4 ms·

The interesting thing is that a wave of redundancy due to automation or unprecedented efficiency contains problems that those made redundant might be able to wo

by jfoster 12y ago

The interesting thing is that a wave of redundancy due to automation or unprecedented efficiency contains problems that those made redundant might be able to work on. Eg. Joe can't afford X due to lack of employment, and Bob can't afford Y for the same reason. Assuming Bob can supply X and Joe can supply Y (or some more complicated network of bartering), it seems like should be possible for an economy to arise.

marcosdumay 12y ago
That's a big assumption. In fact, that's the only thing that may be different this time. If machines are more productive than humans at everything, it break down. If the most productive infrastructure relies on big capital, it breaks down. If Bob and Joe become too poor, it breaks down.
d4nt 12y ago
This relies on the assumption that there are things Joe wants that Bob can supply and vice versa. But as we climb higher and higher up the hierarchy of needs that may not be the case. We are already very effective at keeping people alive and mildly entertained indefinitely. (Although we currently look down on these people as trash for not contributing to society). But I can envisage a time when meeting all my material needs requires almost no human input and meeting my emotional needs cannot be monetised.
pacala 12y ago
While commerce and trade are important, the basis of our existence is physical. We are physical beings with physical needs. Physical resources (energy, land, lumber, food, water, etc.) all have owners in the real economy. Joe and Bob are unemployed, thus have no resources, thus have nothing to trade. The best they can do in your scenario is called dumpster diving, assuming recycling tech is not making garbage valuable to the real economy as well. Mass dumpster diving, that's your dystopia right there.
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  Specifically, Bob and Joe need oil (energy) to produce anything and it's expensive. If they create less value than oil they spent, they're a net loss for society.

by jfoster 12y ago

marcosdumay 12y ago

That's a big assumption. In fact, that's the only thing that may be different this time. If machines are more productive than humans at everything, it break down. If the most productive infrastructure relies on big capital, it breaks down. If Bob and Joe become too poor, it breaks down.

d4nt 12y ago

This relies on the assumption that there are things Joe wants that Bob can supply and vice versa. But as we climb higher and higher up the hierarchy of needs that may not be the case. We are already very effective at keeping people alive and mildly entertained indefinitely. (Although we currently look down on these people as trash for not contributing to society). But I can envisage a time when meeting all my material needs requires almost no human input and meeting my emotional needs cannot be monetised.

pacala 12y ago

While commerce and trade are important, the basis of our existence is physical. We are physical beings with physical needs. Physical resources (energy, land, lumber, food, water, etc.) all have owners in the real economy. Joe and Bob are unemployed, thus have no resources, thus have nothing to trade. The best they can do in your scenario is called dumpster diving, assuming recycling tech is not making garbage valuable to the real economy as well. Mass dumpster diving, that's your dystopia right there.

guard-of-terra 12y ago
Specifically, Bob and Joe need oil (energy) to produce anything and it's expensive. If they create less value than oil they spent, they're a net loss for society.