4 ms·

Why "combat" the impact of robots? We can just figure out how to make everyone share in the riches they bring. Robots aren't to blame for the injustice.

westbywest 10y ago
The problem is that the current fad among manufacturers of cleverly externalizing their social costs (e.g. cost of labor, cost of environmental stewardship, cost of meeting regulatory requirements) also removes their incentive to pay much heed to sharing said riches.
chandler 10y ago
>> Why "combat" the impact of robots? For an outside consideration, take the view outlined in this "Rules for Rulers" video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs )--especially the part that discusses what sort of political structures arise when wealth is generated mostly independent of human production (e.g. are we sitting on a gold mine?).
- oillio 10y ago
  As a counterpoint, it is possible to distribute windfall profits from natural resources in an equitable manner, and keep a functioning democracy. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-can-tiny-norway-afford-to-buy-so-many-teslas-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-can-tiny-norway-afford-t... It is rare, but not impossible.
  - nickjarboe 10y ago
    Another rare example is the US where mineral rights are spread over millions of individuals instead of the govenment.
- Asooka 10y ago
  The view outlined in that video is that the systematic inertia brought by greedy self-centered assholes is nearly impossible to put a stop to by replacing just one person, ergo I take it to mean, that the only realistic way of implementing a sharing scheme has to start with a bloody revolution a-la the French Revolution. Or, of course, we can also just kill off enough people (middle-class and lower only, of course) so that the few remaining ones have guaranteed jobs maintaining the robots (see: Stalinist Communism). In any case I predict the next few decades will be pretty exciting for future historians. The "A Song of Ice and Fire" kind of exciting.

westbywest 10y ago

The problem is that the current fad among manufacturers of cleverly externalizing their social costs (e.g. cost of labor, cost of environmental stewardship, cost of meeting regulatory requirements) also removes their incentive to pay much heed to sharing said riches.

chandler 10y ago

>> Why "combat" the impact of robots? For an outside consideration, take the view outlined in this "Rules for Rulers" video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs )--especially the part that discusses what sort of political structures arise when wealth is generated mostly independent of human production (e.g. are we sitting on a gold mine?).

oillio 10y ago
As a counterpoint, it is possible to distribute windfall profits from natural resources in an equitable manner, and keep a functioning democracy. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-can-tiny-norway-afford-to-buy-so-many-teslas-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-can-tiny-norway-afford-t... It is rare, but not impossible.
- nickjarboe 10y ago
  Another rare example is the US where mineral rights are spread over millions of individuals instead of the govenment.
Asooka 10y ago
The view outlined in that video is that the systematic inertia brought by greedy self-centered assholes is nearly impossible to put a stop to by replacing just one person, ergo I take it to mean, that the only realistic way of implementing a sharing scheme has to start with a bloody revolution a-la the French Revolution. Or, of course, we can also just kill off enough people (middle-class and lower only, of course) so that the few remaining ones have guaranteed jobs maintaining the robots (see: Stalinist Communism). In any case I predict the next few decades will be pretty exciting for future historians. The "A Song of Ice and Fire" kind of exciting.