3 ms·
Are we assuming a magic source of income? If yes: I'd take up writing, teaching and practicing yoga, and charcoal drawing. If no: I'd probably have to be some
by magic_beans 10y ago
Are we assuming a magic source of income?
If yes: I'd take up writing, teaching and practicing yoga, and charcoal drawing.
If no: I'd probably have to be some kind of nanny or domestic help. :/
- andriesm 10y agoI think everyone "assumes" basic income grants, when the robots make say upwards of 50 percent of people redundant. I myself remain sceptical. If you low-medium skilled you should be able to find work from the people made richer by the robots, as butlers, assistants, etc... Yes even with the best robot, some people will prefer human contact. Some people may even pay a premium for companionship.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- majewsky 10y agoA "modern servant" scenario (if you will let me summarize it as such) might work when robots make, say, 50% of people redundant. But what about 90%? 99%? 100%? Another thing: In a fully automated, yet capitalist society, wealth will be concentrated in the hands of even fewer people than right now, because we will come to a point where no one will offer robots for sale anymore, so no one can become rich except by heritage, and rich people will fail and become poor at a certain rate (because that's how capitalism works). This process leads to a financial singularity in which 10 people own all the money in the world (and all the robots). I see two likely scenarios then: 1. Since one rich person (and their family) cannot possibly use a billion servants, a lot of the poor people will not be able to make a living and die. 2. The poor people agree to not care about the meaning of these green slips of paper anymore and seize the robots. Come to think of it, #1 is actually more likely if the robots are intelligent enough to protect themselves against being seized.