4 ms·

It could turn out that way. It could also turn out that the 10% are the programmers whom we all depend on to keep the machines running. They could end up bein

It could turn out that way. It could also turn out that the 10% are the programmers whom we all depend on to keep the machines running. They could end up being like priests, those that work the magic in the machines that mere average people aren't qualified to touch. And good luck if you anger them: who could be safe with an army of machines out to kill you? So it could turn out that the only people who would "work" in such a society are those who aspire to rule over others. And since they would be dependent on no one else in society, what recourse would the rest of society have if the "priests" turned evil? Or what if the "priests" got tired of maintaining mundane machines that take care of "useless" people and decided to have their machines eliminate the rest of the population? Then they could have wide open spaces and peace and quiet, and they could all go live on a beach of their choosing while their machines grow food and deliver it to them. I imagine these ideas have already been done in scifi novels...

gkya 10y ago
I have a more realistic scenario here: if we'll automate a huge portion of the work so that we won't have to work, there certainly will be someone who'll run that. Either some companies or the state. A plethora of possibilities exist for them to fruit the people threatening to pull the plug.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  Why is your scenario more realistic than the ones I suggested? If we were to automate all work so the only people who had to work were the ones running the machines, those people would effectively be the state. Everyone else would depend on those people. They would be untouchable, if for no other reason than that, if they were eliminated, the machines would fall into disrepair, and everyone who depended on them would die. It would be like a future version of MAD: kill the machine keepers, and everyone dies--except not MAD, because the machine keepers would have no need for everyone else. So it would be more like a future where only one nation had nuclear weapons, and they were second-strike capable: they can freely eliminate their enemies without repercussion, because anyone who attacks them is guaranteed to be destroyed by nuclear weapons. The only ways, then, to keep those people maintaining the machines would be altruism or threat of violence. Altruism isn't reliable, and what good is threat of violence if they can program the machines to protect them and eliminate their enemies? So it seems to me that the only hope is for the machinekeeping to be as widely distributed as possible. Maybe 3D printers will lead to self-replicating machines and a world where everyone is a machinekeeper. But I have serious doubts, because I don't see how even a self-replicating 3D printer could cover the whole chain of gathering and processing raw materials. I could imagine a distant future where all the natural mines are exhausted, and fortresses are built around old landfills, the only remaining source of raw materials for the machines. Not in our lifetimes, though! :D

gkya 10y ago

I have a more realistic scenario here: if we'll automate a huge portion of the work so that we won't have to work, there certainly will be someone who'll run that. Either some companies or the state. A plethora of possibilities exist for them to fruit the people threatening to pull the plug.

alphapapa 10y ago
Why is your scenario more realistic than the ones I suggested? If we were to automate all work so the only people who had to work were the ones running the machines, those people would effectively be the state. Everyone else would depend on those people. They would be untouchable, if for no other reason than that, if they were eliminated, the machines would fall into disrepair, and everyone who depended on them would die. It would be like a future version of MAD: kill the machine keepers, and everyone dies--except not MAD, because the machine keepers would have no need for everyone else. So it would be more like a future where only one nation had nuclear weapons, and they were second-strike capable: they can freely eliminate their enemies without repercussion, because anyone who attacks them is guaranteed to be destroyed by nuclear weapons. The only ways, then, to keep those people maintaining the machines would be altruism or threat of violence. Altruism isn't reliable, and what good is threat of violence if they can program the machines to protect them and eliminate their enemies? So it seems to me that the only hope is for the machinekeeping to be as widely distributed as possible. Maybe 3D printers will lead to self-replicating machines and a world where everyone is a machinekeeper. But I have serious doubts, because I don't see how even a self-replicating 3D printer could cover the whole chain of gathering and processing raw materials. I could imagine a distant future where all the natural mines are exhausted, and fortresses are built around old landfills, the only remaining source of raw materials for the machines. Not in our lifetimes, though! :D