8 ms·

One of my first comments on this site pertained to this issue: >As computers begin to become capable of more and more jobs, the demand for human labor will dec

One of my first comments on this site pertained to this issue: >As computers begin to become capable of more and more jobs, the demand for human labor will decline. Automation is qualitatively different from mechanization. Education is a thin gilding on an impressive but non-optimal brain architecture. To say education will cure the ills of automation is a bit like saying fitness training could have saved workhorses from obsolescence. Workers of the world, you're fucked. My opinions haven't changed much since. Though years off yet, we are heading into uncharted territory here. Sure, the labouring classes survived, actually thrived, after the economic obsolescence of their muscles; I doubt we will do well after the obsolescence of our minds. If a body's worth a penny a day, a mind a nickel, and it costs a quarter to eat - we will not survive even if the lump of labour fallacy is, in fact, a fallacy. It's entirely possible to starve to death while never once wanting for work.

rphlx 12y ago
> It's entirely possible to starve to death while never once wanting for work. Perhaps on an individual basis, but not in large groups. An economic and social system in which most humans are starving will rapidly collapse, and be replaced - if necessary, through violent revolution - by a system that at least keeps most people fed, assuming there's still sufficient real resources to produce and transport the food. Food stamps exist not out of genuine compassion for the poor, but because those in power know very well what happens when starvation becomes too widespread.
- gerbal 12y ago
  >Food stamps exist not out of genuine compassion for the poor, but because those in power know very well what happens when starvation becomes too widespread. someone needs to cc that memo to the right wing American Oligarchs.
  - hoggle 12y ago
    Panem et circenses - they know that for now they don't have to fear anything.
  - yzzxy 12y ago
    While I don't necessarily dispute American oligarchy existing... don't you think capitalizing the term makes you seem a bit too much like a conspiracy theorist? Hearts and minds, people.
  - imaginenore 12y ago
    Right wingers solution to unemployment/poverty is exactly that - let them starve and blame them for not being able to get a job.
    - hoggle 12y ago
      Goes to show how stupid right wingers are, it doesn't take much to make people happy consumer slaves these days. Much less of a problem than having angry mobs at their gates that want to lynch them.
    - zo1 12y ago
      "imaginenore", I see you like straw men, here is another one for you: And on the other side of the coin, we have a legion of well-fed, opinionated individuals who, from the comforts of their warm home, tell the poor: "You can not help yourself, only we can help you, using the state. Don't mind me and how I got here, that's irrelevant, what's relevant is that WE are the only ones that can help you!" - With the implied assumption that the poor are pathetic and can't help themselves.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - imaginenore 12y ago
        How is it a straw man if your leadership announced the intention to make deeps cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program?
        zo1 12y ago
        Instead of picking just one, here's an entire google search term for you to ponder over: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=illegal+to+feed+homeless http://lmgtfy.com/?q=illegal+to+feed+homeless
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
icebraining 12y ago
But if food costs more than most people can afford, it'll have to drop prices - after all, the 0.1% richest aren't enough to sustain the market. You can say that one quarter is already the cost, so it can't drop more, but that just poses the same situation for the suppliers instead. In the end, there's no absolute floor for prices, they'll have to drop until there are enough buyers. Of course, that doesn't mean the new equilibrium will be good compared to current western standards.
- JamesArgo 12y ago
  You're assuming there's not a more economically efficient use for farmland than feeding really, really, really poor people. The floor for the price will be the opportunity cost of using the land to grow food rather than, say, covering it with solar panels and exporting computation or whatever else can be dreamed up. At some point, it costs more to feed people than their economic worth over their lifetimes. I think in the long term, computers and robotics will be ridiculously efficient replacements for labour. I don't really expect everyone to starve to death - and to be honest I think there are more-worrying implications of AI than this: http://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ai_drives_final.pdf http://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ai_drive... I do, however, want to point out that's there no economic law preventing the majority from being far worse off.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    If the "really, really, really poor people" are a minority, I can believe that, but then again that's already the case. But if those poor people are most of the current salaried people, which is the threat of automation, who will buy that computation or whatever else? Do you think EC2 would be successful if all services running on it where only used by the very rich? When you only have a small number of buyers, there's only so much computation or whatever that is economically feasible to produce. To make an analogy to the current world, the profit margin of luxury cars is much higher than of small compact cars. If markets worked like you're saying, every car manufacturer would exclusively switch to making luxury cars.

rphlx 12y ago

> It's entirely possible to starve to death while never once wanting for work. Perhaps on an individual basis, but not in large groups. An economic and social system in which most humans are starving will rapidly collapse, and be replaced - if necessary, through violent revolution - by a system that at least keeps most people fed, assuming there's still sufficient real resources to produce and transport the food. Food stamps exist not out of genuine compassion for the poor, but because those in power know very well what happens when starvation becomes too widespread.

gerbal 12y ago
>Food stamps exist not out of genuine compassion for the poor, but because those in power know very well what happens when starvation becomes too widespread. someone needs to cc that memo to the right wing American Oligarchs.
- hoggle 12y ago
  Panem et circenses - they know that for now they don't have to fear anything.
- yzzxy 12y ago
  While I don't necessarily dispute American oligarchy existing... don't you think capitalizing the term makes you seem a bit too much like a conspiracy theorist? Hearts and minds, people.
- imaginenore 12y ago
  Right wingers solution to unemployment/poverty is exactly that - let them starve and blame them for not being able to get a job.
  - hoggle 12y ago
    Goes to show how stupid right wingers are, it doesn't take much to make people happy consumer slaves these days. Much less of a problem than having angry mobs at their gates that want to lynch them.
  - zo1 12y ago
    "imaginenore", I see you like straw men, here is another one for you: And on the other side of the coin, we have a legion of well-fed, opinionated individuals who, from the comforts of their warm home, tell the poor: "You can not help yourself, only we can help you, using the state. Don't mind me and how I got here, that's irrelevant, what's relevant is that WE are the only ones that can help you!" - With the implied assumption that the poor are pathetic and can't help themselves.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - imaginenore 12y ago
      How is it a straw man if your leadership announced the intention to make deeps cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program?
      - zo1 12y ago
        Instead of picking just one, here's an entire google search term for you to ponder over: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=illegal+to+feed+homeless http://lmgtfy.com/?q=illegal+to+feed+homeless
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

icebraining 12y ago

But if food costs more than most people can afford, it'll have to drop prices - after all, the 0.1% richest aren't enough to sustain the market. You can say that one quarter is already the cost, so it can't drop more, but that just poses the same situation for the suppliers instead. In the end, there's no absolute floor for prices, they'll have to drop until there are enough buyers. Of course, that doesn't mean the new equilibrium will be good compared to current western standards.

JamesArgo 12y ago
You're assuming there's not a more economically efficient use for farmland than feeding really, really, really poor people. The floor for the price will be the opportunity cost of using the land to grow food rather than, say, covering it with solar panels and exporting computation or whatever else can be dreamed up. At some point, it costs more to feed people than their economic worth over their lifetimes. I think in the long term, computers and robotics will be ridiculously efficient replacements for labour. I don't really expect everyone to starve to death - and to be honest I think there are more-worrying implications of AI than this: http://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ai_drives_final.pdf http://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ai_drive... I do, however, want to point out that's there no economic law preventing the majority from being far worse off.
- icebraining 12y ago
  If the "really, really, really poor people" are a minority, I can believe that, but then again that's already the case. But if those poor people are most of the current salaried people, which is the threat of automation, who will buy that computation or whatever else? Do you think EC2 would be successful if all services running on it where only used by the very rich? When you only have a small number of buyers, there's only so much computation or whatever that is economically feasible to produce. To make an analogy to the current world, the profit margin of luxury cars is much higher than of small compact cars. If markets worked like you're saying, every car manufacturer would exclusively switch to making luxury cars.