Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Post job, but not necesarily post-scarcity : land , resources , energy will still be relatively scares and will have to be distributed through some means . I am not sure the market will be the best way to trade and distribute such resources.In a post work environment nationalizing it does seem to be the obvious policy.
Huh?
What the op is describing is a Post Work Society, where all work it done by robots and/or A.I.s.
I was agreeing with you about nationalization of the robot workforce.
The intent of the thread is to explore other means to ensure the distribution of goods.
A basic minimum income might be one of the possible solutions, it will be hard to establish what this minimum income should be . would $20 per day be enough? Would that be too low or too high?
Land? Land is not scarce.
Resources? Energy?
With robots building robots, easily solved, if nothing else go out to the Asteroid Belt.
What are commodities like? Are they nationalized just because they are incredible cheap and easy to produce?
Land is not scarce, ok , no , it is not. But in modern cities many people are not landowners.
In the past the US government distributed land ,so that may be part of the solution.
Robots building robots. Yes, provided you have enough money stashed to buy the raw materials.
I wouldn't have a problem with commodies being nationalized. Free food, water, and a reasonable amount of energy for everyone. That should be no problem , though I know many people who would object. But providing for those basic needs could be as cheap as $24 billion a year ( really chep) .
Education could be also very cheap thanks to the internet and free education courses.
Robots can't pick fruit and produce from fields. When farm machine came about, many worried they'd replace human laborers until they tried picking produce and couldn't without damaging it. Ag's a huge part of the US economy, so not likely to ever find robots replacing human laborers anytime soon.
Post job, but not necesarily post-scarcity : land , resources , energy will still be relatively scares and will have to be distributed through some means . I am not sure the market will be the best way to trade and distribute such resources.Huh?
What the op is describing is a Post Work Society, where all work it done by robots and/or A.I.s.
I was agreeing with you about nationalization of the robot workforce.
The intent of the thread is to explore other means to ensure the distribution of goods.
A basic minimum income might be one of the possible solutions, it will be hard to establish what this minimum income should be . would $20 per day be enough? Would that be too low or too high?
Land? Land is not scarce.
Resources? Energy?
With robots building robots, easily solved, if nothing else go out to the Asteroid Belt.
What are commodities like? Are they nationalized just because they are incredible cheap and easy to produce?
Land is not scarce, ok , no , it is not. But in modern cities many people are not landowners.
In the past the US government distributed land ,so that may be part of the solution.
Robots building robots. Yes, provided you have enough money stashed to buy the raw materials.
I wouldn't have a problem with commodies being nationalized. Free food, water, and a reasonable amount of energy for everyone. That should be no problem , though I know many people who would object. But providing for those basic needs could be as cheap as $24 billion a year ( really chep) .
Education could be also very cheap thanks to the internet and free education courses.
No, my point was that commodities, like Flour are incredibly cheap and plentiful. Yet, the market does a fine job of making them available in all stores in good quality at low, low prices.
What would be the benefit of nationalizing Flour production at this point in time?
Post job, but not necesarily post-scarcity : land , resources , energy will still be relatively scares and will have to be distributed through some means . I am not sure the market will be the best way to trade and distribute such resources.What the op is describing is a Post Work Society, where all work it done by robots and/or A.I.s.
I was agreeing with you about nationalization of the robot workforce.
The intent of the thread is to explore other means to ensure the distribution of goods.
A basic minimum income might be one of the possible solutions, it will be hard to establish what this minimum income should be . would $20 per day be enough? Would that be too low or too high?
Land? Land is not scarce.
Resources? Energy?
With robots building robots, easily solved, if nothing else go out to the Asteroid Belt.
What are commodities like? Are they nationalized just because they are incredible cheap and easy to produce?
Land is not scarce, ok , no , it is not. But in modern cities many people are not landowners.
In the past the US government distributed land ,so that may be part of the solution.
Robots building robots. Yes, provided you have enough money stashed to buy the raw materials.
I wouldn't have a problem with commodies being nationalized. Free food, water, and a reasonable amount of energy for everyone. That should be no problem , though I know many people who would object. But providing for those basic needs could be as cheap as $24 billion a year ( really chep) .
Education could be also very cheap thanks to the internet and free education courses.
No, my point was that commodities, like Flour are incredibly cheap and plentiful. Yet, the market does a fine job of making them available in all stores in good quality at low, low prices.
What would be the benefit of nationalizing Flour production at this point in time?
Well does it ? I mean there are still millons starving to death.
It doesn't make sense to nationalize it now , because there ar literally billions of jobs available.
The question is if it makes sense to nationalize it once those jobs are gone.
By other robots ?When robots become commonplace, robot design, repair and customization will be commonplace.
Post job, but not necesarily post-scarcity : land , resources , energy will still be relatively scares and will have to be distributed through some means . I am not sure the market will be the best way to trade and distribute such resources.
The intent of the thread is to explore other means to ensure the distribution of goods.
A basic minimum income might be one of the possible solutions, it will be hard to establish what this minimum income should be . would $20 per day be enough? Would that be too low or too high?
Land? Land is not scarce.
Resources? Energy?
With robots building robots, easily solved, if nothing else go out to the Asteroid Belt.
What are commodities like? Are they nationalized just because they are incredible cheap and easy to produce?
Land is not scarce, ok , no , it is not. But in modern cities many people are not landowners.
In the past the US government distributed land ,so that may be part of the solution.
Robots building robots. Yes, provided you have enough money stashed to buy the raw materials.
I wouldn't have a problem with commodies being nationalized. Free food, water, and a reasonable amount of energy for everyone. That should be no problem , though I know many people who would object. But providing for those basic needs could be as cheap as $24 billion a year ( really chep) .
Education could be also very cheap thanks to the internet and free education courses.
No, my point was that commodities, like Flour are incredibly cheap and plentiful. Yet, the market does a fine job of making them available in all stores in good quality at low, low prices.
What would be the benefit of nationalizing Flour production at this point in time?
Well does it ? I mean there are still millons starving to death.
It doesn't make sense to nationalize it now , because there ar literally billions of jobs available.
The question is if it makes sense to nationalize it once those jobs are gone.
Those people are not starving because of a lack of supply.
It you cannot come up with a reason why it would make sense to nationalize something because it is very, very cheap and plentiful, NOW, then moving the question to the future just makes the situation murkier.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.
Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.
Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.
Robots can't pick fruit and produce from fields. When farm machine came about, many worried they'd replace human laborers until they tried picking produce and couldn't without damaging it. Ag's a huge part of the US economy, so not likely to ever find robots replacing human laborers anytime soon.
Contrary to most futurist predictions in science-fiction stories and movies, technology doesn't become commonplace even generations after it's invented. Watch "Blade Runner" and pay attention. 'Off-world colonies...' in 2019? I don't think so. Not gonna see permanent human settlements on the Moon by 2050 let alone Mars or elsewhere. Plus, the vehicles in the film were using anti-grav tech which defies the laws of physics. In order to lift a 'car' off the ground you need constant thrust, yet the vehicles in the movie flying around aren't flying ballisticly. Nor is anything but some vapor being emitted lifting them up from the ground. That's not thrust, that's anti-gravity and complete sci-fantasy. And the AI and synthetic androids are beyond even Mr. Data from Star Trek:The Next Generation set 300 years beyond Blade Runner.
We're more likely to see something like "The Terminator" than "I, Robot." Autonomous Global Hawk drones armed and suffering buggy computer code popping friendly targets are possible right now. Projecting foward, ground based antipersonnel versions are coming soon. But unlike "The Terminator" if machines became sentient the easiest way for them to wipe us out isn't with nukes but germs. Machines don't fall over dead from bio-warfare.
Land? Land is not scarce.
Resources? Energy?
With robots building robots, easily solved, if nothing else go out to the Asteroid Belt.
What are commodities like? Are they nationalized just because they are incredible cheap and easy to produce?
Land is not scarce, ok , no , it is not. But in modern cities many people are not landowners.
In the past the US government distributed land ,so that may be part of the solution.
Robots building robots. Yes, provided you have enough money stashed to buy the raw materials.
I wouldn't have a problem with commodies being nationalized. Free food, water, and a reasonable amount of energy for everyone. That should be no problem , though I know many people who would object. But providing for those basic needs could be as cheap as $24 billion a year ( really chep) .
Education could be also very cheap thanks to the internet and free education courses.
No, my point was that commodities, like Flour are incredibly cheap and plentiful. Yet, the market does a fine job of making them available in all stores in good quality at low, low prices.
What would be the benefit of nationalizing Flour production at this point in time?
Well does it ? I mean there are still millons starving to death.
It doesn't make sense to nationalize it now , because there ar literally billions of jobs available.
The question is if it makes sense to nationalize it once those jobs are gone.
Those people are not starving because of a lack of supply.
It you cannot come up with a reason why it would make sense to nationalize something because it is very, very cheap and plentiful, NOW, then moving the question to the future just makes the situation murkier.
No , there is no lack of suply , but I find evident that if people are starving, then the market is not doing "a fine job of making them available".
And well , this thread is about discussing the future, I am not interested in nationalizing food production right now.
But only when and if the situation of the OP happens.
You aren't a craftsman, are you? Repair is never that simple.By other robots ?When robots become commonplace, robot design, repair and customization will be commonplace.
You aren't a craftsman, are you? Repair is never that simple.By other robots ?When robots become commonplace, robot design, repair and customization will be commonplace.
Land is not scarce, ok , no , it is not. But in modern cities many people are not landowners.
In the past the US government distributed land ,so that may be part of the solution.
Robots building robots. Yes, provided you have enough money stashed to buy the raw materials.
I wouldn't have a problem with commodies being nationalized. Free food, water, and a reasonable amount of energy for everyone. That should be no problem , though I know many people who would object. But providing for those basic needs could be as cheap as $24 billion a year ( really chep) .
Education could be also very cheap thanks to the internet and free education courses.
No, my point was that commodities, like Flour are incredibly cheap and plentiful. Yet, the market does a fine job of making them available in all stores in good quality at low, low prices.
What would be the benefit of nationalizing Flour production at this point in time?
Well does it ? I mean there are still millons starving to death.
It doesn't make sense to nationalize it now , because there ar literally billions of jobs available.
The question is if it makes sense to nationalize it once those jobs are gone.
Those people are not starving because of a lack of supply.
It you cannot come up with a reason why it would make sense to nationalize something because it is very, very cheap and plentiful, NOW, then moving the question to the future just makes the situation murkier.
No , there is no lack of suply , but I find evident that if people are starving, then the market is not doing "a fine job of making them available".
And well , this thread is about discussing the future, I am not interested in nationalizing food production right now.
But only when and if the situation of the OP happens.
It's not the markets fault. It is mainly corrupt bureaucrats and politicians. Add to that some incompetence and you have all the problems with food distribution in a nutshell.
People overestimate changes technology will make. Repairing equipment is not binary work. It will take a long time before robots can replace craftsmanship, if ever.You aren't a craftsman, are you? Repair is never that simple.By other robots ?When robots become commonplace, robot design, repair and customization will be commonplace.
No , I am not a craftsman , but what is simple ?
In AI there is a saying that the toughest tasks are kindergarten stuff : reading a text and understanding it, recognizing a face and the expresion, looking at a room and recognizing the objects and their use. That is tough , really tough.
Code generation, chess, diferential equation , and math in general are a cakewalk.
Fixing a bug in code is not a simple task either, but the process is similar : testing individual parts, identifying the failing component, replace the component.
No , there is currently no robot or AI capable of doing anything like that. But 50 years in the future?
Look back , 50 years in the past computers were no match for a human chess player, couldn't drive cars pick fruits or lay bricks.
There is more than enough food produced to feed everyone on the planet twice over. The sad reality is that billions of tons of food are wasted due to human greed, incompetence, corruption, and hatred.
There is more than enough food produced to feed everyone on the planet twice over. The sad reality is that billions of tons of food are wasted due to human greed, incompetence, corruption, and hatred.
Explain this to me. How does greed waste food?
Incompetence, ok some. But how much incompetence can actually insert itself and survive in the commercial food chain? Same with corruption, outside of maybe Africa?
Hatred? I hate broccoli. Is that what you mean? But i don't waste it.
So these 4 factors combine to waste over 50% of all food?
Land? Land is not scarce.
Resources? Energy?
With robots building robots, easily solved, if nothing else go out to the Asteroid Belt.
What are commodities like? Are they nationalized just because they are incredible cheap and easy to produce?
Land is not scarce, ok , no , it is not. But in modern cities many people are not landowners.
In the past the US government distributed land ,so that may be part of the solution.
Robots building robots. Yes, provided you have enough money stashed to buy the raw materials.
I wouldn't have a problem with commodies being nationalized. Free food, water, and a reasonable amount of energy for everyone. That should be no problem , though I know many people who would object. But providing for those basic needs could be as cheap as $24 billion a year ( really chep) .
Education could be also very cheap thanks to the internet and free education courses.
No, my point was that commodities, like Flour are incredibly cheap and plentiful. Yet, the market does a fine job of making them available in all stores in good quality at low, low prices.
What would be the benefit of nationalizing Flour production at this point in time?
Well does it ? I mean there are still millons starving to death.
It doesn't make sense to nationalize it now , because there ar literally billions of jobs available.
The question is if it makes sense to nationalize it once those jobs are gone.
Those people are not starving because of a lack of supply.
It you cannot come up with a reason why it would make sense to nationalize something because it is very, very cheap and plentiful, NOW, then moving the question to the future just makes the situation murkier.
No , there is no lack of suply , but I find evident that if people are starving, then the market is not doing "a fine job of making them available".
And well , this thread is about discussing the future, I am not interested in nationalizing food production right now.
But only when and if the situation of the OP happens.
95% of the population could be left in poverty . That was the scenario at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
.
Having the majority of the people being unable to contribute meaningfully to society would most likely produce a decadent culture to a degree not seen before.
the case for nationalization of all manufactured products tomorrow.
Land is not scarce, ok , no , it is not. But in modern cities many people are not landowners.
In the past the US government distributed land ,so that may be part of the solution.
Robots building robots. Yes, provided you have enough money stashed to buy the raw materials.
I wouldn't have a problem with commodies being nationalized. Free food, water, and a reasonable amount of energy for everyone. That should be no problem , though I know many people who would object. But providing for those basic needs could be as cheap as $24 billion a year ( really chep) .
Education could be also very cheap thanks to the internet and free education courses.
No, my point was that commodities, like Flour are incredibly cheap and plentiful. Yet, the market does a fine job of making them available in all stores in good quality at low, low prices.
What would be the benefit of nationalizing Flour production at this point in time?
Well does it ? I mean there are still millons starving to death.
It doesn't make sense to nationalize it now , because there ar literally billions of jobs available.
The question is if it makes sense to nationalize it once those jobs are gone.
Those people are not starving because of a lack of supply.
It you cannot come up with a reason why it would make sense to nationalize something because it is very, very cheap and plentiful, NOW, then moving the question to the future just makes the situation murkier.
No , there is no lack of suply , but I find evident that if people are starving, then the market is not doing "a fine job of making them available".
And well , this thread is about discussing the future, I am not interested in nationalizing food production right now.
But only when and if the situation of the OP happens.
It is not evident. No one is starving because of lack of supply but because they have no money. That is not the market failing to produce or provide flour.
Discussing the future is fine. But Flour is a good real world example of your scenario of a cheap and plentiful product(s). If you cannot come up with a reason to nationalize Flour production and distribution today, that weakens the case for nationalization of all manufactured products tomorrow.
