3 ms·

What I want is to automate the manufacturing systems I depend upon while also structuring things in such a way that I am part of a cooperative that owns and ope

What I want is to automate the manufacturing systems I depend upon while also structuring things in such a way that I am part of a cooperative that owns and operates that equipment. Then me and everyone else in this co-op can receive the benefits of automation instead of being kicked to the curb so capital owners can get another super yacht. Point being, automation isn’t the root of the problem, the structure of firms in our economy is.

satvikpendem 2y ago
That will only really be solved in a post scarcity society, it cannot come about before then because there are always more people to squeeze.
- rafaelmn 2y ago
  There's no such thing as post scarcity society - physical would is finite and society exists because cooperation > individual. Once you add competing superhuman intelligence to the equation the second assumption does not hold.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    Postmodernism didn't dispatch with the modernists, it just moved on. You don't have to eliminate all scarcity before you can transition to a mode of economic behavior which is not predominantly scarcity driven. (And the sooner we do so the better. The scarcity driven model that we're using has no steering wheel and there are hazards on the horizon worth steering away from.)
    - rafaelmn 2y ago
      You realize that in this mode your best bet for survival is becoming a pet of people controlling AI/AI itself if it's self motivating ? Why would anyone share access ? It's a one shot prisoner dilemma - whoever controls the best system first eliminates the competition and wins.
      - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
        > ...and wins. What do they win? A bunch of money? Post scarcity could mean many different things. One alternative to scarcity is consent. Behave in a way where enough people revoke consent, and your money won't go far enough to buy anything. So in that model they'll share access because if they don't they lose.
        rafaelmn 2y ago
        Control over AI ? What money ? Money is just a tool to facilitate cooperation. If you have superhuman AGI you don't need anyone else to do things - they are just a threat for your control - so you eliminate that threat either by destroying or neutralizing any viable threat scenario (harmless pet).
        __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
        Not sure why a superhuman AGI would take orders from a human, but ignoring that for a moment... Intelligence is not the only bottleneck on getting things done. Yes, eventually it could build its own robot minions and farm food for its master and construct some kind of army of hunter killer bots to ensure compliance and dominate the planet, but that kind of conquest takes decades, if not centuries. Maybe it can play 4 dimensional chess, but we still have some advantages. We need post-scarcity economic models so that we can ensure that cooperation > individual continues to hold. The scarcity-driven ones we're using currently don't give us any legal nonviolent ways to stop outcomes like this, but that's not a law of physics, that's just a quirk of history. I think there are a million more immediate risks than a robot uprising, but as it turns out, putting a steering wheel on our economy would help with those too.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    Indeed, hence my comment. I doubt such a society and economic system would actually come to fruition in the real world, it's a utopic dream in fiction like Star Trek only.
    - TaylorAlexander 2y ago
      What I argue is that it is technologically, physically, sociologically, and economically possible to create a society where no one wants for food, shelter, medical care, human interaction, and human thriving. Of that I am certain. Whether or not we accept that this is possible and whether or not we are willing to make the changes necessary is our choice. But it is not a thing that happens so much as a thing we make happen.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        How would you make that possible? I am really not sure if it is indeed possible because the real world is much messier than utopic dreams. For example, where does the money come from for all of these? I have not once seen an actual tangible budget for all of these things, and keep in mind that these things are much more expensive than those in power usually budget for, see things like constructing infrastructure almost always going way over budget and time.
        __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
        The Roman empire didn't have enough money to fund it's conquests. Instead it created a new type of money out of proofs of participation in those conquests (Caesar's face went on coins paid to soldiers and taxes were collected in caesar-face coin. To get one, you had to help a soldier. This caused caesar-face coin to be traded above it's booluon value. After this change, Rome did have enough money for their conquests). We could do the same thing except instead of basing the money on the collective willingness to attack the neighboring village it could be a collective willingness to feed, house, and medically care for the neighboring village. You couldn't press people into it will fear like Caesar did, but hope might work. Money a proxy for what people believe in, and beliefs can change.
- TaylorAlexander 2y ago
  I view this the other way - only through community ownership of the means of production can we bring about a post scarcity society. If the people don’t control the machinery they depend upon for their survival and the reproduction of their society, then whoever does control it will exploit them.

satvikpendem 2y ago

That will only really be solved in a post scarcity society, it cannot come about before then because there are always more people to squeeze.

rafaelmn 2y ago
There's no such thing as post scarcity society - physical would is finite and society exists because cooperation > individual. Once you add competing superhuman intelligence to the equation the second assumption does not hold.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  Postmodernism didn't dispatch with the modernists, it just moved on. You don't have to eliminate all scarcity before you can transition to a mode of economic behavior which is not predominantly scarcity driven. (And the sooner we do so the better. The scarcity driven model that we're using has no steering wheel and there are hazards on the horizon worth steering away from.)
  - rafaelmn 2y ago
    You realize that in this mode your best bet for survival is becoming a pet of people controlling AI/AI itself if it's self motivating ? Why would anyone share access ? It's a one shot prisoner dilemma - whoever controls the best system first eliminates the competition and wins.
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      > ...and wins. What do they win? A bunch of money? Post scarcity could mean many different things. One alternative to scarcity is consent. Behave in a way where enough people revoke consent, and your money won't go far enough to buy anything. So in that model they'll share access because if they don't they lose.
      - rafaelmn 2y ago
        Control over AI ? What money ? Money is just a tool to facilitate cooperation. If you have superhuman AGI you don't need anyone else to do things - they are just a threat for your control - so you eliminate that threat either by destroying or neutralizing any viable threat scenario (harmless pet).
        __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
        Not sure why a superhuman AGI would take orders from a human, but ignoring that for a moment... Intelligence is not the only bottleneck on getting things done. Yes, eventually it could build its own robot minions and farm food for its master and construct some kind of army of hunter killer bots to ensure compliance and dominate the planet, but that kind of conquest takes decades, if not centuries. Maybe it can play 4 dimensional chess, but we still have some advantages. We need post-scarcity economic models so that we can ensure that cooperation > individual continues to hold. The scarcity-driven ones we're using currently don't give us any legal nonviolent ways to stop outcomes like this, but that's not a law of physics, that's just a quirk of history. I think there are a million more immediate risks than a robot uprising, but as it turns out, putting a steering wheel on our economy would help with those too.
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  Indeed, hence my comment. I doubt such a society and economic system would actually come to fruition in the real world, it's a utopic dream in fiction like Star Trek only.
  - TaylorAlexander 2y ago
    What I argue is that it is technologically, physically, sociologically, and economically possible to create a society where no one wants for food, shelter, medical care, human interaction, and human thriving. Of that I am certain. Whether or not we accept that this is possible and whether or not we are willing to make the changes necessary is our choice. But it is not a thing that happens so much as a thing we make happen.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      How would you make that possible? I am really not sure if it is indeed possible because the real world is much messier than utopic dreams. For example, where does the money come from for all of these? I have not once seen an actual tangible budget for all of these things, and keep in mind that these things are much more expensive than those in power usually budget for, see things like constructing infrastructure almost always going way over budget and time.
      - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
        The Roman empire didn't have enough money to fund it's conquests. Instead it created a new type of money out of proofs of participation in those conquests (Caesar's face went on coins paid to soldiers and taxes were collected in caesar-face coin. To get one, you had to help a soldier. This caused caesar-face coin to be traded above it's booluon value. After this change, Rome did have enough money for their conquests). We could do the same thing except instead of basing the money on the collective willingness to attack the neighboring village it could be a collective willingness to feed, house, and medically care for the neighboring village. You couldn't press people into it will fear like Caesar did, but hope might work. Money a proxy for what people believe in, and beliefs can change.
TaylorAlexander 2y ago
I view this the other way - only through community ownership of the means of production can we bring about a post scarcity society. If the people don’t control the machinery they depend upon for their survival and the reproduction of their society, then whoever does control it will exploit them.