# Lifestyles & Discussion > Science & Technology >  A world without work is coming  it could be utopia or it could be hell

## Anti Federalist

The future that does not need us.


*A world without work is coming  it could be utopia or it could be hell*

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...abour-obsolete

Ryan Avent

Robots will eventually do all our jobs, but we need to start planning to avert social collapse

Monday 19 September 2016 01.00 EDT

Most of us have wondered what we might do if we didnt need to work  if we woke up one morning to discover we had won the lottery, say. We entertain ourselves with visions of multiple homes, trips around the world or the players we would sign after buying Arsenal. For many of us, the most tantalising aspect of such visions is the freedom it would bring: to do what one wants, when one wants and how one wants.

But imagine how that vision might change if such freedom were extended to everyone. Some day, probably not in our lifetimes but perhaps not long after, machines will be able to do most of the tasks that people can. At that point, a truly workless world should be possible. If everyone, not just the rich, had robots at their beck and call, then such powerful technology would free them from the need to submit to the realities of the market to put food on the table.

Of course, we then have to figure out what to do not only with ourselves but with one another. Just as a lottery cheque does not free the winner from the shackles of the human condition, all-purpose machine intelligence will not magically allow us all to get along. And what is especially tricky about a world without work is that we must begin building the social institutions to survive it long before the technological obsolescence of human workers actually arrives.

Despite impressive progress in robotics and machine intelligence, those of us alive today can expect to keep on labouring until retirement. But while Star Trek-style replicators and robot nannies remain generations away, the digital revolution is nonetheless beginning to wreak havoc. Economists and politicians have puzzled over the struggles workers have experienced in recent decades: the pitiful rate of growth in wages, rising inequality, and the growing flow of national income to profits and rents rather than pay cheques. The primary culprit is technology. The digital revolution has helped supercharge globalisation, automated routine jobs, and allowed small teams of highly skilled workers to manage tasks that once required scores of people. The result has been a glut of labour that economies have struggled to digest.

Labour markets have coped the only way they are able: workers needing jobs have little option but to accept dismally low wages. Bosses shrug and use people to do jobs that could, if necessary, be done by machines. Big retailers and delivery firms feel less pressure to turn their warehouses over to robots when there are long queues of people willing to move boxes around for low pay. Law offices put off plans to invest in sophisticated document scanning and analysis technology because legal assistants are a dime a dozen. People continue to staff checkout counters when machines would often, if not always, be just as good. Ironically, the first symptoms of a dawning era of technological abundance are to be found in the growth of low-wage, low-productivity employment. And this mess starts to reveal just how tricky the construction of a workless world will be. The most difficult challenge posed by an economic revolution is not how to come up with the magical new technologies in the first place; it is how to reshape society so that the technologies can be put to good use while also keeping the great mass of workers satisfied with their lot in life. So far, we are failing.

Preparing for a world without work means grappling with the roles work plays in society, and finding potential substitutes. First and foremost, we rely on work to distribute purchasing power: to give us the dough to buy our bread. Eventually, in our distant Star Trek future, we might get rid of money and prices altogether, as soaring productivity allows society to provide people with all they need at near-zero cost.

For a good while longer, wages will continue to be the main way people come by money, and prices will be needed to ration access to scarce goods and services. But in the absence of any broader social change, pushing people out of work will simply redirect the flow of income from workers to firm-owners: the rich will get richer. Freeing people from work without social collapse will therefore require society to find ways other than pay for labour to channel money to those not on the job. People might come to receive more of their income in the form of state-led redistribution: through the payment of a basic income, for instance, or direct public provision of services such as education, healthcare and housing. Or, perhaps, everyone could be given a capital allotment at birth.

These sorts of arrangements dont magically materialise as machines become more powerful. They must be brought into existence through political action. And thats where things start to get complicated. One problem is that large-scale social overhaul takes a long time to emerge and have an effect. Another is that money for nothing is not necessarily what the displaced masses are interested in.

Ongoing political debates illustrate the problem. There are lots of ways a government could boost workers pay. It could raise the minimum wage, increase wage subsidies, enact a basic income, or use more heavy-handed regulation to protect industries and force firms to share more of their profits with labourers. Tellingly, workers and trade unions seem least interested in the policies, such as a basic income, that break the link between compensation and work. This makes the building of our eventual utopia tricky; a hefty rise in the minimum wage would benefit lots of workers, but it would also discourage some firms from using the cheap labour they have been soaking up, forcing the jobless to get along in a world in which they cannot find work yet also lack the monetary means to stay out of poverty.

Workers preferences are easy to understand. Work is not just a means for distributing purchasing power. It is also among the most important sources of identity and purpose in individuals lives. If the role of work in society is to shrink, other sources of purpose and identity will need to grow. Some people will manage to find these things for themselves: pursuing passions too uneconomic to live on or engaging in voluntarism, just as many retirees find satisfying ways to fill their days. But others will find themselves at a loss.

Workers are sure to feel uncomfortable with reforms designed to clear a path to their own economic irrelevance. They are not the only ones likely to object. Redistribution implies taking as well as giving. And while some tech entrepreneurs seem to be warming to the idea of something like a universal basic income, perhaps seeing it as a moral licence to disrupt, the reservoir of resentment at those perceived to be getting too good a deal from the government never runs dry. Rich Americans are already annoyed enough at the takers among their countrymen, those Mitt Romney labelled an incorrigible 47% in his 2012 campaign for the presidency, who pay no federal income tax  even though most work, pay other taxes, and are simply too poor to owe any income tax to the federal government. The haves who will inevitably provide a disproportionate share of the funding for future welfare states will need convincing to part with their cash.

So societies might decide that people must be made to contribute in some way to the community to qualify for state support. Those not in work, for example, might have to participate in community service or other activity. Another approach might be more seductive. Those still in work might be less grumpy about funding a more generous welfare state if beneficiaries are deemed to be enough like them: fellow tribesmen, people of similar background and therefore felt to be deserving of charity.

Around the rich world, it is interesting to note that it is not so much the generosity of state redistribution that is provoking societal unrest, but the fact that out groups  from Latinos to Poles to refugees are grabbing a share.

Building a workless utopia in which wealth is broadly shared, people are mostly satisfied with their lot in life, and the peace isnt kept by excluding any inconvenient foreigners, is no easy task. The grappling has already begun, and the initial rounds of negotiation are more than a little discouraging. Two centuries from now, I am confident, we will have worked everything out splendidly. Assuming, that is, that those of us alive now can manage the first painful steps without wrecking the world in the process.

----------


## angelatc

Smart money is on hell

----------


## Origanalist

There will never be a wold without work.

----------


## timosman

You can always contribute by selling your organs.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

Wife and I have talked about this in relation to negative taxation.  It has been happening for decades and goes against your intuition of working hard and making your own wealth, but software has been taking over skilled labor and automation has been taking over unskilled labor.  Microsoft Office has replaced millions of administrative assistant jobs.  Manpower to manufacture an automobile is a small fraction of what it used to be.

Personally, when I purchase movie tickets or a get fast food, I prefer using a kiosk.  It provides a quicker, more accurate transaction.  If we end up with $15/hour minimum wage, fast food restaurants will probably lay-off 50%-80% of the minimum wage workforce.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

I think hell or utopia is largely up to us. Just imagine the earth only had a billion people with even our current technology. Land would be 7 times more abundant, there woudl be none of this worry of fish depletion, or save the rhinos, or concerns about CO2 emissions,or factory farms or draining the aquifers, etc... etcc..... etc...... In large part all that leisure the people of early last century dreamed of has been absorbed by a constant barrage of new mouths to feed. Israel spent Billions building desalination plants for example, money that could have gone to something other than subsisting if the demands for water weren't constantly growing.  

So we have like 7 Billion people now, imagine we achieve major advances in AI, robotics, solar efficiency/cost, battery tech, etc.... If we add an additional 7 billion, it'll do $#@! all for quality of life for most compared to today, as the strain to supply all those new mouths with the mere ability to exist will be enormous, and those people won't be pondering solutions to physics problems or looking for cures for diseases, they'll be living in poverty pondering their next meal while finger $#@!ing their useless in comparison iphone 20.

I know, people like to think the earth is infinite, but it's not. Technology has allowed us to expand several fold over what we could without it, but nothing is free, and you being taxed at stupid high rates, or living in a $#@!ty apartment,or your water supply having pesticides, drugs or whatnot is largely because of to many $#@!ing people. 


Yeah, yeah, yeah... I can hear it already. Malthusian. But facts are facts. We are utilizing resources already faster than their replacement rate. World population is still growing..... Billions still live in poverty even with all the technology created and applied in the last 100 years. Nope, sorry, to many people sucks up resources that could be applied to useful advances, leisure, education, or quality of life. 


So, what's a government to do!!! Can't let the children starve!, guess we'll have to take control for the good of all!! Only by utilizing every single scrap of available land and resources in a centrally controlled efficient manner can we keep them all alive!!!


We breed to much.. that's the hell, we figure out something that could make life easier, and then increase the population until we hit another resource limit creating more misery essentially cancelling the good effect.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

It would not be utopia, that is for sure.  The temperament that civilization is tied to and which its continued existence is utterly dependent upon is all tied up in the proclivity to work, and work very hard.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> We breed too much..


Who is "we," kemo-sabe?  Europe figured out the secret -- Europe has been breeding slower than the rate of economic growth for about 500 years.  Where did you think the modern world came from?  Things like The Modern World don't just grow on trees.  It takes hundreds of years of hard -- very hard -- work, and self-control.

Every civilization figures this out.  That's how they rise and become a civilization, using all their excess wealth to make things nice.  The Romans had indoor plumbing, nice warm baths in fact, and elaborate aqueduct systems.  Another two to four hundred years of Golden Age and maybe there could have been Romans on the Moon.  But civilizations never seem to get quite that long. 

They quickly collapse from their own decadence.  *Just a little window, just one moment in time, to play and dream and create*.  Then, the historians have an eternity to reconstruct it.  Once there _are_ historians again, that is.  This time there's no new band of promising never-been-through-a-collapse barbarians who could pick up the torch in several hundred years.  Which means this time, if things go wrong enough, it could be thousands of years before we escape Malthus again.

May we shine brightly while we can.

----------


## The Gold Standard

Wherever scarcity exists, work will exist. And a world where government exists to steal society's productivity will always have scarcity. A world without work, and therefore without scarcity and government, could be a utopia. But it won't happen anytime soon.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

> Who is "we," kemo-sabe?  Europe figured out the secret -- Europe has been breeding slower than the rate of economic growth for about 500 years.  Where did you think the modern world came from?  Things like The Modern World don't just grow on trees.  It takes hundreds of years of hard -- very hard -- work, and self-control.
> 
> Every civilization figures this out.  That's how they rise and become a civilization, using all their excess wealth to make things nice.  The Romans had indoor plumbing, nice warm baths in fact, and elaborate aqueduct systems.  Another two to four hundred years of Golden Age and maybe there could have been Romans on the Moon.  But civilizations never seem to get quite that long. 
> 
> They quickly collapse from their own decadence.  *Just a little window, just one moment in time, to play and dream and create*.  Then, the historians have an eternity to reconstruct it.  Once there _are_ historians again, that is.  This time there's no new band of promising never-been-through-a-collapse barbarians who could pick up the torch in several hundred years.  Which means this time, if things go wrong enough, it could be thousands of years before we escape Malthus again.
> 
> May we shine brightly while we can.


We as in humanity as a whole. If the horde can get there, they will come eventually. So, it sort of doesn't matter what is done. They'll come no matter the risk, once the wealth difference is enough. So, measuring global population growth versus resource availability is the only real way to look at the situation. No nation can institute measures to stop the migration, as really you'd have to have a militarized border and shoot on sight to prevent incomers, and that would lead to outrage from all other countries. Again, we (humanity) breed to much.

We need Elysium!!! or Huge star ships! or ....... $#@! it, I don't care, I'll be dead in 40 years.

----------


## angelatc

> It would not be utopia, that is for sure.  The temperament that civilization is tied to and which its continued existence is utterly dependent upon is all tied up in the proclivity to work, and work very hard.



Absolutely.  Some of us might take up gardening or woodworking as a hobby, but a lot more of us will start to drink (and worse).   Idle hands are the devil's tools.

----------


## angelatc

> We breed to much.. .


No we don't.  When we breed too much, nature will thin us out.  Until then, history indicates that, globally speaking, the bigger the population the better the quality of life

----------


## jllundqu

Interesting thought experiment:

I read an article on the future of robotics and automation, etc.  At some point (in theory) they will replace 100% human labor.  But just think about the halfway point.  *Imagine what the world would be like when just 50% of mostly low wage labor is replaced by robotics and automation*.  It's already starting!  We are fast approaching driverless cars, pilotless commercial air travel, drone boats and shipping, drone trucking/shipping... it doesn't take that much imagination to see where it goes.  Humanity will be faced with some serious problems... especially when we develop robots that can repair and upgrade themselves (not even roboticists will find work!)  We will be left with a super rich elite who will 'decide' how much $$$ we get to live on and under what conditions.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

> No we don't.  When we breed too much, nature will thin us out.  Until then, history indicates that, globally speaking, the bigger the population the better the quality of life


Nature thins us out, means mass starvation. LOL. Do you really want to use that as the limiter........

Science and Technology leads to a better quality of life, population then spikes up to consume all that new potential until it hits a new limit. You have it backwards. The population did not surge then we discovered agriculture. It's we got fairly good at farming then bred like rabbits.

----------


## angelatc

> Nature thins us out, means mass starvation. LOL. Do you really want to use that as the limiter.........


As opposed to allowing other humans to make the decision for us?  Abso-$#@!ing-lutely.  And history also proves that as wealth increases, people start to naturally have less children.

Once again, can't believe I'm reading this claptrap on Ron Paul Forums.  Liberty - you're doing it wrong.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> that would lead to outrage from all other countries.


Oh no, not that.  Perish the thought that anyone might get outraged when the stakes are saving civilization itself.  Anything but outrage.  Please, please, don't be outraged at me.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

> As opposed to allowing other humans to make the decision for us?  Abso-$#@!ing-lutely.  And history also proves that as wealth increases, people start to naturally have less children.
> 
> Once again, can't believe I'm reading this claptrap on Ron Paul Forums.  Liberty - you're doing it wrong.


Where did I say I'd prevent people from breeding? You make things up. I lament the stupidity of breeding oneself into poverty. I'm against drug use personally, though i think people should be free to $#@! themselves with them if they want. See, I can allow what I personally find repugnant. 


My view is, we should stop all immigration forever except in the case of exceptional candidates or the end of the welfare state. No foreign aid. Seeing this country LOVES welfare, I don't see that happening, nor do I see us stopping importation of unneeded additional population. I also don't see us instituting any real border control. So, my conclusion is this country will slowly devolve like it has been doing.

I'm expressing my disdain for people having kids they can't take care of, then running to a wealthier country and pleading for "help" or even demanding it, and dragging it down.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

> Oh no, not that.  Perish the thought that anyone might get outraged when the stakes are saving civilization itself.  Anything but outrage.  Please, please, don't be outraged at me.


Snarky is Snarky. I figured you would be able to abstract out the consequence of the whole world being against 1 country. 

Trade cut, conflict, direct war, undermining interests, etc.... There would be real costs.

----------


## muh_roads

The only jobs that will go away are the service sector.  Except for a few staff to monitor the automation.

----------


## PierzStyx

Better than worse. People who are able to work because they want to do this thing will be happier than ever before. Civilization- architecture, art, literature, science, philosophy, religion, etc.- only come about because people are freed from having to work and therefore can pioneer new ideas and experiences. There is no reason to think that would be different in the future.

The real danger is AI.

----------


## PierzStyx

> As opposed to allowing other humans to make the decision for us?  Abso-$#@!ing-lutely.  And history also proves that as wealth increases, people start to naturally have less children.
> 
> Once again, can't believe I'm reading this claptrap on Ron Paul Forums.  Liberty - you're doing it wrong.


Yep. People have more babies because those babies die because of malnutrition or illness and for hands to work the farm. Rich industrial nations have smaller populations because none of those reasons apply anymore. Thanks to technology.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> There would be real costs.


Oh no, not that.  Not real costs.  I thought for sure we'd be able to do what no other civilization has ever been able to do -- prevent its own wealth-fueled collapse -- with the greatest of ease and no real costs whatsoever.

If now you are saying there are going to be real costs, wow, count me out.  Or at least count you out.  Right?

----------


## TheTexan

Why wait a lifetime for that ?

Bernie 2016 !!

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

> Oh no, not that.  Not real costs.  I thought for sure we'd be able to do what no other civilization has ever been able to do -- prevent its own wealth-fueled collapse -- with the greatest of ease and no real costs whatsoever.
> 
> If now you are saying there are going to be real costs, wow, count me out.  Or at least count you out.  Right?


Wow, the snark is strong in you. 

I'm an outlier, probably represent a fraction of a percent of the population, it's not me you need to convince it's most of the remaining population.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Better than worse. People who are able to work because they want to do this thing will be happier than ever before. Civilization- architecture, art, literature, science, philosophy, religion, etc.- only come about because people are freed from having to work and therefore can pioneer new ideas and experiences. There is no reason to think that would be different in the future.
> 
> The real danger is AI.


Agreed.  The more toil, the smaller the labor supply for Big Thinking.  Robots can't science.  They can't compose pieces of music or produce pieces of art which touch your heart.  They can't design aesthetically pleasing cityscapes.  Human labor will transition further from need to closer to want, and beyond.  Just as it has from the time humanity innovated the first tool.

----------


## CaptUSA

Ok, perhaps I can halt this thread with some basic economics.

Human wants are unlimited.

Therefore, there will always be work.  Unless you can create a machine to invalidate that one simple law of nature, this will NEVER happen.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Wow, the snark is strong in you.


 LOL, I'm just giving you a hard time.  

And in so doing also trying to make a point: civilization really is worth saving.  It's worth some effort and some sacrifice (and some reading!) to save it!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Ok, perhaps I can halt this thread with some basic economics.
> 
> Human wants are unlimited.
> 
> Therefore, there will always be work.  Unless you can create a machine to invalidate that one simple law of nature, this will NEVER happen.


To play devil's advocate, that's not what is at question ITT.  What's at question is who - or _what_ - will perform that work; and then of course what will become of the humans who are presumably priced out of the labor market as a result.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Agreed.  The more toil, the smaller the labor supply for Big Thinking.  Robots can't science.  They can't compose pieces of music or produce pieces of art which touch your heart.  They can't design aesthetically pleasing cityscapes.


 Mmmmmm.... yet.  If in the future they can, will you support equal rights for them?




> Human labor will transition further from need to closer to want, and beyond.  Just as it has from the time humanity innovated the first tool.


History is not an uninterrupted march of progress.  It is short, brilliant flashes punctuating long, boring periods where nothing much happens.  Those short, brilliant flashes are where everything interesting happens, is discovered, is invented, is created,... and then is forgotten again.

History


The flashes are not inevitable.  What's (almost) inevitable is the flat-line, the Malthusian trap.  It is not inevitable that the flashes keep happening.

----------


## CaptUSA

> To play devil's advocate, that's not what is at question ITT.  What's at question is who - or _what_ - will perform that work; and then of course what will become of the humans who are presumably priced out of the labor market as a result.


Ah, but it IS what's at question.  Because we will always want something else.  And no machine can anticipate what that will be.  And yes, we may gain efficiencies in making things, but there will always be new products and services that people will want.  And as long as that holds true, there will be other people who will work to meet those wants.  

You can't just look at one side of the equation like this.  If you told someone 300 years ago that you could get all of your food and drink in a 15 minute trip to the store, they'd probably wonder where they'd get the money or what the hell they'd do with all of their time.  And yet, human nature always finds a way.  Because we all want something else.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Every civilization figures this out. That's how they rise and become a civilization, using all their excess wealth to make things nice. The Romans had indoor plumbing, nice warm baths in fact, and elaborate aqueduct systems. Another two to four hundred years of Golden Age and maybe there could have been Romans on the Moon. But civilizations never seem to get quite that long.


The eastern roman Empire lasted until 1453 AD. Over a thousand years after Western Rome fell. Yet the East was just as "decadent" as the West.  Wasn't "barbarian" attacks either. The East had plenty of those. So what was the difference? Nothing really. Immigration certainly wasn't the issue. They just decided to live by the sword and eventually they died by it. Same as everyone else who thinks the sword is what gets things accomplished.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Mmmmmm.... yet.  If in the future they can, will you support equal rights for them?
> 
> 
> History is not an uninterrupted march of progress.  It is short, brilliant flashes punctuating long, boring periods where nothing much happens.  Those short, brilliant flashes are where everything interesting happens, is discovered, is invented, is created,... and then is forgotten again.
> 
> 
> The flashes are not inevitable.  What's (almost) inevitable is the flat-line, the Malthusian trap.  It is not inevitable that the flashes keep happening.


You must not know much about history then. The complexity and richness of history is incredible.

----------


## dannno

> Human wants are unlimited.
> 
> Therefore, there will always be work.  Unless you can create a machine to invalidate that one simple law of nature, this will NEVER happen.


Yep, somebody is always going to want a massage, or want you to take care of something for them, or sex. 

Men wanted sex so bad they built these huge monumental monstrosities, temples of mass consumerism for women called malls..



..and we still aren't getting laid enough

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The eastern roman Empire lasted until 1453 AD. Over a thousand years after Western Rome fell.


  Yes!  Ha-HA!  You are actually thinking about this stuff!

My day at RPF is a success.




> So what was the difference?


 The people there, in the East Empire, had already been through a civilizational collapse.  Thus, they had "S" -- a genetic component that gives resistance (actually total immunity, as far as I can tell from history) to catastrophic civilizational collapses.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You must not know much about history then.


 That is certainly true!




> The complexity and richness of history is incredible.


 That is certainly true as well!

Neither of those facts contradicts my point of view.

----------


## misterx

Who will keep the robots running? Or will we have robots for that too?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Europe figured out the secret -- Europe has been breeding slower than the rate of economic growth for about 500 years.  Where did you think the modern world came from?  Things like The Modern World don't just grow on trees.  It takes hundreds of years of hard -- very hard -- work, and self-control.


Population Growth, 1500 - 1900:
--China: 185M to 400M (216% increase)
--France: 16.5M to 28.9M (235% increase)

GDP Growth, 1500 - 1870:
--China: $61.8 billion to $189.7 billion (306%)
--France: $10.9 billion to $72.1 billion (661%)

----------


## Republicanguy

Yes Yes Yes!!

----------


## PierzStyx

> Yes!  Ha-HA!  You are actually thinking about this stuff!
> 
> 
> 
>  The people there, in the East Empire, had already been through a civilizational collapse.  Thus, they had "S" -- a genetic component that gives resistance (actually total immunity, as far as I can tell from history) to catastrophic civilizational collapses.



I teach this stuff.

And which civilization collapsed? The Greeks? That was more of a decline, mostly to the constant degradation of war. This is what killed the Eastern Romans as well, ultimately.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I teach this stuff.
> 
> And which civilization collapsed? The Greeks? That was more of a decline, mostly to the constant degradation of war. This is what killed the Eastern Romans as well, ultimately.


No no, it was PC bro. Totally PC. 

....it all want downhill when they started referring to the barbarians as the "differently bathed."

----------


## PierzStyx

> No no, it was PC bro. Totally PC. 
> 
> ....it all want downhill when they started referring to the barbarians as the "differently bathed."


The word barbarian comes from the Greeks making fun of people who spoke a different language than them. It sounded like they said "bar bar bar." Hence BAR-BAR-ians.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Interesting thought experiment:
> 
> I read an article on the future of robotics and automation, etc.  At some point (in theory) they will replace 100% human labor.  But just think about the halfway point.  *Imagine what the world would be like when just 50% of mostly low wage labor is replaced by robotics and automation*.  It's already starting!  We are fast approaching driverless cars, pilotless commercial air travel, drone boats and shipping, drone trucking/shipping... it doesn't take that much imagination to see where it goes.  Humanity will be faced with some serious problems... especially when we develop robots that can repair and upgrade themselves (not even roboticists will find work!)  We will be left with a super rich elite who will 'decide' how much $$$ we get to live on and under what conditions.


An even worse possibility:

A future where, having been determined to be threat to ourselves and the environment, AI decides that the only way in which to keep restless humanity in check is by inventing a never ending series of drudgery and chores, that with life extension technologies, means even death is not an escape.

The future is fail.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Population Growth, 1500 - 1900:
> --China: 185M to 400M (216% increase)
> --France: 16.5M to 28.9M (235% increase)
> 
> GDP Growth, 1500 - 1870:
> --China: $61.8 billion to $189.7 billion (306%)
> --France: $10.9 billion to $72.1 billion (661%)


Did I say that Europe was the _only_ civilization, either currently or historically?  No, of course I did _not_.  Did I say that they have been breeding slower than the rate of economic growth for about 500 years?  Yes, yes I did.

China's civilization has been around a long, long time, and it will be around for a long, long time more.  China's civilization is resistant to collapse -- already happened thousands of years ago; they're immunized.  Sadly, China's civilization also is highly non-creative and uninteresting: it has not done anything interesting for a thousand years, and is not likely to do anything interesting in the next thousand.  The "S" factor cuts off the catastropic lows, but also the brilliant highs.

----------


## Ender

> You must not know much about history then. The complexity and richness of history is incredible.


Absolutely.

I am a history buff and totally amazed at how little most "educated" people really know about real history.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I teach this stuff.


 Well good.  You should read Biohistory!  It's short.




> And which civilization collapsed? The Greeks?


 Well the Greeks did collapse(ish), or they were in the middle of doing so and would have, but that was cut short, softened, and cushioned by being subsumed into the Roman civilization.  But I was talking about**: Babylon, Persia, and on and on, all these middle-eastern civs going all the way back to Sumeria.  The Eastern Empire denizens were (and are) their descendants.  They had "S" -- the Stability factor.  They had had it for a loooong time.  Thus, the Eastern Empire never reached the greatest heights -- all the really cool stuff was done in the West -- and they also never collapsed at all.  The Empire as a polity ended, sure, but who cares, life continued on, meet the new boss, same as the old.  There was no collapse.  Just like India was occupied by England for a while (and before that everybody else who came along, one by one).  But India never collapsed.  Well, they did: once.  You only get to collapse once.  Their really creative, interesting civ catastropically collapsed.  You only get to have one brilliant, creative, disruptive civ.

----------


## CaptUSA

> An even worse possibility:
> 
> A future where, having been determined to be threat to ourselves and the environment, AI decides that the only way in which to keep restless humanity in check is by inventing a never ending series of drudgery and chores, that with life extension technologies, means even death is not an escape.
> 
> The future is fail.


So basically, the future is like marriage?

----------


## Ender

> Well good.  You should read Biohistory!  It's short.
> 
>  Well the Greeks did collapse(ish), or they were in the middle of doing so and would have, but that was cut short, softened, and cushioned by being subsumed into the Roman civilization.  But I was talking about**: Babylon, Persia, and on and on, all these middle-eastern civs going all the way back to Sumeria.  The Eastern Empire denizens were (and are) their descendants.  They had "S" -- the Stability factor.  They had had it for a loooong time.  Thus, the Eastern Empire never reached the greatest heights -- all the really cool stuff was done in the West -- and they also never collapsed at all.  The Empire as a polity ended, sure, but who cares, life continued on, meet the new boss, same as the old.  There was no collapse.  Just like India was occupied by England for a while (and before that everybody else who came along, one by one).  But India never collapsed.  Well, they did: once.  You only get to collapse once.  Their really creative, interesting civ catastropically collapsed.  You only get to have one brilliant, creative, disruptive civ.


The Ottoman Empire was incredibly strong, intelligent, inventive, and artistic.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The Ottoman Empire was incredibly inventive.


Disagree.  Everything's relative.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The word barbarian comes from the Greeks making fun of people who spoke a different language than them. It sounded like they said "bar bar bar." Hence BAR-BAR-ians.


Yes, I know. 

I was making a joke Pierz.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Did I say that Europe was the _only_ civilization, either currently or historically?  No, of course I did _not_.  Did I say that they have been breeding slower than the rate of economic growth for about 500 years?  Yes, yes I did.


You appeared to be implying that the origins of Europe's success (relative other civilizations) lay in its breeding habits. 

That Europeans had more "self-control" as it relates to reproduction.

That's not the case, given the data I posted. Europeans (French, in any event) bred faster than Chinamen.

European success was a result of higher rates of economic growth, not lower rates of population growth.

----------


## farreri

Have fewer children.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You appeared to be implying that the origins of Europe's success (relative other civilizations) lay in its breeding habits.


 Well, that was not what I said, and I'm glad now you understand me correctly.  Maybe.

----------


## Danke

> I teach this stuff.
> 
> And which civilization collapsed? The Greeks? That was more of a decline, mostly to the constant degradation of war. This is what killed the Eastern Romans as well, ultimately.


 Since when did they start teaching history in nursery school? 






/kidding

----------


## osan

Author makes some valid points, but also assumes too much in some cases.  I am sick as a dog at the moment and therefore in no mood to do the play by play.  You're all able to pick it apart anyhow.

I will never eat at Q'doba (or however the hell you spell it) again.  Don't ask for details, for you would become ill as well.

This, too, shall pass.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So basically, the future is like marriage?


LOL Ouch... 

I honestly would not know...I am happily married and miss my wife and children *very* much while away from them.

You'd think being on the tip of the spear of whole ways of life being rendered null and void (seafaring being the world's second oldest profession) I'd look forward to being jobless, but I'm not.

Humans measure their self worth by the work they accomplish.

----------


## Anti Federalist

@donnay

----------


## CaptUSA

> LOL Ouch... 
> 
> I honestly would not know...I am happily married and miss my wife and children *very* much while away from them.
> 
> You'd think being on the tip of the spear of whole ways of life being rendered null and void (seafaring being the world's second oldest profession) I'd look forward to being jobless, but I'm not.
> 
> Humans measure their self worth by the work they accomplish.




Just a nice little joke this evening.    (besides, if my wife participated in these forums, I'm sure I'd say the same thing.)

Back on topic, though.  I still maintain that technology is a net positive and will contribute to more freedom.  We just gotta keep government out of the way.  But for every job lost to technology, another 1.1 is created somewhere else - it's just not that easy to see because it didn't exist before.  I'm an optimist by nature - the future is bright.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Author makes some valid points, but also assumes too much in some cases.  I am sick as a dog at the moment and therefore in no mood to do the play by play.  You're all able to pick it apart anyhow.
> 
> I will never eat at Q'doba (or however the hell you spell it) again.  Don't ask for details, for you would become ill as well.
> 
> This, too, shall pass.


Sounds furren.

Will steer clear.

----------


## Danke

> LOL Ouch... 
> 
> I honestly would not know...I am happily married and miss my wife and children *very* much while away from them.
> 
> You'd think being on the tip of the spear of whole ways of life being rendered null and void (seafaring being the world's second oldest profession) I'd look forward to being jobless, but I'm not.
> 
> Humans measure their self worth by the work they accomplish.


 Don't you also miss your "boys" when you are at home?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Just a nice little joke this evening.    (besides, if my wife participated in these forums, I'm sure I'd say the same thing.)
> 
> Back on topic, though.  I still maintain that technology is a net positive and will contribute to more freedom.  We just gotta keep government out of the way.  But for every job lost to technology, another 1.1 is created somewhere else - it's just not that easy to see because it didn't exist before.  *I'm an optimist by nature - the future is bright.*

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Just a nice little joke this evening.    (besides, if my wife participated in these forums, I'm sure I'd say the same thing.)
> 
> Back on topic, though.  I still maintain that technology is a net positive and will contribute to more freedom.  We just gotta keep government out of the way.  But for every job lost to technology, another 1.1 is created somewhere else - it's just not that easy to see because it didn't exist before.  *I'm an optimist by nature - the future is bright.*

----------


## DamianTV

Just reading the headline, I would say HELL because too many Banks and Corporations will continue to demand money from people, and the people do not have the power to print money as banks do.

And for the record, a world without work already exists, albeit not for everyone.  The rich already think of us as disposable human robots.

----------


## donnay

> LOL Ouch... 
> 
> I honestly would not know...I am happily married and miss my wife and children *very* much while away from them.
> 
> You'd think being on the tip of the spear of whole ways of life being rendered null and void (seafaring being the world's second oldest profession) I'd look forward to being jobless, but I'm not.
> 
> Humans measure their self worth by the work they accomplish.



Good save,  

Maybe if CaptUSA didn't have such a NEGATIVE outlook his future could be brighter.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Just a nice little joke this evening.    (besides, if my wife participated in these forums, I'm sure I'd say the same thing.)
> 
> Back on topic, though.  I still maintain that technology is a net positive and will contribute to more freedom.  We just gotta keep government out of the way.  But for every job lost to technology, another 1.1 is created somewhere else - it's just not that easy to see because it didn't exist before.  *I'm an optimist by nature - the future is bright.*

----------


## timosman

> Just a nice little joke this evening.    (besides, if my wife participated in these forums, I'm sure I'd say the same thing.)
> 
> Back on topic, though.  I still maintain that technology is a net positive and will contribute to more freedom.  We just gotta keep government out of the way.  But for every job lost to technology, another 1.1 is created somewhere else - it's just not that easy to see because it didn't exist before.  I'm an optimist by nature - the future is bright.


The progress is being made! Don't you live better than 16 years ago?

----------


## CaptUSA

> The progress is being made! Don't you live better than 16 years ago?


I live better than I did 16 _minutes_ ago!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

n/m, AF beat me to it.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Good save


Not a "save".

I mean it.

----------


## donnay

> Not a "save".
> 
> I mean it.


I know you do.

----------


## timosman

> Humans measure their self worth by the work they accomplish.


Some measure by the work they avoid doing. Have somebody else sweat. Work smarter not harder.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I need to add: *Marriage is awesome!*

The marriage jokes people tell, for the most part I frankly don't relate to.  CaptUSA, at least yours was funny!   But I think maybe people are doing it wrong, if there's that much conflict and disharmony in their marriages.  There's no need for that!  Find someone good, and then relax and live life!  We humans are _naturally_ good at getting along, it's a built-in skill, just let it happen and don't mess it up by selfishness or trying to change the other person.

So anyway, *go build a happy marriage and you will be doing a big part, making a very big contribution, to saving civilization.*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Who will keep the robots running? Or will we have robots for that too?


Robots and robots (and turtles), all the way down.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Well the Greeks did collapse(ish), or they were in the middle of doing so and would have, but that was cut short, softened, and cushioned by being subsumed into the Roman civilization.  
> 
> *Considering the Romans just became knock-off Greeks, Greek civilization didn't go anywhere.*
> 
> But I was talking about**: Babylon, Persia, and on and on, all these middle-eastern civs going all the way back to Sumeria. 
> 
> *You mean some of the oldest civilizations in history? Civilization was invented in four places: Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus River Valley, and China on the Yangtze.*
> 
>  The Eastern Empire denizens were (and are) their descendants.  They had "S" -- the Stability factor.  They had had it for a loooong time.  Thus, the Eastern Empire never reached the greatest heights -- all the really cool stuff was done in the West -- 
> ...


Response sin bold.

----------


## Ender

Get rid of The Matrix and let men live as they choose.

"WORK" is a POV- the American Dream is a hoax forced on citizens to make them compliant factory workers.

Not the "work" or world I want.

----------


## donnay

> Get rid of The Matrix and let men live as they choose.
> 
> "WORK" is a POV- the American Dream is a hoax forced on citizens to make them compliant factory workers.
> 
> Not the "work" or world I want.


Amen.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Relevant (from olden times):

Here is an interesting video:




It actually is very interesting.  I liked seeing all the robots and technological progress.  I have always been of the mind that there will always be plenty of jobs, because there will always be plenty of human desires.  And so someone has to fulfill those desires.

And that's true as far as it goes.

But I was listening to an episode of the Tom Woods Show recently where he talks about how in the last days of the Roman Republic there were returning soldiers who came back after years of far-flung campaigns and found their fields ruined and useless, and so they had to sell their land.  They went into the cities to find work, but there had to compete against slaves and they couldn't, for the most part.  They couldn't find any productive work.  And so you got this restless, discontented mass of landless, jobless, rootless men.  It caused big problems and led to the downfall of Rome -- the end of the Republic and the formation of the Empire.  Every good historian has to have a theory about why Rome fell, and so now we know Tom's.  And it's a pretty good theory.  I found it interesting.

And so then when I ran across this video, I actually watched it, and thought of it in light of Tom's commentary on the unemployable hordes of Rome.  Hmmm.

Here's the Tom Woods episode.  Starting at 20:50.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Response sin bold.


Yes, it is a sin to not respond properly.

Seriously, you make it hard for people to take you, well, seriously, by not learning the basic (really basic!) communication protocols of the medium you're attempting to communicate in.

Don't make me give you a condescending tutorial.  Even though you seem to have lately decided you now disagree with me on everything, I still like you too much for that.  Step it up.




> Considering the Romans just became knock-off Greeks, Greek civilization didn't go anywhere.


  Oh!!

Really?

That must be why I wrote exactly that.




> You mean some of the oldest civilizations in history? Civilization was invented in four places: Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus River Valley, and China on the Yangtze.


 _Yes_, Pierz, those _are_ the ones I mean!  Imagine that.  That's why I typed their names.  You seem to be just full of historical Trivial Pursuit cards.  At least, a limited number of them, and just itching for any hook to throw them out there.  Could you tell me what "barbarian" means again?  And where did the word "Eureka!" come from?  I'm sure this random nugget-dropping pedagogical technique is a hit with the kids and makes them duly and properly impressed.




> I'm pretty sure you don't know much about Eastern history to say this.


 I already admitted to not knowing a lot about history.  So if you want to slam my credibility, I already handed you the gun.  It is my belief that history is much too big a place for any of us to know very much about it, percentage-wise.  I don't even know very much about the present!  But, maybe that's just my own shortcoming and weakness and others really _do_ know a large proportion of it, and so that's why I just stick to saying that _I_ don't know much history.  Maybe _you_ very well might, and if so good for you!




> For example, the Code of Justinian, the legal code developed by Eastern Emperor Justinian I, became a foundational legal code for Eastern and Western Europe as well as North Africa and the Middle East.


 Uh huh.  And upon what was _it_ based?




> True. There was some conflict but Islam is ultimately more tolerant of Christianity than Christianity is of Islam.


 Thank you for the anti-Christianity infomercial.  Can't let any opp pass for one of those, now can we?




> Actually, India has only be conquered a handful of times throughout history. Sections of northern India sometimes got hit, but the whole of India was only ever ruled by outsiders a very small number of times. Indian civilization and culture is one of the oldest and continuous in the world.


 India was ruled by a whole succession of foreigners.  And they did not particularly care.  For a while there every two-bit conquestor in the region and those surrounding easily took and ruled India for a while.  Oh, no, no, no, only _northern_ India you say?  Oh, you mean the only part anyone cared about?  So unless you go bother the Tamils it doesn't count?  Well, any excuse to tell yourself that I'm wrong, I suppose.




> You only get to collapse once.  You only get to have one brilliant, creative, disruptive civ.
> 			
> 		
> 
> This is completely not true.


 Example to the contrary then?  I'm always willing -- and hopeful! -- to be challenged competently.  And I always will re-think and change my views to be in accordance with the *facts* and the *truth*.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Example to the contrary then?  I'm always willing -- and hopeful! -- to be challenged competently.  And I always will re-think and change my views to be in accordance with the *facts* and the *truth*.


Any examples to contradict me?  I sincerely welcome and invite any devastating, brilliant, halfway decent, or even mildly interesting attempt to show me why any of the things I think, are things not true.  And "_completely_ not true"  - this should be a piece of cake for you!  You should be brimming with examples, just off the top of your head, eh!

----------


## TheTexan

Maybe we can make "no more work" a reality with Jill Stein 2024

----------


## opal

I can think of a few professions and pseudo professions that would be hard pressed to be replaced by robots - actors, comedians, scientists, wet nurses and sperm donors.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Smart money is on hell


Given the choice between Elysium with robots or Oblivion with robots, I would assert a third position: Imperium with robots.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Any examples to contradict me?  I sincerely welcome and invite any devastating, brilliant, halfway decent, or even mildly interesting attempt to show me why any of the things I think, are things not true.  And "_completely_ not true"  - this should be a piece of cake for you!  You should be brimming with examples, just off the top of your head, eh!


Come on , Pierz!  You're such an expert in history -- this is your chance to show off!  And teach us all a thing or two in the process!  And plus _I_ do have intellectual curiosity and am more than willing to entertain any new ideas you bring me.  What's your hesitancy?  Why drop out when you were just getting started?

----------


## Seraphim

No matter how much production automation brings the need for human labor and ingenuity is boundless. Don't be duped into thinking otherwise.

----------


## jllundqu

> No matter how much production automation brings the need for human labor and ingenuity is boundless. Don't be duped into thinking otherwise.


No one is being duped.  But one would have to be pretty ignorant not to see what the immediate future holds.  At some point, ALL transportation (land, sea, and air) will be automated... this will include shipping, cargo, passenger etc...  Most manufacturing globally will be done with cheap automation with only a handful of human overseers.  Menial jobs like most office jobs, transcription, secretarial, will be advanced AI.

We may never see 100% AI/automation... but we will damn sure see 50%, 60%, 75%.  What then?  What will humanity do when 50% of the population is not 'needed'.  The idea of a universal basic income is growing many backers in the Kurzweillian "Singularity" circles as well as in academia.

Ignoring it as if it isn't going to happen is just putting blinders on instead of looking for solutions.

----------


## Seraphim

> No one is being duped.  But one would have to be pretty ignorant not to see what the immediate future holds.  At some point, ALL transportation (land, sea, and air) will be automated... this will include shipping, cargo, passenger etc...  Most manufacturing globally will be done with cheap automation with only a handful of human overseers.  Menial jobs like most office jobs, transcription, secretarial, will be advanced AI.
> 
> We may never see 100% AI/automation... but we will damn sure see 50%, 60%, 75%.  What then?  What will humanity do when 50% of the population is not 'needed'.  The idea of a universal basic income is growing many backers in the Kurzweillian "Singularity" circles as well as in academia.
> 
> Ignoring it as if it isn't going to happen is just putting blinders on instead of looking for solutions.


I view a lot of the factors you noted as reasons to be against government intervention in the market.

The market has room for every human being in the world if the government doesnt tax and regulate them into oblivion.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I view a lot of the factors you noted as reasons to be against government intervention in the market.
> 
> The market has room for every human being in the world if the government doesnt tax and regulate them into oblivion.


The market is the driving force behind this, as labor is one of the most expensive costs of production.

----------


## Seraphim

> The market is the driving force behind this, as labor is one of the most expensive costs of production.


It also takes an engineer to design the lines (usually many engineers). It takes manufacturing facilities to be built and maintained...all of the products made need to be inspected for safety and packaged for shipping. 

We as humans have ALWAYS used our ingenuity to create and build ways to REDUCE labor demand for $#@! that we don't want to do or do too slowly. Once we do that, we find ways to build more stuff.

It allows us to have more time to use our MINDS to build more stuff that will actually build even more stuff for us as long as the electricity is on. Keeping the electricity on has a whole $#@! load of other jobs for people to make sure the stuff building machines can keep pumping out more stuff.

----------


## AuH20

Without the struggle, human beings will be no longer human beings. I'm starting to slowly gravitate towards Anarcho-primitivism because I don't like the destination.

----------


## CaptUSA

> The market is the driving force behind this, as labor is one of the most expensive costs of production.


The market is the saving grace, AF.  I mean, man could be lying down idly being fed bon bons, watching monster bus demolition derbies while getting our dicks sucked and we'd still want more.  There is NEVER and will NEVER BE an end to our wants.  The market will ALWAYS demand new things.  And someone will find a way to provide it.

----------


## AuH20

Depressing and dreary.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/economic-stud...nne-1524219449

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Come on , Pierz!  You're such an expert in history -- this is your chance to show off!  And teach us all a thing or two in the process!  And plus _I_ do have intellectual curiosity and am more than willing to entertain any new ideas you bring me.  What's your hesitancy?  Why drop out when you were just getting started?


Oh  @PierzStyx, where are you?  Any response?

----------


## Danke

> Oh  @PierzStyx, where are you?  Any response?


If you want a true expert on history, consult Ender, he has taken the Red Pill and is outside the matrix,  plus he has a very high IQ.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Without the struggle, human beings will be no longer human beings. I'm starting to slowly gravitate towards Anarcho-primitivism because I don't like the destination.


What is anarcho-primitism?  

I imagine a survivalist retreat with nightly Treatise reads around the campfire! ;D

----------


## AuH20

> What is anarcho-primitism?  
> 
> I imagine a survivalist retreat with nightly Treatise reads around the campfire! ;D


A rejection of modern technology with a focus on animal husbandry and agricultural pursuits. It's not that technology is bad from a utilitarian sense, but it's highly corrupting. I don't think humans as a whole have ever been so depressed as they are today, despite having so many material benefits.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> A rejection of modern technology with a focus on animal husbandry and agricultural pursuits. It's not that technology is bad from a utilitarian sense, but it's highly corrupting. I don't think humans as a whole have ever been so depressed as they are today, despite having so many material benefits.


They sure seem to have had a lot of the spirit beaten out of them.

Docile and compliant.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Seriously, you make it hard for people to take you, well, seriously, by not learning the basic (really basic!) communication protocols of the medium you're attempting to communicate in.
> 
> *Whatever excuse for ignorance floats your boat.*
> 
> Don't make me give you a condescending tutorial.  Even though you seem to have lately decided you now disagree with me on everything, I still like you too much for that. 
> 
> *Lately you've decided to base your entire arguments on trash history and anti-liberty philosophies.*
> 
> _Yes_, Pierz, those _are_ the ones I mean!  Imagine that.  That's why I typed their names. 
> ...


All over the place. Greece is still around. Going through its, what third or fourth collapse? France has collapsed multiple times in the last 100 years. China collapsed into the Warring States period, emerged as one of the most powerful nations on the planet, collapsed under the Qing, and are now once again one of the most powerful countries on the Earth. India collapsed and was conquered by the British. Today it is one of the most influential countries in the world. Russia collapsed at least three times in the 20th century alone. And it is a world superpower today. Just to name a few. This idea that you get "one collapse" is such a simplistic and narrow view of history it is totally out of touch with reality.

Finally, your halfwit attempt at humor and condescension demonstrates your inability to actually argue your points. You almost certainly have some stupid "zinger" that you think will drive your point home. And it is almost certain to be disappointing and weak. The amount of bravado is almost always as correspondingly great as the actual evidence is weak. So if you've got some point to make, or some actual, tangible argument to make other than your repeated juvenalia, please do so and stop wasting everyone's time.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I'm all about substance, Pierz!  Once there's substance, chances are I'll just ignore all the rest (insults, etc.).  Exhibit A:




> All over the place. Greece is still around. Going through its, what third or fourth collapse?


 Let us recall my statement you are trying to refute by this counter-example:

*"You only get to collapse once. You only get to have one brilliant, creative, disruptive civ."*

Now, in what way is current-day Greece "brilliant, creative, and disruptive"?




> France has collapsed multiple times in the last 100 years.


 How so?  This statement makes it clear that what you are calling a "collapse" and what I am calling a collapse are totally different things!  So, what are you considering "collapse"?  And would you be interested to know how I am defining it?

----------


## mtr1979

Where I live the local Kmart is closing and it made me think about what the future will be like.  We are a nation of retail workers yet major retail chains are closing down.  While doing some internet research I came across the term "jobless future."  I then found a podcast called Review the Future.  In the episode I listened to author Martin Ford talked about his book Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. 
http://reviewthefuture.com/?p=457

----------

