4 ms·

The question is, if walmart and macdonalds sre run by robots, who will their customers be? At some point we'll need to decide whether we're happy to be a societ

The question is, if walmart and macdonalds sre run by robots, who will their customers be? At some point we'll need to decide whether we're happy to be a society comprising a few shareholders in Mom's Friemdly Robot Company living in an fortified compound and a vast multitude of impoverished rabble foraging in the surrounding landfill.

BrandonMarc 13y ago
"Having to decide" assumes we'll be given a choice in the first place. Technological advances have a mind of their own, as it were, and simply deciding not to be affected by them is not a strategy. Over a century ago, stop signs and traffic lights were optional for some locations / situations / vehicles, and traveling long distance without using roads was permissible. Now, whether you choose to use a car or not, you must obey traffic laws or else. You don't get a choice in the matter. Kevin Kelly wrote pretty well about this, a few years back: http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/02/the_unabomber_w.php http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/02/the_unabomber_w.p...
- corin_ 13y ago
  Society did decide about traffic laws, just not you as an individual.
aquadrop 13y ago
Maybe the idea of shareholders and companies will vanish completely. I'm talking about the time when(if) working will not be required from the human being. When automation will be so widespread, that even occasional work from those who want to do something will be enough to sustain the system. Anyone would have access to any food they want. Anyone can go anywhere. There will be millions of free empty houses all around the world waiting for someone to check in (and all your stuff, or furniture you want will be there in couple of hours). So, there's plenty resources for everyone and nobody have to work. I wonder if it's possible and what will happen then.
vidarh 13y ago
You've basically restated the core of the marxist idea of the basis for the socialist revolution.
- Tloewald 13y ago
  Indeed. ...except that Marx was concerned with "mere" capital while we're talking about automation, robotics, etc.. It turned out that capitalism on its own did not create the social unrest Marx predicted (at least in societies which didn't already suck for other reasons), but it may be that automating the workers out of being able to earn even a subsistence might in fact do so. Another way of looking at it is that while Marx identified a real problem, his solution was essentially a bunch of wishful thinking which, when pitted against free market economics did rather poorly. But, free market economics is all about managing scarcity; automation points the way to a post-scarcity society (at least post-material-scarcity). Free market economics doesn't have anything to say about how to handle this -- so we're all in the dark. It seems to me that as the marginal value of material goods diminishes relative to say the marginal value of not being beaten and robbed we should see a natural progression towards some kind of redistribution of wealth -- driven as much by enlightened self-interest as anything. ("We'll pay you welfare as long as you keep taking your contraceptive pills...")
  - Nimi 13y ago
    Marx also treated capital as a way to control the means of production. One could argue that with automation, especially software automation, controlling the means of production is possible without a significant amount of capital. Seems to me we're already seeing the natural progression you described in your last paragraph - basic income initiatives. This really looks to me like the anti-segregation movement from the 60s - a radical idea at the time, then 50 years later people don't understand how it was possible to have a society without it.
    - Tloewald 13y ago
      You may be right. Certainly the gay rights movement has succeeded beyond my wildest hopes or expectations during a period of generally right-wing dominance amd stalemate (the democrats have only had two years to pass legislation since 2000), and now it looks like the war on drugs might collapse. We seem to be enjoying one or two tectonic shifts in politics every decade right now. Amazing times.

BrandonMarc 13y ago

"Having to decide" assumes we'll be given a choice in the first place. Technological advances have a mind of their own, as it were, and simply deciding not to be affected by them is not a strategy. Over a century ago, stop signs and traffic lights were optional for some locations / situations / vehicles, and traveling long distance without using roads was permissible. Now, whether you choose to use a car or not, you must obey traffic laws or else. You don't get a choice in the matter. Kevin Kelly wrote pretty well about this, a few years back: http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/02/the_unabomber_w.php http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/02/the_unabomber_w.p...

corin_ 13y ago
Society did decide about traffic laws, just not you as an individual.

aquadrop 13y ago

Maybe the idea of shareholders and companies will vanish completely. I'm talking about the time when(if) working will not be required from the human being. When automation will be so widespread, that even occasional work from those who want to do something will be enough to sustain the system. Anyone would have access to any food they want. Anyone can go anywhere. There will be millions of free empty houses all around the world waiting for someone to check in (and all your stuff, or furniture you want will be there in couple of hours). So, there's plenty resources for everyone and nobody have to work. I wonder if it's possible and what will happen then.

vidarh 13y ago

You've basically restated the core of the marxist idea of the basis for the socialist revolution.

Tloewald 13y ago
Indeed. ...except that Marx was concerned with "mere" capital while we're talking about automation, robotics, etc.. It turned out that capitalism on its own did not create the social unrest Marx predicted (at least in societies which didn't already suck for other reasons), but it may be that automating the workers out of being able to earn even a subsistence might in fact do so. Another way of looking at it is that while Marx identified a real problem, his solution was essentially a bunch of wishful thinking which, when pitted against free market economics did rather poorly. But, free market economics is all about managing scarcity; automation points the way to a post-scarcity society (at least post-material-scarcity). Free market economics doesn't have anything to say about how to handle this -- so we're all in the dark. It seems to me that as the marginal value of material goods diminishes relative to say the marginal value of not being beaten and robbed we should see a natural progression towards some kind of redistribution of wealth -- driven as much by enlightened self-interest as anything. ("We'll pay you welfare as long as you keep taking your contraceptive pills...")
- Nimi 13y ago
  Marx also treated capital as a way to control the means of production. One could argue that with automation, especially software automation, controlling the means of production is possible without a significant amount of capital. Seems to me we're already seeing the natural progression you described in your last paragraph - basic income initiatives. This really looks to me like the anti-segregation movement from the 60s - a radical idea at the time, then 50 years later people don't understand how it was possible to have a society without it.
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    You may be right. Certainly the gay rights movement has succeeded beyond my wildest hopes or expectations during a period of generally right-wing dominance amd stalemate (the democrats have only had two years to pass legislation since 2000), and now it looks like the war on drugs might collapse. We seem to be enjoying one or two tectonic shifts in politics every decade right now. Amazing times.