4 ms·
Resources are currently allocated through paid work. The biggest unknown is how that will be replaced once jobs are gone. My worry is who will make that decisio
by keernan 3y ago
Resources are currently allocated through paid work. The biggest unknown is how that will be replaced once jobs are gone. My worry is who will make that decision.
To add context to that question, it is important to consider that life expectancy will (very) soon be 500-1000 years. With that backdrop, consider two possible future worlds:
1. A world of exploding population living for 1,000 years with natural resources strained to their limit.
2. A world with a population cap (say 1 million people) of incredible wealth, and leisure for your ~1000 year life-span.
If you were a member of the billionaire class who, as a group, possess the greatest ability to control which of those two scenarios plays out, which would you choose?
- quantified 3y agoGood luck getting the world into situation #2 since it's impossible to see Western creators of the tech getting poor and West-hostile societies on board. Though I think somewhere about 250 MM people is the best density myself and would be best even with current spans. Billionaires wiping out the poor would incite a vigorous class war.
- keernan 3y agoNot being a billionaire, I don't view either scenario as very enticing.
- big_whack 3y agoIt would take at least 500-1000 years for the life expectancy to rise to 500-1000 years. Pretending that is very soon, or that people in significant number could even afford that ability after the tech existed (which it won't), seems out of touch.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]