3 ms·

In this scenario, if there is only one person providing food, at that point it becomes economically viable for individuals and consumers alike to produce food,

by sharms 17y ago

In this scenario, if there is only one person providing food, at that point it becomes economically viable for individuals and consumers alike to produce food, and fill that void. You didn't include it in your comment, however it is important to note how much each producer is producing. With economies of scale, it is likely both producers create enough goods to exceed the demand of either consumer. Rationale being if "food producer" became efficient enough to put all other food producers out of business, they likely can feed more than just the clothing producer.

DenisM 17y ago
They could feed everyone but why would they? The rest of the people have nothing to offer in return. The reason why competing food manufacturing would be impossible to start in the era of absolute automation is that you need the machines to do that, in other words you need the capital. Who in their right mind would provide capital to manufacture food for people who have nothing to offer in return? I'm stretching the argument here, but only to illustrate the problem that I see - automation satisfies needs and thus destroys jobs tied to satisfying those needs. I see only two ways out of this - create new needs (which we've been doing successfully so far) or exert the power of the state to take the products from producers (progressively heavier taxation).
- Groxx 17y ago
  They could feed everyone but why would they? The rest of the people have nothing to offer in return. You're implying that, in this (dis)utopian future, luxury goods don't exist? Once you have those three things, you have an entire economy. Heck, arguably clothes are a luxury good, so all you need are food and luxury goods.
- nitrogen 17y ago
  In line with creating new needs, you may have noticed the recent increase in popularity of "organic" foods produced by less-automated farming techniques. Cost is not the only differentiator between competitors. Organic farmers can't always compete on cost, so they focus on other areas. There is a similar trend in clothing -- hand-made designer clothes carry benefits (status, quality, perfect fit) that compensate for their high price. To conclude, I appreciate the perspective offered by your extreme scenario, but I highly doubt that ubiquitous automation will result in the production monoculture you predict.
codexon 17y ago
if there is only one person providing food, at that point it becomes economically viable for individuals and consumers alike to produce food Not if companies own most of the arable land and IP on harvesting machinery.
- nitrogen 17y ago
  Not if companies own most of the arable land and IP on harvesting machinery. Intellectual property laws are based on the concept that ideas and goods are scarce. If automation makes physical production as cost-free as digital production is now, then all IP laws (not just copyright and software patent laws) will have to be revised to accommodate the fundamental change in the nature and abundance of goods and ideas. Plus, as they say, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Someone can design a harvester based on old technology, or a radically different design.

by sharms 17y ago

DenisM 17y ago

They could feed everyone but why would they? The rest of the people have nothing to offer in return. The reason why competing food manufacturing would be impossible to start in the era of absolute automation is that you need the machines to do that, in other words you need the capital. Who in their right mind would provide capital to manufacture food for people who have nothing to offer in return? I'm stretching the argument here, but only to illustrate the problem that I see - automation satisfies needs and thus destroys jobs tied to satisfying those needs. I see only two ways out of this - create new needs (which we've been doing successfully so far) or exert the power of the state to take the products from producers (progressively heavier taxation).

Groxx 17y ago
They could feed everyone but why would they? The rest of the people have nothing to offer in return. You're implying that, in this (dis)utopian future, luxury goods don't exist? Once you have those three things, you have an entire economy. Heck, arguably clothes are a luxury good, so all you need are food and luxury goods.
nitrogen 17y ago
In line with creating new needs, you may have noticed the recent increase in popularity of "organic" foods produced by less-automated farming techniques. Cost is not the only differentiator between competitors. Organic farmers can't always compete on cost, so they focus on other areas. There is a similar trend in clothing -- hand-made designer clothes carry benefits (status, quality, perfect fit) that compensate for their high price. To conclude, I appreciate the perspective offered by your extreme scenario, but I highly doubt that ubiquitous automation will result in the production monoculture you predict.

codexon 17y ago

if there is only one person providing food, at that point it becomes economically viable for individuals and consumers alike to produce food Not if companies own most of the arable land and IP on harvesting machinery.

nitrogen 17y ago
Not if companies own most of the arable land and IP on harvesting machinery. Intellectual property laws are based on the concept that ideas and goods are scarce. If automation makes physical production as cost-free as digital production is now, then all IP laws (not just copyright and software patent laws) will have to be revised to accommodate the fundamental change in the nature and abundance of goods and ideas. Plus, as they say, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Someone can design a harvester based on old technology, or a radically different design.