I don't understand how capitalism could possibly be sustainable in the future with the pace at which automation is coming, we certainly wouldn't be able to decrease populations even close to how many people will simply have no use within society.
>we certainly wouldn't be able to decrease populations even close to how many people will simply have no use within society.
Yes we would. Just look at Europe and Japan's native population levels. What's ruining our utopian future is mass immigration of cheap labor and worthless shitskins
Mass culling of the worlds population via WWIII will leave nothing but the ultra rich and a slave caste that service the machines that allow the elites to live like gods.
Capitalism is indeed on its way out, but only after the super rich are done siphoning enough resources to build the infrastructure and technology they need.
You mean globalists like Soros, the only thing stopping their end goal is nationalism that's even why they are funding liberal ideas, they need to erode barriers to cause even more division.
If WWIII actually culled enough of the population for that to happen, then I doubt enough infrastructure would survive to actually run the machines.
How is that delusional when driverless vehicles already exist? Even if it's not on the 5-7 year time scale, it is an inevitability.
Transhumanism is literally augmenting humans so not what I'm talking about. Also the free shit would come from automating production of basic necessities to the point that that they're basically costless. Only people to build/program/and maintain them would be required and eventually repair and production would also be done by total automation. In the further future they'll program themselves too.
"free trade is not sustainable"
>doesn't question the sustainability of government debt and money printing and feuding nuclear powers based on idiot politicians
Lol get out of whatever shitty school you're at
Yeah, bad wording on my part because it's obviously it's sustainable. To clarify, I meant sustainable without artificially holding back technological innovations or the majority of the population dying.
kek, the one who is actually delusional is you.
It takes less effort to bury your head in the sand than it does to prepare for something happening to your job and livelihood.
But shit, it's gonna happen whether you want it to or not. I fully expect after your job is automated and you're in the bread lines, that you'll join in with the other neo-luddites, attacking the symptom of your distress, instead of the cause.
Protip: The problem isn't that automation took your job, it's that society in general, and corporations/government in particular left you hanging when they saw this coming. Because it's more profitable for them to fuck you over and use some brain washing advertisement to convince your pea brain it was someone else's fault.
The problem here is that you are simply incapable of understanding how it works.
I can only believe it's not for lack of explanation, but because people like you are fucking retarded.
I will of course, explain it once again, as it seems to need reiterating every single time we have one of these threads:
There is nothing special about you.
You are not unique.
You are a biological machine.
Nothing you do cannot be done by any other machine.
We are replacing humans. Their capabilities. Their ability to think and act.
Today it is automated cars. Tomorrow it will be call centers. Next week it will be surgeons.
We are in the beginning of another industrial revolution, where overall costs dwindle next to nothing. Where it's more appropriate to measure costs in energy and materials required, rather than human labor required.
And it doesn't require any conscious thought on the part of the robots. In fact, it's better if they haven't any.
Capitalism does not self regulate.
Perhaps you are thinking of the free market? The free market isn't capitalism, and is more akin to a description of nature; which isn't fair, gentle, or forgiving.
The majority of the population dying off is absolutely a bad thing, but I will concede that I quite frankly hope you hold yourself to your own standards and off yourself for the betterment of the rest of us.
>I don't understand how capitalism could possibly be sustainable in the future with the pace at which automation is coming, we certainly wouldn't be able to decrease populations even close to how many people will simply have no use within society.
This man reads books
For once someone has got to the heart of the problem...
>Perhaps you are thinking of the free market?
Yes. What is your definition of capitalism?
>The majority of the population dying off is absolutely a bad thing,
Not really. Most people are useless.
>but I will concede that I quite frankly hope you hold yourself to your own standards and off yourself for the betterment of the rest of us.
I'm not a dirty prole, there's no reason for me to sacrifice myself.
>rawbuts replace filthy humans
>compnies make button more than before
>government taxes their ass
>gibs money to jobless humans so that they can still be consumers
>We are in the beginning of another industrial revolution,
It's worse than an industrial revolution. Previously, unskilled agricultural workers say, could find unskilled work in the new factories. This time, the skilled and semi skilled can't go and work as programmers (even if they retrain) and a team of say, 100, working on new software, can/will put thousands out of work
Going to get evven worse now we are entering a new age of robotics...
>The problem here is that you are simply incapable of understanding how it works.
Is that commie talk for "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, but HEY, FREE SHIT!"
The Singularity and all it's transhumanist post-scarcity pipe dream bullshit is nothing but the Rapture for redditors/bernie sanders voters.
>To prevent large scale uprisings and an explosion of crime.
I don't think there would be an explosion of crime. Anyways, you could just mow the crowd down with machine guns. How many people own guns in the Netherlands?
>If you wanna see what neglecting the poor looks like, visit an American ghetto.
Imagine of all those poor people died. No more ghettos!
Probably. But I won't have to die, in this hypothetical scenario.
Thank you for more eloquently saying what I was attempting to say. Also to somewhat go to bat for what >>59977894 said, something like a 40% decrease in world population would be a great thing, but it would have to happen at a very gradual pace i.e. something like people only having a single child or no children until we get to that point. Something like 40% of the population dying due to being automated out of work isn't going to happen since nobody is just going to sit there and just starve to death.
>How can you have a functioning free market economy without capitalism? I'm just trying to understand why that other anon was dissociating capitalism and free market.
Easily. The world HAD a free market economy up until the Dutch "invented" capitalism in the 17th Century
Capitalism and a free market are quite different
The reason it's so important now, is that technology has resulted in a shift TO capital, from Labour. Thats why pretty much every western democracy is fucked (as measured my increases in average earnings)
I think the best compromise would be to create "reservations" for those unable to work where they would be provided with free housing, free food, and free amenities, provide they undergo sterilization. It would be completely voluntary.
>The world HAD a free market economy
Not really, most countries had a feudal economy. The only countries I can think of which could be called capitalistic would be italian merchant republics and even they practiced some forms of primitive proto-capitalism.
>Capitalism and a free market are quite different
Then explain how you can have a free market economy without capitalism.
>The reason it's so important now, is that technology has resulted in a shift TO capital, from Labour. Thats why pretty much every western democracy is fucked (as measured my increases in average earnings)
I don't speak commiespeak. What shifted from labour to capital?
This is one of the few issues in the course of history to which the answer has to be necessarily binary. Either we want a technologically static society, where everyone has a job and a role, even if that role was performed more optimally by machines, and therefore prices, waiting times, etc will be very disagreeable to the average member; or we want things done optimally, and in that concept of society there is no room for human needs. We are frantically following the latter. Maybe there will be struggle followed by adaptation, or maybe 90% of us will be a slave force - fortunately, everyone in this thread has this information, and so it's up to each of us to be on the right side of the scale. Self-driven cars is no different than vending machines or automatic booths in highway tolls, for example.
Not in the foreseeable future. Programming loses efficiency for every layer of "noobness" you add to the programming process. There's a reason why video games aren't created through drag and drop video game makers, but are coded from scratch.
And anyways, somebody will always have to give the orders.
>And anyways, somebody will always have to give the orders.
Well, the brains behind these programs are an extremely small group of people, the ones talented enough to create the frameworks of them and who have been through years of education on their profession, perhaps even a decade. It's definitely not an option for many who have been technologically displaced.
>I don't speak commiespeak. What shifted from labour to capital?
Trust me, less of a "Commie" you will struggle to find...
I've owned six businesses in my life and am the first person to fire an idle fucker. It's an intellectual point I'm making, not a political one
"Power" shifted from capital to labour. Thats why the rich are getting richer. Got fuck-all to do with greed, or taxes, or all the other bullshit the left like to bang on about. It's because tech requires funding, and in the process, puts people out of work. A plentiful supply of labour depresses wages - particularly as it tends to wipe out the more skilled jobs
By "free market economy" I mean that goods/services were bought and sold according to supply and demandapitalism is the buying and selling of money itself. Thats the difference. It hasn't mattered for a few hundred years, but tech means it now REALLY matters
This is true, profits will go down, but profits will go down anyways if you subsidize them since you would presumably subsidizing them through taxation on those still working.
Oh okay, thanks for the clarification. But I fail to see how even in the yesteryears capital didn't hold power. I mean surely to fund a company in the 19th century one needed capital.
>Oh okay, thanks for the clarification. But I fail to see how even in the yesteryears capital didn't hold power. I mean surely to fund a company in the 19th century one needed capital.
Yes, of course. But you still needed people to operte the machines you had bought with your capital. Now you don't. So now, for the first time, the power has shifted hugely in favour of the capital. And it's going to get worse when robotics come of age... (as OP said when he started the thread, we won't even need truck drivers)
Well, would you rather have some money taken out of your income but still live a very comfortable life where your consumers are docile and depend completely on you or deal with the consequences of 90% of your consumer base disappearing?
Well you could argue that the shift back then was pretty terrible. The victorian era was a very eugenic one, with millions of europeans dying without reproducing.
I agree with what you're saying, but I fail to see the problem, as long as the transition is done smoothly (see my post about welfare in exchange for sterilization)
Post scarcity doesn't mean free shit.
>The Singularity and all it's transhumanist post-scarcity pipe dream bullshit is nothing but the Rapture for redditors/bernie sanders voters.
The technological singularity is when AI reaches human level intelligence and has nothing to do with post scarcity.
But it's not, machine learning is mostly limited by computational power which is obviously going to increase. Once it gets to the point where you can present a machine learning algorithm and end state and you leave it running permutation for a week until it does what you want it to we'll have low level programmers replaced. Hell, quantum computing is making big break throughs and it's exactly what's perfect for A.I. and machine learning. Check out this http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/02/google-takes-quantum-leap-into-artificial-intelligence.html
>You're still trapped in the paradigm of "muh jobs" and work as an end goal
I accept that completely. We have to accept that the very nature of "work" is going to change. But either, populations get smaller (no sign of that any time soon) or the State has to pay for people to do fuck-all (something I fucking hate with every fibre of my being)
I used to think like that. But if we look at what happened since like the 70s, when machines started taking jobs on a large scale, and to the galloping outsourcing of jobs to asian 3rd world countries, we can easily see that soon there won't be nearly enough non-mind numbing jobs...
It's kinda sad tho. When the thing a person knows how to do best is done better by a rawbutt, what future awaits that guy?
Yeah, we're far from full automation, but every next thing brings us one step closer. Luddites will get mad crying "muh jobs" when it's always better to replace a human with an equally capable machine. The problem only comes in when we don't shift to a system in which more people work fewer hours in the areas that we can't yet automate.
I'm always skeptical about all those wild claims of future technologies. Processing power will not continue to increase indefinitely since it will soon hit the wall of respecting the laws of atomic physics. As for machine learning, I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject but I know it's still in its infancy and there are so far no working machine learning algorithms which are truly automatic, i.e. you always have to pretreat the data you feed the algorithm and tell the algorithm how it should interpret the data. To give an example, you can have a machine learning algorithm which will learn to detects cats in a photograph, but to make it learn you need to feed it cat photos and manually indicate in each photo where the cat is.
>Well you could argue that the shift back then was pretty terrible
Yes it was. Any major period of transition is. But, and this is the key point, previously after a period of seetlement, there we as many jobs as there had been previously (more in fact) and those jobs were at the same skill level (albeit, different skills) this time, there are dranatically less jobs, and a DEtriot car worker isn't going to be retraining as a programmer any time soon
Other jobs on the endangered list -
All jobs that can be done by pooters and or robots better than humans...
>we certainly wouldn't be able to decrease populations even close to how many people will simply have no use within society.
Don't worry, nature will take care of that.
Nature always wins and will thin the heard accordingly, it's foolish to believe man can dominate the universe.
The human population will decrease naturally with a decrease in sunspot activity, anti biotic resistance, famine & warfare when economies and civilizations go fubar etc.
I'll give you an example
I went to an engineering firm the other day, which had about 20 injection moulding machines running. 20 years ago, each machine would have been run by a skilled operator, earning enough money to support a family well
There were two 9Very skilled) operators running all 20 (now CNC) machines and I guarantee they get their pay topped up by the state somehow
I also gurantee that the source of capital that funded those machines earned as much now as they would have done 20 years ago...
technology may take longer to impact that people fear, but it DOES impact eventually
>it's always better to replace a human with an equally capable machine.
Why would you think that?
I'm not denying you're right, I just didn't think enough about this in particular. But right now it seems to me that an individual needs a role in society
Is this shit going to happen within our lifetimes?
It's already happened and will continue to happen.
Adapt or die. Sounds harsh, but in reality, you're not ever supposed to be "comfy" at your 9-5 job organizing files into cabinets. You're supposed to keep climbing up that ladder.
Yes because the car they made 10 years ago wasn't as advanced as the cars they have now, and the cars we have now aren't going to be as advanced as the cars we have in the next 5-7 years.
Driverless cars are essentially near-ready right now, it's just tuning to prevent the 0.0001% chance of errors as ANY fuck up will set adoption back years. Apple/Google/Tesla/Ford and everyone else working on autonomous vehicles are actively in talks with various regulator bodies to get approval.
>You still see work as a virtue, which is a big problem that makes people hate automation
I personally do, yes. I enjoy work. But I don't expect everyone else too
My point is, you either let people die, or pay them to do nothing. Its entirely possible, but America in particular is going to have to become more left wing to achieve that. Personally, I have the idea, but you cant have it both ways...
>I enjoy work
Actually everyone does. People hate work they are forced to do to feed their family. Granted, you put people on a mincome, there will be a shitload of people who do nothing, but majority (overwhelmingly) will seek to reinvent themselves in society. Human nature desires a place in society. Everyone strives to do so.
Letting people die is a great option, hugely underrated. Too many "let's save every last child" nonsense spread around that's severely limiting options.
Plebs won't kill you. Plebs are way too sterilized to kill anyone, and those capable of killing are too brain dead to realize what's causing automation. If anything, you'll get a revolution of sorts where plebs go on to make more unions and effectively kill off the last of their kind because they don't realize unions aren't always Pro-Pleb.
hurr the robots will take everyones jobs and only the super elite will benefit!!
no. people still need to buy shit from the companies which run on robots to make buying robots even worth it.
bring it on, Humans are destined for more important shit than what we're doing now anyway - art and culture will be the true rare precious resource of the future.
Well, you aren't wrong about tech, so I'll give you that. Thing is, it's taking ages just to convert otr trucks to automatic. Most trucking companies are still converting to automatic despite years to do so. It's all about money. Automated driving costs a lot in hardware and licenses. It will be years upon years before all companies are willing to pony up that cash.
Doctor Easy Bakes Avatar robot workers
Avatar Bot! Good with pets! Cooking and shopping upgrade coming soon!
Need to be somewhere in a hurry? Roller bot!
Need to defend the home? Sentry bots got you covered!
Mow the lawn? Vaccuum!?
Have we got the bots for you!
Doctor Easybakes Augmented Human detatchables
A nice display? Gotcha-
Need help lifting that car? Supersuit
Need a light? Seriously...a fucking haduken!?!?
Wanna get somewhere fast but don't wanna walk?
Wanna power these gadgets for twice as long as currently possible or twice as strong for just as long as currently possible?
Lithium Germanium Batteries son.
>It will be years upon years before all companies are willing to pony up that cash
Once the regulatory side is sorted, it will take EXACTLY the length of time needed for the additional cost to drop to a level where it can be funded from the saving to be had through firing the driver...
(And not one day longer)
Because it frees humans to explore their humanity.
What role does working inherently provide that couldn't be better provided by whatever a person would choose to do with extra free time?
Why make a human work for no outward benefit? To make him suffer?
Would you continue to work exactly as you do if you won the lottery tomorrow?
Which is why ways will be found to increase computational power without being limited by that (quantum computer being a large one). No, you don't have to pretreat the data or tell it if the picture it found is actually a cat. Just run it and tell it to sort photos that it finds any patterns with and eventually you're going to get a stack of photos which are cats, of course it won't be labeled cats and it's also going to find millions of other patterns to sort pictures by but let it run long enough (which is where the computational power increase comes in) and eventually you will purely get pictures of cats. Run it long enough and you'll get a stack of pictures of female persian cats with samsung televisions in the background.
>Would you continue to work exactly as you do if you won the lottery tomorrow?
I could have actually retired a couple of years ago, having sold my business. Bought another, and lost a lot of cash, so now HAVE to work. Stings a bit. Well, a LOT actually
Well, I thought about being a neet myself... The thing is, to explore your humanity,as you put it, you need a strong set of values, and some goal. And while most people don't even have values, a goal is easily provided by one's tasks at work...
While i do agree with you on a personal level, believe me, if tomorrow no one ever had to work anymore, the feeling of vacuity in people's lives would drive 2/3 of the world insane...
My sad conclusion is, not everyone was born to be a true person
>While i do agree with you on a personal level, believe me, if tomorrow no one ever had to work anymore, the feeling of vacuity in people's lives would drive 2/3 of the world insane..
Yes. This guy gets it. We all need structure, without it we fall apart
What if additionally you earned no money from what you do?
I'm trying to say that your like of work is really just because "it's not so bad." If you would rather be doing something else with some of the time you spend working, then it is a drain on your life. If you did not need to work, you could spend exactly the amount of time doing the work you that makes you happiest.
Most people also will never own their own businesses or have jobs that they like or that are enriching.
But that doesn't mean that the structure has to be derived from work.
I'd argue really the only reason that people would have a problem with creating values and goals is because they grow up in a society where they don't have to do so or even think about it. The feeling of vacuity would be due to being basically being given values and goals by society when you're born. For most people they're religious so they're told what most of their values are and what their life end goal is. Society being what it is and being required to work to survive creates a goal for them. And then within those structures goals are constantly decided for them, and even within goals you create for yourself they're not truly open ended
To be honest, it's a mindset. I may have owned my own businesses for a few years, but I have had many, many shitty and boring days, and I rarely even "like" the work. But the point is, I don''t EXPECT to. The one thing that guarantees that you will be unhappy, is that you EXPECT to be happy. I've had one holiday in 15 years and generally work a 70 hour week (and, on occasions, that has translated in to LESS than minimum wage!) But I havent found anything yet to beat the buzz you get, or the satisfaction
>I'd argue really the only reason that people would have a problem with creating values and goals is because they grow up in a society where they don't have to do so or even think about it
Agreed. But in a "workless" society, where does that structure come from? (Particularly in Europe which has pretty much turned its back on religion)
Would people have trouble at first? Sure. But I think that's in part because it's all they know. How can you really develop interests when you're too exhausted after work to do much more than throw a bowl of pasta on the stove and watch an hour of TV?
Even now, the "average" person can volunteer, join book clubs, garden, group exercise, etc. These all provide structure, but people do these after they're retired and have the time to.
Removing the requirement of work doesn't mean that you can't work, it just means that you can work in the ways that are most aligned with your interests and skills. Would some people "waste" it? Sure. But why is that truly bad?
To be able to live your life well enough, you need to discern your aims in life. (Quoth Iroh, "What is it that ypu want from life, Prince Zuko?") And to do that, you need a well built, all round education, a curious, non-conformist mind, and the ability and willingness to check yourself constanly and to admit your mistakes... This would require the younger generations being constantly indoctrinated with the values you and I share that place worth on the things that I just referred. I guess most people already could live the way they wanted, at least in the 1st world, the vast majority of us just choose to be drones to this system of work-pay-consumable comodity, for any set of reasons.
Come to think of it, this is a truly satanic society. We have means, we have limitless info for free on the internet, we have history to teach us, and most of us prize our comfort above our humanity... Piggishness, as the captain from that Jack London novel called the Sea Wolf would say
>But why is that truly bad?
Not saying its "bad" at all. I just don't think that people are happy if they have unlimited free time and an aimless, hedonistic existence. Most people find "happiness" in buying pointless, shiny shit. But they wouldnt be able to do that, as their income would be capped. So what do they strive for? MORE friends on Facebook? Or perhaps the world need even more bad poetry, art or photography...?
Society, art, exploration, discovery, research, other people, human biology, etc.
People will distill various parts of their environment and biological programming to create their own meaning. If you existence, then you have all the structure you need.
Moreso, without jobs, no one would want to do stuff like mining or w/e. And this brings the question whether we should strive for a functional society or a happy society. I'd choose the latter, but a deep and meaningful happiness, based in moral values and connection with our fellow men, which is the only plausible way to attain so. But if we were to vote this, people would still prefer the current way.
As a society, the West is, in addition to morally bankrupt, intelectually numbed. Even while we can see two feet ahead, we spend our time on /pol/ or vidya or animu or w/e...
>Society, art, exploration, discovery, research, other people, human biology, etc.
OK, if we're talking about a complete reinvention of culture, I'll buy it, but it will take generations and a complete new mindset. Don't even know where you'd start...
It's only worse if we continue to stay the course with our idiotic short-sighted economic systems.
We need to begin divorcing survival from work and incentivizing by other means, because pretty soon the work isn't going to exist anymore, and survival is going to drive people to desperate acts of violence.
There's a lot of people in this thread who believe they belong among the haves - who think they'll be the ones losing should we do anything so "communist" or "socialist" as divorcing the need of survival from work - meaningless knee jerk emotional buzzwords that may as well be mind control programming for lemmings. The haves are multinational corporations and billionaires; you're already losing to them, and the only reason there'll be any kind of violence is because the average person, which is you and I, is being forced to desperation by unbridled exploitation and greed by the haves who simply do not have enough. It immediately brings to mind the Oroboros, it's just needless destruction for short-term gain.
This is the "free market" at work. It's natural, but it isn't pretty. It'll be needless bloodshed that can be fucking avoided if people would just listen to some common fucking sense:
Jobs are on the way out.
If it can be offshored it will be or already has been. If it is offshored, it'll be automated. Burger flippers, surgeons, truck drivers, optometrists, day traders, berry pickers - automation doesn't care what color your collar is; you're still losing your job, along with millions of other people while we simultaneously import millions more immigrants to suppress wages in whatever jobs still exist.
And who the fuck benefits from this? It isn't you, idiots.
It doesn't matter how much you oppose everything about automation.
It. Is. Going. To. Fucking. Happen.
Stop being such fucking retarded suicidal liberal cucks wishing for the death of billions of your own species
Sure glad I'm going into finance
It doesn't do anything useful and you cannot really automate our work out of existence. Sure, some of the front room stuff will go, maybe a bit of back room. Computers need us to separate a fool from their resources, we work hand in hand
Well not only that, if the truck malfunctions and crashes, either kills or injures someone they can't blame the drivers and instead the company gets sued directly because they maintain the automated system. So there's definitely a liability issue as well.
Plus it's not efficient, what about DOT mandated pretrip? What if the truck breaks down; who will oversee the towing and repairs? What if the truck catches a rock and its headlight gets busted? What about sliding tandems and fifth wheel to redistribute weight? There's just so much shit involved than just simply driving a truck.
In the near future the best they can do is a semi automated truck where the driver can basically run on auto pilot on the highway (much like modern commercial jets), while going on manual in cities and docking.
>Sure glad I'm going into finance
To be honest, quite difficult to think of a sector that is MORE vulnerable than "finance"
Computer algorithms are perfect for that sort of work
Also, no theft/fraud issues, no bonuses, no compliance costs...
Well, until mining is automated, we would still need miners if we want mining products. This is the reality in the near-term.
The question is, what happens when there is some automation? What happens when we find a tool that can,say, make a miner work 1.5x as efficiently?
Now, one out of every three miners gets fired. This is the wrong way to go about it. What should happen is that each of the three miners should reduce their workload to 2/3 of their previous rate.
The first situation leads to what we have now - some people desperately looking for work (money) despite being qualified, while others work just as long as they always did. It pits those who have work against those who don't, and creates resistance against basic income (because people hate, HATE that others get something without suffering as much as they do).
Younger generations wouldn't have to be indoctrinated I feel like, those values stem from what being human itself. Plus it will be a gradual process and so people will be able to look at those around them who created their own aim in life and learn from them.
It'll be easy for the first generation of kids who are born without the expectation that they will have to work