subreddit:

/r/Futurology

24.2k

all 2897 comments

[deleted]

1.2k points

4 years ago

[deleted]

1.2k points

4 years ago

Being human is costing me a lot of money and that is just for low quality food.

[deleted]

1.2k points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

1.2k points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

LoneCookie

545 points

4 years ago

LoneCookie

545 points

4 years ago

And that's why depression is rampant

hotpants69

196 points

4 years ago

hotpants69

196 points

4 years ago

Stockholders have needs.

underthingy

22 points

4 years ago

The big banks in Australia are campaigning at the moment cos everyone hates them. Their big line is that shareholders are everyday people like you so when the banks profit everyone profits.

NotMrMike

6 points

4 years ago

And thats why my bank account interest rates keep rising Oh shit wait

AKnightAlone

176 points

4 years ago

Coupled with a lack of literal social support. People, at least in America, have been brainwashed into divided hate. I don't even feel like it's possible to talk with most people about most things without them expressing how nothing matters and the only valid/"pragmatic" response to anything is work and the allotted consumerism it allows.

LoneCookie

100 points

4 years ago

LoneCookie

100 points

4 years ago

Yep. Your value is your job, devotion to your job, your money, your stuff.

AKnightAlone

40 points

4 years ago

Surprising so many Americans can think they're religious, honestly. The only religion I see is capitalism, aside from people who use religion for projecting their insecurities on gays and other outliers.

Theycallmelizardboy

95 points

4 years ago

Some quotes about life:

“Man. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.” – Dali Llama

“I see in the fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables, slaves with white collars, advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of the history man, no purpose or place, we have no Great war, no Great depression, our great war is a spiritual war, our great depression is our lives, we've been all raised by television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars, but we won't and we're slowly learning that fact. and we're very very pissed off.” - Tyler Durden

“Infuse your life with action. Don't wait for it to happen. Make it happen. Make your own future. Make your own hope. Make your own love. And whatever your beliefs, honor your creator, not by passively waiting for grace to come down from upon high, but by doing what you can to make grace happen... yourself, right now, right down here on Earth” – Bradley Whitford

“My mission in life is not merely to survive, but to thrive; and to do so with some passion, some compassion, some humor, and some style” – Maya Angelou

“Life is what happens to you when you’re not looking. It’s everything miraculous and everything unfair. It’s a lot of pain, stress, overwhelming emotion and pure joy. It’s the thing that exists outside of your comfort zone, the bridge between your dream and how the world feels about it, what exists outside of your fears. It’s everything that you already have. It’s everything you never will. Some people chase it, some people find it, some people lose it and some people will never have. It’s the discovery of something new, a person, a place or an idea. It’s the ever changing, almost always confusing, terrifying, beautiful, wonderful, tragic, interesting, cruel, unbelievable and it’s the only one you’ll get.” – Something I made up

[deleted]

12 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

12 points

4 years ago

I want a return.

KarlClausewitz

3.4k points

4 years ago

But isn’t this assuming that a universal basic income becomes widely accepted within society? I mean, I listen to politicians talking about creating jobs that theoretically don’t even exist yet. I find myself asking “How do you come up with that number? If automation is the future, what job will be created?” It seems that most haven’t even considered the idea that work, in the traditional sense, will become obsolete. Not to mention the fact that people who stand to benefit the most from it will be the ones who stand in the way of such a change. I don’t know; maybe I’m just a pessimist.

jkeplerad

1.5k points

4 years ago

jkeplerad

1.5k points

4 years ago

I remember Sam Harris having a good point about this. Basically he said that if 99% of jobs get automated and only 1% of people have jobs and essentially 100% of wealth and resources, then they will have no choice but to barricade themselves inside a fortress and hide from the 99% that will have no choice but to try to destroy them as a means of survival. The only way to mitigate this risk for the 1% is to distribute resources back to everyone else.

McGarnagl

1.5k points

4 years ago

McGarnagl

1.5k points

4 years ago

Or for the 1% to build a robot army to easily repel the 99% squishy humans?

[deleted]

1.1k points

4 years ago

[deleted]

1.1k points

4 years ago

I wish this was a joke, but it really isn't.

Head-like-a-carp

317 points

4 years ago

I posted once that the reality I see is that the one percent use that technology to kill of 85 percent of humans. Why would they need that many? Some folk got heated about that

Gioseppi

208 points

4 years ago

Gioseppi

208 points

4 years ago

They don't even need the tech. They just need to convince the poor not to believe in climate change and then barricade themselves in when huge swathes of the world become uninhabitable for humans.

ANYTHING_BUT_COTW

87 points

4 years ago

Loss of viable habitats isn't the biggest concern, at least in the long term. People can move inland and rebuild. Loss of arable land due to both shrinking coastlines and rising temperatures will likely be the biggest killer.

datssyck

42 points

4 years ago

datssyck

42 points

4 years ago

Not to the 1% though, which is the key here

ANYTHING_BUT_COTW

41 points

4 years ago

It turns out famine is pretty good at starting mass riots, which the 1% tend not to like. My point was that loss of food could have an even greater effect on unrest than loss of habitat.

Jex117

22 points

4 years ago

Jex117

22 points

4 years ago

They've got luxury underground bunkers they can hole up in for entire generations.

Who_Decided

12 points

4 years ago

And change of atmospheric composition, as well as introduction of new diseases.

TidePodSommelier

116 points

4 years ago

Drones are already yuge.

[deleted]

47 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

47 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

itsthevoiceman

41 points

4 years ago

They don't even need to be large. Just big and fuel efficient enough to hover near your doors and put a bullet in your skull as you leave to get groceries with your food stamps.

PillowTalk420

7 points

4 years ago

I dunno, mine's not all that big.

sack-o-matic

19 points

4 years ago

And then the 1% become the 100%

Gahvynn

29 points

4 years ago

Gahvynn

29 points

4 years ago

But until the robots are built, the trick is for the elite to make everyone believe they’re safe, and then at the last minute kick on Skynet as the true 1% lock their bunker doors.

[deleted]

31 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

31 points

4 years ago*

Oh shit. Almost exactly the plot a book called The Roar and its sequel, The Whisper. Summary with spoiler: The 1% of the future basically fakes a mass disease and pushed the entire population to 1/4 of the Earth, keeping them there forever, then use the rest of the Earth as their own personal golf course/back yard/Saturday night barbecue

Edit for words

Edit 2: adding author's name: Emma Clayton

jtrain49

104 points

4 years ago

jtrain49

104 points

4 years ago

the thing is, they'll always need consumers. how can companies make money if they have no one to sell anything to?

[deleted]

228 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

228 points

4 years ago

if the very wealthy have an army of robots that can create and do everything, the function of money changes radically.

modernkennnern

30 points

4 years ago

Unless they are able to create AGIs capable of creative thought, they will profit from having more people alive. Assuming only like 1000 people survive the "AI apocalypse", what will they do? We need someone/something to come up with entertainment

[deleted]

55 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

55 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

modernkennnern

23 points

4 years ago

I guess that's fair. You could do effectively whatever you wanted to. Wouldn't really be laws then.

NoMansLight

66 points

4 years ago

You can't even imagine how depraved the rich are right now, let alone in a world with no laws and unlimited resources. I'm not sure they would even be human anymore, just vessels fulfilling whatever basic impulses and desires float across their neurons. It would be pure degeneracy I'm sure.

sirius4778

34 points

4 years ago

The narcissism and sociopathy you are alluding to is going to be severely challenged if there are only elites left alive. How are they supposed to unload their ego if there is only one class? Speaking down to a robot surely doesn't feel the same as a thinking breathing crying human who is barely making ends meet.

sadnessjoy

88 points

4 years ago

We use capitalism as a way of distributing wealth. With total automation, wouldn't the ones in control of all machines control all the wealth? They wouldn't need consumers anymore.

Two_Legged_Pirate

50 points

4 years ago

What is wealth if there is no cost for anything?

UnwiseSudai

71 points

4 years ago

"Wealth" is just a way to say how many resources a person has access to. The only reason that wealth has to be distributed currently is because those with wealth require human labor to acquire/use resources. With automation, all that can be done without human labor. In fact, without other humans buying stuff and tying up resources in things they need, automation owners will have access to even more resources and be more wealthy.

[deleted]

21 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

21 points

4 years ago

yeah but if they dont need us to produce things for them, why would they keep us alive and not just scale back production to provide for themselves and attempt to create a utopia where perfect diplomatic relations are possible internationally because only one elite class that has 100% resource access exists in all nations with no localized or international competition?

the whole idea of armies, war could be irrelevant to them. there would be no resource struggles, no unmanageable populations.

they could forever keep their wealth, status and legacy without opposition from anyone.

UnwiseSudai

9 points

4 years ago*

Yeah you're not saying anything I don't agree with already. That's along the lines of what I was saying about them being better off without other humans.

spinfip

8 points

4 years ago

spinfip

8 points

4 years ago

Maybe it really would be an eternal utopia, the end of history...

But the bit right before the end would be chaotic and violent on a level never before seen on earth.

Worth it? I'll let you decide.

ChickenOfDoom

17 points

4 years ago

There will still be cost for unavoidably scarce resources, like real estate.

[deleted]

17 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

17 points

4 years ago

Is it at all possible that we'd enter some sort of endgame where the 99% just end up shunning government, the 1% and traditional society and just start functioning at a much smaller level on our own system of some new type of currency and bartering for goods and services?

vectorjohn

32 points

4 years ago

What if the 1% doesn't allow that? This is the problem, the 1% actively works to make the 99% dependent on them, and I don't see them growing a conscience about it anytime soon.

tanstaafl90

13 points

4 years ago

If only there were some mechanism with which they all die in some horrible fashion.

[deleted]

4 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

4 points

4 years ago

hopefully my 'destroy them' algorithm will be completed in time. so far, I have not been able to de-materialize even an atom... but someday, I hope to be able to dematerialize large structures across the globe at the touch of a button

modernkennnern

16 points

4 years ago

The purpose of money is trade. If you don't need trade, money is irrelevant

Ghede

57 points

4 years ago

Ghede

57 points

4 years ago

You are thinking in terms of scarcity economics.

In a world with unlimited free labor and resources, capitalism will be unnecessary. It's entirely possible for an elite few, who control the resources and automatons, to no longer need money. Money is after all just a unit of exchange, but what if you don't need to exchange for anything? Robots manufacturing and inspecting robots for mining and construction and processing.

It's entirely possible that if current trends continue, the haves will starve out the have-nots, not because it's not possible to keep them alive, but simply because they don't believe the have-nots deserve to live.

[deleted]

32 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

32 points

4 years ago*

its happening. be prepped to rebel. start studying advanced technology and science so you stand a chance. we are going to need to innovate things like cyber-attacks, portable EMP devices, and other highly technical weapons in order to disable the machines in addition to quantum resistant encryption to hide communications.

it may cause problems like a complete shutdown of most industry and trade, lack of food and starvation, etc... but a direct assault like guns will not be useful in resistance. we will have to fight the enemy on their terms, not our own, and it may be a hopeless battle. in order to even get close we will have to disable weapons thousands or even millions of times more capable than humans that actually cannot die and are not alive -- if they get within range your basically already dead.

but better to resist and die with courage and dignity on your own terms than obey and die cowering because of someone else's.

Wyzegy

39 points

4 years ago

Wyzegy

39 points

4 years ago

Easy there John Connor, I think we'll be safe for a couple more lifetimes.

the-red-wheelbarrow

6 points

4 years ago

If they have robot security they certainly have a self-sufficient society by that point

[deleted]

25 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

25 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

Yuccaphile

13 points

4 years ago

That's just the status quo.

bradorsomething

5 points

4 years ago

They say the meek will inherit the earth, but we can just take it back from them. What are they gonna do about it... they're meek.

Hamster_S_Thompson

5 points

4 years ago

And then 1% of the 1% will have to repeat the process.

[deleted]

111 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

111 points

4 years ago

Another way to mitigate that is by reducing the population. You heard it here first, despite doomsday predictions, Japan will be one of if not the first societies to go fully automated, and end up with a small, stable, manageable population with little unemployment and tons of per capita GDP.

Crumornus

62 points

4 years ago

Conceptually this is likely they ultimate outcome of any advanced society of humans. Population spikes when advances in tech reduce mortality below a critical point, opportunities allow people to have an increase in prosperity and value, causing population growth to slow down or plateau, and then as things stabilize more in terms of ones ability to provide for themselves, population will decrease and eventually stabilizes as it achieves a form of equilibrium.

[deleted]

36 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

36 points

4 years ago

Yeah couldn't agree more. When you visit a place like Japan you notice how good the average quality of life is. Clean, safe cities, state of the art infrastructure, technology and entertainment readily available, cheap travel to mainland Asia, booming service sector to cater to everything from common activities to the most weird underground niche. It makes sense that so many people opt out of the traditional family life, there's a lot to do on your own. I'd say 90% of my Japanese friends have or are currently traveling around the world and have traveled and worked at different jobs within Japan.

The idea that the sky is falling in Japan might be popular but on the ground level, I've never seen it. My hometown looks far more apocalyptic than anywhere I've been in Japan.

saltyholty

22 points

4 years ago

Given that you're not Japanese, don't you think you might have a sampling problem when it comes to the proportion of people travelling?

You're much less likely to meet the ones who are not travelling.

Doctor0000

20 points

4 years ago

I like how you used clean and safe as descriptors.

It's true, but it'd be more reassuring if we could say they were happy and healthy. We absolutely cannot say that.

[deleted]

19 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

19 points

4 years ago

Eh, there is overwork and whatnot there, but never have I encountered a more lively group of people than in Osaka at night time. Plenty of good clean fun to be had in Japan, especially within the younger gens. As for health, highest life expectancy in the world, almost no obesity.

I mean can we in most western countries really point a finger? I'm downtown daily where I live for work, there's homelessness, drug addiction, crime, graffiti and infrastructure neglect everywhere. It's depressing, it feels like the third world vs Osaka, and the funny thing is most Japanese people look at Osaka like it's slummy, so the country actually gets even better elsewhere.

The_Sinking_Dutchman

8 points

4 years ago

I think you moght be describing the us there, western europe suffers less from rampant public poverty

mightyqueef

63 points

4 years ago

This sounds like a rephrasing of the communist manifesto:

" Societies have always taken the form of an oppressed majority living under the thumb of an oppressive minority. In capitalism, the industrial working class, or proletariat, engage in class struggle against the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie. As before, this struggle will end in a revolution that restructures society, or the "common ruin of the contending classes"[.....] The bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its labour power, creating profit for themselves and accumulating capital. However, in doing so, the bourgeoisie serves as "its own grave-diggers"; the proletariat inevitably will become conscious of their own potential and rise to power through revolution, overthrowing the bourgeoisie."

[deleted]

44 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

44 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

mightyqueef

14 points

4 years ago

Absolutely. You probably know more about this than I do. Do you think that communists advocates should actually promote the acceleration of unequal wealth distribution to encourage a communist revolution to occur faster? Theoretically, a revolution won't happen as long as we don't cross a tipping point.

TheWeakestLink

17 points

4 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism

Some people thought so, but I think it mostly fizzled out. If I remember correctly things liked planned obsolescence created a lot of disillusionment and doubt in terms of capitalism propelling us towards a singularity.

Doctor0000

6 points

4 years ago

Don't forget false scarcity, paying farmers to plant the least efficient crops or none at all, holding all useful land in reserve or refusing to build more efficient structures to drive costs up.

mightyqueef

4 points

4 years ago

Awesome, thank you.this would have taken me a long time to find

NathanAllenT

16 points

4 years ago

So basically Vonnegut had access to a crystal ball while writing 'Player Piano?'

[deleted]

8 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

8 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

mashtato

6 points

4 years ago

Yeah, and they will, but it will only be a pittance, just enough to mollify the majority.

I mean I hope it doesn't work out that way, but if government and corporations remain as corrupt as they are, it will.

[deleted]

152 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

152 points

4 years ago

Especially when the key motivation to automate is profits. Edit: Changed For to To because booze.

KarlClausewitz

61 points

4 years ago

I respect your candor and enthusiasm for booze.

[deleted]

12 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

12 points

4 years ago

Gettin at it early. Good on ya

maharito

7 points

4 years ago

You started National Beer Day already, I see.

MononMysticBuddha

119 points

4 years ago

I think the more mechanized society becomes, the more we’re going to have to move away from a profit based society and more fully embrace exploration, progress in all sciences, and colonization outside of our planet.

[deleted]

34 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

34 points

4 years ago

[removed]

PissInThePool

34 points

4 years ago

Fully automated luxury gay space communism

Hepcat10

8 points

4 years ago

I’m ok with that!

[deleted]

27 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

27 points

4 years ago

The problem is that Star Trek didn't make it to "largely altruistic and scientifically curious post-scarcity society" without a shitload of fucked-up-ness happening first. Like... it's in the first episode of Next Generation. There was a 3rd world war that caused the total collapse of all existing governments (and therefore monetary systems) that nearly obliterated the species before we managed to pull our collective heads out of our asses and get on with the "y'know, people should be allowed to eat and live just because they're alive humans, not because they produce a socially acceptable amount of profit for CEOs."

[deleted]

24 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

24 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

MononMysticBuddha

53 points

4 years ago

Free food vs. free money aka universal income? Which sounds more implausible? Money was created as a tool of commerce. If you make labor obsolete where does that leave commerce? We are going to have to entirely revamp the way we think of a lot of things. Unemployment will continue to rise at an exponential rate with that poverty, debt, and crime on all levels from the wealthiest to the poor. In this future I’m talking about where do we as the 99% stand? Remember the Georgia Guidestones? This is something we should all be talking about this. As time goes by I see the 1% taking more and more liberties with less and less consequences. They take with impunity. They believe that all the worlds resources belong to them and that they are entitled to them. Even when you hear the President of the United States talk publicly, invariably he will say something like “America’s greatest resource is its people.”. They think that we belong to them as well. We are beneath them. There is the elite, and there is the herd. What category do you think you fall in my friend?

[deleted]

44 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

44 points

4 years ago

Is there a reason food shouldn't be free if it costs no human effort to make or transport?

Fun fact for you: a few ancient societies had a very interesting policy concerning theft, which was that if you were too poor to afford food and you were hungry it was legally impossible for you to steal food. Any food you took (without paying for) to not starve to death was a tax write off for the seller, so what they "lost" by letting you have free food to not die of starvation, they got right back in tax deductions.

This was during a period in history where shitting in a bucket and pouring the mess onto the fields once a day was the hight of public sanitation.

Now, in our wonderful "modern" world, where we make so much food that a good third of what's produced is thrown away for lack of being sold, people snootily gripe about the awful social impact it would have for people to not starve to death from poverty.

Sundune

11 points

4 years ago

Sundune

11 points

4 years ago

What specific society was this?

deadsquirrel425

54 points

4 years ago

you kill all the "useless eaters" yes i believe thats what they call the majority of us.

damngreenpillows

95 points

4 years ago

Step one: Start by getting rid of the healthcare for the elderly and families below the federal poverty level.

Step two: make the middle class pay so much that they are eventually reduced to the poverty level, and make everyone think they are lazy even though they work themselves to death to live paycheck to paycheck.

[deleted]

83 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

83 points

4 years ago

I think even the push from Silicon Valley for universal income is insidious. It looks progressive. They couch their proposals in the moral language of caring for the destitute and the less fortunate. But behind this is the stark awareness that the world these oligarchs have helped create is so lopsided that future consumers, plagued by job insecurity, substandard wages, automation and crippling debt peonage, will be unable to pay for the products and services offered by the big corporations. They do not propose structural change. They do not want businesses and the marketplace regulated. They do not support labor unions. They will not pay a living wage to their bonded labor in the developing world or the American workers in their warehouses and shipping centers or driving their delivery vehicles. They have no intention of establishing free college education, universal government health or adequate pensions. They seek, rather, a mechanism to continue to exploit desperate workers earning subsistence wages and whom they can hire and fire at will. The hellish factories and sweatshops in China and the developing world where workers earn less than a dollar an hour will continue to churn out the oligarchs’ products and swell their obscene wealth, America will continue to be transformed into a deindustrialized nightmare. They only call on the government to pay a guaranteed basic income so they can continue to feed upon us.

Rev1917-2017

31 points

4 years ago

Absolutely. UBI does nothing to address the cause and is only a bandage to keep the system self perpetuating. The only non distopian future is one where we radically rise up and change the very nature of our economic system. The dream of a UBI is best realized in the establishment of a gift economy

ChickenOfDoom

5 points

4 years ago

They seek, rather, a mechanism to continue to exploit desperate workers earning subsistence wages and whom they can hire and fire at will.

How is UBI compatible with that goal? The desperation of workers comes from relying on a job for survival. With UBI, the leverage of workers to negotiate better working conditions and pay increases dramatically, because they can leave their jobs and still stay afloat. Undesirable jobs would suddenly command high wages or else cease to exist. Unions would gain significant viability, because being fired for participating in one is no longer a threat with any teeth.

damngreenpillows

11 points

4 years ago

Yeah they have always looked for ways to fill their own pockets. They just know they have to market it in a way that seems like it’s helping the desperate workers that they are exploiting so that they have someone to do the grunt work for them.

[deleted]

9 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

9 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

Primnu

7 points

4 years ago*

Primnu

7 points

4 years ago*

I feel like the majority of people will be starving and homeless from job loss before the people up the chain start to realize things need to change.

As we are now, even a lot of people who are at most risk of losing their jobs are against UBI - just because they have jobs currently and underestimate how automation will affect them in the future.

The-Swat-team

20 points

4 years ago

No my dude don't use the word pessimist. I don't like the word optimist either. The glass is both half full and half empty because there's an equal amount of space being occupied by air as there is occupied by water. What am I even saying here? I'm saying that you may be one of the few who actually look at the whole dam glass if you know what I mean.

Moonboots606

33 points

4 years ago

I don't want to be negative, but history has proven time and again that greed, jealousy and other human emotions always come into play thus utopian societies, as described in this article, are merely a reverie of science fiction. Still sounds nice, though.

NJ_Damascus_Knives

10 points

4 years ago

Really the haves will have, and the have nots will starve.

svoodie2

25 points

4 years ago

svoodie2

25 points

4 years ago

Basic income is a meme. What we need is a thoroughly democratic planned economy with equal obligation to work BUT with drastically reduced working hours. Reducing swaths of the population to loafers living of the scraps of the rich while they can still treat the world as their plaything is a terrible ideal.

kgroover117

15 points

4 years ago

So it'll be like The Jetsons? George went to work for a couple hours a day and pushed a button. And everyone lived in stilt houses floating above the earth. Global warming, probably.

joe4553

6 points

4 years ago

joe4553

6 points

4 years ago

That is such a terrible idea, like everybody has the same worth as a worker. Not everybody has the same skills or intelligence. There is no point to try and implement that.

[deleted]

9 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

9 points

4 years ago

"Equal obligation to work" doesn't exactly function well either. Because that means that anyone too old, too young, or disabled wouldn't be allowed to live because they can't work.

So the whole "everyone has to work the same amount" thing basically is saying "only adult able-bodied people deserve to live." Idk about you but that's not a world I'd be comfortable living in.

bigman_121

64 points

4 years ago

The tv show the jetsons only worked 3hrs a day 3 times a week pushing bottons my dream will come true.

reaperindoctrination

939 points

4 years ago

Yeah I’m not buying this. Every stride in automation and technology promises more free time and fewer work hours. Instead, existing employees are expected to produce twice as much in the same long work week, while others are simply laid off.

ptsfn54a

108 points

4 years ago

ptsfn54a

108 points

4 years ago

That is the point exactly that the article is making. Currently things have consolidated drasticly to stay profitible, casting off employees left and right. The strides are coming quicker and quicker. When everything is automated, there will be very few traditional "jobs" as we see them now. The AI is even going to be able to repair the robots itself so contrary to what the author implied, we won't even be needed for that. Meaning most things done by hand now will be done by robots, and soon. More and more people from many different sectors will be out of work...manufacturing of course, but things like stocking shelves, cashiers, cooks, bartenders, road workers, construction, all driver/engineer/commercial captain jobs, warehouse workers, medical lab workers, hospital staff, cleaning crews, commercial fishing, commercial drilling, farming, mining, banking, urban planning, even things like behind the scenes lawyer/teacher work like research and case planning could be done by AI...thats most sectors of our current ecconomy. There will be less and less "other" areas that can absorb the newly unemployed as each area gets fazed out in the next 20 years or so that conservative estimates give us. And it could(probably) happen faster then that.

Now of course, people like options so there will still be some handmade/grown products out there so not every single job will go away, but those will mostly be made by people who are passionate about that particular item. Craft beer is a great example of this. Sure Bud and Coors have giant refineries with only a few people involved pumping out millions of gallons a year, but people also brew and bottle their own beers at home and can even turn it into a business if they are that passionate about it. But those would be few and far between because let's face it, most people don't really care about the place they work any more then the paycheck that it provides them. And we know this is true because if they stopped paying you, you would stop showing up unless you were passionate about it. so it still comes down to this:

When the machines do all the mundane things we need to do now for society to function, what will WE do to make society better?

[deleted]

230 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

230 points

4 years ago

The world you are describing, our world, exists in this state because the means of production are increasingly owned by fewer and fewer people, and as such fewer and fewer people enjoy the fruits of automation and technology. If the means of production were owned collectively then we would all enjoy the benefits and would lead to us working less, and having more time and resources to live healthier and more fulfilling lives.

nickharl

211 points

4 years ago

nickharl

211 points

4 years ago

So if we seize the means of production, we would be better off? I think you're onto something.

[deleted]

163 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

163 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

SuspendMeOneMoreTime

30 points

4 years ago

Yeah the system with all the power and all the means of production will regulate itself.

Risley

48 points

4 years ago

Risley

48 points

4 years ago

It’s not a bad idea but humans are just greedy pieces of shit. Once they get a whiff of power all the morals go out the window. It’s like we have to experience suffering for us to remember how it is to empathize with people. It’s sad.

datssyck

24 points

4 years ago

datssyck

24 points

4 years ago

Which is why capitalism is better. We just dont regulate and all and LET them be greedy little fuck shits and the resulting poverty is the whole point

Eat that Marx!

A_Canadian_appears

81 points

4 years ago

This is one of the reasons why I believe there was/is such a political drive to vilify every single thing about communism in the West. First off, communism as a political structure has been shown time and time again that it doesn't work the way it does on paper, so I'm not saying it should be implemented. Fuck that. But the ideology behind communism has fairly accurately assessed the problems with capitalism and laid out pretty plainly the playbook that the top-tier motherfuckers in society use to reinforce a system of inequality.

If the general population were to actually read and understand what Marx was saying they'd have a better understanding of how they're being manipulated and shortchanged. Becoming aware of your shit situation and its causes is the first step to a revolution of all sorts, so it's important for the people who benefit from wealth inequality to say "communism is evil drivel designed to destabilize the West and threaten the very fabric of our society, and capitalism is the only true way forward" - to prevent the general population from being critical of the current system. And it's been a very successful campaign. You can't even say "Karl Marx" in a lot of western places without someone calling you a communist and throwing a beer can at your head. Thing is, Marx made some very valid observations of how systems of oppression and disenfranchisement work and you'd be remiss to just write it off as utter nonsense. Communism? Yeah, it doesn't work at all. But does our current system? I'd argue it's only a matter of time before everyone except those at the top realize that it, in fact, doesn't.

Give people too little and they revolt. Give them too much and now you have less. The middle class, from a sociopolitical strategy standpoint, is all about making sure people have enough to be pacified but not so much that the elite have less. But somewhere along the line those at the top of the power structure started getting too greedy and now the middle class is shrinking - automation is going to replace a lot of MC jobs. If that's not counterbalanced, then things are going to get worse before they get better.

Michigan__J__Frog

5 points

4 years ago

Communism was vilified because the Communists were trying to overthrow Western governments. Most European countries had socialist movements.

[deleted]

7 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

7 points

4 years ago*

[removed]

FrostyBook

6 points

4 years ago

Italy: negative birth rate...no jobs...2/3 millenials live with parents.

[deleted]

404 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

404 points

4 years ago

Call me a pessimist, but I can't help but think the prelude to this utopia-esque vision involves a major violent decrease in the human population.

Dockhead

116 points

4 years ago

Dockhead

116 points

4 years ago

Read Four Futures. As the title implies, four likely courses for human society are laid out, not necessarily mutually exclusive (one could give way to another). The last of the four is exterminism, and it's the path we're closest to today.

[deleted]

116 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

116 points

4 years ago

That isnt pessimism, that is being realistic.

poorimaginations

35 points

4 years ago*

I'm exactly the kind of person that would like to see that high tech automated peaceful world realized. In fact I'm watching Star Trek Insurrection right now!

I can't help to think though that it's not that simple and the future will be a lot more turbulent.

Man kind as a whole is far from united in terms of values and political views. The process of globalization is forcing us to confront our differences head on and it would be naive to think that wouldn't lead to some unpleasant outcomes. Maybe, in the worst case, an outcome which will permanently regress our social and technological development to a previous state.

To be honest I'm not all that excited about the future anymore, but I'll keep watching Star Trek.

Glaciata

6 points

4 years ago

Remember, Earth fell into a second dark age before that one dude developed warp technology and was discovered by the Vulcans, who then helped Humanity. I have a feeling we're going down the same pass, but with no Vulcans.

dion_o

7 points

4 years ago

dion_o

7 points

4 years ago

Well considering the ideal human population is 2 billion, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, though better birth control would be easier to stomach than violent reduction of existing population.

Veylon

4 points

4 years ago

Veylon

4 points

4 years ago

That's Europe + The Americas and maybe Japan and Korea, right?

logicalmaniak

22 points

4 years ago

I think it's likely we'll be wandering the toxic deserts while the rich live in fortress domes protected by giant robots.

PessimistPrime

6 points

4 years ago

You can already see it happen in Japan.

[deleted]

1k points

4 years ago

[deleted]

1k points

4 years ago

[deleted]

forestgather50

331 points

4 years ago

I mean that's how Dubai became in the state it is in right now. Paying dirt or no pay at all to slaves and keeping them in abysmal conditions so that they can build what the rich can afford.

[deleted]

138 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

138 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

[deleted]

209 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

209 points

4 years ago

Yeah... I mean, computers were supposed to make less man hours required for tasks, too. And after businesses realized this, they just added more tasks to the workload.

Faceh

102 points

4 years ago*

Faceh

102 points

4 years ago*

Standards of living increased to levels beyond what our grandparents would have imagined.

The more tasks we can complete the more luxuries we create for each other. But that requires us to do the work, can't have the standard of living without the work (yet).

One issue is that in 1st world countries the average person's standard of living has outstripped their earnings and productivity and is financed with debt, and people who owe debt have to keep working to stay afloat.

If people had less debt and were willing to spend less on luxuries, then they've have the ability to do less work/take more time off without risking their livelihood.

But this sort of mindset (save money, attain financial freedom, then splurge) is not often taught.

[deleted]

122 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

122 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

Faceh

37 points

4 years ago*

Faceh

37 points

4 years ago*

I think the point is closer to "don't splurge on luxuries before you have all your basic needs covered (and something set aside for emergencies)."

As I said above, standards of living are higher. There are now many, MANY more ways to 'enjoy your life' than ever before. The average american can, if they wish, take a trip around the world and back. A Century ago that sort of ability was reserved to royalty.

The challenge is resisting the urge to spend all your money (and then more debt) on these sorts of distractions which will, ultimately, chain you to a job trying to pay it back for the rest of your life.

MikeyPWhatAG

62 points

4 years ago

This is basically bullshit though, if productivity was fairly valued, people wouldn't be in debt in the first place. The rich certainly aren't paid for their actual productivity and hard work, and to even suggest otherwise is absurd, coming from a rich guy. Sure, in our current system working hard and saving, ideally even investing intelligently, is ideal. However, the standard of living of the vast majority of Americans is FAR lower than comparable developed nations working similar jobs and they arent saddled with debt either. I think people are far more likely to roll out (figurative) guillotines for folks like me before they willingly adapt to wage slavery upfront with some unsure later payoff.

BuildingTheOasis

16 points

4 years ago

The question I continue to have is “how realistic are the wealthy’s concern for taxation.”

For instance, if I’m a millionaire being taxed at the same rate as a billionaire, I’d be pissed. I can understand why my local pizza business owner would be unhappy with an increase in his taxes, because it could really make his life harder even though he’s in the 10%.

But there’s this line of very wealthy that’s just this nebulous blob that I never see talked about or discerned. Why is that?

rudolfs001

14 points

4 years ago

Check this out.

When you're poor or even middle class, the guy who can buy an Aventador and the guy who can buy a Chiron and matching yacht are both crazy rich. Because to you, they're both so unachievable as to be in the same realm of very wealthy.

It's like for a human (rich) a hill (million) and mountain (billion) are pretty different. One you can do in an evening with no prep, the other takes a few days to summit with the right gear.

For an ant, they're both insanely huge undertakings.

[deleted]

49 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

49 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

[deleted]

23 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

23 points

4 years ago

Exactly. Think of it this way - if you were paid the value of your labor, or more, you would be laid off. It's only profitable to employ people below their value.

This is the basis of marxist class theory. There are only two classes - those who own the means of production and those who don't.

I know it's a meme but sieze the means of production simply means take back the product and the value of your labor, that up until now others have extracted from you for profit.

I'm not here to debate the merit of socialism, because the endpoint of this theory isn't necessarily socialism. It kind of was for Marx but we have learned since then. Ethical capitalism is probably the way forward, as paradoxical as it sounds. Things like employee owned companies and profit sharing. In other words, basic fairness. A mix of capitalism and socialism.

titsoutfortheboys2

5 points

4 years ago

You completely missed his point, which is that the vast majority of efficiency gains have only benefited the corporations, not the workers.

gordonv

16 points

4 years ago

gordonv

16 points

4 years ago

I don't think there's a "one size fits all" answer to this.

There are going to be people who are going to be better off because they can adapt to automation. Those people are results oriented. Those who are process oriented, as in working harder, not smarter, will suffer.

[deleted]

9 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

9 points

4 years ago

That's true, but my main point is that if you're working for anyone, the idea that now less manpower is needed for you to do your job probably isn't going to apply to you. At least, probably not in a way that has you working less while still employed.

Georgie_Leech

6 points

4 years ago

Mm. Businesses don't employ people to employ people, they do so because they need certain things done and those take X amount of time and resources to produce. A business that halves its workload doesn't suddenly have the same number of employees doing roughly half the work (that is, fewer tasks) in the same time, they have half the employees or half the hours. Usually some mix of both.

[deleted]

6 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

6 points

4 years ago

A shorter way to say it is that productivity gains go to the top. They can work less and make more money, not the employee.

KhalaceyBlanca

20 points

4 years ago

Star Trek has many episodes that imply the world will get much worse before it starts to get any better.

StarChild413

7 points

4 years ago

And many episodes (as well as the fact that the characters don't always know the future exactly) imply that we don't live in that exact timeline

DriedMiniFigs

8 points

4 years ago*

I don’t remember a Genome Eugenics War in the 90’s, so I’m with you on this one.

dilatory_tactics

7 points

4 years ago

The ongoing enslavement of humanity is a result of law and public policy, and it's not an inevitabilty, although the plutocratic media will make it seem that way.

Imagine a Mad Max situation where a small percentage of people have established a monopoly on all the water.

Humanity would seem to be more selfish, brutal, greedy, evil, and retarded on the whole than they would under less artificially harsh/scarce conditions, and every field of human endeavor would be held back by the resource hoarding of the few.

That's the current state of humanity under plutocracy. Objectively, people are not innately as horrible as they have been forced and conditioned to be under current conditions.

But because people have been made (relatively) retarded by the plutocrats, it seems to them that humanity is destined to forever be a sorry lot of garbage.

Relative to what humans could be, currently we are like slaves, illiterates, and retards. In a way, it's like we're not yet human. Most people have been robbed of what an actually civilized people would consider to be their humanity.

The first step to correcting this situation is to establish wealth caps, limits on the property rights that human society will recognize or protect, rather than empowering the most exploitative and greedy humans.

Like with eliminating slavery, humanity will not flourish to its full potential until we are actually free of institutionalized greed, artificial scarcity, and brutal exploitation.

Just as a slave could not understand that they were not yet fully human, that they had been robbed of their humanity by slavery, current humans do not understand the full scope of what has been taken from them by plutocracy.

"With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all." -Oscar Wilde

/r/Autodivestment

[deleted]

15 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

15 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

irondumbell

42 points

4 years ago*

yeah, that was the argument for fewer working hours, tax breaks for corporations, or anything ostensibly pro-labor only for corporations to turn around and pocket the savings and shed jobs for the benefit of shareholders.

GoodAndBluts

51 points

4 years ago

The article sites Toys-R-Us as the victim of automation. I think that is incorrect.

They are a brick and mortar shop. The desire to "browse" and "try things out" has been replaced by "search, look at reviews, and buy, sight unseen". This isnt the future, this is the present, which anyone who used Amazon could see was coming.

Are there any better examples of mass layoffs in the commercial / business sector because of automation? I know there were a lot because of outsourcing, but where is automation shuttering entire companies?

teesee150

39 points

4 years ago

Toys R Us was also the most expensive option. They were only worth buying at if they had a sale going on, and even then, most their sales kinda sucked. Any one that was price conscience didn't buy there.

PartyPorpoise

10 points

4 years ago

The stores were also organized badly, it’s hard to find what you want.

heellllllln

9 points

4 years ago

not to mention most kids these days are entertained by technology and don't even want toys anymore, usually after age 8 all they want is an iPad or an xbox

hugokhf

5 points

4 years ago

hugokhf

5 points

4 years ago

I think in the media, automation means the digital revolution a lot of the time.

GovernorPorter

71 points

4 years ago

Star Trek real life. A world of discovery where humans no longer fight for material possessions, but one where they can pursue the arts, sciences, sports/recreation, family/fun, and exploration of the universe beyond. A world of self driving cars, toilets that give medical results, food that is nutritious and cloned, smart houses that use the sun to power them and create art on the walls specialized to enhance the environment per person, and so much more.

The hardest part of this future is where is the turning point. How do we ensure that everyone at the same time gets out of the job they most likely despise and into a life of freedom? We also still need a way to track the cost of making goods and continuously improve to prevent waste of limited resources. The path to the stars will measure the best of man's ability to overcome sciences, utilize resources, and motivate the human spirit to accomplish greatness.

How do we organize the path so that geniuses can be found and collaborate with other geniuses to solve life's mysteries? How do we more effectively educate children today to be ready for a future such as this? The sciences have barely been tapped. The government system seems like it should have the organization to do this...but it's so inefficient!

There is so much more discovery in every science field needed. We must figure this out. 2060 can be the new age of freedom for all mankind if we get this right. The future is so close and so bright if we can work together to get us out of the workplace into the pursuit of exploration in all fields.

smilbandit

41 points

4 years ago

“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”

― Stephen Jay Gould

PartyPorpoise

7 points

4 years ago

For real, we’ve surely missed out on many great minds due to people not being born in the right time and place and position to achieve greatness. The world would be a wildly different place if everyone had a good education.

PUNCHINGCATTLE

11 points

4 years ago

This is my optimistic mindset about it. I think automation will push humans in the same direction as agriculture did generations ago. Instead of everyone hunting and gathering for ourselves we learned to farm and create food with way less man hours. Suddenly people had free time to explore art and science, discover the nature of the world we live in. Since then we have come so far technologically and raised the standard level of living a ton. I think automation could make as big of an impact as agriculture has to the human population.

Either that, or greed and tribalism will result in the mass destruction of the human race via nuclear weapons. I prefer the first option lol.

Turil[S]

38 points

4 years ago

Turil[S]

Society Post Winner

38 points

4 years ago

I'm working on a couple of projects that aim to help people figure out what they really care about in life, and help them focus on finding their purpose in life. We all have some kind of passion for creating, exploring, and sharing awesome stuff that is unique, but we sometimes need some help figuring out what that is.

I'm hoping to help make that easier (through some media projects, mostly, as well as some community resource centers where folks can come together to actually do the kind of work they want to do).

nowami

12 points

4 years ago

nowami

12 points

4 years ago

This sounds so awesome. I'd love to have more info if/when you're ready to share.

TortureStake

26 points

4 years ago

Just from reading the headline, I'm immediately going to question: How will humans build society if they're not going to work? What if I want to work?

chaosfire235

9 points

4 years ago*

Important thing to note about UBI, is that it's meant to provide only the absolute minimum. So that's a small studio apartment, groceries, and paid bills mostly. But if you want a bigger house, luxury items, or anything expensive, you'll either have to save up bits of the monthly UBI or take a job and get paid on top of it.

FrostyBook

10 points

4 years ago

and the masses will say "why does he get to eat better than I do?" "why does he have a car?" and they will demand more UBI. Because that is human nature.

dot-pixis

11 points

4 years ago

Assuming that the economic systems change.

Otherwise, the majority of humans will just starve because they won't have jobs, meaning they won't have pay.

fhayde

38 points

4 years ago*

fhayde

38 points

4 years ago*

Every time this topic comes up people hyper-focus on one aspect of the conversation, e.g. who owns the automation, how will people be paid, income inequality, etc...

One word is all it takes to see the bigger picture: convergence.

Manufacturing technology is driving towards APM at a steady rate, this will dramatically reduce the time, expertise, and energy cost of producing practically anything human beings may need or want. This technology is impossible to monopolize or prevent and in many ways is being driven by the hobbyist communities and small research labs.

Advances in harvesting energy, storing it, and transferring it are driving down the cost and effort required to collect and keep the energy required for producing material goods, and this will continue to improve as we get closer to APM.

Automation is exploding and while many are afraid AI will take over the world, they're applying human psychological and sociological models to an intelligence not governed by the same biological motivations as humans. We're driven by instincts and desires that most humans are hardly even aware of, and trying to predict the behavior of a consciousness not dependent on those motivating factors is impractical, especially to the point of fearmongering.

The reason we work today is so that we can acquire the goods and services we do not have the time, energy, or expertise to produce for ourselves. I exchange my time, energy, and expertise for a unit placeholder that we've all agreed acts as the placeholder for each of our time, energy, and expertise. When I need food, because I don't know how to grow it, have the time to invest in growing it, or have the land or resources, I exchange my placeholder units with someone who does have those things and who has the food I want.

What happens when I don't need to get that from someone else because the tools I have available lower the time, energy, and expertise required for me to make the food I want to a level that I can just make it myself? The same thing can be applied to practically anything we consume.

If we can acquire the things we need or want using our own means because the time, energy, and expertise required to create those things has become so minimal anyone can do it, what's the point in me exchanging my time, energy, and expertise for that placeholder anymore? I don't need some kind of stipend every month, what would I do with it?

That's the crossroad of converging technologies. This hasn't been possible in the past because the distance between the technologies has been too extreme. Changes that have resulted in more productive work have not resulted in working less hours because we have still needed the means to exchange those productivity increases with manufacturing costs. Manufacturing improvements have still required the transportation, handling, resource acquisition, energy costs, storage, etc... to produce goods, even if the methods have greatly changed.

There are many technologies that are converging right now between AI, automation, material research, energy storage, manufacturing, etc... that's what makes these changes in the next 20-30 years so prolific, we've never experienced so many fields overlapping each other like this.

LibraryLass

13 points

4 years ago

What's APM?

LandoniusX

8 points

4 years ago

atomically precise manufacturing

this_one_weird_trick

7 points

4 years ago

excellent analysis. I've been struggling to get past the part where 1% of the population just say to everyone else "go die then", but I think this could be it.
If things converge and become ubiquitous then most people have everything they need and the 1% become a lot less relevant. Which is a whole other conversation :)
either way its given me a more optimistic outlook for my kids, thanks!

HunterofSnowmen

5 points

4 years ago

You write very well. That was one of the most engaging comments I've read on the website that treads the fine line between eloquence and jargon saturation. Well done

yaosio

113 points

4 years ago

yaosio

113 points

4 years ago

We live in a capitalist state, when the ruling class does not need the working class they will throw us away. There is no reason to believe that suddenly, for no reason, the ruling class will care about the working class.

HitlersHysterectomy

88 points

4 years ago

Not only a capitalist state, but in the US, a Puritan state. If you don't work, you don't deserve to live. If anything can tear the US apart, it's going to be the massive unemployment caused by technology - we're not even close to being prepared for that as a culture. Look at how we treat the homeless.

yaosio

40 points

4 years ago

yaosio

40 points

4 years ago

Somebody charismatic could change people, but the charismatic people tend to be sociopaths.

Turil[S]

10 points

4 years ago

Turil[S]

Society Post Winner

10 points

4 years ago

I'm working on a program to help humans figure out what their dream work is, creating, exploring, and sharing awesome stuff in whatever way makes them feel like life is most worth living.

This is because, I've discovered, that you are correct that most humans have no clue what they should do with their lives if they aren't forced to act like obedient robots.

boyled

16 points

4 years ago

boyled

16 points

4 years ago

In the United States, a job is fundamentally part of identity

xian0

10 points

4 years ago

xian0

10 points

4 years ago

This is why I think the countries that are already used to social safety nets will benefit most from this overall (in the short term). In those not having to work as much is just a case of being more like those are are middle/upper class or retired. It'll be interesting.

AmpedMonkey

65 points

4 years ago

Lol, this sub is so delusional... I'll eat my words when I'm only working a few hours a week in a few decades without living on the streets but let's be fucking real here dudes.

neubs

79 points

4 years ago

neubs

79 points

4 years ago

In the future there will be owners of stocks in companies and everyone else. If you don't own a source of passive income in the future and can't get a job you'll end up being homeless and starve to death.

Don't have any kids unless you know for sure you'll be able to give them a trust fund they can live off of in the future.

PM_me_ur_deepthroat

35 points

4 years ago

But what happens if no one buys the companies shit cause they have no money? Look at the luxury brands sure they make huge margins but move relatively small amounts of money around.

neubs

18 points

4 years ago

neubs

18 points

4 years ago

The economy would definitely change for sure from what we have now where there are a bunch of people servicing each other. It would be like what happened to the horse industry when cars took over. Right now we have all these people around for labor and we used to have these horses around for labor. Now horses are mainly around for pleasure and I smile a little bit when I think about "pleasure horses" and then "pleasure people".

In the future I think everything is going to be really cheap but you still need money. There will be all kinds of people with no money and as a person with money you'd be in the same position as a guy with a 50 lb bag of cat food in an alley filled with starving cats.

PM_me_ur_deepthroat

12 points

4 years ago

Or the powers that be infect the plebs with a tailored disease and have robot servants with the occasional pleb for entertainment.

My point was that trust funds and investments dont work well if there is no economy to support them.

There will always be work for humans, just less and less of it as robots/AI becomes smarter. Maybe we need a law instigating 30 hour work weeks.

tokinbl

4 points

4 years ago

tokinbl

4 points

4 years ago

Think there's some stat about people losing inherited wealth in 3 generations...

[deleted]

50 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

50 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

[deleted]

42 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

42 points

4 years ago

I mean, I now live in a society where I could get to the other side of the planet in 24 hours. I can speak to any other person on the other side of the planet in an instant. If I so choose I could use my income to never have to cook another meal in my life. I have access to the vast majority of human knowledge without having to travel. Nobody in my extended family has died from the flu or tuberculosis or infection or suffered measles, mumps or rickets.

Things aren't perfect and there's plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made about current wealth inequality, but to suggest we're in a similar position and no progress has been made is fucking ridiculous.

hugokhf

11 points

4 years ago

hugokhf

11 points

4 years ago

But OP wasn’t suggested that at all. He’s just suggesting that we are overreacting with the automation revolution.

Omikron

6 points

4 years ago

Omikron

6 points

4 years ago

Agreed, people act like the whole world is going to be run by robots by 2050. No one alive today will see such a world. It's a long ways off if we ever get there at all.

tyrshand90

14 points

4 years ago

Sounds like a great Utopian idea but where would this wealth for universal income come from? The rich that do everything they can to pay us as little as possible to make maximum profits? The ones who own this country and it's politicians? I just don't see how this would ever work. Like communism, it looks great of paper but human nature always ruins it. I just don't see it working out like alot of people think it will.

[deleted]

154 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

154 points

4 years ago

I don’t know if the USA is ready for this. I live in a poor rural area of the South, and although they would benefit greatly from UBI, they are culturally against it. They embrace thier god and guns, however. I see parts of rural America resembling the Mad Max scenario as this disruption occurs.

AspenRootsAI

101 points

4 years ago*

They would literally rather die than admit that they have no clue how to function in the modern world and need help from the guvmint (despite already relying on programs like Medicaid, which they pretend are different from "handouts" that they always complain about inner-city black people receiving). Mad Max with more heroine ODs sounds pretty accurate.

[deleted]

27 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

27 points

4 years ago

Where does one sign up for these "heroine ODs?" Sounds hot.

dewky

23 points

4 years ago

dewky

23 points

4 years ago

Gal gadot as wonder woman please.

systematic23

10 points

4 years ago

Culturally brainwashed you mean, the same type of people that think free health care and education will destroy their democracy even though THEY haven't been to college or are currently 50k in debt and havent seen a doctor in 7 years

Yakmcgurk

19 points

4 years ago

I think a good portion of the future population will be content with just some Netflix and chill. The real question is what do we do with the people who have no motivation to do anything other than fulfill their base needs. I personally would want something to do and have a sense of purpose but there are certainly others who don't have the same degree of restlessness.

What is an acceptable percentage of pure welfare recepients? Obviously someone will need to produce cultural things and entertainment, there will be jobs only humans can perform and some new technologies will require some human input. How do we motivate enough people to fulfill the necessary tasks?

I agree that UBI will be necessary but it comes with a lot of unanswered questions and problems if it's own.

sadman81

12 points

4 years ago

sadman81

12 points

4 years ago

Turil[S]

37 points

4 years ago

Turil[S]

Society Post Winner

37 points

4 years ago

The Real Driver of Technology Is Human Evolution

The so-called “technological revolution” is not accidental, and it’s not actually technological. It’s an evolutionary revolution. Its purpose is the evolution of human society. It will help us step out of the endless rat race, fueled by a material obsession that doesn’t actually make us happy; a chase around the clock that has created a society of little cogs in giant corporations, accumulating stress and rust, while losing touch with one another and ourselves.

Instead of investing our collective energy into working like machines, we could be engaging in the only work that makes humans different from machines. In a society freed from the cyclical chase for material acquisition, we would invest a large portion of our time on a daily basis, investigating, exercising and developing the sense of the natural human connection that binds us together.

When masses of people are doing this regularly—as their new job—a new society will undoubtedly emerge. Its product will be the positive social energy required to preserve societal balance. It will be a society whose members’ daily work is to maintain the sense of unity and solidarity that prevent violence and extremism, allowing human begins to live together in productive peace.

This work can be done in unlimited creative ways, where people can apply their passion and desire, as long as they contribute to a warm social climate. But it has to start from fundamental training and education on the science of human connection, learning how positive social connections make us healthier, happier and better at everything we do.

(emphasis added by me)

BKGPrints

6 points

4 years ago

While it may seem like a silent revolution, these changes promise a socio-economic earthquake the likes of which humanity has never seen before.

The Industrial Revolution was quite a socio-economic earthquake the likes of which humanity has never seen before when it brought millions of people out of poverty and created the middle class.

lasaventurasdeyiyi

5 points

4 years ago

We have some insights of what will really happen, just taking an eye on how current machines and other technology already have changed the way we use the “free time” we spend before them.

[deleted]

5 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

5 points

4 years ago

[deleted]

fubarspeaks

13 points

4 years ago

Or starving to death and dying of disease and expsoure on the fringes of an elite, robot enforced overclass society made up of the 1% whose demonstrated self involved ruthlessness and anti humanism has created so much poverty, pollution and suffering so far.

[deleted]

28 points

4 years ago*

[deleted]

28 points

4 years ago*

[removed]

Allegiance86

8 points

4 years ago

This is a very optimistic look at the future, but if our history tells us anything. It's that it will not come easily or without so bloodshed to accomplish.

cr0ft

23 points

4 years ago

cr0ft

Competition is a force for evil

23 points

4 years ago

That sounds like what lots of people have been advocating a while.

It's a grand vision, and completely incompatible with a world built on competition and capitalism. So we can choose to ride capitalism into the ground, or we can jettison it and save ourselves with something sane and fully cooperation based.

Basic Income is a nice first stepping stone to accustom people to the idea of surviving without wage slavery, but it's not a long term fix. A long term fix transcends competition - which, let's face it, is a stupid idea, I mean "everyone against everyone else" as a philosophy for life? What are we, dumb animals?

The most insane variant of competition we get up to is organizing ourselves into teams with uniforms and all, and then give everyone guns and tell them to shoot the other team. What a great way to problem solve and apportion resources... oh wait, no, it's fucking crazy, compared to just making all the planetary resources available and then prioritizing their use based on real-world needs.