5 ms·

So the elite have always had a use for the "unwashed masses" so to speak. Maybe you need a large standing army to fight for your country's interests. Or maybe

by eunoia 9y ago

So the elite have always had a use for the "unwashed masses" so to speak. Maybe you need a large standing army to fight for your country's interests. Or maybe you need a large untrained labor force to fuel the industrial machine. Robots remove both of these "uses" for a large impoverished class of people. Are we entering the first era of human history where elites have no actual use for an underclass? Or does consumption fill that need now...

matte_black 9y ago
Perhaps the poor have outlived their utility. What’s next then? A culling?
- eunoia 9y ago
  I have no idea, and to be completely clear I think this is an incredibly dark and dystopian line of thought. I'm just very curious what the world looks like when the rich no longer have any need for the poor. It feels like this is a novel situation in human history. Interested in being proved wrong...
  - matte_black 9y ago
    I find it hard not to have dark thoughts when thinking about this topic. Feedback loops are powerful and dangerous. A positive one can carry you to ever increasing wealth, wisdom and power, but a negative one could destroy not just yourself, but your entire family and the generations to come. The poor have fallen into a highly negative one, and they are increasingly going too far in to have any escape velocity to get out. If we try to help them, we only prolong the inevitable and create an even greater population of poor that we simply can't support. If we let them die, then the blood is on our hands, but we may be left with a world that is more balanced.
philipkglass 9y ago
No, consumption doesn't fill that need. "The rich will still need the masses to consume the products the rich sell" is a tune that some economists whistle through the graveyard when they're brave enough to contemplate the end of human labor but not brave enough to contemplate that automation might render most of their discipline obsolete. That said, I don't think that the rich can wage a successful war of extermination against the poor. If we reach the point where human labor is completely obsolete, and any old plutocrat can fab up a robot army, then it's not just exterminationist billionaires who get access to robot armies. It's also philanthropic billionaires, and national or even regional elected leaders, and perhaps even robot "pirates" who are just duplicating robots without permission. That's an existential risk to civilization in that it takes a much smaller group to threaten global violence than it did circa 1940. But it also means that the most a rational Evil Billionaire can hope for is mutually assured destruction; any overtly violent attempt at eliminating the poor can trigger a cataclysmic war, but the EB can't rationally expect to kill off the masses and get away with it unopposed. EB better have already uploaded his backup consciousness to offsite Martian storage before trying that one. (But if he's an immortal being who can live in space, why would EB even want to kill his way to more control of property on Earth? This is like the implausible plot of a bunch of alien invasion stories where societies capable of interstellar travel still want to come here to violently seize our dirt and water, for some reason.)
- ansible 9y ago
  (But if he's an immortal being who can live in space, why would EB even want to kill his way to more control of property on Earth? This is like the implausible plot of a bunch of alien invasion stories where societies capable of interstellar travel still want to come here to violently seize our dirt and water, for some reason.) Indeed. That's the consistently ridiculous theme that has pervaded SF for decades, Oblivion being a recently example that I've seen. If you've already uploaded, then you might want to just ship yourself off to another solar system, so that you can have unimpeded access to all that matter and energy, instead of competing for stuff here.

by eunoia 9y ago

matte_black 9y ago

Perhaps the poor have outlived their utility. What’s next then? A culling?

eunoia 9y ago
I have no idea, and to be completely clear I think this is an incredibly dark and dystopian line of thought. I'm just very curious what the world looks like when the rich no longer have any need for the poor. It feels like this is a novel situation in human history. Interested in being proved wrong...
- matte_black 9y ago
  I find it hard not to have dark thoughts when thinking about this topic. Feedback loops are powerful and dangerous. A positive one can carry you to ever increasing wealth, wisdom and power, but a negative one could destroy not just yourself, but your entire family and the generations to come. The poor have fallen into a highly negative one, and they are increasingly going too far in to have any escape velocity to get out. If we try to help them, we only prolong the inevitable and create an even greater population of poor that we simply can't support. If we let them die, then the blood is on our hands, but we may be left with a world that is more balanced.

philipkglass 9y ago

No, consumption doesn't fill that need. "The rich will still need the masses to consume the products the rich sell" is a tune that some economists whistle through the graveyard when they're brave enough to contemplate the end of human labor but not brave enough to contemplate that automation might render most of their discipline obsolete. That said, I don't think that the rich can wage a successful war of extermination against the poor. If we reach the point where human labor is completely obsolete, and any old plutocrat can fab up a robot army, then it's not just exterminationist billionaires who get access to robot armies. It's also philanthropic billionaires, and national or even regional elected leaders, and perhaps even robot "pirates" who are just duplicating robots without permission. That's an existential risk to civilization in that it takes a much smaller group to threaten global violence than it did circa 1940. But it also means that the most a rational Evil Billionaire can hope for is mutually assured destruction; any overtly violent attempt at eliminating the poor can trigger a cataclysmic war, but the EB can't rationally expect to kill off the masses and get away with it unopposed. EB better have already uploaded his backup consciousness to offsite Martian storage before trying that one. (But if he's an immortal being who can live in space, why would EB even want to kill his way to more control of property on Earth? This is like the implausible plot of a bunch of alien invasion stories where societies capable of interstellar travel still want to come here to violently seize our dirt and water, for some reason.)

ansible 9y ago
(But if he's an immortal being who can live in space, why would EB even want to kill his way to more control of property on Earth? This is like the implausible plot of a bunch of alien invasion stories where societies capable of interstellar travel still want to come here to violently seize our dirt and water, for some reason.) Indeed. That's the consistently ridiculous theme that has pervaded SF for decades, Oblivion being a recently example that I've seen. If you've already uploaded, then you might want to just ship yourself off to another solar system, so that you can have unimpeded access to all that matter and energy, instead of competing for stuff here.