6 ms·
Automation will undoubtedly take many jobs. Some technologies will create jobs, some will make the cost of living decrease and the standard of living increase.
by dm2 12y ago
Automation will undoubtedly take many jobs. Some technologies will create jobs, some will make the cost of living decrease and the standard of living increase. Restructuring society, the economy, and the government isn't easy by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not impossible and could lead to a better quality of life for everyone.
A partial post-scarcity economy would offset the job loss, then there could be regulation that limits working hours to 30 or 20 per week which would be enough because goods and services would cost less (because of automation).
3D printers and "molecular assemblers" will allow for instant creation of goods, (print every part of a car if you had enough raw materials/trash).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_assembler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_assembler
There needs to be more planning for the government of the future. Maybe a world government would be good, maybe it wouldn't. Should every citizen be able to vote on every issue rather than have a congress? Obviously congress would never do away with themselves, so how would we go about removing them or a similar organization from the government if it became necessary in the future? Do citizens even have that power anymore?
What about more competition between states? Government should be as important to people as sports is. Anyone want to attempt gamification of government and online-voting?
By the way, for the "impossible to secure" argument against online-voting, who cares if it gets hacked? If someone hacks the voting systems then it should be easy to notice that the votes people made do not equal the total (because people would be able to verify their votes) and if it's bad enough then just fix the security hole, reset the votes, and try again.
- ThrustVectoring 12y ago>Regulation ensure that people have jobs, even if that means limiting the number of hours per week people can work. Some kind of guaranteed basic income or national dividend is a more efficient way to ensure that people who haven't accumulated capital get treated humanely.
- dm2 12y agoFor things like that it might be best to limit federal regulation and let states decide those issues. This would allow for experimentation of these ideas that are too complex to correctly predict every variable. There are numerous issues that need to be figured out for a Utopian future society, we're not even sure we want that kind of society.
- cvwright 12y ago> By the way, for the "impossible to secure" argument against online-voting, who cares if it gets hacked? One of the biggest problems with online voting is coercion. If a bad guy can stand over you and watch you vote, he doesn't need to hack the computers. He just needs to threaten to hurt you (or your friends, family, etc).
- dm2 12y agoWho are the bad guys that are intimidating online voters? Family? Friends? Better to make a halfway informed decision from the recommendations of the social groups you are a part of than just guessing because you favor a particular side (republican or democrat) which is unfortunately how most of America votes (my speculation). Employers wouldn't try to coerce employees, they would be fined too heavily. There are just not enough "bad guys" to make a dent in the actual results of online voting, or am I missing something? You could have a regulatory agency to oversee nursing homes to prevent fraud there, that's a relatively easy problem to solve. I don't necessarily mean that vote choices would be identifiable publicly, but there would be a way to identify that all votes are associated with a real person and a way for people to ensure that their vote is correct and being counted in the total.