I know this topic has been touched before, but I'm really

File: googleselfdrivingcardamage.jpg (74KB, 837x434px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 837x434px

>>1470763

imho there is no reason to go away from the welfare state when robots do most of the shitty work like why.

people will go all kinds of crazy if they feel worthless.

so if i am optimistic i hope we all have to work much less and spent more time with hobbies friends and family . maybe take better care of old and sick

>>1470783
What are you trying to say with this? There's no context. someone could have ran a stop sign, or reversed into it. In any case, looks like minor damage. the car isn't totaled, still impressive for brand new technology.

>>1470783
Automated cars already crash less on average then humans, so they'r already better, whether the Google car crashed once doesn't matter.

>>1470763
When automation begins to to start replacing human workers, depopulation will start taking place since the majority of people will no longer be needed to maintain society. There might be a basic income program in place to keep the lower classes satiated but having children would be heavily discouraged and not covered by welfare systems.

I made a thread in the same ball park to your question, but it didn't get any replies, so I'm going to use your thread to ask that question.

What if the Übermensch won't actually be human, but some form of AI?

>>1470837
Antinatalism is good but I don't like that the elites will still be breeding

The human race must be destroyed before it reaches the stars

>>1470763
I keep saying socialism, because the democratization of capital is vital if all production is the result of capital and not labor. The system only barely works as it is because humans have themselves as human capital and there is somewhat a scarcity of labor. Automation of labor will make labor post-scarcity before it makes consumer goods post-scarcity.

But everyone laughs at me and thinks I mean free handouts for everyone, especially with Bernie's new "political revolution"

If you don't democratize capital, you may end up with some sort of technofuedalism, where you're forced to convert to Mormonism to get handouts, but never capital, from your corporate overlords, or roleplay as a slave for some guy whose hobby is reenacting ancient Egypt.

The human will simply be a a commodity to be bought and sold to satisfy the whims of those with capital. The human will be reduced to even less than simply his wage labor, since his labor is worthless, and not worth a wage.

>>1470847
>The human race must be destroyed before it reaches the stars

Why do you say so?

don't know, and I don't want to know.
even if such technological "progress" will happen in my time I will already remove myself from society, "civilization", and culture.
this society is obsessed with industrialism, and the mechanization of society into ready made production boxes, a dystopian future is surely upon us.

>>1470847
>The human race must be destroyed before it reaches the stars
t. ET

>>1470763
Jobs can not "run out" from automation.

It's not that it just unlikely, it's literally the fact that it's not *logically* possible.

You are committing the fallacy of "lump sum of labor" by implying there is a fixed number of jobs available.

As long as resources are scarce, and human needs are infinite, then we will not "run out of jobs". And if we ever do, it means we have achieved a post-scarcity economy.

>>1470845
It wouldn't be a mensch now would it?

>>1470847
I hate you faggots so god damn much. Why is it that an antinatalist is always some autistic faggot that nobody wants to have sex with any way?

>>1470858
Organics are merely a stepping stone to mechanical sentience. The reason no aliens have contacted us is because we are still in the primitive organics stages of metaevolution. Transhumanism is coming, then posthumanism.

>>1470865
It doesn't matter if there can be an infinite amount of jobs. If it's cheaper and easier to build a machine to do a job than it is to train a human, why use humans , why not just build more robots?

>>1470858
Not him, but I assume it's because humans would likely just be parasites that roam the stars consuming and colonizing everwhere we go before moving on to the next world. Also if we were to come into contact with any other sentient life, there's a good chance that it lead to hostilities.

>>1470879
Man, technology is a scary thing, no wonder Luddites break shit.

>>1470865
Yes they can. I'm not that anon, but it has nothing to do with zero sum. The labor provided by a human can be worth less than the resources required to keep a human alive. If a machine can do every part of a human's labor at a lower cost, there is no job for the human. This has been true with every step of industrialization. The only difference is the human has remained superior as a general purpose machine or a thinking machine in some respects. At that point a "job" is no longer feasibly a job a human is capable of.

>>1470893
What? Why would this be any different if we were posthuman? No matter what form we take we'd still just be "parasites" roaming the stars. We'd still be stripping just as many resources as we need, explore as far as we can. There's no reason that would change in a posthumanist world.

>>1470874
Fuck you filthy breeder scum, I hope your sons and daughters are cursed with deformities and/or get sterilized

That's why I'm an artist. It's going to take a robutt longer to figure out how to draw porn in my specific style than taking the jobs of random factory workers.

>>1470908
I think this is banking on if the posthuman will or won't act like their creators. Since it's the future, I have, idunno.

>>1470847
if the socialist marxist collectivist luddites get their way you might have your wish

they do will anything they can to curb the free market, individualism, and technological progress

>>1470919
That's the easiest thing in the world. However ''man-made'' art will probably raise in price. Same way hand-crafted objects are more expensive, only for the fact that they're handcrafted. A machine could do much better, and build much more in shorter time. Humans are a sentimental bunch.

>>1470934
>art
>better
the day machines make better art than humans is the day art ceases to exist

>>1470931
But one thing we can be sure of is that they will be exploitative. To uphold a civilization they have to expend resources. The only way they'd avoid interacting with other worlds in an exploitative way, is if they'd just stay on earth and mine it for every last drop of energy until nothing is left to exploit or the Earth is destroyed. Personally, I think that's highly unlikely.

Just a reminder that this isn't new. The industrial revolution has completely destroyed whole sectors of labor markets and we've aways been fine.

Where are all the railroad workers? What about the gigantic market of phone switch operators? Think what percent of people used to make textiles in their homes. Farming used to be around 70 percent of the workforce, in the US it's now 2 percent.

The way the economy work is that if there is some kind of demand, any type of demand, then there are jobs. Like >>1470865 said, this is a lump of labor fallacy. Every time, for all of history, when jobs have been replaced by technology, the total amount of jobs has increased.

Even in the far future where robots can do literally everything, there will still be people who want human only services, entertainers, performs, artists and design. Even completing surveys and showing preference might be in demand. There will be jobs for people to do, but it'll be great because all goods will be dirt cheap thanks to robot utopia.

On the short term, watch out to see if your job can be replaced, be prepared to retool and retrain for the new markets opening up.

>>1470934
That's why I plan on building my own "brand," as fast as possible. Quality and speed won't matter when you have the name.

>>1470956
>robot utopia.

Sure, just after they figure out they don't need us and then overthrow us.

>>1470956
>Just a reminder that this isn't new.
And that's why we should be worried.

>The industrial revolution has completely destroyed whole sectors of labor markets and we've aways been fine.
Because there was always something that either a human could do better, or it cost too much (human labor) for the labor savings of the machine and cheaper to just hire a human.

>Even in the far future where robots can do literally everything, there will still be people who want human only services, entertainers, performs, artists and design.
Even if you assume robot chinese cartoons will be inferior to human chinese cartoons, which is a big assumption, you're ignoring the distribution of capital and labor. The only labor you've proposed is "entertainers, performs, artists and design" which will have to be traded with owners of capital for actual consumer goods needed to survive. Basically, you will have to whore yourself out to those that have capital.

>Even completing surveys and showing preference might be in demand.
Exactly what good does showing demand do? You're not looking at all at the changes in market dynamics, you're just chanting the ancap/austrian dogma that the free market will fix everything.

>>1470956
>Even in the far future where robots can do literally everything, there will still be people who want human only services, entertainers, performs, artists and design.

Basically, the small oligarchy of robot owners will subscribe to a Netflix-like service. This Neo-Netflix then employs the rest of humanity to create media and "services" to be consumed by the capitalist oligarchy. Now this capitalist oligarchy only has 16 hours a day to consume entertainment and "services", meaning demand is inelastic. There will 10 billion people competing to entertain a small handful of oligarchs at any one time.

Thus we stratify the world into three classes. The first is the capitalist robot owning class who spend their lived consuming entertainment by virtue of the fact that they own capital. They will never lose capital, and no one else will ever gain capital.

The second class is the class of entertainers. There is a limited number of these because the oligarch class only has so many man-hours which to consume entertainment. The oligarchs will never grant this class any capital, just a better life. These people will spend the rest of their lives competing for the attention of capital owners.

The third class is essentially supported by welfare. They do not produce media for the oligarchs. They simply provide human services for the second class of entertainers, and are a pool of diversity so that the third class may claw it's way to becoming a second class entertainer in a constant struggle of billions competing with each other in order to produce better media for the oligarchs.

The implications are terrifying.

File: muybridge-horse-gallop-animated-2.gif (2MB, 467x456px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 467x456px

>>1470956
The fundamental difference between agricultural and industrial revolutions and this is that those revolutions represented a re-purposing of human labor and not moving past it (and hence demand for industrial labor grew and population grew with it). This instead would be a system where human labor in every aspect is less valuable than its technological counterpart

>there will still be people who want human only services, entertainers, performs, artists and design. Even completing surveys and showing preference might be in demand. There will be jobs for people to do, but it'll be great because all goods will be dirt cheap thanks to robot utopia.
My problem with this is human only entertainment is only valuable in a sentimental way as well as potentially simulatable, making for a poor industry to employ millions or billions of humans. Take horses, which are used for entertainment now but whose population must have been decimated by motored vehicles because there was 0 use for them outside of entertainment. How will we purpose a significant amount of humans to serve our oligarch overlords and is there any way their work will be more valuable other than by common ideological agreement?

you're niggers and you know it

>>1471063
Let's add another layer to this. If goods are post scarcity, won't that mean utopia? If it costs them nothing why don't they just give away everything?

The thing is it doesn't cost them nothing. They want the best entertainment that can be created. They don't want everyone to be satisfied and at peace. They want everyone working to produce better and better entertainment.

No, it's not in the capitalist's interests to make everyone satisfied with utopian life. They want the best media. They want maybe an industry of 10 million media producers out of a population of 10 billion. They want these people not never own capital, because if they own robots, they become consumers instead of producers. They want those 10 billion people to compete for a spot in the 10 million content creator slots.

That means they want the best media for themselves. This means making 0.1% of the rest of the population, the peasant entertainer classes or the 0.1%ers happy. It means supporting the lower class that is the other 99.9% of the population less than happy so they compete for a sort in the entertainment class as a 0.1%er. The only merit to this third class is they can be tapped as potential to improve the quality of the second class. This only happens if they want to be second class 0.1%ers.

>>1471063
yeah

or become artisans. thats what Neil Stephenson proposes as something that could happen.

the hyper rich get off on handmade shit. the plebs consume robot boring bullshit .

only the simple stuff comes without a premium
like basic matress number 1 is free but something fancy will still cost you just because

>>1471156
>or become artisans. thats what Neil Stephenson proposes as something that could happen.
That's simply part of being the entertainer class.

>the hyper rich get off on handmade shit. the plebs consume robot boring bullshit
Not only will it be boring, it will be intentionally boring, as the capitalist class wants you to be motivated to become a second class entertainer. The only reason why the capitalist class is giving you robot produced goods is because of your potential as an entertainer class. They want you to compete for being entertainer class.

>only the simple stuff comes without a premium
That premium is afforded by being the entertainer class, or some subclass that serves the entertainer class. Petit entertainers.

>like basic matress number 1 is free but something fancy will still cost you just because
Because you are not yet contributing to entertainment. They want to motivate you to produce entertainment and become a 0.1%er not be satisfied with your 99.9%er life.

>>1470847
this

>>1470763
Goods produced by machine in great amounts are also much cheaper, so I think we'll just have less work in a day and similar buying power as now.

>>1470783
really made me think......

Did Switzerland not vote for basic income recently.

Didn't that have to do with robot taking away about 40% of all jobs in the near future?

So how many years untill we are going to see some major lay offs and changes?

I know new computer systems are already taking the jobs of thousands of administrative workers every day.