3 ms·
> If we don't come up with a way to share the wealth produced by increasing automation, the current system will funnel almost all of it to the top. I think thi
by Kalium 7y ago
> If we don't come up with a way to share the wealth produced by increasing automation, the current system will funnel almost all of it to the top.
I think this is a discussion that requires more nuance than is generally used. I think you're talking just about money here, but I'm not sure.
Without that nuance, there's a good argument to be made that the current system that has made powerful computers accessible to and affordable to all but the most impoverished in the world is an excellent example of sharing wealth. The industrial revolution similarly made cheap textiles available and cheap shipping has dramatically cut food prices.
All of those are arguably sharing wealth. But none of them are sharing money.
- ska 7y agoYou aren't wrong that there is nuance required. On the other hand 'trickle down economics' has been pretty categorically debunked by reality; it can't not be about money entirely either. So it isn't all about money, but if the monetary gains of increased productivity are captured by a shrinking fraction of the population, nothing good happens in the long run.
- kortex 7y agoExactly. Even if wealth is shared, and all humans technically receive everything they need to live life, that does not mean the world is avoiding assorted moral hazards, such as "human zoo" condition. Nor that the human condition on the whole is optimal. Also relevant, this short story is a favorite of HN: https://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm https://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm