Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots • Hacker News Board

Re: Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots

#151

Post by parenthephobia » Tue, Mar 01, 2016, 4:22 PM UTC

asift wrote: post #84

saulrh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. As a demonstration, compare our current production situation to the production situation as of, I don't know, a thousand years ago. It used to be the case that 90% or more of the population was dedicated to food production. Right now, something like 2% of the population is dedicated to food production. By their standards, we've got machines producing everything we need.

>By their standards, we've got machines producing everything we need. Except we don't live by their standards -- we live by our standards. And even if they had lived to see today, their standards would have immediately readjusted to want more. That's why it's ridiculous to assume we will ever have "everything we need".

You're conflating needs with wants.

Whilst I certainly want things that my iron-age ancestors wouldn't even have known they could want, my actual physical needs are not greatly different from theirs.

Part of the "challenge" a capitalist society faces is making sure there are jobs despite that only a tiny fraction of the population needs to work to provide everyone's basic biological needs, but that without work everyone else can't pay for those needs to be satisfied.

Re: Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots

#152

Post by xlm1717 » Tue, Mar 01, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

Interesting that all this discussion has started up based purely on a headline. The site that is linked to is borderline conspiracy theory stuff, and nomoba has been hard at work pushing it on HN over the past few days.

Re: Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots

#153

Post by bko » Tue, Mar 01, 2016, 4:27 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #100

bko wrote: post #56

World Bank estimates that global poverty fell to less than 10% for the first time in history [0]. Perhaps this wasn't solely caused by capitalism and globalization, but considering those two idea were probably the driving forces of the last century, I believe they are instrumental in reducing global poverty. I just don't buy the argument that absolute livings standards have always been increasing due to capitalism bu…

>That's similar to the argument that luddites have always made and they have always been wrong. Industrial revolution resulted malnutrition and deterioration of absolute living standards. It took almost hundred years from the start of the industrial revolution before real wages started to grow. You can see it from the historical records. The height of enlisted men in Britain decreased. Luddites were mostly right. The…

Can you provide some further reading on the industrial revolution resulting in malnutrition, and during what periods and regions did this occur?

Also, it's worth noting that "real wages" is not as important as compared to what those wages can buy. Sure, someone from 100 years ago could have "real wages" much higher than mine, but it doesn't mean much to me if I can't use the wages to purchase modern indoor plumbing, air conditioning, safe travel across the world and a very high likelihood that my wife won't die in child-birth.

Re: Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots

#154

Post by laotzu » Tue, Mar 01, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #150

alanwatts wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There already exists a renewable surplus of food, water, and shelter but so much of it goes wasted every year. So poverty is not a problem of production but of distribution.

I disagree. The issue is that for production of food and energy, we still need labor. A lot of this labor is low-paid (supermarket workers, truck drivers, fruit pickers, butchers ...). If you make food free, you won't be able to motivate these low-paid workers any more, so noone will work on food production, so food production won't be free any more.

It used to be 90% of the population was working to produce food, now its around 1% and decreasing with increasing efficiency. So it is an increasingly negligible amount of labor needed to provide an already surplus amount of food.

It is cynical and ignorant to assume the dollar is the monotheistic deity of motivation for everyone. There are and have been countless cultures across the world who don't require monetary payment to produce the requisite food for the community.

Re: Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots

#155

Post by brbrodude » Tue, Mar 01, 2016, 4:56 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #153

nabla9 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's similar to the argument that luddites have always made and they have always been wrong. Industrial revolution resulted malnutrition and deterioration of absolute living standards. It took almost hundred years from the start of the industrial revolution before real wages started to grow. You can see it from the historical records. The height of enlisted men in Britain decreased. Luddites were mostly right. The…

Can you provide some further reading on the industrial revolution resulting in malnutrition, and during what periods and regions did this occur? Also, it's worth noting that "real wages" is not as important as compared to what those wages can buy. Sure, someone from 100 years ago could have "real wages" much higher than mine, but it doesn't mean much to me if I can't use the wages to purchase modern indoor plumbing,…

You've got to also factor in that someone from the industrial revolution era didn't even had the concept or living for the clock, working for wages or consumerist society, if you had your house and fields and chickens and some pigs plus your wife/you had took an extra-income of manufacturing and selling products in your own place, with time left for leisure and family and you were not starving, even though you worked a lot you were doing it for yourself and your subsistence means were actually yours, you could be somewhat happy and feel free with that, no? And then instead of buying goods directly from you you're now told that you'll be inside a factory producing for x hours for income just enough to sustain yourself, how is this any so much better? Plenty of people at the time thought that was not much different from being a slave, land meant freedom.

Re: Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots

#156

Post by AndrewUnmuted » Tue, Mar 01, 2016, 5:03 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #133

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Industrial revolution resulted malnutrition and deterioration of absolute living standards. What? Capitalism did not create poverty or famine - it inherited it, and then swiftly solved it. The industrial revolution, if anything, obliterated it from the Western world. Compared to the centuries of pre-capitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first chance the p…

What greatly reduced Western poverty was not capitalism, which made it worse, but the 19th century reaction against capitalism which made it so that the modern mixed economy replaced capitalism everywhere in the West. (The industrial revolution provided the capacity for reducing poverty, but under capitalism that capacity was directed elsewhere.) Conversely, the move in the last few decades years back toward capitali…

I disagree. Poverty increased because mortality rates dropped precipitously, leading to an unprecedented uptick in demand. Whereas most people would have simply died, capitalism and particularly its industrial revolution allowed these people to actually live. Supply could not possibly be increased quickly enough to handle the new strains placed upon nations by these successes.

My estimation of the 19th and 20th century reactions against the protection of property rights is that it led to a diminished capability of private industry to rationally and reliably deal with the issues posed by this great expansion of human procreation.

Re: Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots

#157

Post by AndrewUnmuted » Tue, Mar 01, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

mtbcoder wrote: post #142

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concepts of malnutrition and abysmal living standards, on their own, are proof to the contrary. Prior to the industrial revolution, most human beings faced these realities. Today, a tiny fraction of individuals deal with these issues.

I'm not suggesting that progress has not occurred or that many of us are not better off, but to definitely say that we've swiftly solved or obliterated mass poverty, malnutrition, etc is ridiculous and callous to say the least. Again, these are issues we are still fighting today.

Perhaps you're referring to the malnutrition observed in people (particularly youth) on food stamps and other forms of state assistance? I'm sorry, but I do not buy the idea that this is an issue we're still fighting today, when the problem stems directly from our own policies towards the poor. The problem is not malnutrition, but rather the so-called 'solution' to it.

Re: Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots

#158

Post by balfirevic » Tue, Mar 01, 2016, 6:11 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #143

balfirevic wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main difference between the moderate supporters of free market vs. moderate supporters of socialistic approach (who are not pure libertarians or pure socialists) is the question of the default . "Socialist" would say: "It looks like all-around outcome might be better if this thing is regulated or restricted - so let's do that". Free market supported would say "let's not mess with people's freedom unless i…

"Free market" people are very happy messing with people's freedom if it suits them. Just look at IP laws. The "free market" people were also very happy to get bailouts during the financial crisis in 2008. They wont as much state intervention as everyone else.

We are simply not talking about the same people.

Re: Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots

#159

Post by balfirevic » Tue, Mar 01, 2016, 6:17 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #132

balfirevic wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main difference between the moderate supporters of free market vs. moderate supporters of socialistic approach (who are not pure libertarians or pure socialists) is the question of the default . "Socialist" would say: "It looks like all-around outcome might be better if this thing is regulated or restricted - so let's do that". Free market supported would say "let's not mess with people's freedom unless i…

I'm interested that you associate socialism with regulation and restriction - I guess as I'm from the UK I tend to associate it with service provision, particularly the NHS which is an avowedly socialist endeavor (and a pretty successful one at that). A free health service is pure Socialism and as such it is opposed to the hedonism of capitalist society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan NB I agree about yo…

Well, having NHS as a citizen also comes with mandatory participation in financing it's operation - you can't opt-out of financing the NHS. That is the regulation and restriction side of equation.

That doesn't make it automatically bad of course, socialized healthcare is probably a good example where socialism works.

Re: Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots

#160

Post by brbrodude » Tue, Mar 01, 2016, 6:35 PM UTC

AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #145

brbrodude wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should study more history dude, that's a very broad point to be making for a period of 300 years against 5000 years that comes before, it's quite clear you haven't given the rest much thought. Stop being shallow, please. From yesterday: http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-...

LOL. Just because you put 'please' at the ass-end of your sentence doesn't forbid it from being useless, out of place, idiotic, or rude. Did you miss the population rates I leveraged in my other response? I've actually provided evidence for my claims, though they should have been well-understood already by this audience. What's your excuse for not offering a shred of evidence for or against what I've written here, be…

I'll phrase my posts whatever way I see fit, thanks. Who is being rude here again? I saw your population growth rate, I also saw that you completely ignored what is in the quote you yourself highlighted, that the rich landowners were enclosing the common land, which was land that was not private before then, this being a relevant factor in why one could argue that their means of subsistance were taken from them and given to the already-powerful, if this is true so then is this a micro-level event of injustice or a relevant event for modern history and to capitalism itself? See, you are shallow. If you haven't, take a read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure then read a lot more, thats it. Give me a break on the "academia conspiracy" at least untill you've actually studied what is their view, they've been studying this shit since before, while it was happening so to just brush them off like this stupid since there's tons of hours of intellectual work and research that went into that and you'd like to dismiss it because you don't like the conclusion. I don't have enough time to go through this really, so whatever, believe in what you most like.