6 ms·

Democratize ownership it is. Imagine an early human group of 40 people. If one person hoarded the food of 37 others and employed the remaining two just to guar

Democratize ownership it is. Imagine an early human group of 40 people. If one person hoarded the food of 37 others and employed the remaining two just to guard it, it wasn't long before the ruse was up and there was a revolt and the food reclaimed. Now, only because of scale and abstraction, basically the same setup is possible (0.1% owns as much as 50% of the population). Our time is perverted ownership-wise, and it's time to go back to a truly cooperative society. Cooperation, not hoarding, was the foundation of the beginning of civilisation. --- My ideal future resembles Star Trek: a world where money is obsolete (at least on Earth), and people pursue exploration, science, and the arts purely out of passion and curiosity. A society driven by innovation, not profit.

ngneer 2y ago
There is no sequence of steps that takes us from where we are to the society depicted in Star Trek, or at least none has been outlined so far. If it were to happen, the world would need an abrupt phase change (e.g., First Contact). You may be tempted to call me a pessimist, but I am a realist. To convince a realist, one must show a sequence of steps.
- rthomas6 2y ago
  In the Culture books it was AI...
- canadaduane 2y ago
  > or at least none has been outlined so far I love this, thank you for specifying the condition under which you might be convinced otherwise. I respect your position more for this. (And unfortunately as a Star Trek fanatic myself, agree with it so far as well).
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  I think you're dead on. Growing up I hoped for a Star Trek future. Now all I see is Alien without all the xenomorphs.
  - IanHalbwachs 2y ago
    This comment may haunt me for the rest of my life.
    - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
      Well, if we're lucky we might see a xenomorph or two before we go, possibly even while screaming.
  - ido 2y ago
    Or Blade Runner.
- arbot360 2y ago
  Star Trek outlined a sequence of steps but you might not like them...
- tiberious726 2y ago
  Step 1) world war 3 Step 2) some drunk invents FTL Step 3) the Vulcans show up
lumenwrites 2y ago
I don't think the world where a mob of people can gang up on a person and take their stuff is as idyllic as you think it is. If the person who has figured out how to earn a lot of food doesn't get to "hoard" it, it'll just get hoarded by a person with the biggest stick. What's worse (for the society), is that in this world nobody has an incentive to create wealth, because they know it'll just be taken away. When rich people aren't in power, people with political capital and big guns are. I don't think that's better. If AGI takes over, that changes things, somewhat. If it creates unlimited abundance, then it shouldn't matter who has the most (if everyone has plenty). Yes, it would create power disparity, but the thing is, there'll always be SOMEBODY at the top of the social hierarchy, with most of the money and power - in the AGI scenario, that is someone who is in charge of AGI's actions. Either it's AGI itself (in which case all bets are off, since it's an alien god we cannot control), or the people who have developed AGI, or the politicians who have nationalized it. Personally, I'm uncomfortable with anyone having that much power, but if I had to pick the lesser evil - I'd prefer it to be a CEO of an AI company (who, at least, had the competence and skill to create it), instead of the AGI itself (who has no reason to care about us unless we solve alignment), or one of the political world leaders (all of whom seem actively insane and/or evil).
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  If the person who has figured out how to earn a lot of food doesn't get to "hoard" it, it'll just get hoarded by a person with the biggest stick. Where are you getting the 'earn' part from, and why isn't it in scare quotes like 'hoard'? It seems like you're just changing the parameters of the argument to support the conclusion you prefer.
- canadaduane 2y ago
  > What's worse (for the society), is that in this world nobody has an incentive to create wealth, because they know it'll just be taken away. I know this has been discussed at length in many places, but I just want to point out that it isn't binary. There is some kind of distribution where "sovereign ownership" (full protection, no taxes, no redistribution) would entice the most people to create wealth (and even then, I doubt it would be 100% of the population), all the way to "mob rule" where a minimal number of people would be enticed to create wealth (and I don't think it would be 0%). People do things for multidimensional reasons. That said, our societies have tried many variations along the spectrum between these two extremes, and I think we have uncovered the importance of protecting wealth and the incentive to create it.
bumby 2y ago
I like that ideal, but it only comes about in abundance. Unfortunately, I think humans are programmed to rarely feel a sense of abundance because we innately desire social status. Social status is a relative metric, meaning it only exists in relation to others. This, combined with a greed impulse, renders a constant need for more. In other words, the human state often runs counter to a sense of abundance, and this seems incompatible with that ideal. I think that’s why capitalism, warts and all, has been an engine for progress.
- JanisErdmanis 2y ago
  The core issue seems that the social status is tightly coupled with currency and it can be optimized in destructive ways. Perhaps we need currency with multiple colours that could be earned in different ways and could be allowed to be spent to its sphere of influence as long as it could be enforced to not be interchanged. That way one could have higher social status in one sphere of influence and lower in another one.
  - bumby 2y ago
    William Storr has written about this and gives three different styles of social “currency”: dominance, virtue, and success. Capitalism favors success and dominance over virtue, but some social subsets (eg clergy) get status through virtue.
    - JanisErdmanis 2y ago
      I may have a look on William Storr later on. The separation of social currency does however seem rather primitive one.
      - bumby 2y ago
        Primitive in what sense? Lacking nuance, or not reflective of modern society? I do think that the success category is easily mapped to money, which may be why it’s a primary heuristic for measuring success in a modern western society.
phkahler 2y ago
>> My ideal future resembles Star Trek: a world where money is obsolete (at least on Earth), and people pursue exploration, science, and the arts purely out of passion and curiosity. The problem with the Star Trek fantasy is that it's a lie even within the show. There are still people with obligations. There are still treaties and trade. There is still a hierarchy where some people have more important jobs and report to others. The only thing that seems different is that no money changes hands. If we actually automated everything so no one had to work, there would still be a gradual progression and a time when some people have to work while most don't. I'm not sure how you get through that phase, not to mention what it looks like on the other side. One thing I think should be considered is not so much how to pay everyone "enough" but how to reduce cost of living so more people can work less, or eventually not at all (somehow without owning everything and amassing control).
- HPsquared 2y ago
  We already live in a world where only a small number of people ACTUALLY need to work. Most of humanity's expenses are attributable to lifestyle creep. If we could be happy with a 16th century peasant standard of living delivered by a small number of people using modern tech, only a tiny percentage of the available manpower would be required. Lifestyle creep eats all gains in productivity. Work also expands to fill the available time.
K0balt 2y ago
Worse yet, we are moving away from money but towards power being the goal. Automation stands to fundamentally upend the whole cart , destroying capitalism as we understand it today. Money exists fundamentally to motivate people to perform some action. In the end, it comes down to paying labor. No one pays the earth, the forest, the sun. Automation stands to make human labor too expensive to compete, since our needs far exceed the energy it takes to operate and manufacture us. Without human labor, you don’t need money. You just need more anthropoid robots to make more anthropoids and to execute on whatever it is you want to do, own, or construct. You don’t buy a yacht, you build a one-yacht factory to make a yacht. Capital will become human-sparse, needing only resources and energy and will exist to serve a small group of beneficiaries, if anyone.

ngneer 2y ago

There is no sequence of steps that takes us from where we are to the society depicted in Star Trek, or at least none has been outlined so far. If it were to happen, the world would need an abrupt phase change (e.g., First Contact). You may be tempted to call me a pessimist, but I am a realist. To convince a realist, one must show a sequence of steps.

rthomas6 2y ago
In the Culture books it was AI...
canadaduane 2y ago
> or at least none has been outlined so far I love this, thank you for specifying the condition under which you might be convinced otherwise. I respect your position more for this. (And unfortunately as a Star Trek fanatic myself, agree with it so far as well).
SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
I think you're dead on. Growing up I hoped for a Star Trek future. Now all I see is Alien without all the xenomorphs.
- IanHalbwachs 2y ago
  This comment may haunt me for the rest of my life.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    Well, if we're lucky we might see a xenomorph or two before we go, possibly even while screaming.
- ido 2y ago
  Or Blade Runner.
arbot360 2y ago
Star Trek outlined a sequence of steps but you might not like them...
tiberious726 2y ago
Step 1) world war 3 Step 2) some drunk invents FTL Step 3) the Vulcans show up

lumenwrites 2y ago

I don't think the world where a mob of people can gang up on a person and take their stuff is as idyllic as you think it is. If the person who has figured out how to earn a lot of food doesn't get to "hoard" it, it'll just get hoarded by a person with the biggest stick. What's worse (for the society), is that in this world nobody has an incentive to create wealth, because they know it'll just be taken away. When rich people aren't in power, people with political capital and big guns are. I don't think that's better. If AGI takes over, that changes things, somewhat. If it creates unlimited abundance, then it shouldn't matter who has the most (if everyone has plenty). Yes, it would create power disparity, but the thing is, there'll always be SOMEBODY at the top of the social hierarchy, with most of the money and power - in the AGI scenario, that is someone who is in charge of AGI's actions. Either it's AGI itself (in which case all bets are off, since it's an alien god we cannot control), or the people who have developed AGI, or the politicians who have nationalized it. Personally, I'm uncomfortable with anyone having that much power, but if I had to pick the lesser evil - I'd prefer it to be a CEO of an AI company (who, at least, had the competence and skill to create it), instead of the AGI itself (who has no reason to care about us unless we solve alignment), or one of the political world leaders (all of whom seem actively insane and/or evil).

anigbrowl 2y ago
If the person who has figured out how to earn a lot of food doesn't get to "hoard" it, it'll just get hoarded by a person with the biggest stick. Where are you getting the 'earn' part from, and why isn't it in scare quotes like 'hoard'? It seems like you're just changing the parameters of the argument to support the conclusion you prefer.
canadaduane 2y ago
> What's worse (for the society), is that in this world nobody has an incentive to create wealth, because they know it'll just be taken away. I know this has been discussed at length in many places, but I just want to point out that it isn't binary. There is some kind of distribution where "sovereign ownership" (full protection, no taxes, no redistribution) would entice the most people to create wealth (and even then, I doubt it would be 100% of the population), all the way to "mob rule" where a minimal number of people would be enticed to create wealth (and I don't think it would be 0%). People do things for multidimensional reasons. That said, our societies have tried many variations along the spectrum between these two extremes, and I think we have uncovered the importance of protecting wealth and the incentive to create it.

bumby 2y ago

I like that ideal, but it only comes about in abundance. Unfortunately, I think humans are programmed to rarely feel a sense of abundance because we innately desire social status. Social status is a relative metric, meaning it only exists in relation to others. This, combined with a greed impulse, renders a constant need for more. In other words, the human state often runs counter to a sense of abundance, and this seems incompatible with that ideal. I think that’s why capitalism, warts and all, has been an engine for progress.

JanisErdmanis 2y ago
The core issue seems that the social status is tightly coupled with currency and it can be optimized in destructive ways. Perhaps we need currency with multiple colours that could be earned in different ways and could be allowed to be spent to its sphere of influence as long as it could be enforced to not be interchanged. That way one could have higher social status in one sphere of influence and lower in another one.
- bumby 2y ago
  William Storr has written about this and gives three different styles of social “currency”: dominance, virtue, and success. Capitalism favors success and dominance over virtue, but some social subsets (eg clergy) get status through virtue.
  - JanisErdmanis 2y ago
    I may have a look on William Storr later on. The separation of social currency does however seem rather primitive one.
    - bumby 2y ago
      Primitive in what sense? Lacking nuance, or not reflective of modern society? I do think that the success category is easily mapped to money, which may be why it’s a primary heuristic for measuring success in a modern western society.

phkahler 2y ago

>> My ideal future resembles Star Trek: a world where money is obsolete (at least on Earth), and people pursue exploration, science, and the arts purely out of passion and curiosity. The problem with the Star Trek fantasy is that it's a lie even within the show. There are still people with obligations. There are still treaties and trade. There is still a hierarchy where some people have more important jobs and report to others. The only thing that seems different is that no money changes hands. If we actually automated everything so no one had to work, there would still be a gradual progression and a time when some people have to work while most don't. I'm not sure how you get through that phase, not to mention what it looks like on the other side. One thing I think should be considered is not so much how to pay everyone "enough" but how to reduce cost of living so more people can work less, or eventually not at all (somehow without owning everything and amassing control).

HPsquared 2y ago
We already live in a world where only a small number of people ACTUALLY need to work. Most of humanity's expenses are attributable to lifestyle creep. If we could be happy with a 16th century peasant standard of living delivered by a small number of people using modern tech, only a tiny percentage of the available manpower would be required. Lifestyle creep eats all gains in productivity. Work also expands to fill the available time.

K0balt 2y ago

Worse yet, we are moving away from money but towards power being the goal. Automation stands to fundamentally upend the whole cart , destroying capitalism as we understand it today. Money exists fundamentally to motivate people to perform some action. In the end, it comes down to paying labor. No one pays the earth, the forest, the sun. Automation stands to make human labor too expensive to compete, since our needs far exceed the energy it takes to operate and manufacture us. Without human labor, you don’t need money. You just need more anthropoid robots to make more anthropoids and to execute on whatever it is you want to do, own, or construct. You don’t buy a yacht, you build a one-yacht factory to make a yacht. Capital will become human-sparse, needing only resources and energy and will exist to serve a small group of beneficiaries, if anyone.