Got a question specifically for anons who believe that robots,

>>15220356
that's what we invented war for

Future's peasant jobs = space pioneering work

We pack them on a spaceship and boot them to the moon to mine minerals and build space colonies.

If they die, OH TOO BAD BUT THEY ARE BRAVE FRONTIERSMAN, SO COOL OF THEM!

If everything works out fine, Gundam happens.

They'd bitch hard to gubment about how the robots took their jobs because they're too obstinate to learn a new trade (like, I dunno, MAINTAINING ALL THESE ROBOTS BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE SURE THEY STAY FUNCTIONAL) because they believe the glory days of good paying factory work will come back sometime soon.

Fucking rust belters are the worst.

>>15220356
>What do you think will happen to all the people who's sole career are these low skill industry jobs?

This will occur not all over the world, but only in the highly developed countries where there is only a small part of such people. In these societies, low skill industry workers will be low skill service workers in call centers, advertisement and other areas with client contact where you need a minimum of humaneness.

>>15220356
Theoretically, maybe something like universal basic income to let them pursue higher education to fulfill positions that aren't occupied by robots.

>>15220370
I feel like space mining and space construction would be jobs we allocate to robots as well.

File: 1354894874573.png (75KB, 983x1013px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 983x1013px

>>15220370
>literally shooting all Indians to the moon

>>15220385
That, or someone figures out how to make free college work out without it somehow causing the economy to shit itself along the way.

I'd argue right this moment we're facing this sort of dilemma in the States with the decades long attempts at getting the rust belt back on its feet.

>>15220356
Sex workers for robots.

>>15220385
>space mining and space construction
Pioneering work is more than that. It's literally dumping a bunch of people on new land to check out whether it's cool to live there or not. If it's all jolly good, all the rich kids will come over next. The end result is America!

>>15220356
Same thing that happened when other tech improvements happened. No one bitches about the glory days of lamplighters.

There's no way you'll be able to automate on such a large scale to cover an entire country. At most I think the big cities will have it since you have more people to fund and support the system, but I don't think a rural heartland nowhere town with a single factory supporting it is going to replace all of its usual workers.

>>15220356
Heeeeeeeeey wait. You're not Donald Trump are you.

I mean, it's completely ridiculous that the POTUS would come to 4chan seeking a solution to jobs vs automation, but it's Trump so anything's possible.

>>15220356
>What do you think will happen to all the people who's sole career are these low skill industry jobs?
Obsolescence. We'll probably need to transition to a universal basic income as goods become less scarce and labour becomes more scarce.

>implying that any economic system could handle losing such a huge swath of its tax base.
Really, robots aren't going to ever become worth a shit the more automation that comes into the scene the more the economy lurches and begins to strangle itself because what do ya know, you take away the jobs of people they suddenly cant pay taxes or support the infrastructure changes.

>>15220554
You mean voters, not taxes.

>>15220472
Please stop.

>>15220356
Likelihood is mass robot lynchmobs.

The low skilled workers, dropouts along with the atypical thrill seekers will go around vandalizing businesses using the robots on a regular basis.

Poorer countries will continue to be bigger shitholes where cheap unskilled manual labour will be seen as even larger in supply and humans become more of a expendable commodity. Having advanced education would become 100% mandatory to get anywhere in life but those who need it will be unable to pay for it.

>>15220356
Why not have both in some capacity?

File: image.jpg (64KB, 458x696px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 458x696px

>>15220356
Good ending:
We get universal basic income and most of us sit around doing whatever we want while smarter people persue careers as scientists and engineers, the world unites into one massive government, Earth Federation style, to eliminate most war and suffering, and operate more efficiently, allowing us to start constructing space infrastructure to mine asteroids and build O'niell cylinders, which we can all move into and start fucking like rabbits to populate, while happily awaiting humanity's ultimate destiny, the singularity.

Bad ending:
The elite, ruling class and anyone useful to them(police, military, scientists, engineers, anything that's unlikely to get replace by robots soon) herd the entire middle and lower classes into isolated ghettos where we work for completely shit pay or just starve while most of the important work is done by robots, population control policies are put in place to try and reduce the population over the following decades, eventually as robots become even more useful and there's absolutely nothing the ruling class needs us for, they just kill us all and go live on a fancy space colony.

File: 2059265.jpg (79KB, 600x380px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 600x380px

>>15220404
>not dreaming of space curry girl of your own

>>15220371
What happens when the robots are able to maintain themselves? Shouldn't be too hard to do. Not to mention, there aren't gonna be enough robot maintaining jobs for all those lost. You're gonna have to do something about these people besides bitch at them for losing their only access to the necessities of life aka jobs or they're gonna get desperate enough and take what they want for themselves. But you didn't think that far enough did you? Too busy caught in self-righteousness to actually look for a solution.

>>15221675
>Wanting a smelly, sweaty poo in the loo girl stinking up your space colony

No thanks.

>>15220447
BOOOOOOH FUCK OFF MARS IS FULL!

>>15221640
>good ending

that is terrifying. as in, literally most of humanity becomes layabout chucklefucks.
do you realize how quickly those who want to work will soon have no inspiration to, since the lazy dumb fags get an easier life anyway? do you realize how much resentment being a worker would create as opposed to those who just lay around? the hate would drive you to quit.

do you think people on welfare get any respect? do you think the workers will just go on working for something,instead of living for free?

will they laugh at the stupid explorer who got killed in a test rocket, further demoralizing future explorers? 4chan sure as fuck does similar to that now....

human laziness = humanity's usefulness is running out.

there is no good ending.

>>15221640
by the way, united earth government means less actual diversity.

unless it severely allowed independant development of seperate cultures...

you do realize world americanization is a threat to diversity?

>>15220356
robots turning human into monkeys

>>15221705
>What happens when the robots are able to maintain themselves? Shouldn't be too hard to do.
That's not how it works.

See it's this defeatist why even bother attitude of the rust belt that keeps them from getting anywhere better. They want a return to a time that will never come back, a return to a cozy paycheck for an "honest day's work" and will fight tooth and nail against any offer to help them learn a new trade because they think it's too complex or hard for them or won't pay as well.

It's not that they have no opportunity to respec to an in-demand skillset, it's that they outright refuse to do so, and complain how the world doesn't answer to them and their wants. The rust belt can easily support a technological renaissance, it's just chock full of people who want to make cars and metal when they should be developing stuff like robotics and advanced materials.

File: 90s.png (280KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 500x375px

>>15220356
>What do you think will happen to all the people who's sole career are these low skill industry jobs?

Probably maintaining those robots.

At some point its not going to be cost-efficient to have a robot that it's sole job is to maintain other robots.

>>15221743
They wouldn't be complaining if their jobs hadn't been taken by chinese and robots.

The solution isn't developing robots that will take everyone's jobs including those of robot designers and repairmen. It's to simply bomb the shit out of the Chinese.

>>15221730
>do you realize how quickly those who want to work will soon have no inspiration to, since the lazy dumb fags get an easier life anyway?

The same can already be said for human society, it's much easier to be an average joe with an everyday, middle class job, people still seek more complicated jobs because they WANT to do that work, scientists do the science things because they like science shit, not because they want the most financially beneficial or socially acceptable job.

The faggots who animate all our Chinese robot cartoons do it because they like animating robot cartoons, the actual job is difficult work for long hours with shit pay, no one in the industry besides voice actors and maybe composers is doing it for the money, because most of them could get more money for less work standing at the cash register of their local 711.

90% of artists on the internet could be making more money in a normie job, but they don't want to.

If your only motivation in getting a job is what's easiest and most socially acceptable, that's honestly pretty pathetic, plenty of people go for hard jobs because they're interested in the work, do what you want, universal basic income will allow for that.

>>15221736
>you do realize world americanization is a threat to diversity?

And?
Do you think I care about MUH DIVERSITY?

Most cultures are shit, and deserve to be assimilated into the culture of those who can succeed in uniting humanity for the greater good of all people.

If the world was united under one government that wouldn't eliminate all cultural differences anyways, Americans will still be fat, Brits will still drink tea, Russians will still squat, Nips and worst Koreans will still hate each other, everyone will just have similar legal systems and have to work together, eliminating war, turning third world hellholes into first world countries, and allowing humanity to achieve it's goals while letting every person live the life they want.

>>15221806
I think you underestimate how efficient it is to buy a couple robots one time and have them do their job nearly perfectly for years or decades, compared to paying a flawed human to do the same thing worse for the same amount of time, having to pay them more than enough to support their families for all those years.

Program many of the robots in a factory to walk around observing others, detecting things that need maintenance, and doing the maintenance, before returning to their shift of doing the same thing other robots are doing, surely they're not all going to break down at once?


Whether or not businesses put people out of jobs to use robot workers is an ethical issue, not a monetary one.

>>15221830
>It's to simply bomb the shit out of the Chinese.
Are you retarded? China isn't going to just sit there and let us bomb them. It would basically be the start of World War III. There would be no winners.

>>15221869
>Program many of the robots in a factory to walk around observing others, detecting things that need maintenance, and doing the maintenance, before returning to their shift of doing the same thing other robots are doing, surely they're not all going to break down at once?


It doesn't work like that you liberal arts faggot!

We don't live in a space opera future!

>>15221873
>There would be no winners.

Honestly Russia could probably survive a nuclear war, their nuclear weapons are so much more advanced than everyone else's and they have so many fallout shelters with people trained how to get to them, they could probably just hide underground for a few years until the most severe radiation dies down, then come up to repopulate the earth, moving to less affected parts of the globe.

And nuking China isn't as off the table as you might think, Douglass MacArthur tried to and almost succeeded, clearly it's possible for crazy fucks to get in positions of great power.

>>15220356
Short story Manna lays it out.

Terrafoam welfare housing developments that function as debtor prisons. Government will use UBI as an excuse to herd the poor into high efficiency ghettos, then give them free housing, free TV/internet ,and free food. The illusion of freedom when they are contained. Since the government can't commit to self genocide (and wars are robot fueled anyways), spike the free food and drink with libido suppressants and the excess population problem will sort itself out in a generation or two. Government UBI costs only hurt for 40 years only, a planable expense.

Welcome to the Terrafoam.

>>15221928
>their nuclear weapons are so much more advanced than everyone else's

Last I checked their blue water apparatus is a shadow of its former self. I don't think they can afford to park boomers off the coast of countries quite like the USN can.

Granted, SSBNs are only really good for sneaking in an offshore nuke volley as opposed to the sustained amount of shitstomping lighting up the ICBMs would do, but that's still one of your best options for getting in the first strike.

You guys need to understand something.

There are something like 3 MILLION trade jobs that need to be filled in the US alone. These are jobs that people could make plenty of money in- electricians, for example- but because they're not perceived as glamorous, no one wants them. Worst case scenario, robots start fulfilling those jobs and nothing changes.

>>15220371
If you're spending more money on robot engineers and repairmen then the wages of the people the robot replaced then you're doing it wrong

>>15222089
Presuming you're just replacing existing labor instead of using what becomes available to build an elevator to core out the Moon to get to the asteroids to frack Hell then sure.

>>15220371
>MAINTAINING ALL THESE ROBOTS BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE SURE THEY STAY FUNCTIONAL

If the company is replacing them with robots then there are already plenty of engineers to maintain them. There would be no way that there would be enough engineering jobs to make even a dent in the amount of unemployment caused by a mass robot replacement of jobs, especially since you wouldn't need to hire that many people to do the job even if you have dozens of robots.

Now the real question, wouldn't doing something like this have a massive effect on tax income for state and federal governments? All those workers are no longer getting taxes withdrawn on their paychecks and many of them are probably draining the unemployment fund now.

>>15221869
I think you missed the point. You can have a robot maintaining other robots. You can even have other robots maintaining the maintainer robots and so forth. My point is that sooner or later down the line of "maintaining the maintainers that maintain other maintainers" it's not going to be cost effective of building a dedicated robot that is solely used for one specific maintenance task.

>>15222443
No, you illiterate faggot, re-read my post, you're the one that missed the point.

>Factory full of robots
>Many of them are mobile, with arms allowing them to do a variety of tasks and use tools
>They have their own jobs in the factory working on the production line or whatever
>Every single one of them has programming to leave their post at designated shifts, walk around monitoring the other robots, and fixing shit if necessary.

I didn't say you should make a million robot who's sole purpose is to repair each other, you fucking retard.

>>15221928
> Honestly Russia could probably survive a nuclear war

It seems like you are overestimating Russian capabilities by a huge margin. Russia is not the same as the USSR, despite what Putin would have you believe. If there were a large scale nuclear conflict then we would all be screwed. Some Russians might be able to survive for a short period of time, but the majority of humanity including Russians would be faced with dire circumstances.

Most people don't have supplies of food and water that can last them several years. Also it's not the easiest thing to move to more hospitable areas, especially when mass transportation is non-existent. No country is surviving a massive nuclear conflict.

> Douglass MacArthur tried to and almost succeeded

Except MacArthur didn't advocate using nuclear weapons against China during the Korean War. Truman is the one who said that MacArthur wanted this, and MacArthur got Truman to retract this statement. If I remember correctly it was Bradley who put forward the idea of giving MacArthur the option of using nuclear bombers, but that was rejected by the JCS.

>>15222499
Well, then I completely over-estimated your intelligence because your idea is even dumber than what I thought you meant.

In your scenario you're not only having to have robots fulfill dual purposes of working their main jobs as well as performing maintenance on each other, but you are also forcing a system in which a problem where problem with a robot working its maintenance shift wouldn't be found at least until another robot finds it. What if the problem happens when the robot is in the middle of servicing another robot? According to you, you'll need your second robot on its maintenance shift to fix that one which means no robots monitoring the other robots which can lead to its own problems.

>>15222514
>Russia is not the same as the USSR

That's right.
Their modern nuclear weapons are even more powerful.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28_Sarmat

>Most people don't have supplies of food and water that can last them several years.

That's what well stocked underground fallout shelters are for, Russia has more of them than anyone else.

>Also it's not the easiest thing to move to more hospitable areas, especially when mass transportation is non-existent. No country is surviving a massive nuclear conflict.

You don't even need millions of people to survive a nuclear conflict, about ten thousand would be plenty, that's only as many as live in a small, obscure town, use intact aircraft or ground vehicles from areas not directly bombed to get away from the most severe radiations zones and cloudy nuclear winter, fuck like there's no tomorrow to repopulate(this'll probably happen inside the shelters), deal with the occasional cancer patient, and start rebuilding the world to your liking.


Nuclear war would sure as fuck irreversibly change the world, but the notion that literally every human on earth would end up dead doesn't match the facts at all, the country best prepared for it can basically take over the world once everyone else is fucked.

Since robots are doing all the work needed for us to live, we'll all just have to start making media stuff that entertains people for a while, since robots will never bother doing that.

Basically in the future, everyone is Otaking.

Hopefully we can survive off the ad revenue.

I always assumed that when everything becomes automated, we'll have unconditional basic income in place. In fact even without automation I think that's going to become inevitable in the long run because eventually it'll just be cheaper to send everyone a check once a month for existing than to do otherwise.

>>15221730
I think an optimistic model of something like that good ending would be the Earth Federation in Star Trek, where currency values are all but defunct and people join Starfleet and put themselves through the rigorous academy purely because they want to. Many people die out in the cosmos and devastating wars happen occasionally, but people still join regardless. Replicators and food replicators give people anything they want nigh-instantly, holodecks let them experience any pasttime they want, healthcare is perfect and has countless experts, etc.

>>15220356
>What do you think will happen to all the people who's sole career are these low skill industry jobs?
they'll get purged by the drone armies controlled by the 1%

>>15222642
>Their modern nuclear weapons are even more powerful.

You do realize that this is still undergoing testing? The Russian military is still not even close to fully modernized, and they somehow have more military capability than the USSR did. Russia does not have the money to be the superpower they once were when they were the USSR.

>That's what well stocked underground fallout shelters are for, Russia has more of them than anyone else.

Yeah, that's basically nothing more than Russian propaganda. In case you forgot, Russia's economy is in a deep recession thanks to economic sanctions, and the Saudis flooding the oil market. Russia doesn't have money for well stocked fall out shelters, and they don't have money for a lot of things given their current situation. That's one of the reasons they worked so hard to get Trump elected, because they hope they'll be able to get him to lift those sanctions, because they know Hilary would not be as easy to manipulate as Trump is. Russia isn't as prepared as you think they are.

> the notion that literally every human on earth would end up dead doesn't match the facts at all

I didn't say that, I said that the majority of humanity would be fucked, and that probably will be the case if we're stupid enough to go through with it. If people don't get killed directly, they will be probably die indirectly from fall out, and the effects of a nuclear winter. Like I said in my first post, there will be no winners if we're foolish enough to engage in large scale nuclear warfare. Russia is not immune to this.

>>15223566
>If people don't get killed directly, they will be probably die indirectly from fall out, and the effects of a nuclear winter.

Honestly most people would die of starvation more than anything else, I think nuclear winter was stated to cause something like a 20 degree drop in termperature worldwide for around 10 years. At least that was the model Carl Sagan worked with.

On the plus side, you know silver lining on every cloud, it'll fix both global warming and overpopulation.

>>15223625
Also I should note that the term "nuclear" winter is a misnomer as it doesn't in any way require nuclear weapons. What causes nuclear winter is when something causes a metric shitton of buildings and trees to burn, and all that soot gets in the atmosphere. Hence why you can launch 100 nukes into the Sahara desert and it wouldn't cause a nuclear winter.

>>15222750
>Hopefully we can survive off the ad revenue.
Can't we have bot-programs make clicks for us to get some ad revenue?

>>15222499
At this point why not just use human labor?

>>15223811
If you've read the thread up to that post and still don't understand why human labor wouldn't be used in this situation you're thoroughly fucking retarded and should off yourself as soon as possible.

>>15222389
>Now the real question, wouldn't doing something like this have a massive effect on tax income for state and federal governments? All those workers are no longer getting taxes withdrawn on their paychecks and many of them are probably draining the unemployment fund now.
Easy to solve. Just tax robots the same way we used to tax human slaves by their market value. Robot owners will have to pay taxes on robots as they are assets that earn income. And the taxes would be dependent on how much the robots are worth.

If it is good enough for human slave owners to pay taxes on slaves owned, then it is fair enough for owners of robots. You had to pay taxes on all your assets that earn income.

And the taxes would be paid to the unemployed, who would deserve it for no other reason than to stop them rioting. Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism, understands this. You need to keep the poor alive and fed, or they will slit your throats. Human history is clear that the second the wealthy stopped making sure the impoverished are not desperate, they get murdered.

>>15224127
Except the wealthy nowadays can afford security guards armed with MP5s, kevlar, and bullet-proof SUVs.

>>15224927
>Except the wealthy nowadays can afford security guards armed with MP5s, kevlar, and bullet-proof SUVs.
And these same guards would be the ones who murder their bosses. If you are not willing to do the bare minimum to keep the poor fed, then you are also too cheap to pay your guards properly.

>>15225471
Just to add, it is extremely cheap to feed the poor. To not be willing to do this out of principle is insane. And those who don't do it, dies.

>>15225471
You have some weird twisted views. I've always noticed it was the other way. The rich will pay their security excessive, crazy amounts, but will literally slam the door and call the police on Girl Scout cookie sellers.

The rich will pay their security well cause they know it's an investment that will always pay off the more you sink in.

>just retrain the workers to maintain the robots

The problem there is you need much fewer maintenance people per robot than there are people displaced by the robots.

Also all those jobs will be given to 22-24 year olds fresh out of college with an engineering degree instead of 50 something year olds with GEDs who have worked in factories for the last 30 years

>>15225623
More over.

People who've only done janitorial... Scrubbing a toilet doesn't mean you know how to fix a robot that scrubs toilets.

>>15225623
It took me 3 years after graduating before I landed a job, actually.

30 years of factory work is at least testament to an enduring work ethic, all they'd really need past that is a degree of some sort or some form of technical tradecraft.

>>15220404
That's the premise behind Children of a Dead Earth's campaign faction.

>India, Pakistan, Indonesia start launching their surviving populations into low Earth orbit while the apocalypse unfolds
>Now everyone is in space and Space South Asians are their own faction holding Luna, Mars, and a few asteroids

>>15225568
>You have some weird twisted views. I've always noticed it was the other way. The rich will pay their security excessive, crazy amounts, but will literally slam the door and call the police on Girl Scout cookie sellers.
>The rich will pay their security well cause they know it's an investment that will always pay off the more you sink in.
And it is never enough. Those who decided bead and circuses are not necessary, dies. Had been that way since human society existed. Respect the Mob.

>>15222389
There's something even worse to consider. With all these unemployed people you end up shrinking the consumer market as well, with people ending up either starving or settling with shitty goods that their food stamps or as other anons suggested, their UBI pays for. The thing with welfare is that it only covers the basics. You'll end up with a situation where you have no middle class, which ultimately means shrinking profits for every industry that isn't already on the government teat

>>15227217
>You'll end up with a situation where you have no middle class, which ultimately means shrinking profits for every industry that isn't already on the government teat
This is how math works. You can't take money away from society only to expect the rest of society to magically replenish the stock of currency.

The end game of Capitalism is the win condition of a game of Monopoly; one man with everything while no one else with anything. Capitalism never actually cared about taking care of the Middle Class, and Free Market doesn't either. Middle Class shrinks because it isn't been maintained.

If you want the Middle Class to exist, you have to be willing to pay money (Taxes) for it. The Free Market wouldn't help.

>universal basic income meme

This is so much scarier than automation desu. You'd essentially be reduced to infant/invalid/livestock status.

>>15227368
>This is so much scarier than automation desu. You'd essentially be reduced to infant/invalid/livestock status.
UBI spends the same amount of money as it does currently. It just rebalances the tax hand outs to maintain the middle class instead of trying to trickle down via giving the richest people even more money.

>>15227368
>reduced to infant/invalid/livestock status.

>implying we aren't already there

>>15227368
Agreed If we ever get to the point where robots make most people useless I'd rather we dispense with currency altogether and make the robots work for all of society where you can just press a button and get what you need. At that point UBI just seems like a last minute way to get people to keep on buying when at that point it'd be outdated.

>>15227274
>If you want the Middle Class to exist, you have to be willing to pay money (Taxes) for it.
And reduce population growth
And stop immigration
And prevent offshoring
And, and, and

>>15227446
>And reduce population growth
>And stop immigration
>And prevent offshoring
>And, and, and
None of that matters. You are still talking about "how to save jobs", that has nothing to do with what we are dealing with here. You are trying to fight the next war with the previous war's weapons.

You are talking about political actions that make voters happy, but doesn't actually DO anything.

>>15227386
At the moment you're just chattel. The ultrarich fucks on top of the food chain still want you around and suffering for some reason or another.

>>15220370
Sieg Zeon

>>15226865
>Respect the Mob.
The mob will suffer for decades or centuries before they even consider taking action. And the mob definitely isn't going to work once the rich start equipping their estates and buildings with automated defense systems that can slaughter people like rats or just run away in convoys to private jets to poor nations that will gladly take them in.

>>15224127
>Easy to solve. Just tax robots the same way we used to tax human slaves by their market value. Robot owners will have to pay taxes on robots as they are assets that earn income. And the taxes would be dependent on how much the robots are worth.
Those robot owners will build their robots in a nation that's charging lower tax rates per robot and/or in a nation that is easier for corporations to control (poor nations).

>And the taxes would be paid to the unemployed, who would deserve it for no other reason than to stop them rioting. Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism, understands this. You need to keep the poor alive and fed, or they will slit your throats. Human history is clear that the second the wealthy stopped making sure the impoverished are not desperate, they get murdered.
Oh right, that sure worked out well for every third world country, which are typically rife with the poor being curb stomped by the rich (often the corrupt business owners, politicians, criminals, and their minions), because people will give up any semblance of morality to enjoy better lives than the riffraff.

>>15227479
>At the moment you're just chattel. The ultrarich fucks on top of the food chain still want you around and suffering for some reason or another.
>>15227580
>Oh right, that sure worked out well for every third world country, which are typically rife with the poor being curb stomped by the rich (often the corrupt business owners, politicians, criminals, and their minions), because people will give up any semblance of morality to enjoy better lives than the riffraff.
The point I am making is that you are describing the wealthy living like prisoners in their own homes.

At this point they might as well be in a real Zombie Apocalypse. Being forced to be self sufficent and only leave the house with armed guards, human or robotic, and worry about being torn from limb to limb. I don't envision that as the ideal way to live like a rich man. That sounds more like Hell.

The point is that wealth only exists if you have poor people. Wealth is relative, always was. Trying to remove poor people just meant the rich becomes less rich. And once you remove all the poor people the rich becomes normal.

Wealth only matters if you have the poor to compare with, and to suddenly think the ideal is to abandon the poor is where things go horribly wrong.

>>15227667
>Wealth only matters if you have the poor to compare with, and to suddenly think the ideal is to abandon the poor is where things go horribly wrong.

Wealth is quantitative. Getting rid of the poor is a good idea for the rich (once they no longer need human labor) because they're reducing competitors in a resource limited environment, which simply means more resources for them. It's not some sort of strange pseudo-intellectual ego thing, it's a primitive need to be the most resource rich.

The UBI future you dream of will not come to pass, it'll just be the rich and powerful implementing plans to slowly reduce the population and in particular get rid of the poor. I'm sure some time in the far future we'll achieve a point where there's 0 or trivial cost to sustain human lives and the population will grow again but that's going to be long after people who would be dependent on UBI have been phased out. People who are anticipating UBI underestimate human nature and overestimate the power of the mob in this technological climate.

The mob worked best when farmers' scythes could be easily changed into terrifying weapons or when common citizens could access similar firearms to those available by national militaries. I doubt it'll work in this age where many, maybe most, common citizens in the most gun-crazed country are deathly afraid of even touching a basic firearm, meanwhile the rich can legally and financially afford to have well-armed personal militaries in armored vehicles. And it should go without saying the military industrial complex is home to many of the rich that the mob would be targeting during civil unrest.

>>15227667

So what happens when the rich folks decide to just get automated security that won't turn on them and will have no qualms in mowing down the mob by the millions

>>15227750
>So what happens when the rich folks decide to just get automated security that won't turn on them and will have no qualms in mowing down the mob by the millions
As I say, they end up in a hell of their own making. Living in a fortress without the ability to step outside, with the rest of the world wanting them dead.

And it would have been cheaper to just supply bread and circuses instead.

>>15227728
>Wealth is quantitative. Getting rid of the poor is a good idea for the rich (once they no longer need human labor) because they're reducing competitors in a resource limited environment, which simply means more resources for them. It's not some sort of strange pseudo-intellectual ego thing, it's a primitive need to be the most resource rich.
You don't get it. It is not quantitative because value is dependent on demand. Removing the poor means there is zero demand, and suddenly gold is as valuable as aluminium. You have things you need to survive as an organism, but after that nothing you are able to consume yourself could be worth anything.

You really think wealth is quantitative? You assume wealth is absolute and not linked to the number of people desiring it? That doesn't add up.

This was written in 1883 and it is still relevant today:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/index.htm

>>15220371
Random question, are you the guy who was complaining about coal miners being unwilling to learn new skills a while back? I remember reading an article somewhere about this issue but forgot the link and was wondering if you ever posted it on /m/.

>>15228633
Probably someone else, I don't think I've peddled articles on the subject here.

>>15228093

Rich folks are already living in their armored compounds unwilling to make general treks outside in many areas. They're perfectly used to living like that. Now, give them the power to make and purchase a totally loyal armed force that can end that problem permanently.

That's what's going to happen: realizing that they'll always be in a precarious position if the mob exists, the rich will opt to make it not exist, rather than take a risky (and in the long term, more expensive) set of deals with them.

>>15232445
>That's what's going to happen: realizing that they'll always be in a precarious position if the mob exists, the rich will opt to make it not exist, rather than take a risky (and in the long term, more expensive) set of deals with them.
The "mob" is the only reason their wealth had any meaning.

Without the poor, the wealthy would no longer be wealthy. You might be entirely self sufficient with technology, but at that point you would no longer have any access to an economy, thus "wealth" disappears.

At that point you might as well be living on Mars in a compound with a dozen other humans. Being separated from the economy means you are no long rich.

File: 1241271115662.jpg (649KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

649KB, 1920x1080px

>>15232456
So what if the rich just make their own economy? The rich live in their super cities, where all the menial work is handled by robutts, while the poor live like hunter gatherers in the wastelands outside the walls?

>>15233866
If the rich "make their own economy" (i.e. industrialised and technologically advanced) wholecloth and in no time at all, then they're basically post-scarcity and can functionally do whatever whenever, limited only by feedstock requirements for their fabricators, mass-energy for their power generation equipment, and heat management. Also time.

"I'll make my own casino, with blackjack, and hookers!" isn't an actually 5 Year Plan.

>>15221836
So the idea is to unite humanity but also let every person live the way they want.

What if someone doesn't want to live in the United States Of Earth? What if they liked their 'old and outmoded' culture and religion and ways and patterns of work and recreation?

>>15233866
It depends on the economic system.

In this elite club of affluents, would they agree to redistribution of wealth enabled by the taxation of robot labor? Once you get past all the menial labor done by robots, is it not the case that someone still has to be on the proverbial bottom rung working subservient to the others?

Capitalist economy requires consumers and producers to maintain a circulation of an arbitrarily fixed (sorta, it gets silly when fiat money is in play) amount of capital dictated by demands and supplies and all that "do this for that" exchange of goods and labor. And this is on its own, before you factor in government elements like regulations attempting to prevent any one person or persons gaming the system, or the effect taxation has on the flow of money, and all sorts of shit that big business wants to keep at arms distance from itself except for when it benefits them...

But long story short, when the rich make their own private economy and go all Randian Objectivist on you, the big question to ask is who's on the bottom-most rung. While the robots may literally do the job in your hypothetical situation, someone metaphorically still has to clean the toilets.

>>15220661
is this overwatch?

>>15233898
Then they can fuck off the the VR pods to feel like they're in a third world shithole again.

>>15233901
>But long story short, when the rich make their own private economy and go all Randian Objectivist on you, the big question to ask is who's on the bottom-most rung. While the robots may literally do the job in your hypothetical situation, someone metaphorically still has to clean the toilets.
We have history to answer that. Before real money existed, there was Social Currency. Currency that aren't used to buy consumables, but instead are traded that symbolise things that are priceless. Things like friendship, loyalty, marriages, love for your children. These things were never able to be bought with money in any case, but Social Currency were used to represent them. And Social Currency isn't determined by a government, but what a society decided is important. We are talking about giant stone heads and rock wheels and things like that. It basically is social status personified in physical objects.

After monetary currency was invented, social currency got displaced. But in a post scarcity society, I can definitely see social currency returning. Because status mattered before there was money, so no reason why status wouldn't matter after there is no money.

Govt provides low level UBI to everyone. Initially, most people will want to supplement their income. Govt sets cost of labor to zero. Businesses stop offshoring jobs to third world slaves, and reconsider the rate of automation due to capital cost of buying robots.

If businesses stop paying workers, why look for work? Because Govt gives you a bonus to your UBI for the time you work each week.
Since no more income tax due to no earned income, Govt hikes corporate tax rates to pay for UBI. Tax rate rises over the years as automation spreads. But Govt also offers tax rebate (that also rises over the years), based on how many human workers a business employs, how long they work, difficulty of work, social benefit of work etc. The more human workers you employ, the more profit your business gets to keep.

Thus, businesses are encouraged to employ humans where possible, and thanks to tax rebate can remain competitive with businesses that go full-auto and miss out on tax rebate, even if the human workers are less productive.
The businesses that will go full-auto first are the ones where humans wouldn't want to work, i.e. mind-numbing factory work, dealing with hazardous materials, etc.

After several decades, once automation is so widespread and productivity so high that, thanks to deflation, UBI purchasing power alone lets you live comfortably, people will gradually stop looking to supplement their UBI with employment, and businesses will be forced to automate these remaining jobs and miss out on the tax rebate. Effectively post-scarcity.
How do you stop businesses from just moving to a low corporate tax country and going full-auto? Import tariffs, I guess.

>>15236405
Cont.

As for unskilled workers, they may get stuck on UBI, and have to live within narrow means for a decade or two until deflation kicks in and makes things more affordable.

But I suspect what will happen is the distinction between skilled vs unskilled will blur, thanks to augmented reality glasses with A.I chaperones that can instruct you how to perform tasks in almost any job.

That way, old dogs don't have to try and learn new tricks, you simply load a new program into your glasses and go to work, getting that bonus to next week's UBI payment.

The schooling of the future will mostly be about learning how the world works in a general sense and practicing following AR/AI instructions accurately, rather than preparing students for particular vocations.

tldr; The workplace becomes an augmented reality game for players of all ages and skillsets until post-scarcity

>>15232456

You change from 'money' to more direct 'control of resources' ad then you wave your dick against other rich guys, maybe even have sport in seeing how many lowborns you can kill.

A lot of these predictions seem based on the idea that the top layer of society will suddenly feel magnanimous or that the offensive power to do violence that the rich can amass and harness would completely outstrip the violence the mob can bring. We're talking a huge tech gap of robot drones and high-power weapons versus only even passingly serious resistance in America; essentially every other country will have most people totally disarmed, so they'll pretty cleanly be swept from the earth in about two weeks.

>>15227460
Except we haven't used them in nearly 30 years while screaming that internationalism, large welfare states and immigration is the way of the future.

>>15236531
This. Effective opposition has pretty much been removed politically from most of the globe and short of bloody painful violent overthrows (or if the ruling party accedes without much conflict) that only work without internationalist intervention and mass support from militaries (not surprisingly many Western countries now have weak militaries under NATO umbreallas, but surprisingly well supplied and equipped internal forces).

>>15236546
Your are still talking about totalitarianism that ended up costing more than just offering bread and circus.

When humans are no longer useful even as slaves, what is the point of oppressing them? By then you have enough resources to keep all the poor people fed and entertained, and by doing that you save money on maintaining guards. If you have enough resources to enslave a country, you don't need the slaves anymore. You would have reached post scarity and it is silly to rue by force. Give people their bread and fish and call it a day. Bullets are not needed.

>>15236556

>By then you have enough resources to keep all the poor people fed and entertained, and by doing that you save money on maintaining guards.

But if I kill all the poor people, all those resources can be mine, and if I use automated security, then my forces are loyal only to me.

You're expecting that this class, which has refused to share anything even in the face of direct violence, would suddenly have a change of heart. It will not; and if the resistance to your drones is people whose great idea of a weapon is an iron pipe or a sling with some metal bits for ammo, then of course the cost for killing them all is essentially pretty low. Compare to the cost of keeping them alive: it will be significant, on-going, will draw away resources which you could lavish on yourself, and will be no guarantee of buying the loyalty or even the acquiescence of the mob. If I have a nest of snakes of snakes on my land and I can either appease them with the occasional food animal (with tribute having to grow in time as the snake population gets larger or demands more for my safety) or whether I can simply destroy the snake nest now and be done with the affair, which will you choose?

>>15236565
>But if I kill all the poor people, all those resources can be mine, and if I use automated security, then my forces are loyal only to me.
You already have infinite resources, and you are wasting even more resources to oppress others for no damn reason.

>>15236565
>or whether I can simply destroy the snake nest now and be done with the affair, which will you choose?
That had never ever succeeded. Because once you do that you once again are in a Mars Colony situation. You have money that had no value, and resources that you have no one to show your vanity to. You made yourself poor.

>>15236574

>you have no one to show your vanity t

Other members of the 1% who just murdered the other 99%.

>You already have infinite resources

We are on earth and are confined there as of now. All resources on earth are essentially finite, what you are conflating that with is labor power being essentially infinite.

>>15236607
>Other members of the 1% who just murdered the other 99%.
>>15236607
>We are on earth and are confined there as of now. All resources on earth are essentially finite, what you are conflating that with is labor power being essentially infinite.
You are speaking like the idea is new. It isn't. And the 1% will proceed to murder each other in their utopia because in your version of the world they are all violent psycopaths. And then they all died because someone had to be poorer than another, and you already said that it is fine to kill off the competition.

>>15236617
Basically, my main objection to your scenario is that your scenario is unstable. The "let's kill all the poor people" plan, only end up with "let's just kill people I don't like". And the one thing rich people don't like more than poor people, is other rich people.

>>15236617

> And the 1% will proceed to murder each other in their utopia because in your version of the world they are all violent psycopaths

I do actually envision it ending that way, yes.

>And then they all died because someone had to be poorer than another

More because one owned a piece of land that the other didn't. Sure, there's lots of land, but there's, say, only one Mount Fuji, and what if you want it and the other guy won't give it to you? Well, you have to fight, of course.

>it is fine to kill off the competition.

I don't think it's fine, but a look at history shows that several of all classes of society (but especially the rich) were perfectly content with murdering or maiming thousands if it meant fatter profits. I expect we'll enter a world of psychotic and murderous King Leopolds, but with even more power and even less accountability.

>>15236633
>I do actually envision it ending that way, yes.
And thus even some of the rich people would realise this was there it leads, and decide not to join that band of lunatics.

Yes, I envision thee will be a few places where what you describe happens. But since that path leads to catastrophic collapse, I think it is normal to think there are those who try to go a different path.

There are SOME rich people who aren't psychos. And they would decide to not go that way.

>>15236451
>The schooling of the future ... practicing following AR/AI instructions accurately,
>school becomes a literal tutorial level
Oh boy!

>>15238378
>tfw still waiting for the tutorial skip patch in IRL 2.0

>>15238401
>Top Ten Pranks of 2323
>"We replaced my teacher's AR goggles teaching program with my dad's Sex Robot Emergency Field Maintenance Program! Let's see what happens!"

File: [PHF] Akibas Trip The Animation S01E05 No Reason Id Lose [Funi-DL] [Dub] [720p] [4DA701E0]_23.02.2017, 15.02.30.png (917KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

917KB, 1280x720px

WILDCAT NOOOOOOOOO!

>>15220356
mecha will never be real

>>15246515
>mecha will never be real
The elegant duelling knights in armour were never going to be real. Hell, knights as we know it in fiction never existed in reality either. Fighting is a much more ugly business.

I gave up wanting giant robots in real life because I realised it isn't the robot that made it cool, it was the romanticism and special effects. Even if we ended up with powersuits that work, it still wouldn't be anywhere as impressive in battle as we dream them to be.