3 ms·
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 impos
by 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 agoThey 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 agoIn 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.