4 ms·

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 h

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.
neutronicus 2y ago
Abundance is going to be limited by raw materials. The less need there is for human labor, the less disincentive humans have for killing each other over raw materials.
sjducb 2y ago
Most hunter gather societies have big differences in productivity between members. I remember reading one example where one man did all of the hunting for a tribe of about 40 people. He really enjoyed both the hunting and the status of being the best hunter. He shared the meat freely. No one was taking it away.
- lumenwrites 2y ago
  Nothing about the current system (capitalism) prevents people from sharing freely, that's just charity. I think it's wonderful and admirable when people do that, and I fully support that, as long as it's voluntary. I'd be happy to live in a version of society where there's enough abundance and good will that people just give to charity, and that is enough to support everyone, and nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want. I only dislike it when people advocate for involuntary redistribution of wealth, because it has a lot of negative side effects people aren't thinking through. Also, because I think that it's evil and results in the sort of society and culture where it would be a nightmare to live in.
  - ido 2y ago
    Isn't "involuntary redistribution of wealth" literally every country on earth though (aside from a few that have such a lack of rule of law that the state can't tax the population)? Do you consider the entire developed world (and most of the rest) a nightmare to live in? I live in Germany where we have taxes & don't consider it a nightmare.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > Isn't "involuntary redistribution of wealth" literally every country on earth though (aside from a few that have such a lack of rule of law that the state can't tax the population)? Places with governments that weak also tend to prominently feature involuntary redistribution of wealth. It tends to be more self-service at the hands of the end-recipients and without the kind of ethical theory behind it that is at least the notional framework fo redistribution by functional governments, but it still very much occurs.
tucnak 2y ago
> in which case all bets are off, since it's an alien god we cannot control I hate to break it to you, considering how much effort you put into your comment, but this is already the case. Global economics is something we CANNOT control already, so the world you live in, is ALREADY governed by alien God. The self-described "optimists" here are naive at best, and delusional at worst.

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.

neutronicus 2y ago

Abundance is going to be limited by raw materials. The less need there is for human labor, the less disincentive humans have for killing each other over raw materials.

sjducb 2y ago

Most hunter gather societies have big differences in productivity between members. I remember reading one example where one man did all of the hunting for a tribe of about 40 people. He really enjoyed both the hunting and the status of being the best hunter. He shared the meat freely. No one was taking it away.

lumenwrites 2y ago
Nothing about the current system (capitalism) prevents people from sharing freely, that's just charity. I think it's wonderful and admirable when people do that, and I fully support that, as long as it's voluntary. I'd be happy to live in a version of society where there's enough abundance and good will that people just give to charity, and that is enough to support everyone, and nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want. I only dislike it when people advocate for involuntary redistribution of wealth, because it has a lot of negative side effects people aren't thinking through. Also, because I think that it's evil and results in the sort of society and culture where it would be a nightmare to live in.
- ido 2y ago
  Isn't "involuntary redistribution of wealth" literally every country on earth though (aside from a few that have such a lack of rule of law that the state can't tax the population)? Do you consider the entire developed world (and most of the rest) a nightmare to live in? I live in Germany where we have taxes & don't consider it a nightmare.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Isn't "involuntary redistribution of wealth" literally every country on earth though (aside from a few that have such a lack of rule of law that the state can't tax the population)? Places with governments that weak also tend to prominently feature involuntary redistribution of wealth. It tends to be more self-service at the hands of the end-recipients and without the kind of ethical theory behind it that is at least the notional framework fo redistribution by functional governments, but it still very much occurs.

tucnak 2y ago

> in which case all bets are off, since it's an alien god we cannot control I hate to break it to you, considering how much effort you put into your comment, but this is already the case. Global economics is something we CANNOT control already, so the world you live in, is ALREADY governed by alien God. The self-described "optimists" here are naive at best, and delusional at worst.