4 ms·

Far more benefit - but the question is, for whom? And don't start with topics like universal basic income, I'm not very optimistic about that. The way it's look

by rob74 3y ago

Far more benefit - but the question is, for whom? And don't start with topics like universal basic income, I'm not very optimistic about that. The way it's looking like right now, in the long run 1% will reap the benefits, while 99% will be out of a job...

jackling 3y ago
Strange to ask the question, but eliminate one of the strongest arguments right off the bat. Should probably explain why UBI is not feasible in this scenario. As for benefits, likely for everyone. People don't work just to make money, people make money since they work and produce for society right? Making money was never the end goal, and if we can avoid more work, that should be better for society as a whole.
- GPerson 3y ago
  I’m not making an argument here. What I would like explained is why we don’t already have UBI, given that mass production and automation has existed for a very long time already.
  - jackling 3y ago
    The new form of automation is different than previous forms, that could be a reason why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU&ab_channel=CGPGrey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU&ab_channel=CGPGr.... In short, automation shifted the amount that needed to be done in certain industries. AI could possibly make shift so large that there won't be enough work for everyone to do.
    - GPerson 3y ago
      Automation practically eliminated the labor required to provide for the basic necessities of human survival, but if I don’t maintain an increasingly inconsequential job, then I will die homeless in the streets in short order. I’m really not trying to argue for or against any new technology. But I don’t see why any new technological change necessarily brings about UBI given the absolutely drastic reduction in the amount of labor necessary for human survival we already achieved in the mid 1900’s. So my question is still, why did the old forms of automation not bring about a post scarcity utopia (or at least a UBI)?
- lc9er 3y ago
  Not sure if this is sarcasm and I just need another coffee. Almost everyone works for money, short of a privileged few that are lucky enough to work purely for the satisfaction of the work itself.
  - jackling 3y ago
    That wasn't my point. An individual works for money in order to buy things. But we just have this system in place because labour needs to be done in order for us to survive. Labour makes goods and services that we need, society alloocates money so we can live. If we automate most labour away, then money doesn't need to exist as a system. It exist just to facilitate our current system of consumption and labour. When there is a dramatic shift to that system, we shouldn't fight the shift just because it will automate jobs away and make money less valuable, the system of allocate wealth needs to change to accomodate the shift. I wasn't trying to say that people don't work for money fullstop, but rather that money isn't what people are trying to get ultimately. People want things, things that make people happy and alive. They get money in order to acquire those things.
    - lc9er 3y ago
      Ah gotcha. I understand what you mean. Though I don't know that I share your optimism. I fear the wealthy class will just squeeze and squeeze all the money and resources from everyone else, and make moving to a post-money system as painful as possible.
carlosjobim 3y ago
Young women can always prostitute themselves, and that's something an AI can never replace. So mass prostitution for women and mass gang violence for men is what the younger generation gets. To the benefit of the few and the elderly. It's already happening.
- noisy_boy 3y ago
  > Young women can always prostitute themselves, and that's something an AI can never replace. How will the clients pay if AI has already taken away the jobs?
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    Answer to you and the other responder: The average man is not going to be their clients. They are broke. The clients are of course going to be those who benefit from the massive difference in wealth. And it does not have to be prostitution only in the traditional sense, it will also be so called sugar dating and literal harems. That is the norm for mammals.
    - noisy_boy 3y ago
      Yeah but that assumes a relatively large enough population of daddies; with AI, too much supply and too few daddies.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        The top men will have harems and many children. They will probably share power and wealth with their sons and daughters (or in-laws), and if it's not enough for the sons to have their own harems, they'll have a wife or series of wives. And in a few generations the huge amount of children from the elite will have diluted their wealth and power significantly. So the result is that most women and a few men will have offspring, the rest of the men are exterminated from the genome. A future generation of people having a lot of cousins, with all the genetical diseases it brings. Every new significant invention means massive genetical extermination of males and a new cycle of power struggles. A stable society with monogamy and equality among people is a rare breather.

by rob74 3y ago

jackling 3y ago

Strange to ask the question, but eliminate one of the strongest arguments right off the bat. Should probably explain why UBI is not feasible in this scenario. As for benefits, likely for everyone. People don't work just to make money, people make money since they work and produce for society right? Making money was never the end goal, and if we can avoid more work, that should be better for society as a whole.

GPerson 3y ago
I’m not making an argument here. What I would like explained is why we don’t already have UBI, given that mass production and automation has existed for a very long time already.
- jackling 3y ago
  The new form of automation is different than previous forms, that could be a reason why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU&ab_channel=CGPGrey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU&ab_channel=CGPGr.... In short, automation shifted the amount that needed to be done in certain industries. AI could possibly make shift so large that there won't be enough work for everyone to do.
  - GPerson 3y ago
    Automation practically eliminated the labor required to provide for the basic necessities of human survival, but if I don’t maintain an increasingly inconsequential job, then I will die homeless in the streets in short order. I’m really not trying to argue for or against any new technology. But I don’t see why any new technological change necessarily brings about UBI given the absolutely drastic reduction in the amount of labor necessary for human survival we already achieved in the mid 1900’s. So my question is still, why did the old forms of automation not bring about a post scarcity utopia (or at least a UBI)?
lc9er 3y ago
Not sure if this is sarcasm and I just need another coffee. Almost everyone works for money, short of a privileged few that are lucky enough to work purely for the satisfaction of the work itself.
- jackling 3y ago
  That wasn't my point. An individual works for money in order to buy things. But we just have this system in place because labour needs to be done in order for us to survive. Labour makes goods and services that we need, society alloocates money so we can live. If we automate most labour away, then money doesn't need to exist as a system. It exist just to facilitate our current system of consumption and labour. When there is a dramatic shift to that system, we shouldn't fight the shift just because it will automate jobs away and make money less valuable, the system of allocate wealth needs to change to accomodate the shift. I wasn't trying to say that people don't work for money fullstop, but rather that money isn't what people are trying to get ultimately. People want things, things that make people happy and alive. They get money in order to acquire those things.
  - lc9er 3y ago
    Ah gotcha. I understand what you mean. Though I don't know that I share your optimism. I fear the wealthy class will just squeeze and squeeze all the money and resources from everyone else, and make moving to a post-money system as painful as possible.

carlosjobim 3y ago

Young women can always prostitute themselves, and that's something an AI can never replace. So mass prostitution for women and mass gang violence for men is what the younger generation gets. To the benefit of the few and the elderly. It's already happening.

noisy_boy 3y ago
> Young women can always prostitute themselves, and that's something an AI can never replace. How will the clients pay if AI has already taken away the jobs?
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Answer to you and the other responder: The average man is not going to be their clients. They are broke. The clients are of course going to be those who benefit from the massive difference in wealth. And it does not have to be prostitution only in the traditional sense, it will also be so called sugar dating and literal harems. That is the norm for mammals.
  - noisy_boy 3y ago
    Yeah but that assumes a relatively large enough population of daddies; with AI, too much supply and too few daddies.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      The top men will have harems and many children. They will probably share power and wealth with their sons and daughters (or in-laws), and if it's not enough for the sons to have their own harems, they'll have a wife or series of wives. And in a few generations the huge amount of children from the elite will have diluted their wealth and power significantly. So the result is that most women and a few men will have offspring, the rest of the men are exterminated from the genome. A future generation of people having a lot of cousins, with all the genetical diseases it brings. Every new significant invention means massive genetical extermination of males and a new cycle of power struggles. A stable society with monogamy and equality among people is a rare breather.