3 ms·

The technology promises "wealth and leisure for all". The capital owners promise "it'll trickle down". Technical utopianists need to start tempering their optim

by sp527 8y ago

The technology promises "wealth and leisure for all". The capital owners promise "it'll trickle down". Technical utopianists need to start tempering their optimism with the realities of human nature and design systems accordingly.

ansible 8y ago
I think our only realistic hope is actually various non-profit foundations and such. When you think about it, I can download (for zero cost), a high-quality operating system and attendant applications which would have cost hundreds of dollars 20 years ago, and would have cost a fortune 40 years ago. Ditto for educational materials, entertainment, etc. In that sense, we are quite wealthy in comparison to previous generations. If charitable organizations can leverage the automation of the future to help people, we might then see all humans across the planet lifted out of poverty. But yeah, I don't expect corporations to do this. And it seems unlikely that most governments will either.
- sp527 8y ago
  Interesting perspective. I share your pessimism about corporations and governments. But sadly I think government is the only institution with the necessary leverage (tax base, mandate, etc) to accomplish this. Non-profits are also fairly dubious in their motives, subject to corruption, and generally highly inefficient. I'm not sure they're going to be our saviors either.
  - sp527 8y ago
    Hmm this comment is getting downvoted, so I'll just reference the Red Cross fiasco as one good example of what I mean: https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-finds-fundamental-concerns-about-red-cross-finances https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-fin.... If you haven't worked in the NGO space, you really don't understand just how bad it is.
- icantdrive55 8y ago
  1. And 501c3's will take care of the rest? Nonprofits are not a magical entities. I have found most very self-serving. Self-serving the founders whims, and "pockets". Hell even the great Melinda & Bill Gates Foundation give so little back to the womb (America) that cultured/encouraged his money making career. It's almost like the wealthy hate their family? We saw how Bush's Thousand Points of Light went. Humans are selfish. And the lack of spirituality is just making them more so. 2. At this point, I'm just seeing so many jobs being lost to people who don't expect much (yes--there are people who don't think much about putting six people in a 10 x 12 room), and jobs lost to technology. 3. I only see two ways out, and most of you won't like it. A. Tax the wealthy more. During and after WW2 we were taxing Them at 90%, and they didn't complain. It takes the fear of death to lessen the drip on their wad? B. Tie all Fees/fines to income. We're all in this mess together. I don't see a rosy future. I just see more homeless. The wealthy realized they don't need their family (America). They have the world to sell, and exploit to. I got off track, but don't see nonprofits curing our problems.
CryptoPunk 8y ago
Average income and wealth has massively increased over the last century, so we are slowly but surely getting to that utopia. But it happens at a pace that is too slow to be experientially perceptible. I would add however that there does appear to be some barrier limiting the ability of ordinary people to accumulate financial capital, and I attribute that to friction/fixed-costs imposed by regulations. New services, like Robinhood, and technology, like cryptocurrency, could address this, and allow wider participation in capital markets.
- anonymous_ch 8y ago
  The average American eats better than kings from the past 2,000 years. Wealth and prosperity is 100% relative.
bluGill 8y ago
The living standards of the average person is much better than it was 200 years ago. 75% of the world has a cell phone. Yes the rich have it better, but the poor also have improved in ways that the rich of 200 years ago couldn't imagine.
- sp527 8y ago
  I don't consider the present highly problematic, though it is imperfect. The problem is the relatively imminent (next 50-100 years) reality of nearly complete human obsolescence. That's when you'll see societal degradation at previously unthinkable levels. And no that's not Luddite fallacy. The next epoch of technological innovation is going to be unlike any that came before. A lot of people champion UBI, while forgetting that something like 3B+ people currently live on less than $2.50 a day. That's really all the evidence you need to know that the future is going to be pretty grim. Do we think it's more likely that plutocratic systems will award sustainable UBI packages to the mass unemployed via wealth transfer (which is anathema in said systems) or that market forces will discover the absolute minimum survivable income level and create new strata in first-world societies that hover just above pure barbarism?

by sp527 8y ago

ansible 8y ago

I think our only realistic hope is actually various non-profit foundations and such. When you think about it, I can download (for zero cost), a high-quality operating system and attendant applications which would have cost hundreds of dollars 20 years ago, and would have cost a fortune 40 years ago. Ditto for educational materials, entertainment, etc. In that sense, we are quite wealthy in comparison to previous generations. If charitable organizations can leverage the automation of the future to help people, we might then see all humans across the planet lifted out of poverty. But yeah, I don't expect corporations to do this. And it seems unlikely that most governments will either.

sp527 8y ago
Interesting perspective. I share your pessimism about corporations and governments. But sadly I think government is the only institution with the necessary leverage (tax base, mandate, etc) to accomplish this. Non-profits are also fairly dubious in their motives, subject to corruption, and generally highly inefficient. I'm not sure they're going to be our saviors either.
- sp527 8y ago
  Hmm this comment is getting downvoted, so I'll just reference the Red Cross fiasco as one good example of what I mean: https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-finds-fundamental-concerns-about-red-cross-finances https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-fin.... If you haven't worked in the NGO space, you really don't understand just how bad it is.
icantdrive55 8y ago
1. And 501c3's will take care of the rest? Nonprofits are not a magical entities. I have found most very self-serving. Self-serving the founders whims, and "pockets". Hell even the great Melinda & Bill Gates Foundation give so little back to the womb (America) that cultured/encouraged his money making career. It's almost like the wealthy hate their family? We saw how Bush's Thousand Points of Light went. Humans are selfish. And the lack of spirituality is just making them more so. 2. At this point, I'm just seeing so many jobs being lost to people who don't expect much (yes--there are people who don't think much about putting six people in a 10 x 12 room), and jobs lost to technology. 3. I only see two ways out, and most of you won't like it. A. Tax the wealthy more. During and after WW2 we were taxing Them at 90%, and they didn't complain. It takes the fear of death to lessen the drip on their wad? B. Tie all Fees/fines to income. We're all in this mess together. I don't see a rosy future. I just see more homeless. The wealthy realized they don't need their family (America). They have the world to sell, and exploit to. I got off track, but don't see nonprofits curing our problems.

CryptoPunk 8y ago

Average income and wealth has massively increased over the last century, so we are slowly but surely getting to that utopia. But it happens at a pace that is too slow to be experientially perceptible. I would add however that there does appear to be some barrier limiting the ability of ordinary people to accumulate financial capital, and I attribute that to friction/fixed-costs imposed by regulations. New services, like Robinhood, and technology, like cryptocurrency, could address this, and allow wider participation in capital markets.

anonymous_ch 8y ago
The average American eats better than kings from the past 2,000 years. Wealth and prosperity is 100% relative.

bluGill 8y ago

The living standards of the average person is much better than it was 200 years ago. 75% of the world has a cell phone. Yes the rich have it better, but the poor also have improved in ways that the rich of 200 years ago couldn't imagine.

sp527 8y ago
I don't consider the present highly problematic, though it is imperfect. The problem is the relatively imminent (next 50-100 years) reality of nearly complete human obsolescence. That's when you'll see societal degradation at previously unthinkable levels. And no that's not Luddite fallacy. The next epoch of technological innovation is going to be unlike any that came before. A lot of people champion UBI, while forgetting that something like 3B+ people currently live on less than $2.50 a day. That's really all the evidence you need to know that the future is going to be pretty grim. Do we think it's more likely that plutocratic systems will award sustainable UBI packages to the mass unemployed via wealth transfer (which is anathema in said systems) or that market forces will discover the absolute minimum survivable income level and create new strata in first-world societies that hover just above pure barbarism?