3 ms·

It's less "gloomy" and more of a passionate "Hey, we need to rework the social order anyway, so can we maybe not set everything on fire before we do so?" Nobod

It's less "gloomy" and more of a passionate "Hey, we need to rework the social order anyway, so can we maybe not set everything on fire before we do so?" Nobody's disagreeing with your latter line, just vehemently screaming that there's no need for willful harm.

Legend2440 9mo ago
Several issues with this: 1. Economic change drives social change. The political will to create something like UBI will not exist unless there is mass unemployment. 2. Right now we need people to work, in order to create the things they need to live. It will not be possible to allow willful unemployment until machines can actually do most jobs. 3. We don't actually know if 100% automation will happen. Past automation has tended to create new jobs, and we've maintained full employment at higher wages. We should see if this happens again before we start panicking. We just have to jump ahead with automation and figure out the rest as we go.
- stego-tech 9mo ago
  > We just have to jump ahead with automation and figure out the rest as we go. Get that accelerationist fatalism outta my face. Just because you personally have no qualms with harming others in the name of some facsimile of progress, doesn't mean it's the only option available to us. Slowing things down through regulations, through employment mandates, through pleas for cooperation instead of immediate replacement, all of those and more are ways of gradual reform and adaptation. We're proposing letting the organism (humanity) adapt to traditional work and employment being wholesale eliminated in a society that demands work for basic survival through gradual and continuous reforms as circumstances change. Your proposal is the functional equivalent of telling an endangered species, "lol get gud bruv". We are not the same.
  - Legend2440 9mo ago
    You're panicking. We're gonna be fine. We've done lots of automation before, and we all benefited immensely. Just chill and deal with problems as they come up.
    - danaris 9mo ago
      The "problems that come up" will be people homeless and starving. I'm 100% with stego-tech that I think we should address the major, glaring concerns that come with greater automation before that happens. Because I care about my fellow human beings, and do not want them to suffer.
      - fluoridation 9mo ago
        People starving en masse because there was no work to do anymore and no way to get paid, despite there being plentiful food, is something that has never happened. If the amount of money on the consumer side of the food economy were to shrink significantly, what should happen is that the price of food should also go down until people can buy food again. The stock has to move no matter what, otherwise it spoils.
        danaris 9mo ago
        And if the price that those people can afford is $0, because ClaudeGPTPilot MegaAGI took all their jobs? What then? There is a price below which no farmer is going to sell, regardless of whether they have another buyer. What you're saying effectively amounts to "come on, there's no way they'd actually let people starve in the streets! That's something that could never happen these days." Think about whether there might be other things that "could never happen these days" that are happening right now, in various places in America.
        fluoridation 9mo ago
        If we're talking about huge groups, like thousands, of people having no money for food, it would behoove the government to pay for that food, just to avoid a revolt. Just as a matter of self-preservation.
        danaris 9mo ago
        Yeah? And do you think this government is likely to do that?
  - Hizonner 9mo ago
    > through employment mandates Be careful not to create a permanent future of mandatory makework.
    - stego-tech 9mo ago
      If we don't want makework, then don't mandate work to survive. Simple.
      - Hizonner 9mo ago
        Then what, exactly, do you mean by "employment mandates"? You're the one who suggested that. Nobody "mandates" work to survive right now. But we do have a system where everything is owned by somebody, and ownership tends to concentrate. You can convince people to give you stuff they own (or money, which stands in for stuff) by doing work. The risk is that nobody will need your work, so you won't be able to convince them to give you any stuff, ownership will concentrate even more, and you will end up with nothing. If Those In Charge require that "owners" continue to give you stuff for work that they don't need, that crude patch still doesn't provide you with any other way to get stuff. Which means you have to keep doing this useless work forever. It's not about "don't mandate work". It's about fundamental change to the entire system.
- tbossanova 9mo ago
  We’ve maintained full employment in some sense, but importantly we work fewer hours per week for fewer years of our lives than before.

Legend2440 9mo ago

Several issues with this: 1. Economic change drives social change. The political will to create something like UBI will not exist unless there is mass unemployment. 2. Right now we need people to work, in order to create the things they need to live. It will not be possible to allow willful unemployment until machines can actually do most jobs. 3. We don't actually know if 100% automation will happen. Past automation has tended to create new jobs, and we've maintained full employment at higher wages. We should see if this happens again before we start panicking. We just have to jump ahead with automation and figure out the rest as we go.

stego-tech 9mo ago
> We just have to jump ahead with automation and figure out the rest as we go. Get that accelerationist fatalism outta my face. Just because you personally have no qualms with harming others in the name of some facsimile of progress, doesn't mean it's the only option available to us. Slowing things down through regulations, through employment mandates, through pleas for cooperation instead of immediate replacement, all of those and more are ways of gradual reform and adaptation. We're proposing letting the organism (humanity) adapt to traditional work and employment being wholesale eliminated in a society that demands work for basic survival through gradual and continuous reforms as circumstances change. Your proposal is the functional equivalent of telling an endangered species, "lol get gud bruv". We are not the same.
- Legend2440 9mo ago
  You're panicking. We're gonna be fine. We've done lots of automation before, and we all benefited immensely. Just chill and deal with problems as they come up.
  - danaris 9mo ago
    The "problems that come up" will be people homeless and starving. I'm 100% with stego-tech that I think we should address the major, glaring concerns that come with greater automation before that happens. Because I care about my fellow human beings, and do not want them to suffer.
    - fluoridation 9mo ago
      People starving en masse because there was no work to do anymore and no way to get paid, despite there being plentiful food, is something that has never happened. If the amount of money on the consumer side of the food economy were to shrink significantly, what should happen is that the price of food should also go down until people can buy food again. The stock has to move no matter what, otherwise it spoils.
      - danaris 9mo ago
        And if the price that those people can afford is $0, because ClaudeGPTPilot MegaAGI took all their jobs? What then? There is a price below which no farmer is going to sell, regardless of whether they have another buyer. What you're saying effectively amounts to "come on, there's no way they'd actually let people starve in the streets! That's something that could never happen these days." Think about whether there might be other things that "could never happen these days" that are happening right now, in various places in America.
        fluoridation 9mo ago
        If we're talking about huge groups, like thousands, of people having no money for food, it would behoove the government to pay for that food, just to avoid a revolt. Just as a matter of self-preservation.
        danaris 9mo ago
        Yeah? And do you think this government is likely to do that?
- Hizonner 9mo ago
  > through employment mandates Be careful not to create a permanent future of mandatory makework.
  - stego-tech 9mo ago
    If we don't want makework, then don't mandate work to survive. Simple.
    - Hizonner 9mo ago
      Then what, exactly, do you mean by "employment mandates"? You're the one who suggested that. Nobody "mandates" work to survive right now. But we do have a system where everything is owned by somebody, and ownership tends to concentrate. You can convince people to give you stuff they own (or money, which stands in for stuff) by doing work. The risk is that nobody will need your work, so you won't be able to convince them to give you any stuff, ownership will concentrate even more, and you will end up with nothing. If Those In Charge require that "owners" continue to give you stuff for work that they don't need, that crude patch still doesn't provide you with any other way to get stuff. Which means you have to keep doing this useless work forever. It's not about "don't mandate work". It's about fundamental change to the entire system.
tbossanova 9mo ago
We’ve maintained full employment in some sense, but importantly we work fewer hours per week for fewer years of our lives than before.