3 ms·

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

• 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?
        • fluoridation 9mo ago
          By "this government" you mean Trump's administration? If so, then to answer your question, I need to presuppose that there's going to be such a massive revolution in automation within the next three years (already a dubious proposition IMO) that intervening with food aid is going to be a concern for the US's federal government. We're talking millions of people across the US who might start rioting because they need to eat. That's the scenario you want me to consider? I don't know what the logistics might be, but if the state governments let their local situations fester to that degree it might be too late to do anything federally.
  • spwa4 9mo ago
    Didn't that happen during most/all of history? There was never much of a problem growing more food, there just wasn't any reason to. In Victorian England for example, it would have been easy to grow way more food and build way more housing, the government used violence to prevent it to enforce property rights of huge landowners (that then lost anyway, well, except the royal family of course)
    • fluoridation 9mo ago
      Re-read what I said. >People starving en masse [...] despite there being plentiful food Not "despite there being plentiful food production capacity". No, it has never happened that people starved in great numbers while the food stores were replete. That's a fantastical scenario. Famines only happen when there is no food, or no food nearby. Nature abhors a vacuum, so if you have hungry people on one side of a wall and food on the other, the wall will tend to become permeable until equilibrium is achieved. Money and violence (or aversion to it) are not factors in that equation.