3 ms·

Humans are too... polarizing to discuss. Lets take horses. They were essential for many areas, for a very long time. Once a horseless carriage was constructed,

by kefka 10y ago

Humans are too... polarizing to discuss. Lets take horses. They were essential for many areas, for a very long time. Once a horseless carriage was constructed, horse ownership declined. After a tipping point, the cost for a horse, in terms of food, water, lodging cost more than the horseless carriage. Eventually, horses were unemployable. They were still animals - strong animals at that. But the cost of maintenance and upkeep was more than they could output. So many went to the sausage and glue factories. Some people still have them, and they are huge money-sinks. Their owners know it, and budget accordingly. But none use them for actual labor - machines are much more efficient. So, what do we do when human labor is less than the resources to keep said human alive? Sausage/glue factories for them as well? (edit: spelling)

welanes 10y ago
> what do we do when human labor is less than the resources to keep said human alive? Sausage/glue factories for them as well? The Soylent factory for me, please! But to answer your question: there's going to have to be a rewrite of taxation and laws - see experiments with basic income - to cater for a world in which wealth is still being created but is being distributed less as the labour isn't required. Whomever commands the robots of the future is probably looking at a big tax bill.
- harryh 10y ago
  see experiments with basic income Nah. There will always be demand for people to do things. People want all kinds of goods and services. Not all of them will be automate-able. People will do those things. And they'll get paid for it.
  - chiefalchemist 10y ago
    Do you mean like panhandling? Or being homeless? Yeah, those pay well.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  Nope. The people who control the robots will control government. They'll make sure that tax bill is as small as possible.
harryh 10y ago
Horses (in this context) are just tools. When they were no longer necessary tools we stoped making so many of them. Humans are not just tools. Thinking of them in that way leads to conclusions that don't make sense.
- kefka 10y ago
  Other than the personnel section in a business is "Human Resources", in the same light as "Material resources" or what have you? Capitalism views humans as a resource to be used and exploited. When that equation no longer makes sense for that person/group, they are gotten rid of. Look no further than factories that move elsewhere to lower their costs. I'm from Indiana, and I'm sure you've heard of that Carrier factory debacle. They initially made the decision to move because it would make them $2 billion more per year. It was a purely numbers-driven solution. That's all that capitalism can "see". And frankly, humans are "unquantifiable". No measurement, no data, and no decisions on that. It's the same with the environment as well - if there's no data that ties directly to me, who cares (even if we all take part). It's the tragedy of the commons. And we in the end, all suffer.
  - harryh 10y ago
    Yes, capitalism views humans (and horses) as resources. But capitalism does not control the creation of new humans which makes humans different from horses.
    - projektir 10y ago
      If that's all that's keeping us from being turned into glue (kefka used quite the stark example there...), that doesn't sound anywhere near sufficiently safe to me. There are a lot of people out there who want to limit reproduction. And these days, they have better arguments.
module0000 10y ago
> So, what do we do when human labor is less than the resources to keep said human alive? Sausage/glue factories for them as well? To continue your analogy, "put them out to pasture". It could be argued that what is good for us as a people, is not always good for our conscious. What to do?

by kefka 10y ago

welanes 10y ago

> what do we do when human labor is less than the resources to keep said human alive? Sausage/glue factories for them as well? The Soylent factory for me, please! But to answer your question: there's going to have to be a rewrite of taxation and laws - see experiments with basic income - to cater for a world in which wealth is still being created but is being distributed less as the labour isn't required. Whomever commands the robots of the future is probably looking at a big tax bill.

harryh 10y ago
see experiments with basic income Nah. There will always be demand for people to do things. People want all kinds of goods and services. Not all of them will be automate-able. People will do those things. And they'll get paid for it.
- chiefalchemist 10y ago
  Do you mean like panhandling? Or being homeless? Yeah, those pay well.
ryandrake 10y ago
Nope. The people who control the robots will control government. They'll make sure that tax bill is as small as possible.

harryh 10y ago

Horses (in this context) are just tools. When they were no longer necessary tools we stoped making so many of them. Humans are not just tools. Thinking of them in that way leads to conclusions that don't make sense.

kefka 10y ago
Other than the personnel section in a business is "Human Resources", in the same light as "Material resources" or what have you? Capitalism views humans as a resource to be used and exploited. When that equation no longer makes sense for that person/group, they are gotten rid of. Look no further than factories that move elsewhere to lower their costs. I'm from Indiana, and I'm sure you've heard of that Carrier factory debacle. They initially made the decision to move because it would make them $2 billion more per year. It was a purely numbers-driven solution. That's all that capitalism can "see". And frankly, humans are "unquantifiable". No measurement, no data, and no decisions on that. It's the same with the environment as well - if there's no data that ties directly to me, who cares (even if we all take part). It's the tragedy of the commons. And we in the end, all suffer.
- harryh 10y ago
  Yes, capitalism views humans (and horses) as resources. But capitalism does not control the creation of new humans which makes humans different from horses.
  - projektir 10y ago
    If that's all that's keeping us from being turned into glue (kefka used quite the stark example there...), that doesn't sound anywhere near sufficiently safe to me. There are a lot of people out there who want to limit reproduction. And these days, they have better arguments.

module0000 10y ago

> So, what do we do when human labor is less than the resources to keep said human alive? Sausage/glue factories for them as well? To continue your analogy, "put them out to pasture". It could be argued that what is good for us as a people, is not always good for our conscious. What to do?