4 ms·

Scarcity of all kinds. Would prevent a whole lotta conflict

incomingpain 5y ago
>Scarcity of all kinds. Would prevent a whole lotta conflict This is coming. Boston dynamics or James Bruton will eventually produce a bot that does useful things. From that platform it will later do more useful things. Eventually we don't really have scarcity. Sure this will solve basic needs like food, water, warmth, rest, safety. Of which are generally solved in the west. But this will utterly destroy psychological needs. Where do you make friends? How do you have a feeling of accomplishment or the prestige of doing something that a robot now does? In some short term factor we might have less conflict but those psychological losses where accomplishments are achieved by robots will lead to far greater conflict.
- true_religion 5y ago
  What’s the sense of accomplishment you get from doing what another human being can do too right now? Psychologically, if you treat robots as people (albeit permanent slow witted, naturally compliant servants) then it’s easy to image a post scarcity world. We will all simply live like the upper class lives today except our servants and employees are made of silicon instead of flesh. Normal people would compete in the same way CEOs compete, by comparing how well they actually manage their resources.
  - incomingpain 5y ago
    >What’s the sense of accomplishment you get from doing what another human being can do too right now? So that's interesting right. Yes a plumber coming over could be replaced by a bot. But ultimately that bot replaces you as well. >Psychologically, if you treat robots as people (albeit permanent slow witted, naturally compliant servants) then it’s easy to image a post scarcity world. We will all simply live like the upper class lives today except our servants and employees are made of silicon instead of flesh. Like the instant I can buy a robot butler who will keep my house clean and cook me dinner. I do it. They will likely be in the $30-50,000 range. I'm getting that asap. >Normal people would compete in the same way CEOs compete, by comparing how well they actually manage their resources. It'll actually shift the economy to creativity. Robots make building an iphone ultra cheap but some person still needs to engineer and design it.
    - true_religion 5y ago
      I guess the unanswered question is did we humans make a society because we like people or did we make it simply because we needed goods and services? If it’s the former, then society will still exist because we yearn for human interaction. I might buy a book written by a bot, but I’ll still discuss it with my friends. Could my friends be replaced by bots? Maybe, but in the same vein my friends could be replaced by strangers but I don’t do that because of human fixation on individuals (e.g. I care what Joe thinks because he is Joe, no substitutions are allowed). However, if the later applies then society collapses except for the very few people who can create bots better than the bots can create themselves and the monarchs who managed to seize ownership of all the armed drones first.
      - incomingpain 5y ago
        >I guess the unanswered question is did we humans make a society because we like people or did we make it simply because we needed goods and services? This is being studied in depth right now. Metro Toronto has around 6 million people. You know how many people that's above optimal society size? Around 6 million. The optimum city size is less than 500 people. Scientifically proven fact, but how can cities fix this problem? People point to Paris where neighbourhoods are designed around being self-sufficient. Some point of Israeli settlements and such. I don't personally think we know the answer. It's happening in Africa right now. People from the west have gone there and have introduced economics and how to work together to build a pencil. There's a ted talk I can't find that goes into 'bring your donuts to the market, you will sell more and therefore have more to buy' etc. >If it’s the former, then society will still exist because we yearn for human interaction. Society is not about humans it seems. > I might buy a book written by a bot, but I’ll still discuss it with my friends. Could my friends be replaced by bots? Maybe, but in the same vein my friends could be replaced by strangers but I don’t do that because of human fixation on individuals (e.g. I care what Joe thinks because he is Joe, no substitutions are allowed). Or you discuss it on HN. Cant really discuss it with a bot. >However, if the later applies then society collapses except for the very few people who can create bots better than the bots can create themselves and the monarchs who managed to seize ownership of all the armed drones first. Society spreads out. I'm not worried about death robots and terminators. As the cost of owning 100 acres in the middle of nowhere with your own seeded pond and internet fiber right to the house is basically 0. Robots build all those things for you. Big cities collapse for sure but small communities of close families and friends will be where it's at.
- ramphastidae 5y ago
  Do you really believe this? What’s more likely is that whoever creates these machines will hoard access, create artificial scarcity, and sell their outputs in order to maximize profit.
  - incomingpain 5y ago
    James Bruton is doing it open source. Lets say James isn't successful and someone else builds the ironman robots that construct more and eventually ends all scarcity but hoards to become ultra wealthy. That ultra wealthy beyond trillionaire can't consume or spend that money. What it effectively would do it pull the money out of the economy. Deflation would be rampant and productive workers would be worth their weight in gold. Central banks would effectively have to print so much money to avoid deflation that everyone would become effectively rich. I dont see this as a problem in the future.

>Scarcity of all kinds. Would prevent a whole lotta conflict This is coming. Boston dynamics or James Bruton will eventually produce a bot that does useful things. From that platform it will later do more useful things. Eventually we don't really have scarcity. Sure this will solve basic needs like food, water, warmth, rest, safety. Of which are generally solved in the west. But this will utterly destroy psychological needs. Where do you make friends? How do you have a feeling of accomplishment or the prestige of doing something that a robot now does? In some short term factor we might have less conflict but those psychological losses where accomplishments are achieved by robots will lead to far greater conflict.

true_religion 5y ago
What’s the sense of accomplishment you get from doing what another human being can do too right now? Psychologically, if you treat robots as people (albeit permanent slow witted, naturally compliant servants) then it’s easy to image a post scarcity world. We will all simply live like the upper class lives today except our servants and employees are made of silicon instead of flesh. Normal people would compete in the same way CEOs compete, by comparing how well they actually manage their resources.
- incomingpain 5y ago
  >What’s the sense of accomplishment you get from doing what another human being can do too right now? So that's interesting right. Yes a plumber coming over could be replaced by a bot. But ultimately that bot replaces you as well. >Psychologically, if you treat robots as people (albeit permanent slow witted, naturally compliant servants) then it’s easy to image a post scarcity world. We will all simply live like the upper class lives today except our servants and employees are made of silicon instead of flesh. Like the instant I can buy a robot butler who will keep my house clean and cook me dinner. I do it. They will likely be in the $30-50,000 range. I'm getting that asap. >Normal people would compete in the same way CEOs compete, by comparing how well they actually manage their resources. It'll actually shift the economy to creativity. Robots make building an iphone ultra cheap but some person still needs to engineer and design it.
  - true_religion 5y ago
    I guess the unanswered question is did we humans make a society because we like people or did we make it simply because we needed goods and services? If it’s the former, then society will still exist because we yearn for human interaction. I might buy a book written by a bot, but I’ll still discuss it with my friends. Could my friends be replaced by bots? Maybe, but in the same vein my friends could be replaced by strangers but I don’t do that because of human fixation on individuals (e.g. I care what Joe thinks because he is Joe, no substitutions are allowed). However, if the later applies then society collapses except for the very few people who can create bots better than the bots can create themselves and the monarchs who managed to seize ownership of all the armed drones first.
    - incomingpain 5y ago
      >I guess the unanswered question is did we humans make a society because we like people or did we make it simply because we needed goods and services? This is being studied in depth right now. Metro Toronto has around 6 million people. You know how many people that's above optimal society size? Around 6 million. The optimum city size is less than 500 people. Scientifically proven fact, but how can cities fix this problem? People point to Paris where neighbourhoods are designed around being self-sufficient. Some point of Israeli settlements and such. I don't personally think we know the answer. It's happening in Africa right now. People from the west have gone there and have introduced economics and how to work together to build a pencil. There's a ted talk I can't find that goes into 'bring your donuts to the market, you will sell more and therefore have more to buy' etc. >If it’s the former, then society will still exist because we yearn for human interaction. Society is not about humans it seems. > I might buy a book written by a bot, but I’ll still discuss it with my friends. Could my friends be replaced by bots? Maybe, but in the same vein my friends could be replaced by strangers but I don’t do that because of human fixation on individuals (e.g. I care what Joe thinks because he is Joe, no substitutions are allowed). Or you discuss it on HN. Cant really discuss it with a bot. >However, if the later applies then society collapses except for the very few people who can create bots better than the bots can create themselves and the monarchs who managed to seize ownership of all the armed drones first. Society spreads out. I'm not worried about death robots and terminators. As the cost of owning 100 acres in the middle of nowhere with your own seeded pond and internet fiber right to the house is basically 0. Robots build all those things for you. Big cities collapse for sure but small communities of close families and friends will be where it's at.
ramphastidae 5y ago
Do you really believe this? What’s more likely is that whoever creates these machines will hoard access, create artificial scarcity, and sell their outputs in order to maximize profit.
- incomingpain 5y ago
  James Bruton is doing it open source. Lets say James isn't successful and someone else builds the ironman robots that construct more and eventually ends all scarcity but hoards to become ultra wealthy. That ultra wealthy beyond trillionaire can't consume or spend that money. What it effectively would do it pull the money out of the economy. Deflation would be rampant and productive workers would be worth their weight in gold. Central banks would effectively have to print so much money to avoid deflation that everyone would become effectively rich. I dont see this as a problem in the future.