4 ms·

Or, perhaps, has society failed to adapt to present technological reality due to entrenched interest in the social status quo? When so many people in the world

Or, perhaps, has society failed to adapt to present technological reality due to entrenched interest in the social status quo? When so many people in the world live happily on so little, it is undeniable that we could provide for all of our basic needs if there were political will. Without education, that would likely result in a population boom, however.

rayiner 7y ago
I mean yes, we could all live like people do in Bangladesh and reduce the work force dramatically. I fail to see how this would be desirable.
- contingencies 7y ago
  You present a false (and somewhat offensive) dichotomy. Here are some more optimistic ideas. If we reconsidered vehicles, everyone could have access to them when desired. If we reconsidered city layouts, everyone could have a home with desired proximity to others without needing to sacrifice either nature or privacy. If we reconsidered education, medical care and communications infrastructure, they would be universally available and effectively free (indeed, in many places these are already the case). If we reconsidered politics, we could encourage global industry toward environmentally sustainable outcomes without irreversible disaster.
  - tomp 7y ago
    These ideas are beyond delusional (in today's world). > everyone could have access to [vehicles] when desired Uber is trying to do this, but has a lot of problems, from unpredictable pricing, surge pricing, long wait times, shitty drivers, chatty drivers (?), seats with puke all over them, ... self-driving cars could solve some, but not all of these problems. > everyone could have a home with desired proximity to others No, the reason real estate in e.g. NYC is so expensive is that everybody wants to live there! The only way to fix this is to fundamentally decentralize our economy and education systems, but that's a whole lot more complicated than "city layouts". > [education, medical care and communications infrastructure] would be universally available and effectively free Maybe education and communications, but with medical care almost certainly not... The main issue is that medicine doesn't save people's lives, it just prolongs them, and that can always be done better... So fundamentally, the demand for medicine is unlimited, whereas the supply (doctors) is limited, so whatever system of "free and universally available" system you design, there's going to be tradeoffs. Tradeoffs like, "do I fix my teeth or my eyes" and someone is going to have to make that choice. Personally, I'd prefer that to be me (with my money) rather than my government.
    - contingencies 7y ago
      It is true, perfection shall remain elusive. You can't please all of the people all of the time. That said, more equitable systems with far higher qualities in terms of environmental impact, resource consumption and sustainability, as well as fundamental service availability are clearly within reach. You raise a particularly good point about the overall properties of systems for mass medical care, but people don't live forever. Cancer is one answer. Solutions that reduce or delay post-facto treatment with holistic and pre-emptive approaches (better regulation, better education, better diets/life choices) may be another.
  - jonfw 7y ago
    These are very optimistic ideas. But good ideas are actionable. Do you have any of those?
    - contingencies 7y ago
      Sure. Wikiprojects (admin), cryptocurrency (exchange architect), open source (contributor/maintainer), currently working on kiosk format automated fulfillment of personalized meals directly from fresh ingredients (as an entrepreneur with my own money on the line) to contribute to food safety/security challenges (and hopefully recover costs). What about you?
- ngold 7y ago
  The one war america fought but never bothered winning. The war on Poverty.
  - harryh 7y ago
    LBJ and the Great Society won the war on poverty in America. https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1205596833692565504 https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1205596833692565504 "The economists find that by the standards of LBJ's time, the U.S. poverty rate has dropped from 19.5 % in 1963 to just 2.3% in 2017!!" If that's not winning, I don't know what is.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      That's the beauty (to some) and problem (to others) with the definition of poverty: we keep moving the goalposts/standards.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    I so hate the phrase "war on poverty." It tends to de facto turn poor people into The Enemy in the mind's of far too many people.
    - craftinator 7y ago
      That would be another way of lowering the percentage of people living in poverty.
      - DoreenMichele 7y ago
        Yes, please, just take us all out and shoot us for our war crimes of failing to be as wildly successful as we would like to be. (Please don't tell me this needs a sarcasm tag. If you can't tell in this case, then I think it's utterly hopeless.)
  - AdrianB1 7y ago
    Because that is not a war and there is no win, poverty is a moving target and it will always be, unless forced equality is imposed to everybody.
threatofrain 7y ago
But the thing is if the markets really couldn't find any value in the output of nearly everyone, we shouldn't see this high percentage of employment -- not unless one also believes that employers in a decentralised way are implementing their own informal UBI, perhaps out of consensus on political theory or moral values. One might say a simpler explanation is that employee output is still interesting, and that what's interesting isn't just technological output, and that the bulk of interesting technological work isn't about advancement but delivery to the world.
- hacknat 7y ago
  Most companies operate within a market, but don’t, themselves, operate like a market (internally). Have you really not heard any duck and cover stories from corporate America? It absolutely is easy for incompetent people to remain employed. Talented people tend to job hop to realize their increased utility (not always, but mostly), while incompetence gets promoted at the 50% of companies that cannot compete in the labor market.
  - carlmr 7y ago
    Also not to forget a middle manager may want the feeling of power, which they could derive from having more people below them. Humans aren't rational.

rayiner 7y ago

I mean yes, we could all live like people do in Bangladesh and reduce the work force dramatically. I fail to see how this would be desirable.

contingencies 7y ago
You present a false (and somewhat offensive) dichotomy. Here are some more optimistic ideas. If we reconsidered vehicles, everyone could have access to them when desired. If we reconsidered city layouts, everyone could have a home with desired proximity to others without needing to sacrifice either nature or privacy. If we reconsidered education, medical care and communications infrastructure, they would be universally available and effectively free (indeed, in many places these are already the case). If we reconsidered politics, we could encourage global industry toward environmentally sustainable outcomes without irreversible disaster.
- tomp 7y ago
  These ideas are beyond delusional (in today's world). > everyone could have access to [vehicles] when desired Uber is trying to do this, but has a lot of problems, from unpredictable pricing, surge pricing, long wait times, shitty drivers, chatty drivers (?), seats with puke all over them, ... self-driving cars could solve some, but not all of these problems. > everyone could have a home with desired proximity to others No, the reason real estate in e.g. NYC is so expensive is that everybody wants to live there! The only way to fix this is to fundamentally decentralize our economy and education systems, but that's a whole lot more complicated than "city layouts". > [education, medical care and communications infrastructure] would be universally available and effectively free Maybe education and communications, but with medical care almost certainly not... The main issue is that medicine doesn't save people's lives, it just prolongs them, and that can always be done better... So fundamentally, the demand for medicine is unlimited, whereas the supply (doctors) is limited, so whatever system of "free and universally available" system you design, there's going to be tradeoffs. Tradeoffs like, "do I fix my teeth or my eyes" and someone is going to have to make that choice. Personally, I'd prefer that to be me (with my money) rather than my government.
  - contingencies 7y ago
    It is true, perfection shall remain elusive. You can't please all of the people all of the time. That said, more equitable systems with far higher qualities in terms of environmental impact, resource consumption and sustainability, as well as fundamental service availability are clearly within reach. You raise a particularly good point about the overall properties of systems for mass medical care, but people don't live forever. Cancer is one answer. Solutions that reduce or delay post-facto treatment with holistic and pre-emptive approaches (better regulation, better education, better diets/life choices) may be another.
- jonfw 7y ago
  These are very optimistic ideas. But good ideas are actionable. Do you have any of those?
  - contingencies 7y ago
    Sure. Wikiprojects (admin), cryptocurrency (exchange architect), open source (contributor/maintainer), currently working on kiosk format automated fulfillment of personalized meals directly from fresh ingredients (as an entrepreneur with my own money on the line) to contribute to food safety/security challenges (and hopefully recover costs). What about you?
ngold 7y ago
The one war america fought but never bothered winning. The war on Poverty.
- harryh 7y ago
  LBJ and the Great Society won the war on poverty in America. https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1205596833692565504 https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1205596833692565504 "The economists find that by the standards of LBJ's time, the U.S. poverty rate has dropped from 19.5 % in 1963 to just 2.3% in 2017!!" If that's not winning, I don't know what is.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    That's the beauty (to some) and problem (to others) with the definition of poverty: we keep moving the goalposts/standards.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  I so hate the phrase "war on poverty." It tends to de facto turn poor people into The Enemy in the mind's of far too many people.
  - craftinator 7y ago
    That would be another way of lowering the percentage of people living in poverty.
    - DoreenMichele 7y ago
      Yes, please, just take us all out and shoot us for our war crimes of failing to be as wildly successful as we would like to be. (Please don't tell me this needs a sarcasm tag. If you can't tell in this case, then I think it's utterly hopeless.)
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  Because that is not a war and there is no win, poverty is a moving target and it will always be, unless forced equality is imposed to everybody.

threatofrain 7y ago

But the thing is if the markets really couldn't find any value in the output of nearly everyone, we shouldn't see this high percentage of employment -- not unless one also believes that employers in a decentralised way are implementing their own informal UBI, perhaps out of consensus on political theory or moral values. One might say a simpler explanation is that employee output is still interesting, and that what's interesting isn't just technological output, and that the bulk of interesting technological work isn't about advancement but delivery to the world.

hacknat 7y ago
Most companies operate within a market, but don’t, themselves, operate like a market (internally). Have you really not heard any duck and cover stories from corporate America? It absolutely is easy for incompetent people to remain employed. Talented people tend to job hop to realize their increased utility (not always, but mostly), while incompetence gets promoted at the 50% of companies that cannot compete in the labor market.
- carlmr 7y ago
  Also not to forget a middle manager may want the feeling of power, which they could derive from having more people below them. Humans aren't rational.