3 ms·

Work is power. The obsolescence of humans in the workforce means that we are gradually being stripped of the power to put a roof over our heads and bread in ou

by pygy_ 9y ago

Work is power. The obsolescence of humans in the workforce means that we are gradually being stripped of the power to put a roof over our heads and bread in our plates while capital becomes independent. At this point, feeding non-productive humans still benefit the economy (by preventing riots and allowing the productive individuals to contribute), but if the vast majority of humanity does not participate in the economy anymore, I don't see why the market would keep on feeding it. And at that point we would be so dependent on automation that we'd all starve to death.

pygy_ 9y ago
Seeing the score jump up and down, this seems controversial, I'll expand a bit: Our economy is a dissipative structure, not unlike fire, nuclear chain reactions and living organisms. It consumes energy (dissipates it, actually, increasing total entropy) in order to perpetuate itself. Its real currency isn't money, but energy. Money and finance are tools to set its goals and direct its actions. Fundamentally, supply is energy/matter/recipes to transform either. Demand stems from survival instinct and reflexes. Humans demand material security, the market provides it in exchange for labor. The economy demands to be kept running through our work and keeps us mostly safe in exchange. Those instincts/reflexes were acquired by anything alive thanks to evolution. Currently, companies are subject to heavy selection pressure. They've been morphing at an impressive pace thanks to technological progress, becoming ever more efficient thanks to automation. Only the most efficient stay afloat. At some point, feeding humans will not be the most efficient way to keep themselves up and running, and when that occurs, we will be too dependent to survivie without them. The primary and secondary sectors are becoming autonomous fast (autonomous tractors, trucks and mining equipment), and so is the industry. The tertiary sector is only useful as long as humans themselves are useful to the first two sectors.

by pygy_ 9y ago

pygy_ 9y ago

Seeing the score jump up and down, this seems controversial, I'll expand a bit: Our economy is a dissipative structure, not unlike fire, nuclear chain reactions and living organisms. It consumes energy (dissipates it, actually, increasing total entropy) in order to perpetuate itself. Its real currency isn't money, but energy. Money and finance are tools to set its goals and direct its actions. Fundamentally, supply is energy/matter/recipes to transform either. Demand stems from survival instinct and reflexes. Humans demand material security, the market provides it in exchange for labor. The economy demands to be kept running through our work and keeps us mostly safe in exchange. Those instincts/reflexes were acquired by anything alive thanks to evolution. Currently, companies are subject to heavy selection pressure. They've been morphing at an impressive pace thanks to technological progress, becoming ever more efficient thanks to automation. Only the most efficient stay afloat. At some point, feeding humans will not be the most efficient way to keep themselves up and running, and when that occurs, we will be too dependent to survivie without them. The primary and secondary sectors are becoming autonomous fast (autonomous tractors, trucks and mining equipment), and so is the industry. The tertiary sector is only useful as long as humans themselves are useful to the first two sectors.