots = mass unemployment" is just another boogeyman created by leftists to justify higher taxes and nationalization of industries.
>Capitalism makes robots cheap as fuck.
>I can now afford to buy a crew of robots.
>Open my own business.
>Don't have employees to pay.
>All my friends do the same thing.
>No more workers, only capitalists.
Robots are taking peoples jobs, but there are new fields and new jobs for people all the time.
Despite that just think about it. If companies did nothing but make robots for all of their making shit, how would people buy the shit they make? The company would go out of business and obviously, that's bad for business.
Companies will not do things on purpose that jeopardizes their businesses.
>Stalin didn't screw you guys you fool. He built up the Soviet Union and did some incredible things.
Tell that to the Baltic states. You don't know shit go to your jew professor and queef what ever bullshit you cuckholds talks about. You faggots wouldn't fucking last in USSR Moscow, you either die like a dog in the streets or get fucked by the ferals.
Good post. Do you have any ideas other than a fixed basic income? I honestly can't see a way around capitalism ending in mass starvation, robotic warfare and essentially genocide.
Advances in technology create more jobs than they eliminate
You're only hearing the side of unskilled workers who get replaced because they refuse to learn how to do something useful
It appears you capitalist idiots have been brainwashed with some serious disinformation. The robots will take the jobs and leave you jobless. If you weren't such an idiot and watched the video, you wouldn't sound like such an autist. Watch the damn video before responding.
>It appears you capitalist idiots have been brainwashed with some serious disinformation.
Or maybe you are just a faggot. Again go queef some more with your transgender polylotic jew proffesor you faggot Eurocunt/Americfat
I agree with the whole "goods become cheaper" statement, but the idea that new jobs will magically replace the old jobs doesn't really have a leg to stand on. The typical "the same thing happened with the industrial revolution" argument makes so many assumptions, as if this is the same thing and the same trend will continue because "it happened before!".
The industrial revolution replaced physical labor, the digital age is replacing mental labor. What is left for us to do then? The answer is to consume. And in the long run it is a GOOD thing that will greatly increase quality of life, exponentially moreso than even the industrial revolution did. However, to suggest that there will be no suffering in the short term transition is a misguided notion.
Even during the industrial revolution there were many who lost their means to survive in the transition. In fact, that's WHY the term luddite came to be.
There WILL be massive unemployment that will not return, and in the long run it will be a good thing, because employment will no longer be necessary. But, as I said before, pretending like everything will be rosey and fine in the transition period is akin to sticking your fingers in your hears and rambling.
You are implying that the cake making robot company would sell the robots, and that the cake company would willingly buy those robots (despite knowing that if everyone has robots instead of employees then they lose their costumer base)
Such claims are pure nonsense. Stalin never did anything of the sort. Since you are making the claim, prove it. Show me the Soviet records and maybe I'll believe you. I don't give a shit what some useful idiot working for the bourgeoisie says.
>By definition, don't you need two classes for communism?
>The workers and the "elite" or government or whatever you call it.
What part of governmentless, classless, leadershipless makes you think you need a government elite?
The goal of an economy isn't to create jobs, it's to create wealth
We don't actually want to work. Freeing humanity from Manuel labor is good.
Prove me wrong.
Inb4 I think like a slave so I can't handle living in a world where I'm not a slave
You need a government for communism though (unless you're an-com but that is so far of the scale of reality it's ridiculous).
But in the off chance you are an-com, then tell me how anyone expects that to work?
Not even that. Marx thought that family was an invention of the bourgeois and is a conspiracy to put down the masses. He also thought that being rich somehow makes you more polygamous and evil. That stronk independnt womyn who need no man are oppressed because capitalism made them that way.
He even advocates stealing while rationalizing all this with semantics like private property and personal property. The guy is a serious nutcase.
Never heard of a tragedy of the commons? If you don't replace your staff with robots then your competition will be able to sell their products cheaper.
Directors serve the shareholders and their demand for a return on their investment, they don't serve society directly.
Yes. The fucking Jews plan on eliminating us all. These capitalist idiots assume other jobs will be created. If they watched the video they would know they are the horse living in the early 20th century. Maybe we should kill most humans to purge these idiots from existence.
Obvious not working would be awesome, but you know money is kind of something people want, and working is kind of one of the extremely few ways of getting it. In fact, only using money to get more money and stealing is the only other way I can think of getting money atm.
Not the other guy but...
> Faggots who want communism tend to be mainly come from Western nations from a college that berates equality and liberal queefs....Fact
Not all Americans think the same but I very dislike the "liberal" culture because of its idioligy has no real pratical use. I would love to see bad mouth liberals any day my freind
Data. In today's world, companies like google and facebook freely mine our data in order to better tailor their advertisements to us. In the future, I believe that this data - about where we live, what we like, what we do, where we go - will be the last things that we as humans can offer as something of value, and we will be compensated handsomely for it.
Now that's not to say that our privacy will vanish, atleast not in the dystopian way that we view it. I suggest looking into the future of decentralized technologies and the role that cryptography will play in the future of information. We may give up our data, but it will be shared in such a way that our privacy is not jeopardized.
Many may view companies such as Google and Facebook as evil entities that seek to destroy our privacy, but they have just as much of an incentive to protect our data in the long term as they have an incentive to collect it. This decade is the infancy of big data.
Yeah but in capitalism you can only get wealth by creating something. If labor is worthless than someone with no capital could never create more capital.
Freeing humanity from Manuel labor is fine but capitalism wont survive it.
But you will also have a much better public appeal (a bigger reason for people to buy your cakes vs theirs) and you would also give your employees money so they can turn right around to buy your stuff every now and again. Also, some cake companies won't have the money to buy these new robots until they are cheaper, which by then newer jobs elsewhere and (hopefully) their current employees would have some brains to get some kind of education or tech skills and find other work.
There's another flaw with commies, that they think that people who worked hard should pay for lazy people. That's just dumb.
refuting it is easy though
you're making the mistake of assuming robots won't themselves create demand
my bet is that we'll see fully (or near fully) automated businesses that are capable of buying more robots/systems to earn money from other (automated?) businesses
so eventually you get a system of such automated businesses that interact with one another for their respective purposes and money-making is subsequently pretty much the sole domain of the owners/shareholders of these automated businesses
don't assume some big dramatic crash will happen... it will probably just be a slow painful transition, the 'new' companies will ruthlessly destroy the business models of old, and as usual, what doesn't adapt to the environment will become obsolete / die out...
This is the single most society-shaking change that will come in the next few decades - you won't need a job. Period. Atleast not in the way that any of us consider things to be "jobs" today.
See >>38155632 for only one of many examples.
>> Robots are taking the jobs
No, engineers are deprecating your jobs, there's a difference.
>> Robots are advancing rapidly
No, science and engineering are advancing rapidly.
>> Robots will take most jobs soon
No, someone will always need to maintain/design/build robots.
>> High unemployment thanks to robots
Protip: the jobs robots are taking have been outsourced for close to 20 years. The others are service type jobs only uneducated children and people from anti-intellectual cultures take.
>> The economy crashes because nobody has money because all the jobs have been taken by robots
No, the economy is crashing because it's an unfree economy propped up by American banks who control the stock market with their bullshit "suggestions" (which are virtually self-fulfilling prophecies, you fucking pig cunt bankers)
>> Companies fail because nobody buys their products
No, companies fail because they fail to modernise and keep up with the times, namely by having boomer board of directors who don't understand technology or the coming times.
>> The countries that are affected enter a state of anarchy
>> Capitalism imploded on itself
Capitalism is immature...
...but Marxism actually imploded.
Not sure if pic related, but I think it is.
That's actually quite reasonable, if we have nothing else then maybe ownership of our thoughts and ideas, our attention, will be the last thing we can provide.
I guess a market based around that could be possible until it's usurped by mind augmentation technology. I'm not entirely sold on the idea, but it gives me something to consider. Thanks for that.
>THEY TOOK ER JERBS
You fucking retard. EVERYTHING will get cheaper when robots take over, to the point most people won't have to work
Tell me more about how you really "want" money.
And do you mean paper money with stamps on it? You really want that deep down?
Remember, you're a free man now. You can take care of your basic needs with a 2 day work week.
"Work" in the future won't seem much like work today, just as a farmer of the 15th century wouldn't consider the pushing of buttons in front of a terminal "work". The "work" of the future might be something as simple as the effortless and automated transfer of our unique data to massive decentralized systems that utilize said data in order to make our lives easier.
I have no idea what you are talking about
People do want things, it's literally a part of human biology to want things
Now not EVERYONE wants things (there are an extremely few amount of people (probably less than .01 percent of the world pop) that don't really want anything more than needed.
But most people want things.
Money gets you things whether you like it or not so people will want money
Now, people aren't going to give you money for free (unless you are extremely lucky but again, like .01 percent are going to receive this) so you are going to have to trade something that you think isn't as important to you as money is
In most cases this is time (though sometimes this is items and things)
How can you make it on 2 days a week unless you already have a job that pays crazy money for that time?
If we really get to a post scarcity society how much does food cost?
. Oh yeah, zero
The commie utopia is built into capitalism, but naturally instead of using force (which will never work)
I'm not saying utopia is possible, but there is only one way to find out
capitalism isn't flawed
however, a historically valuable commodity is quickly loosing any value.
It's a natural resource almost all of humanity has used to generate income
it's called unskilled labor, and it's becoming worthless in modern society
You could further that point by arguing that a pre-agricultural revolution hunter/gatherer would very much consider a 15th century farm to be a utopian paradise with maximum leisure time achieved.
>What makes you think there will be enough demand for intellectual and/or creative goods to account for new job growth?
Historical precedent, which shows that many more intellectual and/or creative fields were created despite the annihilation of industries like book scribing, manual calculating, carriage operating, manual glass blowing, and so on, along with cheaper goods and better living conditions for all.
How does it not lead to scientific breakthroughs? I would argue that it leads to more than in a government type environment simply because there would be more demand for more tech and science.
In an an-cap society you would have more people being entrepreneurs because no one is giving people free shit anymore and you would have more tech advancements and science advancements as people would obviously want more money.
That's kind of a lazy explanation but go ahead and try to refute that so I can expand lol.
Sure some day, but that doesn't mean there wont be a ruff transition period with massive unemployment and little economic mobility, that we have the pleasure of living threw.
Id rather be a peasant farmer in the 1800's than a coal miner in the 1920s. Things got worse before they got better.
>communism not force
In what universe do you live in?
To get people to give up things they worked hard for, then you need force.
Most people won't give up things they worked hard for just because other people are lazy and won't work hard
>Id rather be a peasant farmer in the 1800's than a coal miner in the 1920s. Things got worse before they got better.
Idiot, many of those coal miners actually were peasant farmers who moved to the factories. Why did they do it? Because being a subsistence farmer still fucking sucked, and you earned more money as a coal miner.
Post-scarcity is impossible unless we end up made of something other than matter and exist in something other than space. It just doesn't make sense as a concept.
I find it odd that something so many futurists argue for seems so flawed. What the fuck am I missing here?
>You need a government for communism though (unless you're an-com but that is so far of the scale of reality it's ridiculous).
>But in the off chance you are an-com, then tell me how anyone expects that to work?
Communism by definition has not government or leadership.
I have no idea how that's meant to work, I'm not a communism.
To truly see where the future is going, you have to understand the law of accelerating returns, and the increasingly decentralized nature of technology. Our propensity to think linearly and narrowly hinder most from the true nature of technological growth.
Take bitcoin for example. I can't believe how people honestly consider that the technical marvel of bitcoin is "internet money". The same thing happened when "email" was the absolute and singular marvel of the internet. Bitcoin is just a singular application that utilizes a technology that will revolutionize society, and as "revolutionary" as it is, it hardly is the most disrupting application to come from the core technology behind it. The same rang true for Email and the internet.
The same will ring true for technological unemployment.
Breakthrough time, I love it
In the future we will work less and be more enlightened in general
Of course there will be try-hards that are going to do some star trek shit
There is literally nothing to worry about. I feel bad for the people that are so bent on "doing a hard days work" and they cannot figure out any other purpose to life if given some free time and leisure
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
from the dictionary
>Idiot, many of those coal miners actually were peasant farmers who moved to the factories. Why did they do it? Because being a subsistence farmer still fucking sucked, and you earned more money as a coal miner.
Most of the move was because their was limited land and people couldn't be anything more than laborers for land owners.
>In an an-cap society you would have more people being entrepreneurs because no one is giving people free shit anymore and you would have more tech advancements and science advancements as people would obviously want more money.
You also have these people wasting decades of their lives, including their most productive years doing busy-work to make ends meet or save up enough to open their own businesses instead of working on their projects from the beginning.
How long have commies been saying that capitalism is going to fall any day now?
Also I laugh at the suggestion of automated checkouts can do the job of 30 people, or that auto-cars can replace cars. Good luck with that buddy. The entire argument would have been much, much stronger if they avoided everything dealing with situations in realspace that even slightly experience change.
Anything electronic glitches and fucks up torturously often. This isn't improving with time. Maybe after robots have actual bloodstreams full of nanites and AIs that can fix glitches,
My wife summed it up perfectly: "This is like solar frikkin roadways."
For the record, I don't "want to reject it." I reject it not because it offends me, but because anyone who's ever worked with machines and with transportation can tell that the two are a deadly fucking combination. You do not want sophisticated machines in charge of decisions of life and death. They are just not that smart, and the smarter they get, the more prone to becoming broken down pieces of shit at the worst possible moment (subjectively speaking). You think that by making progressively more delicate, finicky technology to replace what we already have, the world is going to become candyland? No.
Commies, are dedicated to their beliefs with religious or at least eschatological zeal,so project their own fanaticism on capitalists and assume we are actually attached to our economic system. Yeah, a few are. The best analog are atheists (or agnostics): there are a tiny proportion of militant atheists but most are just religious beliefs: no one cares, do what works. Likewise, most capitalists are economic beliefs: no one cares, do what works. We don't laugh at communism because we think commies are going to revolutionize everything and free the workers. We laugh at communism because they're going to break everything and starve the workers -- which was a genuine concern during the Cold War, but nowadays is quite improbable.
No retard, farmers moved to the city do to technological advances dropping food prices thus wiping out their livelihood.
Your a Idiot if you think early industrial factory work was better than medieval farm work.
Post-scarcity can be interpreted to mean a situation where we voluntarily control our population and have more of everything we need than we can consume. Of course, some people are going to interpret it in stupid ways, too.
That's pretty hand-wavy, you're always going to be competing with something for food and energy, an exponential increase in human population will see to that even if an exponential increase in autonomous machines doesn't.
Are you seriously fucking claiming that a company would rather keep half a dozen human bakers just on the off chance they might buy a cake every now and then instead of a much more efficient alternative?
>you would also give your employees money so they can turn right around to buy your stuff every now and again
I dont... i dont even... this must be bait. Yup, you got me, 10/10 bait
You're correct OP, corporate capitalism is imploding and there really is no stopping it now. We have to ensure that the next system avoids the problems that have been observed this far.
Don't expect to have a rational debate on capitalism here though, this is a reactionary echo-chamber.
That's just a part of it, you completely ignored the fact that their public appeal would be better you selective retard.
Also, as I said, if those people are lazy and don't look for better opportunities before they get laid off from "robits" then there is absolutly no reason that anyone else should pay for their mistakes
>Why did they do it? Because being a subsistence farmer still fucking sucked, and you earned more money as a coal miner.
Medieval peasants worked less hours and lived better than Victorian era so-called "human cogs", and there's a shitton of historical evidence to prove it. Farmers moved into the cities because industrialisation destroyed their jobs by dropping the food price, and they took whatever work was available.
Victorian era coal mines are the closest man has ever come to hell.
by that rational as someone who lives in a capitalist country I am an excellent source for information.
So /pol, as someone who lives in a third world shithole take my word that capitalism should be avoided at all costs
>pro-capitalism and anti-communism
But I'm not saying that early industrial factory work was somehow more comfortable than medieval farm work. I'm saying that they moved to become factory workers for a reason, which was that it simply paid more than being a subsistence farmer.
Sounds like dirty socialism to me. There's a lot of incentive to cheat such a system, if I can control more matter and energy than other people then I can subdue them by force. To get into a stable state and avoid such situations we'd need people to agree not to enter into a tragedy of the commons, which, looking at the world right now the prospects of that are quite grim.
The idea is that the economy is so efficient, that goods and services are so cheap, that we can turn the 5 day week into a 4 day one, and so on
This is where you get your missing jobs. Capital equipment makes people more productive. The richer we get as a society, the more we can pay people for there time.
Say a machine needs 24 hour supervision. You only work 4 hours, 3 days a week. . Math fags can tell you how many other people can get there living from this same shift.
See, the robots are so productive that they can support a more rational lifestyle for the humans on earth.
>Commies aren't the best people to ask about communism, people who have lived in communist regimes are.
Communism never got past the part where everyone in the whole world was communist. It's a multi staged plan with set goals to be finished before moving onto the next stage.
Communism is the end goal and it's never happened.
>you're always going to be competing with something for food and energy
>an exponential increase in human population will see to that even if an exponential increase in autonomous machines doesn't
I would argue that an exponential increase in autonomous technology will vastly outperfom any possible level of human population grow that could reasonably occur. But on that note, I would like to point out the assumption of never-ending population growth.
While population is still increasing at a growing rate, that does not mean that it will continue to increase forever. Increased quality of life leads to lower fertility rates. If you only counted well-off individuals in developed societies, the population is actually decreasing among those individuals. The global population is still increasing because that quality of life has not yet been obtained across the globe. As the quality of life exponentially increases over the next few decades, it is only rational to propose that the global population will eventually peak, and either sustain itself or lower, depending on the speed of advances in medical science.
Problem is though, in 20-30 years time I can CTRL+C CTRL+V some surgeon software but it takes over a decade to retrain a human. As soon as software is invented that can do your job then you're obsolete, the very idea of education for vocational needs is obsolete at this point.
only because technology drop food prices to begin with. I'm not saying it didn't increase quality of life for everyone in the long run. But clearly there was a transition time that things got worse for most people.
As sensible human beings we should look to the past and try not to make the same mistakes. not just keep repeating them over and over again.
>which was that it simply paid more than being a subsistence farmer.
A subsistence farmer implies land ownership to farm and subsist on. They mostly didn't have that. Which is why so many people left.
Very few people said, well I have this family farm, but I'm going to go work in a factory in the city.
A lot was, well My older brother is going to get the farm, and all the local trades and support work is full up, I guess I'll go to the city and work in a factory, it beats being my brothers lackey all my life.
>Robots are taking the jobs
Because (as for the US and places with high minimum wage) it is far cheaper to hire a maintenance man once a quarter to repair said robots than pay the forced minimum wage standards that are ever rising and have on average decreased minimum skill job labour market (source Heritage Foubdation look up article for minimum wage)
>Robots are rapidly advancing
Which increases the job market on all levels of labour from programmers to keep them up to date, computer manufacturing job, shiping industry, resource mining to create said robots, and create labour HR as well as finance departments and R&D departments (source look at what goes I to making a car, same platform) this actually improves the job market in other sectors and usually accompanies better pay.
>Robots will take most jobs soon
At this moment in time it would be a gross miss judgment at to the advancement of technology to say that "Robots will take most jobs soon." If we are going to experiment into the realm of scify, may I remind you of cyborization, and also keep in mind that robots need maintenance (car example again)
>High unemployment thanks to robots
You are forgetting that the economy is not rigid and flows one way. Everything has an equal and reflective intrinsic value. The labour market will also fluctuate to meet proper demand. Areas will always need to be worked. Work will always be in demand in areas in the market. (Look at labor statistics, even in current high unemployment in America jobs are still being created and demand for labour is still needed)
>Economy crashed because nobody has money
The economy is not upheld by the poor, it's upheld by "a prospect of risk, reward, value of skilled persons and profit potential." (Read Milton Friedmon, take EC 202 Macroeconomic)
And the rest is slippery slope fallacy.
I would suggest retaking economics in college and stay away from the Marxist economic thought as well as Keyseisian Economists. You can say that "Capitalism has failed." When in reality that it has brought the greatest abundance of wealth to all levels of the economic spectrum. See the GDP growth before and after the industrial revolution in all countries. Where all markets have hit their peak and had a sever crash is because of over market saturation. See The Great Depression of the US, the Depression of the 1970 for Great Briton, see 2008 Housing bubble, America's QE policies have sown the seeds of the next collapse. Economists at the von Mises Institute have projected that the next collapse because of America's saturation of the market will be worse than the 2008 market pop. By all means "but that's wrong!" To which you are entitled to your opinion but the facts and books as well as classes disagree with you.
Yes... people who have lived under capitalism ARE much more reliable to ask about capitalism than people who have never lived under it.
The thing about commies is that their answer to all of life's problems is "kill the kulaks and take their shit."
Vertical farms sprouting all over the world
>The plant racks in a vertical farm can be fed nutrients by water-conserving, soil-free hydroponic systems and lit by LEDs that mimic sunlight. And they need not be difficult to manage: control software can choreograph rotating racks of plants so each gets the same amount of light, and direct water pumps to ensure nutrients are evenly distributed.
>The whole apparatus can be monitored from a farmer's smartphone (see "Farming from afar"), says GSF's R&D manager, Daniel Kluko. He says the new farm in Scranton will grow 14 lettuce crops per year, as well as spinach, kale, tomatoes, peppers, basil and strawberries. Its output will be almost 10 times greater than the firm's first vertical farm, which opened in New Buffalo in 2011.
>Proponents see vertical farming as a way to feed a global population that is urbanising fast: 86 per cent of the people in the developed world will live in cities by 2050, the United Nations predicts. It could make food supplies more secure as well, because production can continue even when extreme weather strikes. And as long as farmers are careful to protect their indoor "fields" from pests, vertical farming needs no herbicides or insecticides. They also conserve water far better than earthbound farming.
>GSF's first farm was inspired by the long-term drought that has been afflicting many parts of the US. "Water is a big issue," says Kluko. "We have designed our vertical farms to recycle it, and they use 98 per cent less water per item of produce than traditional farming." That's done in part by scavenging water from the grow room's atmosphere with a dehumidifier. It's a machine with a dual role, as excess humidity can lead to problems like leaf mould.
Only problem is we can already do this but we don't. I could easily sustain myself working 3 days a week if I got paid the same per hour as I do now.
Problem is no company will pay that much to a part time position.
>Which increases the job market on all levels of labour
This is incorrect, if robots took more labor we wouldn't use them. Machines reduce our labor costs. Even factoring in their supporting costs.
What system isn't vulnerable to takeovers by force? I don't think a truly stable state is ever possible, but we could get to a state where the only problems are other people being dicks. Then they'll probably all kill each other for thrills.
yeah maybe communism and a welfare state is inevitable, the only jobs left will be for men; military and security
mfw all the womyn get thrown out of the work force.. so much butthurt
>Capitalism is fundamentally flawed
So is communism. Your point being?
There's nothing wrong with basic income if social security and medicare(questionable) were abolished. I rather much prefer basic income for every citizen rather than the shit ponzi scheme millenials will be cheated out of
I agree, I'm just saying if we reached post scarcity (which I understand is not possible) but if we somehow did... There would be no reason to lock your doors, food would be free, etc.. We don't need communism to try and force something that will evolve naturally
(again, I realize that true post scarcity is impossible, but even if we got halfway there it would be pretty cool)
>their public appeal would be bette
You seriously believe this...
But wait, there's more:
> if those people are lazy and don't look for better opportunities before they get laid off from "robits" then there is absolutly no reason that anyone else should pay for their mistakes
Because people can totally see it coming. Because switching jobs is just easy like that for everyone and anyone. Because the world is just exploding with free jobs for the taking nowadays.
Just shut up. Like honestly
Yes, thanks, we're aware that -for commies-, communism refers to their equivalent of the Christian New Heaven and a New Earth that comes after the apocalypse. However, that is not relevant to anyone but people who believe in the eschatology of communism.
>There's nothing wrong with basic income if social security and medicare(questionable) were abolished. I rather much prefer basic income for every citizen rather than the shit ponzi scheme millenials will be cheated out of
Simply abolishing welfare and social security (~$2 Trillion) we could institute the following for ~$1.87 Trillion.
- $2,000 per year for kids 0-17
- $4,000 per year for young adults 18-24
- $6,000 per year for adults 25-64
- $14,000 per year for seniors 65+
All while removing the massive bloat and inefficiency of the current predatory welfare system. It's a win-win for every political ideology and there really are no good reasons not to do it
>I'm saying that they moved to become factory workers for a reason, which was that it simply paid more than being a subsistence farmer.
Yes, but it paid more because industrialisation sent the food prices plummeting.
If that hadn't happened it wouldn't have paid more. Well actually it still might have, but only because they had to raise the pay and living conditions to compete with farming.
Basically, what happened then is all the things people say *won't* happen now.
>Technology makes certain industries obsolete
>Those people swamp the labour market
>Wages and living standards drop to the fucking floor as a result
>A few people get very rich
>Eventually government legislation and unionization fixes the problem, lifting living standards for the poor
>These living standards are higher than before thanks to the industrialisation
>And so capitalism gets a pat on the back for improving the lot of the poor by edgy teens on the internet
That's 2025 to 2125 summed up. Mark my words.
I understand but can working towards post scarcity be a bad thing?
Capitalism is trying to deliver coca cola into your mouth as soon as the thought crosses your mind.
We might never get that far, but let's not let give up for no reason
"See the GDP growth before and after the industrial revolution in all countries"
>using GDP to measure quality of life
>telling others to retake economics courses
kek. stopped reading there.
The grunt on the ground is going to be the last thing to be replaced, most humans can't do that job. No opportunity for maintenance and a software patch on the front line. Sure pilots will be gone, all the logistical POGs will be gone but the grunt will be the last to go
> Increased quality of life leads to lower fertility rates.
I think this argument confuses correlation with causation and very few people pipe up and call it on its bullshit. I'm sure there are specific reasons why the modern Western lifestyle means having less children but it's not due to having a higher quality of life. Maybe considering women as children and unfit to breed until they're so old as to be almost barren, the nature of our capitalist knowledge-based economy rewarding those who focus on their career before children, combined with having access to contraception. Certainly not because they're more comfortable though, that's just absurd.
A post-scarcity utopia would need to control the culture and keep the real causes of fewer children under control, then also prevent exponential growth of the economy from competing with people for food and energy.
Excuse me if I'm a bit sceptical of this, because it sounds like a tall order.
Why do seniors 65+ need $14,000 per year? They're practically dead anyway.
I don't like the term "post-scarcity" because even our seemingly infinite universe is still actually finite in resources. However, I feel as if the term "abundance" is more appropriate and a much more reasonable goal.
Envision a future that gives the appearance of post scarcity. Everyone's needs can be reasonably met with negligable cost. However, this isn't post scarcity, it's abundance. We are already "half way there" today. Take water for example. In the developed world, it has the illusion of a post-scarce resource. Within reason, we can obtain as much as we want with basically no cost. Now, try obtaining 15 olypic sized swimming pools worth of water. It's going to cost you. The same will be true of all other resources in the near future. Rather than calling this post-scarcity, we should call it "saturated abundance" or something similar.
>using GDP per capita as a cross-country comparative measure of quality of life
>instead of real median personal income adjusted for purchasing power
i'm trying to be smart actually anon. maybe you should try it to.
GDP per capita is barely useful as a tool for measuring changes in living standards across time, not for measuring actual living standards at a fixed point in time across countries. you should know this. compare median personal income before and during industrialisation and you will see exactly how well it worked out for the poor. and the comparison only becomes more grim when you realise that for the lesser income the poor were required to work longer hours in far worse conditions.
You are denying an existing technology exists and claiming that it's conjecture to state we could scale this EXISTING technology up to provide for the food needs of this country while utilizing less water and pesticides.
Please take a second to realize how objectively dumb that is.
All forms of goverment is flawed because man himself is flawed
There will never be a utopian society because there is always a group of people with conflicting ideals will to destroy it and the greed of man always comes through to destroy it from the inside out
Communism and other forms of government are always good on paper because they never take into account the willingness of man to take everything for himself and fuck over his fellow man
I'm not arguing that it's a direct cause. I'm arguing that increased quality of life leads to the factors you indicated, which leads to a decrease in fertility rates. I should have been more clear, but my point still stands.
Also, I'm not really discussing a "post scarcity utopia". My original point, in response to the post I linked, was that an exponential increase in population would pale in comparison to exponential growth of production and production efficiency.
Absolutely, if you think like a capitalist, you are not attached to the economic system as it is now.
In times of great change and confusion, there will be plenty of opportunities.
This is what the capitalist is thinking about.
I for one would 10o times over rather have Auto checkouts at stores then baggers and cashiers. Ever wait in line for 10-15 minutes because some old hag in front of you want to strike a conversation with the cashier about her grand kids and that bunion on her foot that keeps acting up all the while standing their saying FUCK MY LIFE. With auto Checkouts all that bullshit would stop and stores would maximize productivity and you eliminate an other wise useless job position but Create a job market for a skilled technical career field. People have to maintain ad repair those Auto cashiers. And Computer techs have to debug and program them. It would allow you to hire FAR fewer actual cashiers for specific goods like tobacco, alcohol, and medical products.
I agree, saturated abundance is a much more reasonable term. Not sure if that can be the case forever if other systems, like the economy are expected to grow exponentially. Shit will run out eventually and you won't see it until the last moment.
>And the capitalists claim that killing all niggers is the answer instead.
No, capitalists claim that "leave us in peace and quit trying to destroy civilization" is the answer. Remember, we live in a society where capitalism has brought us the highest standard of living ever seen. No claims need be made about capitalism, and nobody needs to suggest that more power needs be awarded to capitalists, as capitalism is just "leave people the basic fucking freedom of buying and selling."
Commies are not equivalent to capitalists. Their beliefs are eschatological ("when all the people who don't agree with us are dead, then our economic theories will begin to work").
>Can we admit their are retards everywhere and just debate the ideas of the systems?
The problem with communists is that their ideas all begin with "throw yourself on our swords." They demand as their first point, unconditional surrender, and they claim they will be kind, just rulers.
That's the problem. Any ideology that begins with "GIVE ME ABSOLUTE POWER OR DIE SHITLORD!" is automatically intellectually bankrupt, and there's just nothing to debate.
And there's no way for commies to move past that point. No commie in this thread even will move past that point. All communist ideology is focused on, at best, how to -get- absolute power over the masses, and maybe how they will dole up the kulak's shit.
If there were a -single- communist in this thread whose plan didn't hinge on absolute power over others and dictating what to do with their personal property, then I would happily debate him.
As is, I don't get what the point of debating commies is, because the only thing they are willing to debate is:
1. How evil you are
2. How great it will be once I have ULTIMATE POWER and what I should do with Your Stuff after I take over
3. How inevitable my victory is
is there anything I'm missing?
>There's no shortage of food production capacity in the first world,
Except we're damaging the topsoil and need to rely on massive amounts of pesticides (and therefore GMOs). This is why vertical farming will be the future of agriculture. Not to mention vertical farming grows crops faster and you don't have the added transportation costs.
Not him but everyone is stuck on Fords line that he paid his workers well so they could buy his cars
He was a salesman, it was just a line. But people that don't understand economics have sure ran with it.
>Except we're damaging the topsoil and need to rely on massive amounts of pesticides (and therefore GMOs). This is why vertical farming will be the future of agriculture.
That sounds even more retarded. If you need to maintain climate you use a damn hothouse.
Actually, that's one of the reasons why I believe "cryptoanarchy" to be the future of governance. I don't necessarily like the term because of its negative connotation, because its honestly the furthest thing from anarchy. It eliminates "trust" from the requirements of government. Look at bitcoin for example. Bitcoin's blockchain technology eliminates the need for "trusted" third parties such as banks and other financial institutions, and still allows for instantaneous economic transactions. The same concept could be applied to literally EVERY function of government synergistically.
>If you need to maintain climate you use a damn hothouse.
Does a hothouse shorten the growing time of crops? Can you have hothouses condensed to provide the food for a city? etc etc etc
hello fellow luddite, want to go destroy some looms with me and save the world?
Desertification is a real thing. How can you people not know about this?
It can be managed, but at the cost of profitability (which translates into food yield).
When robots start doing all of the work and humans are free to pursue interests that they enjoy, then capitalism isn't very useful. But lets leave your hypotheticals out of it, idiot.
Just because robots replace some workers doesn't mean there aren't any jobs. There will now be more jobs buildings and repairing robots. It's like saying cars shouldn't be invented because horse carriage makers will lose their jobs. So fucking what? Go work a job that can't be easily automated, like 90% of all jobs.
If robots become advanced enough to do every job and the government taxes robots 100% because robots don't need to get paid, we can throw capitalism out and live in a work-free utopia where the government gives us all free money made by robots, but until then, fuck off.
Marxists have been calling for the full automation of productive work for centuries.
> This aspect of automation enables the capitalist to replace large numbers of human workers with machines which creates a large pool of available workers that the capitalist can choose from to form his human workforce. The worker no longer needs to be skilled in a particular trade because their job has been reduced to oversight and maintenance of their mechanical successors. - Marx, Capital Vol 1.
Except once again they've been wrong, the nature of work has simply changed.
Using a 150 year old false prophecy to make an argument.
You're like the fucking jehovas.
Go make your plans for a hothouse the size of a skyscraper that can compete with comparable vertical farms then, we'll just let the free-market sort it out.
>being in this much denial
Off topic but are you doing anything with blockchain tech? You seem to be quite into it. I have an idea for an anonymous, decentralized corporation but it needs side/treechains in order to work.
You don't build agriculture vertically you stupid, retarded, stupid man. Plants need sunlight, they can't live in a concrete dungeon like you without obscene amounts of artificial lighting.
No one has a right to a certain lifestyle just "because“
Welder might be a cool guy. But he's too comfortable if he literally can't learn a new task.
Notice all the fat Americans? Too comfortable. A balanced person is ready for change.
We should always be ready for war. Changing jobs should be simple and it's not too much to ask. Not at all.
>I for one would 10o times over rather have Auto checkouts at stores then baggers and cashiers
I guess I can't relate, because I -have- auto checkouts at my neighborhood market, and baggers. And I usually prefer the automated checkouts, but they're fundamentally incapable of replacing a checker: they simply do different things.
Instead of saying automated checkout counters can do the job of 30 cashiers, its more accurate to say that one cashier plus the automatic checkout lanes can do the job of about 4-8, but it doesn't scale much past that point.
That employees' job also becomes the much more stressful position of trying to babysit autistic robots spazzing out because "ZOMG THATS NOT THE CODE FOR GRAPES YOU DIDNT PUT THE MILK IN THE RIGHT SPOT ARRGGHHH ERROR ERROR." He is only needed when something is going wrong, so his entire day at work becomes robots bitching and complaining to him how they can't understand the simplest things.
Meanwhile, the customers get more and more stressed out having to wait on box shaped cashiers with autospergers syndrome.
Auto checkout lanes and such are only worthwhile for customers who are willing to take more stress in exchange for getting out of there faster.
They simply do separate things. Its inane to think robots are going to replace that.
Same with drivers and doctors. You never know when a machine is going to have a flareup of autism and become retarded. In the last 15 years this has not gotten better and I doubt it ever will. Machines are getting smarter, but they have gotten no better at processing stuff that doesn't fit their preconceptions.
>the nature of work has simply changed.
No it hasn't. The top 10 biggest industries in America all existed in 1776. The so-called "new" jobs created by technology are a tiny fraction of the job market. Most of it is old jobs with new tech, not new jobs. So what happens when those old jobs go away? That has literally never happened before.
This is NOT a 150 year old prophecy. This is something else.
Can you ask your wrangler to help you log off the internet for the day, you're just embarassing yourself. While you're at it have him/her read the original article I posted to you: >>38157016
>But he's too comfortable if he literally can't learn a new task.
Yeah, horses should just fucking learn to be pilots if they want jobs.
Oh wait they literally can't.
And neither can the welder. By the time he is unemployed he will be unemployable. Horses didn't collectively "get lazy" as a species, they became obsolete.
And so will humans.
>shit guys we have no more work
>yeah, no more money to buy all these products
>well nothing we can do about it, let's just starve
>while looking at all those shiny products in the supermarkets
>too bad we can't buy them
Obviously there is no solution this problem, so you better kill yourself or try to violently prevent automation.
Eventhough you could just ... implement basic income. But that's socialism... right?
Also the that prick in the video has his head up his own ass. Yes, there's gonna be automation. Yes, it's gonna take a shitton, actually most, of all the jobs away. No, it's not gonna kill creative jobs.
He displays a basic misunderstanding of what creativity is and what influence automation has on it. He does this to a level that is almost autistic in its arrogance.
>Oh by the way this music in the background you hear is written by a robot
>it can write music all day long for free
>so it must be better
No dude.. just no. Seriously, gtfo.
I could talk all day about this faggot bot, but I don't have the time. In essence this bot has already shown the limitations of automated creative work, eventhough it is quite simplistic.
Listen to the music. It's boring, cold and lacks any sustained meaning to it. It's very noticable and the claim that people can't tell the difference is based on very doubtable tests.
When it comes to artificial intelligence, there are things that we are just lightyears away from. Creativity falls into this region. And the P vs NP problem even gives us limitations to what is actually possible.
>Human creativity doesn't exist.
Here's where the autism shows itself.
Human creativity is a construct of human interpretation, reflectivity and appeal. It's not something magical, yet it is so complex that we might never be able to simulate it, just because it's not worth the effort.
It's partly because baby boomers are literally retarded though.
I own a small business with no employees. But I plan to build systems that will pay my workers almost double the industry standard (just with efficiency).
So if I'm successful I could pay one person more, or two people could make a living working part time
Just a small little nook in the great wide world, but it's happening
>In the future, I believe that this data - about where we live, what we like, what we do, where we go - will be the last things that we as humans can offer as something of value
I'm with you on this part.
>and we will be compensated handsomely for it.
We should be compensated for it, but your Googles and Facebooks and such have already established the theft of this commodity as the norm. This will have to change if this is to become the new paradigm of capitalism.
You're arguing against a general idea by using a specific example. Replacing cashiers with technology is happening and will continue to happen as long as the technology is cheap enough.
We'll be at the point where machines are smarter than people in under 20 years, at which point nobody will want to hire expensive humans who need piss breaks and sleep.
>Things got drastically better for horses, not worse.
Yeah, but horses don't need money to live. An unemployed horse is the same as an employed horse, because they're pets. Someone else takes care of their shit for them.
Not so for you and me. Without a source of income we're fucked.
>Robots are taking shit tier manufacturing jobs
>robots are getting better than plebs
>Robots will soon be the only employees in shit-tier jobs
>High unemployment amongst the plebs, massive surge in employment for the educated in the information industry and engineering
>Economy doesnt crash because the people in the IT industry can pay for fuck tons of consumer goods
>The countries that are affected get rich
Its breddy good. And with post-scarcity you dont have any legitimacy for wealth distribution, all it amounts too is theft.
Another one of his claims:
>there can't be a creativity based economy
Seriously? Poems and paintings? Is this guy retarded?
This society, is to a large part already creativity based. Movies, TV, radio, youtube. It's not just a huge industry, it's a rapidly growing industry.
For him to not understand this is just mind boggling to me.
>It doesn't work because it's based on popularity. So just a few people can be creative
Completely neglecting the trend towards independent media, as we are moving away from mono-directional media tech.
This guy displays a blatant misunderstanding of computer science and socioeconomic development.
He is right in that automation will take a lot of jobs. He is wrong in the belief that robots will do absolutely everything for us.
You realize Marx does not believe that communism can build superior technology right you damn idiot? Marx believes you need capitalism to build all the superior technology that you can use and have in your commie utopia. Even he believed communism cant and will never create all the technological advances capitalism can. That is why he defended Capitalism and saw it as a necessary step in achieving a communist utopia. Btut you did not know that, because you probably have never even read Marx, you are just a modern leftist faggot who has jumped on the cool anti capitalist train(while taking his iphone and nike shoes onboard)
This entire post is literally the definition of an argument point blown WAY THE FUCK out of proportion. You make it sound as if these machines break down every 30 minutes. WHEN one goes down it is a huge inconvenience yes, but oly WHEN Which frankly happens far less then you make it out to be. And I am far more stressed when I have to wait in line for 15 minutes while the fat ass in front of me tell his life story to the bagger When I know the load of groceries he's buying would take literally 75 seconds to scan bag and pay for BY HIMSELF. I literally process two grocery carts of my own groceries in 4 minutes at auto checkouts. It takes 3 times longer at a cashier, that shit right there stresses me out even more.
I know you like to bitch about muh capitalism, but western countries have huge welfare nets right now and any job more complex than a single repetitive task can not yet be automated
The only thing that needs to happen is for governments and businesses to realize that limitless population growth(and immigration) need to be phased out
Im not going to go into that because sperglords. But if the reason why capitalists are pig dogs is because they have stuff but didnt earn it, then in a post scarcity the plebs are just as bad as the capitalists, as they take but havent earned anything
In this post-scarcity scenario, where basic food/water/energy is essentially free to produce, why would anyone have to demonstrate worth to be provided with the basics of life?
Especially when poverty and deprivation are the main sources of crime and sickness? It just makes no sense to withhold it
You just proved what he was saying. Your uncle does those things to raise morale, it might not be an actual exchange of currency but there is a price. The more morale is raised, the better the work output, the more willing your uncle will be to do other such morale raising.
You make the assumption that it is already theirs, hence your use of the word "withhold". Its not theirs, they havent earned it, if it is theirs then all of your labour is the capitalists now. Pick your justification.
>robots take over manufacturing
>companies start using robots here in the USA rather than having third-world countries and china make products
I don't see the downside. We already don't have all those manufacturing jobs.... If we turn them into robots, we would be keeping more money here in America and adding more jobs here.
And China would go bankrupt in a few months.
No, you luddite communist retard, robots are not going to crash the economy. Provided politicians do the right thing and use foresight for once, an universal basic guaranteed wage will be implemented, probably in the range of 100-300 dollars per day, depending on needs and family size. This will go up over time as more and more jobs are taken, and we will slowly become a society where less than half the population is employed. More likely however, is the kikes in congress continue to give tax breaks to the super rich, and anyone who even shows the slightest support for a guaranteed wage is derided as an "islamig gommunist". There will be major societal upheaval, with large swaths of the population falling below the poverty line and riots effectively leveling the worst hit areas. After several years, either a full blown revolution will occur or more likely Congress will be completely replaced with politicians who actually try to solve the problem. No, capitalism will not collapse, because capitalism is an important part of the post-job system. Corporations still exist and reap in huge profits, but they are taxed much more heavily so an unemployed population can live a comfortable middle class life.
>When the renowned West-German magazine Der Spiegel asked former GDR-inhabitants whether the GDR "had more good sides than bad sides", 57% of them answered yes. To the statement of the interviewing journalist that "GDR inhabitants did not have the freedom to travel wherever they wanted", Germans replied that "present-day low-wage workers do not have that freedom either".
>Provided politicians do the right thing and use foresight for once
>We are bad, so that makes them being bad irrelevant.
Thats a fallacy goyim!
Also it is well known that the russians suffered the most under communism, they spent huge amounts of resources maintaining their colonies-i mean soviet republics, so they werent that prosperous
>You're arguing against a general idea by using a specific example.
The dude is arguing that because robots make some things more convenient, they will continue to scale in the same direction automatically forever. This is troll logic at the highest point, like "If you have one fisherman fishing and catching fish in the lake, he will earn about 40 bucks a day. If you have two, you will earn 80 bucks a day. Therefore this principle will continue to scale to an unlimited degree! INFINITE JOBS!"
>Replacing cashiers with technology is happening and will continue to happen as long as the technology is cheap enough.
I don't get what you're saying, we already HAVE automated checkout lines. They aren't in danger of encroaching on cashier jobs. They -supplement- them.
Just about everything in robotics is capable of supplementing human labor, but anything that requires adaptation to changing circumstances or that requires human interaction (either in terms of input or output) does require human help.
>We'll be at the point where machines are smarter than people in under 20 years
Intelligence doesn't work that way. In some ways (math) computers are already smarter. In terms of adapting to changing situations, however, robots just fucking fail forever.
We will probably eventually see mobile robots that are worthwhile helpers, etc. They will be like that coworker you have who's borderline retarded and needs to be babysitted, but who is dirt cheap. There'll be room for one in every workplace, but he's certainly not going to be able to handle all the problems, because, again, robots can't handle change or social interaction.
They can't even do the equivalent of changing their own poopy pants. Computers already have to be tricked into not destroying themselves.
Yes, eventually we will see robots that can truly function as humans, but those robots are likely to be borderline alive and that day is far away.
Fine, propagate the existence of a state needlessly, see if I care. Someone will utilize this technology for good at which point everyone will benefit, leaving you to hoard all the resources you want
>is definitively shown that he is wrong, and that at least parts of the former USSR preferred the former USSR with an unequivocal majoirty
>T-T-T-T-THAT'S A FALLACY
protip: ostalgie isn't confined to the former GDR. But I've spoonfed you enough. Go look it up yourself, and try not to be wrong in future.
My point is not moot. Your justification in scarcity is contradicted by your justification post-scarcity. This just makes you theives, because you have no legitimacy other than.
>fat monopoly man.jpg
I have quite a few ideas as well, but I feel as if the current environment is too immature to pursue them. Deep learning is something that could benefit greatly from blockchain technology and something I wish to pursue in joint with an unrelated project that I am working on.
Consider the computational power of the bitcoin network. Around this time LAST year, it was compareable to 256x the computational power of the worlds top 500 supercomputers COMBINED - 64,000 petaflops. Take that in for a second.
Since then, in one year, the network power has increased 555x MORE - clocking in currently at 3,552,407 petaflops. Simplified to 3.4 Zettaflops. This means, currently, the computational power of the bitcoin network is 142,080 times greater than the worlds top 500 supercomputers combined.
And it's all being used to process financial transactions.
You guys aren't even accounting for population growth AT ALL.
Capitalism scales up, but it doesn't mean that every sperms on the planet gets to be a medieval farmer.
At least the capitalist system did feed all those immigrants.
Can you imagine communism doing that? No. You can't scale communism up, in fact you really have to kill as many people as possible because it's easier than providing for them.
That nigga was from moscow. Russia was hit hardest trying to fund the rest of the colonies, sorry, soviet republics. The soviet boc had it easy compared to russia, speak with any russian and then a soviet bloc citizen and see the drastic difference is lifestyle
You're trying to justify ownership which is hilarious, keep running that hamster wheel because it'll get you nowhere.
Scarcity, and the market that was created to manage it, was only made because we had no other way of dealing with scarcity itself. Why would we keep all the incredibly inefficiencies of the market/state combo AND scarcity when we have the technology to simply remove the root cause?
Sounds like someone has staked his personal identity with an ideology
IBM's Watson is a deep learning software that is known for beating all of the top scoring jeopardy players by a landslide. More recently, it's been making headlines for its ability to diagnose patients more accurately than any doctors. In fact, it's been working along side doctors for this very purpose. Even more recently, watson has become available to developers wishing to develop software such as smartphone applications that borrow watson's computational power from IBM's data centers for short periods of time in order to answer questions, and provide data mining services to end users like you and I. This is revolutionary but I don't think it goes far enough.
A single "Watson" system operates at about 80 TeraFLOPS. This is many millions of times slower than the computational power of the bitcoin network. Not only is it slower, but its centralized to IBM's data center and it is only used under the conditions allowed by IBM. I envision a blockchain based system, operating seperate of the bitcoin blockchain, that utilizes the network's computational power for the express purpose of performing machine learning algorithms. "Mining" would be incentivized by the issuance of a currency that is redeemable for use of the networks power. If one wishes to use the network to perform an operation, they must purchase the currency from a miner, or mine the currency themselves.
The applications of such a system could be revolutionary. It puts the power of supercomputers that even corporations cannot compete with into the hands of everyday people without the need for a central source.
I also don't completely agree with him as far as creativity goes but he is correct that you cannot have an economy based off of creativity. To imagine 30% of all workers being musicians requires one to purge his intellectual thoughts.
>mfw high schoolers watch sci fi movies and build theories on technological advancement
ROBOTS WILL TAKE OVER is not an argument. There are certain complex actions which can be automated, and they should be. There are also certain extremely simple decisions which cannot be automated until a robust reliable AI system is developed, and that system is literally generations away. Society will have torn itself to pieces well before there is any chance that we will build a truly sentient system.
I am currently working on systems to make it extremely simple to automate control system code generation. This could conceivably be used to develop a computer which designs and produces its own power electronics (co-generation of circuits with c code, layout and production/population of pcb's etc) for other systems. Theoretically, this is a VERY simple system to put together:
>system must A1 from B1
but due to the inadequacies of a computer's "thought" process, this system will probably not exist for at least 30 years. You can go full retard and make an argument based on SOMEDAYYYYY!!! but think about what's more likely to happen:
>Capitalism continues to function for hundreds of years, and eventually brings about peak technological advancement and human workers are made obsolete
>Communism/socialism seems cool for ~1/2 a generation, then somehow large portions of the population wind up dead and the economy goes to shit
ONE of these eventualities is pretty well documented...
robots CAN write symphonies, actually
I remember reading about a study that was done where a bunch of professionals were shown several pieces, some composed by humans and some by computers, and they couldn't tell the difference
As for practical math like calculus, all it really has to do is figure out what it needs to calculate and find a way to do so
>You're trying to justify ownership which is hilarious, keep running that hamster wheel because it'll get you nowhere.
You are failing to justify communal ownership, and that is the whole base of your ideals. One minute it is because of X, next minute is is because of Y, which just happens to directly contradict X.
>Scarcity, and the market that was created to manage it, was only made because we had no other way of dealing with scarcity itself. Why would we keep all the incredibly inefficiencies of the market/state combo AND scarcity when we have the technology to simply remove the root cause?
>Talks about inefficiency
>supports collectivization, kek.
>Sounds like someone has staked his personal identity with an ideology
Not really, I just hate communists
Not seeing it. The horse needs someone to pay its bills, and generally horses are less disposable now than then, as you don't see them laying dead in the streets all day very often.
You still need employees that can handle people without infuriating them or giving them nightmares and making them sick to their stomach from the Uncanny Valley (and more advanced robots just get more and more horrifying). And you still need employees to take care of and help the 1/4th of your workforce that is a drooling emotionless invalid that cannot handle any form of disorder or lack of clarity.
Machines do very well in completely controlled circumstances, and they use a lot of very scarce materials, to do the jobs of sugar-nitrogen-water robots we already have that don't turn into blithering retards the moment Kirk says something philosophical to them. And guess what? The sugar-nitrogen-water models run off food, which is stuff that our civilization already produces in abundance.
In the absolute worst case scenario, people in faraway lands that toil in factories will have it rougher than today, and instead of being infuriated by poorly understood indians, we will be infuriated by poorly understood robots. Oh wait, THE FUTURE IS ALREADY HERE!
>Can you imagine communism doing that?
I'm not a communist.
>You guys aren't even accounting for population growth AT ALL.
>Capitalism scales up, but it doesn't mean that every sperms on the planet gets to be a medieval farmer.
>At least the capitalist system did feed all those immigrants.
This would only be valid if industrialisation was literally impossible to do any other way, and it's not. We could have industrialised and preserved living standards and wages, but we didn't. Capitalism is the reason we didn't. Unbridled, unchecked capitalism that exploited desperate families whose only way of supporting themselves was torn out from under their feet - almost literally, if you read some of the ways the "factory farms" acquired land. Capitalism didn't feed the immigrants, machines did. Capitalism ensured that people suffered in the process.
I'm not anti-capitalist. I think it's a robust system. But there needs to be protective legislation in place backed up by strong, independent regulatory authorities.
>You are failing to justify communal ownership,
Communal ownership is the natural state, are babies born owning things or are they taught that later on? Therefore the burden is on YOU to prove that things are in fact owned, and if they're owned, what the management of ownership would look like.
>Not really, I just hate communists
This isn't communism, this is the post-scarcity reality that capitalism is building.
>You still need employees that can handle people without infuriating them or giving them nightmares and making them sick to their stomach from the Uncanny Valley (and more advanced robots just get more and more horrifying). And you still need employees to take care of and help the 1/4th of your workforce that is a drooling emotionless invalid that cannot handle any form of disorder or lack of clarity.
Yes, but the growth in this industry is not sufficient to offset the losses in other industries.
Horses still have jobs - some of them, anyway - but the horse population peaked in 1915. It's nothing like it used to be because horses are useless in modern society except in very limited roles - just like humans will be. The only reason the lifestyle of horses has improved is because someone is footing the bill for them.
The same *could* be true for humans, but only if we act quickly to implement some kind of negative income tax or universal income or whatever.
Technology will not "save" us. Technology will allow us to produce more than ever, but for that to actually help us then we need to save ourselves.
>Communal ownership is the natural state, are babies born owning things or are they taught that later on? Therefore the burden is on YOU to prove that things are in fact owned, and if they're owned, what the management of ownership would look like.
Babies can be selfish, have you never seen one grab toys and cling onto them? What about comfort blankets etc? Even so what you espouse as eternal truth one minute s=you shit on the next if it furthers your goals
>Stuff should only be owned by the class who made them, not because of greed
>Stuff should be owned by us because we didnt make them and I want them
>how much money has he anonymously sent to Africa?
>how many baby lemurs has he personally fed with milk?
>how many infants has he saved from burning buildings?
would you feed your neighbor's child before your own?
>And I am far more stressed when I have to wait in line for 15 minutes while the fat ass in front of me tell his life story to the bagge
Guess. Fucking. What.
You have both. The future is already here!
When the automated check out lines are actually working, you can choose to go to them instead. Most people prefer to wait at a cashier, for some reason -- and that's fine. The human doesn't become a screaming retard yelling DANGER DANGER ILLOGICAL the moment you put the box on the wrong center of gravity.
There's a role for robots in any workplace -- as the emotionally crippled guy that doesn't handle stress well but works for peanuts who has no sense of touch and no people skills.
With regards to grocery stores, there's room for a bit more on the inventory and lifting and cleanup side of things (though you'll always need a human to do inventory, in case a little derpbot forgot something because the box wasn't perfectly aligned or the bar code wasn't perfectly straight) but as far as the customer service angle's reached, you can already see the maximum achievement for robots (as we understand them today -- we might have full on replicants one day, but that's not what the discussion is about).
They can't handle people and they can't handle imperfection.