The Issue Of The Future: Recreation Without Work Or Mass Starvation/Death

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Thejourney318, Nov 11, 2014.

  1. I would like to paint a picture of the not-so-distant future, which I think is basically inevitable. To me it is already an issue, but it won't be a really major issue until we reach this point. But then, we will reach a crossroads, and we will have to choose. Are we going to move past the 'protestant work ethic,' where you work hard to be paid so that you can live and hopefully have some recreational enjoyment as well? Or are we going to stick with it, and ensure absolutely massive amounts of death?
    The process has already begun, and it will just continue. In the not-so-distant future, computer technology WILL be able to do a very significant portion of the jobs which currently exist. There is going to be far more people than there are jobs. Saying there would be enough jobs for half of the population is being optimistic. What are we going to do? We will have to make the decision I outline in the title. Either we say, damnit you have to work to earn a living. No handouts. And if we do this, over half of the population will literally be unable to work, society won't help them, and they'll just have to die. 
    Technically there are two other option. One is just an expansion of our current modality, let's say an expansion of the welfare-state. The other option, is a total overthrow of the way we see society. Either we're just going to provide some basic welfare for all of these non-workers, hike the tax rate on those who still do work. And then the half+ of the population will just get by on minimum, provided by the state. Or, we are going to have to just drop this mentality of me vs. you. I'm gonna look out for myself, everyone else is irrelevant. That which society produces, will be for the good of society at large. We, along with the amazing help which will be able to be provided by computer technology and artificial intelligence, will produce things for the purpose of being enjoyed, and not for the purpose of profit.
    Whatever jobs still need to be done, will be done. The ever-increasing loss of job availability for humans will not be seen as scary, as it currently is, but rather will be something to aspire towards. We will work to have the highest quantity and greatest quality of things people want and need, with the least amount of human effort possible. We will seek to have the highest possible quality of life for everyone, as competition will become increasingly irrelevant. This can really, truly, open up the possibility for a utopia. That's one possibility. Or we will not give up our ideals. The increase in computer capabilities will not be for the purpose of increasing the general quality of life for humans, but rather to increase profit for those who are still in position to profit. Everyone else will fight for their life, literally. And there will be massive amounts of death, which will continuously increase as more and more jobs go away as computer technology becomes increasingly capable.

  2. #2 yurigadaisukida, Nov 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2014
    This is based on a false premise.

    There will always be jobs. The reason work is hard to find isn't because there isn't work to do. Its because the elites are too greedy to pay for the work

    Why do you think machines haven't already replaced humans?

    Its because if you think about it from a practical standpoint, a human iis cheaper than a computer.

    Humans are practically free. Technology is expensive

    Unless you are talking about the singularity . In which case it wwon't be up to us

    Either our AI overlords will take us in or they wont

  3. #3 Smooth Criminal, Nov 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2014
    That's just a thought.Nobody knows where we will be in the future,or what will happen.Maybe we'll be in outer-space.

    In my opinion the government is already taking care of it,don't think their stupid not to have a thought about it.They NEED slaves.But seriously though.You made me think how big technology is getting and the scary thought's behind it.
  4. People wouldn't just starve to death and die, there would be a 100% revolution/protest/anarchy in your version of events.

  5. As technology becomes more widespread, efficient, and interconnected, machines increasingly WILL replace humans. That is the point. If you think that we just won't be able to provide the technology required cuz it's 'expensive'...I don't know, you're just not thinking clearly. That's like saying...the same thing about computers and the internet not so long ago. And yet here we are.
  6. Oh I agree. I think it will facilitate a utopian society. But, people resist these ideas. And so, it's good to think about what the potential alternatives are when this occurs. And hopefully people will begin to more and more understand and agree with the principles.
  7. Funny I see this now, I had a discussion with my housemates recently. As I see it, there will need to be a mentality shift in the near future, and a redefining of what we mean by jobs. Our idea of what a job is, really is pretty recent, as it came with industrialization, and the massive concentration of wealth that ensued.

    What technology allows, in my mind at least, is the increased potential for communities to become self sufficient. But for us to be able to enjoy the fruits of our modern research, we need to achieve some kind of personal ''transcendence'' where we realize the full beauty of humankind, and develop this intrinsic respect for each other. We will then be able to move beyond greed, and personal profit; and work towards space exploration, which for more is the key element of our era.

    But then again... Being humans, we are corruptible, and things have a tendency to go to shit pretty quickly.

    So I agree with your thoughs OP :smoke:

    But I say we have to be careful with artificial intelligence, for it is exactly that, ''artificial'' and it will only be a reflection of who we are, but without the ability to base action on thought and emotion.
  8. no you misunderstand.

    A human is made mostly of carbon. Food is cheaper than fuel

    No matter how cheap technology gets, humans will still be cheaper

  9. #9 Jingo Dookstain, Nov 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2014
    Human life and time are two things which are nearly impossible to calculate the outcome of. In order to get anywhere near an accurate prediction of the future, you would have to include everything we've done since day one, everything we are currently doing, and everything we may be capable of doing into the equation... which pretty much translates to an unquantifiable mess of guesswork.
    By the time anyone would even consider replacing the majority of human workers with machines in normal, everyday applications, humanity would likely have found a method to achieve a nearly unlimited pool of energy and resources available to all (sounds like a socialist's wet dream). Because if a corporation, or even a government, tried that at a time where energy and resources were even the slightest bit costly, they would not only find themselves completely bankrupt, but in a whole lot of debt with the energy bill. And the price of energy and resources are only gonna get more expensive as Earth begins to deplete.
    And let's think for a second. If we had unlimited energy and resources to begin with, do you really think we would care about money? Do you really think the small portion of the people who could do work, in your future, would work? Do you think we would still be focused on maintaining Earth, or do you think we'd be more focused on leaving it behind using what we have at our disposal? We'd leave everything to the machines and live our lives without stress, lol. It's a utopia which I don't think is possible.
    As long as humans design the machines, they will not replace us to such a detrimental extent. Humans are not as stupid as you seem to think, or rather, as stupid as Hollywood or a videogame producer might imply.
    I believe that machines[SIZE=14.4444446563721px] will only supplement our existence by assisting us with tasks too dangerous for humans. [/SIZE]The governments, the corporations, the people; they would all begin to realize just how stupid the idea of a majority robotic work force is without the means to support not only the cost of the robots, but of every organic being out of work as well. I struggle to comprehend how we humans, the creators of the machines, would allow ourselves to put our own tools ahead of us.
  10. #10 *ColtClassic*, Nov 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2014
    As long as the debt-money system perpetuates, world currencies will constantly face inflation and people will still have to slave-away to earn insignificant amounts of wealth.
    The money-creation paradigm needs to change. Not money in itself, but how it is created and what party(s) control its quantity of supply.

    This will only scale to the point that consumers can still afford to pay for the products that machines will be making.
    Bring this to its logical conclusion -
    Will manufacturers produce more than can possibly be sold?
    Will manufacturers simply produce goods only to be sold to other manufacturers' manufacturing base (machines)?
    The reason that <50% of jobs won't be filled by machines is because their needs to be consumption of goods equal (or near equal) to the amount of production.
    If no-one can afford to buy _____ will factory owners still producing ______? No, they will either preemptively scale-back their production or they will go out of business.
  11. What is to stop a small elite group of people from taking over the word with machines and being self.sufficient?

    Consider this. In our current system, the elites need an economy to exist because the serfs need to consume to produce. If the elites can produce anything they want/need, then the need for consumers/producers diminishes.

    True. I didn't know last night at 1 am that by 2 am I would be so high that God would speak to me and tell me to flush my kick-ass weed down the toilet and He would bless me  and I would be wacked out enough to believe it - and do it! :eek:   :cry:
  13. Yuri, for some reason I can't quote your post. However, I will answer your question.
    The Elite's biggest power is human capital. This is what you fail to realize in proposing your question. Government, law, and finance all comprise the machine, or apparatus by which the Elite already control the world. This system exists with or without an exploitable base of AI labor. AI labor will not be subject to the same ethical objections that are present in the organic labor force. AI can be engineered and manufactured for the specific purpose of certain utilites (such as combat, policing, surveillance, manufacturing other AI units, etc.).
    There is really nothing to stop the Elite from doing this.
    However, the notion that they will try to become self-sufficient in this process is misguided. The Elite's goal is not to become self-sufficent - they already have the wealth and resources to achieve this. No, the Elite's goal is to make humanity so dependant upon their fabricated heirarchy that it cannot see the Elite's own dependence upon this system of wealth extraction and control. The Elite are parasites upon their host economy/labor base, and if they were to become self-sufficient it would change the nature of their existence entirely.
  14. the point remains

    Ill use China as an example.

    Its cheaper to have a sweatshop all the way across the world, and to ship good all the way across the ocean, than to have a machine do it.

    Machines can make toys just fine. But an organic machine is much cheaper than a metal machine. Humans already exist, are cheap and easy to maintain, and are easy to program. Machines wont replace us unless machines want to replace us (AI takeover)

    But even if AI takes over, they will probly realize this and enslave us.


Share This Page