What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922) • Hacker News Board

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#561

Post by jlawson » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 11:49 PM UTC

krupan wrote: post #436

dahart wrote: post #372

> They will have rebelled against long hours; the chances are that in 2022 few people will work more than seven hours a day, if as much Bertrand Russell also famously predicted this. I believe I’ve read that in the 1800’s people were predicting industrialization would do away with labor. People are still predicting this today, with the advent of Machine Learning that’s good enough to automate things like driving. Wil…

"Will this prediction ever come true, or is there some kind of human nature that is going to keep us grinding away no matter what we invent?" Seems abundantly clear to me that there indeed is something in our nature that keeps us grinding. I do hope that we at least continue to increase the freedom to choose what and when we grind

It's not in our nature, it's in the rewards we desire.

We desire the best mate possible. No industrial or computer advance has (yet) provided any of us with better mates. Mates are as scarce as they were hundreds and thousands of years ago.

Mates choose each other according to relative status. By definition, there is no way we can increase everyone's relative status.

So the reason people grind as hard as they used to is that they're facing the same incentives and barriers: For the mate you want, you have to grind your way up the status hierarchy (or at least enough to avoid falling). Competition is just as stiff as it was in 1950 or 1850, or 1000 BC.

Things will only truly change in this respect when we invent artificial ways to satisfy peoples' desire for mates. However, this won't happen soon. Sexbots are only a small part of it; a mate is much more.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#562

Post by refurb » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 11:49 PM UTC

overthemoon wrote: post #35

It's interesting to compare this to the WEF future projections: https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/s... Especially with regards to this passage:: "In 2022 [economic development] will be as finished as it is to-day in England. American wealth will then be either developed or known, and all of it will belong to somebody. There will be no more opportunity in America than there is in England to-da…

This is a hilarious prediction.

I remember reading the same back in the 1990’s. America’s growth will flatten.

That was a terribly wrong prediction.

I don’t disagree that American’s economic expansion won’t flatten at some point. But as long as the brightest and most entrepreneurial keep going to the US, the growth will continue.

I mean where else will they go in the future? China?

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#563

Post by fleddr » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 11:52 PM UTC

thereddaikon wrote: post #109

pindab0ter wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What terrible phrasing is "they cease to be productive and look for ways to while away their time." We don't live to work, we work to live. Once less work is required to live, more living can be done. Some people may 'while away their time', others do valuable things that don't produce monetary value.

This is also not a new phenomena but something that has been slowly increasing over human history. Before agriculture, humans spent almost all of their time hunting and gathering. Agriculture freed up some time and every major technological revolution has in some way made society more productive and efficient allowing us for more time not working. At some point in the 19th century the concept of leisure time came aro…

Hunter gatherers worked at best 4 hours a day.

Agriculture did not free up time, it costs more time. It also has been a catastrophe for the human diet, which was superior before. Besides food, living constantly next to cattle has caused all kinds of new diseases.

Finally, agriculture established the concept of property. Almost all the negative behavior we commonly attribute to people...greed, competition, theft, envy, hoarding...come from the invention of personal property. It's not a natural occurrence of human behavior.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#564

Post by deanCommie » Thu, Jan 06, 2022, 11:58 PM UTC

causality0 wrote: post #276

deanCommie wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the United States is still one of the most free ... countries on the planet. By what metric? More importantly by what magnitude? Would "in the top 20" count? Axross 200 world countries maybe, but to patriotic Americans who speak about freedom abstractly, knowing that they are 16th in democracy [0], 44th in press freedom [1], and 20th in economic freedom [2], probably wouldn't cut it as "one of the top". [0] https:/…

Depends on your definition of freedom, certainly. If your primary definition is "the range of behaviors for which the government will not prosecute you", it's probably the highest one not currently involved in a civil war.

I shared 3 definitions of freedom. You're welcome to yours.

But that sounds like optimizing a society for reckless individual expressionism that the government looks the other way on, vs ensuring that every human being in society has their basic needs met despite their race, gender, gender expression, socioeconomic class, diablement, or mental health.

Is it freedom if you can shoot guns at a barrel in your back yard without getting prosecuted, but can also be legally fired from your job and not have a house rented to you, solely for being trans?

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#565

Post by deanCommie » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 12:00 AM UTC

mardifoufs wrote: post #491

deanCommie wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when we're in the middle of a Global Pandemic, with the 5th-highest death toll in human history [0], a couple things have to change temporarily, don't you think? Also, this is a Quebec-only curfew. Take it up with your provincial government. If separated as a country, perhaps Quebec wouldn't make the list. Quebec has plenty of other counter-freedom policies including your government-endorsed islamophobia. [0] h…

You are contradicting yourself. It's a global pandemic yet only quebec is going for these absolutely ridiculous measures. Hence why it's ludicrous for canada to be higher than the US. And it's been 2 years, it's not exactly temporary, especially since there's literally no scientific backing for a curfew in a pandemic and our government is not even pretending that there is any. At a certain point the "it's a global pa…

Every province can take invidiual actions for their citizens that the federal government disagrees with. Quebec can do more than the rest.

That's not an argument for restrictive Canadian freedom, that's an argument for INCREASED freedom in Canada for individual provinces (especially Quebec)

"You don't like it -> move" is an argument that doesn't work very well across international borders, but ABSOLUTELY works within a country. If you find Quebec to repressive, move to a different province.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#566

Post by Eduard » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 12:05 AM UTC

awhitby wrote: post #340

ceejayoz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “lunch will be a pill” stuff is always funny to me. There’s a major volume issue unless you’re gonna have me eat chunks of uranium or neutron star or something.

This was my initial reaction too: it doesn't seem to pass basic conservation of mass. But actually how much mass must you necessarily lose to stay alive each day? Most of it is probably water, so if we allow "four pills plus as much water" at a meal then it's harder to rule out the pill diet. Maybe a better way to bound it: apparently we exhale around 1 kg of CO2 each day, which has 370g of carbon in it so unless we…

370g of carbon required per day? That can't be. Even with a pure fat-based diet, 370g of fat (9 kcal/g) equals 3330 kcal daily - way too high for the sedentary HN requirement of 2000 kcal.

With 2000 kcal, three meals with four pills equals twelve lard pills, each in a squishy 2.7cm cube format, easy to swallow. ;-)

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#567

Post by verisimi » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 12:08 AM UTC

throwawayyear22 wrote: post #556

verisimi wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. God-like abilities are not required. But lots of wealth and a clear long-term plan is. Do you think that those individuals that own corporations, would be interested to gain greater control and wealth? Wouldn't it be good to transform society in a way that is most beneficial to them? Do you think that those individuals would be pretty ruthless in their execution of their plans? And that they would also try to be…

"Do you think that those individuals that own corporations, would be interested..." I can't even get my business partner to agree with me on mundane things let alone a grand plan to shape the world regardless of wealth. Your argument hinges on this hypothetical "you" and that is like identifying the handful of termites that coordinated the building of the colony's mound. Besides does this mindset serve you in any way…

"I can't even get my business partner to agree with me on mundane things let alone a grand plan to shape the world regardless of wealth."

You don't have enough money.

"Your argument hinges on this hypothetical "you""

It does. So, do you think that politicians, businessmen - the really successful ones, are there on merit? That these are the best of us? Or the worst? Do they even have a morality?

"Besides does this mindset serve you in any way ?"

Fair question.

It doesn't serve me when it comes to finding motivation to earn more money, get my children into better schools, having a fantastic holiday, a holiday home, etc.

If you are prepared to consider that there is more to life than contorting yourself that enable you to make more money though, perhaps. I seek to uncover as much truth as I can in my way. I think my search does serve me in my attempt to live a meaningful life. Regardless of what others may say is a meaningful life.

One way to consider it, is that when we die we judge ourselves. We might ask, did we do what should have, did we do it right, did we even try? Why wait to do the things you think/know are right?

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#568

Post by causality0 » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 12:16 AM UTC

deanCommie wrote: post #564

causality0 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on your definition of freedom, certainly. If your primary definition is "the range of behaviors for which the government will not prosecute you", it's probably the highest one not currently involved in a civil war.

I shared 3 definitions of freedom. You're welcome to yours. But that sounds like optimizing a society for reckless individual expressionism that the government looks the other way on, vs ensuring that every human being in society has their basic needs met despite their race, gender, gender expression, socioeconomic class, diablement, or mental health. Is it freedom if you can shoot guns at a barrel in your back yard…

The last man on earth is also the most free man in history. Freedom is not an absolute good nor is it defined as "that which produces the best outcome". The entire purpose of government is deciding which limits on freedom are reasonable to adopt.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#569

Post by Manuel_D » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 12:16 AM UTC

LeFantome wrote: post #552

Manuel_D wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really the case? Inflation favors debtors over creditors, the upper class tends to be the latter not the former. While it is the case that the value of savings goes down, the lower class are much less likely to save.

Nobody owes more money than the rich. This is true of countries as well. “Wealth” as most people think of it comes from power over money more than from the absolute value of net worth. I had a lot of credit card debt in University. I was the richest person my friends knew. That money gave me access to people and opportunities I would not have had otherwise. Today, I owe a million dollars ( mostly mortgage ) but am co…

I think you're mistaking wealth with purchase of luxury goods. If someone has no money, and borrows to buy a fancy set of clothes they might be perceived as wealthy by onlookers but they still have no money. Worse, even, as the interest on that loan will make them even poorer to the point of having a negative net worth. If you owe more than you own, you are not wealthy as you have negative net worth. Inflation someone in your situation precisely because they aren't actually wealthy: they owe more than they own.

This is exactly my point: someone who borrowed money for, say, university or to buy a house or a car is helped by inflation. By comparison wealthier people who are more likely to have bought those assets outright, are not. And the wealthiest people who are - directly or indirectly - the ones lending out money to other people see their wealth transferred to the first group.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#570

Post by Retric » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 12:19 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #430

scottLobster wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? A middle class experience from 1622 is also affordable for most Americans today, and now we don't have to worry about raids from the natives! Clearly we have no right to complain /s I'm not arguing things are equivalent to 1922 on an absolute scale, but on a relative scale they're closer than they were in the recent past. The prosperity of the previous century has shifted the goal posts for what defines upper, mi…

A higher percentage of Americans are going to collage in 2020. They are also graduating with more debt, so is it more or less affordable? That’s a more complex question than it might appear as students are in many cases choosing a very expensive education when more economical options are available. It’s similar to how new cars in 2020 are both substantially more expensive on average but also of vastly higher quality.…

Ex: Great Bastion Collage in state tuition is under 11k not per semester but to get a 4 year degree. Out of state is twice that, but you probably have some equivalent in your state. They even have minimum additional requirements for students without a high school diploma or GED to get a collage degree.