5 ms·

Automation can take care of owners, food, clothing, resources, education. You preserve some exceptional people that improve automation. Why do you need other pe

Automation can take care of owners, food, clothing, resources, education. You preserve some exceptional people that improve automation. Why do you need other people around?

lawless123 9y ago
>Why do you need other people around? They might wonder the same about the owners. The French Revolution didn't work out well for the owners.
- maeln 9y ago
  It actually did work out great for owners. The French Revolution was not the perfect "people" revolution that a lot of people think it is. The people who mostly gain from it were the bourgeois who were really restrained under the royality. That's why one of the first right of the Declaration of Human Right is the right to possess.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    > That's why one of the first right of the Declaration of Human Right is the right to possess. Wherein by "first", you mean "17th article" (or 30). https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Huma... EDIT: Ah, I forgot about the context of the French Revolution, so I looked at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_M... of August 1789. The right to property is actually the last article in that one, so the original point remains debunked.
Anderkent 9y ago
In a purely selfish model, because when people are made completely redundant, they riot. And because (fortunately) the automate-everything folk are not who makes the laws. In a actual human model, because the point of technology is to make human lives better, and not just to get more technology.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
You can see this in action today with "the resource curse". If you can get mega rich by digging stuff out of the ground then you only need enough modern society to support that activity. If you can get foreign engineers then you can let your country rot while you fly around in your personal jumbo jet.
mr_luc 9y ago
I think the argument is that you 'need other people' because those people can vote. The theory is that this ensures that automation is socially benevolent. The theory is that increasing leverage continues to produce even more super-concentrated wealth, creating both the means and the political will (in the form of enlightened self-interest of the ultra-rich) to use surplus wealth to do things like Basic Income. It's plausible, I guess. But I don't think that timeline is necessarily a lock. 'Other people' can vote in a democracy, but that may not be enough! The mass of people used to have more convincing political/market power, due to the world needing them as 'wet robots' for labor. In the absence of real power for the mass of people, in the absence of the world actually 'needing' them for their output, I'm skeptical that mere democratic institutions are a good enough protection. Democratic institutions, despite their relative benevolence, have historically have extended political power to people who are already de facto powerful (at least powerful enough to demand a seat at the table!), whether it be wealthy property owners in the age of the 'one-class' society, or the working heads-of-household during the heyday of human labor. Power finds a way in any human system, is all I'm saying, and to the extent that increasing numbers of people lack power in the market, I'm skeptical that democratic institutions will guarantee benevolent social outcomes.

Automation can take care of owners, food, clothing, resources, education. You preserve some exceptional people that improve automation. Why do you need other people around?

lawless123 9y ago

>Why do you need other people around? They might wonder the same about the owners. The French Revolution didn't work out well for the owners.

maeln 9y ago
It actually did work out great for owners. The French Revolution was not the perfect "people" revolution that a lot of people think it is. The people who mostly gain from it were the bourgeois who were really restrained under the royality. That's why one of the first right of the Declaration of Human Right is the right to possess.
- majewsky 9y ago
  > That's why one of the first right of the Declaration of Human Right is the right to possess. Wherein by "first", you mean "17th article" (or 30). https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Huma... EDIT: Ah, I forgot about the context of the French Revolution, so I looked at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_M... of August 1789. The right to property is actually the last article in that one, so the original point remains debunked.

Anderkent 9y ago

In a purely selfish model, because when people are made completely redundant, they riot. And because (fortunately) the automate-everything folk are not who makes the laws. In a actual human model, because the point of technology is to make human lives better, and not just to get more technology.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

You can see this in action today with "the resource curse". If you can get mega rich by digging stuff out of the ground then you only need enough modern society to support that activity. If you can get foreign engineers then you can let your country rot while you fly around in your personal jumbo jet.

mr_luc 9y ago

I think the argument is that you 'need other people' because those people can vote. The theory is that this ensures that automation is socially benevolent. The theory is that increasing leverage continues to produce even more super-concentrated wealth, creating both the means and the political will (in the form of enlightened self-interest of the ultra-rich) to use surplus wealth to do things like Basic Income. It's plausible, I guess. But I don't think that timeline is necessarily a lock. 'Other people' can vote in a democracy, but that may not be enough! The mass of people used to have more convincing political/market power, due to the world needing them as 'wet robots' for labor. In the absence of real power for the mass of people, in the absence of the world actually 'needing' them for their output, I'm skeptical that mere democratic institutions are a good enough protection. Democratic institutions, despite their relative benevolence, have historically have extended political power to people who are already de facto powerful (at least powerful enough to demand a seat at the table!), whether it be wealthy property owners in the age of the 'one-class' society, or the working heads-of-household during the heyday of human labor. Power finds a way in any human system, is all I'm saying, and to the extent that increasing numbers of people lack power in the market, I'm skeptical that democratic institutions will guarantee benevolent social outcomes.