21–30 of 174 posts
With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this?
Extrapolate from current trends and the general apathy of the people who could change them. Is there anything you are aware of that would prevent it, other than "it might not happen, for some reason"?
I've always found it ironic that these types of posts are popular on a news board for a venture capital group, arguably the pinnacle of capitalism. I see no reason why robots couldn't kickstart new REITs: Robot Estate Investment Trusts, that are open to investment from the middle class and others. I see no reason why they would be "hoarded" by: "the big banks", the "1%", and other boogeyman simply because they can af…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extrapolate from current trends and the general apathy of the people who could change them. Is there anything you are aware of that would prevent it, other than "it might not happen, for some reason"?
You mean increasing life expectancy with unparalleled standard of living? Why would anyone want to prevent/change that?
Nope, I don't mean that. Are these the only two things going on in the world? Is capitalism the sole driver for these two? Just trying to get a feel for why you would guess so horribly badly.
> Why would anyone want to prevent/change that?
What makes you think I have to defend myself against your straw man?
edit:
And you know what, the fact that I get shit for a snarky reply to something that doesn't warrant one, is extremely lame. Here's what Hawking said
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
In the context of that, no, I obviously mean more than just peaches and unicorns with "current trends", to suggest otherwise is, given the level of literacy on this site, flat out not arguing in good faith. At least I stand behind for dealing with it as such, I don't play nice with sophistry.
Without capitalist advancement, prices would rise at a frightening rate. Decide what you want - fully stocked supermarket shelves thanks to capitalist efficiency. Or rationing, shortages and civil unrest thanks to government intervention in the markets and the dissolution of business.
I firmly reject the idea that nothing else can work or should even be tried.
I've always found it ironic that these types of posts are popular on a news board for a venture capital group, arguably the pinnacle of capitalism. I see no reason why robots couldn't kickstart new REITs: Robot Estate Investment Trusts, that are open to investment from the middle class and others. I see no reason why they would be "hoarded" by: "the big banks", the "1%", and other boogeyman simply because they can af…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering how deeply this community has internalized the importance of creative thought your analysis is pretty limiting to any new possibility being possible.
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with an alternative to capitalism that isn't communism, or some dilute form of communism. We have socialism - the erosion of capitalism to provide a reward for those that won't or can't work. What's your "new possibility"? Without a proposal, your point is moot.
I don't want to buy food from a state controlled organisation because they'd be crap at it. However, I'm not keen on healthcare being provisioned individually and privately or relying entirely on the market for policing or national security.
Without capitalist advancement, prices would rise at a frightening rate. Decide what you want - fully stocked supermarket shelves thanks to capitalist efficiency. Or rationing, shortages and civil unrest thanks to government intervention in the markets and the dissolution of business.
That is assuming that capitalism is the only way to get this kind of efficiency. In fact, it's the only way we could both imagine and successfully implement, but that's it. On the other hand, we now know the limits of it, the corruption it brings, and that's a certitude. So an intelligent and educated reaction is not to say "if you want result you need a self corrupting system" but rather "we like this abundance, and…
The kind of state power brought by communism brought the worst corruption the world has ever seen.
Without capitalist advancement, prices would rise at a frightening rate. Decide what you want - fully stocked supermarket shelves thanks to capitalist efficiency. Or rationing, shortages and civil unrest thanks to government intervention in the markets and the dissolution of business.
That is assuming that capitalism is the only way to get this kind of efficiency. In fact, it's the only way we could both imagine and successfully implement, but that's it. On the other hand, we now know the limits of it, the corruption it brings, and that's a certitude. So an intelligent and educated reaction is not to say "if you want result you need a self corrupting system" but rather "we like this abundance, and…
Hawking does believe that AI will be a danger to humanity long term. The short term problems caused by near future robots is a different subject. Capitalism isn't inherently the problem. We could have capitalism and tax capital owners at a high rate, and distribute the wealth much more evenly. It's possible everyone could become capital owners and it would be normal to live off interest instead of work. Like owning t…
By nature, this system leads to capital accumulation. Since no capital is infinite, accumulation in one place means removing it from somewhere else.
So you need mechanisms to always redistribute the capital to avoid this problem and balance the system.
But capitalists will battle these machanisms to gain efficiency, and you will be in a rate race between the redistribution measures and accumulation workaround.
Since creating new redisitribution mechanisms is way slower than implementing the workarounds, eventually the system won't be evenly distributed.
Hence the rat races between taxes, and taxe evasion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering how deeply this community has internalized the importance of creative thought your analysis is pretty limiting to any new possibility being possible.
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with an alternative to capitalism that isn't communism, or some dilute form of communism. We have socialism - the erosion of capitalism to provide a reward for those that won't or can't work. What's your "new possibility"? Without a proposal, your point is moot.