4 ms·

That doesn't make it inevitable. We could create regulations about when and what automation is acceptable. That reality seems more likely to me in the present

That doesn't make it inevitable. We could create regulations about when and what automation is acceptable. That reality seems more likely to me in the present climate than a maybe more ideal solution like basic income - though I think the most likely outcome is huge (and increasing) swaths of the population languishing in permanent poverty.

chopin 10y ago
> though I think the most likely outcome is huge (and increasing) swaths of the population languishing in permanent poverty I don't think so. You cannot only outsource manufacturing labor to robots. You can do with policing as well. So you don't have to worry for uprisings. These people will simply starve or being killed by robots.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Assume, hypothetically, that the rich use robots and form their own economy and wall themselves off from the rest. Why can't the remaining people form a non-automated economy amongst themselves? Economically, it's equivalent to those rich people and their robots just not existing at all and their estates being filled with impassible mountains.
- wayn3 10y ago
  It is equivalent to one of those films where the poor have to live on earth in relative poverty while the rich live in a base in orbit that sustains itself and is basically heaven. Do you believe the "not rich" wouldn't want to cross the wall?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    But why can't the people living on earth create their own functional economy? In Elysium (the movie you are referring to) the answer is clear: Earth is full of sick children, Mexicans and lovable criminals. For reasons I didn't quite understand, those Mexicans are unable to build a functioning economy (perhaps because the lovable criminals cause too many problems). Do you believe that this is an accurate reflection of reality, namely that the non-rich can't organize themselves into a livable society without the aid of the rich?
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Did you overlook the stifling, robotically enforced social control in Elysium? Why didn't the people on Earth start their own farms? Because the robots came and killed them if they tried.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I watched the movie on an airplane many years ago. I vaguely remember Matt Damon working in a robot factory and having a robot parole officer. I think robot bodyguards also protected Willem Dafoe. I don't recall robots preventing people from starting farms or providing medical care to the sick children, and that's missing from the wikipedia summary of the movie. Why would they do that? How would it benefit the space station to prevent earthers from building a functioning society?
        maxerickson 10y ago
        Yeah, I haven't watched it recently either. But the social control is certainly implied (and the script was messy enough without spending 1/2 hour really spelling it out).
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        The social control might be present in the movie, but in reality it mostly doesn't exist. In reality we generally just ignore our low productivity areas, and perhaps make sure the folks from there can't cause problems elsewhere. The NYC and SF elites occasionally try to feel good by pointless throwing $100M at local problems that money can't fix [1], but mostly they ignore Newark. The Mumbai elite don't impose social control on the rural hinterlands, they just don't go there. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerbergs-failed-100-million-donation-to-newark-public-schools-2015-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerbergs-failed-100-m...
        maxerickson 10y ago
        perhaps make sure the folks from there can't cause problems elsewhere This is wandering dangerously close to the definition of social control. It might be efficient, disinterested social control, but it's control nonetheless.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The messy reality getting in the way of your hypothetical is that the rich have walls around an awful lot of the most useful resources.
- mcbits 10y ago
  The remaining people can try to create an economy around the resources that aren't also walled off and guarded by robots.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    The more inequality we have the less of a problem this is. More inequality => fewer elites => less resources used. Once the elites have ascended, they have no reason to care much about pesky non-elites using resources outside their enclaves. Observe how little effort contemporary humans put into keeping monkeys from enjoying monkey resources.
    - makomk 10y ago
      Contemporary humans are driving many monkey species to the point of extinction, so that example really doesn't help your point. It turns out that replacing monkey resources with stuff like farms to feed humans is very profitable.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        Yes, that's a problem with having large numbers of humans - they crowd out the monkeys. Recall that we are discussing a high inequality situation where a tiny fraction of humanity walls itself off into robot enclaves where they satisfy their own needs without human labor. I.e., not enough people to crowd out anything.
        mcbits 10y ago
        A small population needs a relatively small amount of resources to feed and physically sustain itself, but the amount of resources needed to build and feed an ever-growing population of robots is virtually unbounded. As computers get smaller and more efficient, data centers get larger and more power-hungry, for example.

chopin 10y ago

> though I think the most likely outcome is huge (and increasing) swaths of the population languishing in permanent poverty I don't think so. You cannot only outsource manufacturing labor to robots. You can do with policing as well. So you don't have to worry for uprisings. These people will simply starve or being killed by robots.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Assume, hypothetically, that the rich use robots and form their own economy and wall themselves off from the rest. Why can't the remaining people form a non-automated economy amongst themselves? Economically, it's equivalent to those rich people and their robots just not existing at all and their estates being filled with impassible mountains.

wayn3 10y ago
It is equivalent to one of those films where the poor have to live on earth in relative poverty while the rich live in a base in orbit that sustains itself and is basically heaven. Do you believe the "not rich" wouldn't want to cross the wall?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  But why can't the people living on earth create their own functional economy? In Elysium (the movie you are referring to) the answer is clear: Earth is full of sick children, Mexicans and lovable criminals. For reasons I didn't quite understand, those Mexicans are unable to build a functioning economy (perhaps because the lovable criminals cause too many problems). Do you believe that this is an accurate reflection of reality, namely that the non-rich can't organize themselves into a livable society without the aid of the rich?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Did you overlook the stifling, robotically enforced social control in Elysium? Why didn't the people on Earth start their own farms? Because the robots came and killed them if they tried.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I watched the movie on an airplane many years ago. I vaguely remember Matt Damon working in a robot factory and having a robot parole officer. I think robot bodyguards also protected Willem Dafoe. I don't recall robots preventing people from starting farms or providing medical care to the sick children, and that's missing from the wikipedia summary of the movie. Why would they do that? How would it benefit the space station to prevent earthers from building a functioning society?
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Yeah, I haven't watched it recently either. But the social control is certainly implied (and the script was messy enough without spending 1/2 hour really spelling it out).
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        The social control might be present in the movie, but in reality it mostly doesn't exist. In reality we generally just ignore our low productivity areas, and perhaps make sure the folks from there can't cause problems elsewhere. The NYC and SF elites occasionally try to feel good by pointless throwing $100M at local problems that money can't fix [1], but mostly they ignore Newark. The Mumbai elite don't impose social control on the rural hinterlands, they just don't go there. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerbergs-failed-100-million-donation-to-newark-public-schools-2015-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerbergs-failed-100-m...
        maxerickson 10y ago
        perhaps make sure the folks from there can't cause problems elsewhere This is wandering dangerously close to the definition of social control. It might be efficient, disinterested social control, but it's control nonetheless.
maxerickson 10y ago
The messy reality getting in the way of your hypothetical is that the rich have walls around an awful lot of the most useful resources.
mcbits 10y ago
The remaining people can try to create an economy around the resources that aren't also walled off and guarded by robots.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  The more inequality we have the less of a problem this is. More inequality => fewer elites => less resources used. Once the elites have ascended, they have no reason to care much about pesky non-elites using resources outside their enclaves. Observe how little effort contemporary humans put into keeping monkeys from enjoying monkey resources.
  - makomk 10y ago
    Contemporary humans are driving many monkey species to the point of extinction, so that example really doesn't help your point. It turns out that replacing monkey resources with stuff like farms to feed humans is very profitable.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Yes, that's a problem with having large numbers of humans - they crowd out the monkeys. Recall that we are discussing a high inequality situation where a tiny fraction of humanity walls itself off into robot enclaves where they satisfy their own needs without human labor. I.e., not enough people to crowd out anything.
      - mcbits 10y ago
        A small population needs a relatively small amount of resources to feed and physically sustain itself, but the amount of resources needed to build and feed an ever-growing population of robots is virtually unbounded. As computers get smaller and more efficient, data centers get larger and more power-hungry, for example.