Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

gmalandrakis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 613 posts

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#421

Post by doctorwho42 »

malfist wrote: post #413
trolleski wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They make it impossible to predict on purpose. The more the population is disoriented the better for the ultra rich, paradoxically it maximizes control. It is a hostile act of course, but as always they're at war with you but you are not at war with them. Choose offline communities, organize, organize, organize. Peacefully, constructively, remember a coordinated general strike is much more dangerous to them than your…

Who is "they" in your story?

Probably referring to those with vast amounts of power and wealth at their disposal.

There isn't some vast conspiracy. But generally it takes a certain kind of person to crave that type of wealth and power. So they tend to all pull in the same direction to keep and build upon said wealth/power. Thus can be viewed as collectively working towards the same nefarious state of things.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#422

Post by doctorwho42 »

generic92034 wrote: post #411
everyday7732 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A need does not get filled simply because it exists. If society is no longer necessary and participating within the economy then society can't provide a safety net for kids. It's like walking in the desert assuming you will reach water soon because you are really thirsty. Nature doesn't care about human needs and will allow you to die of thirst.

But does human nature allow one member of the caravan having (a lot of) water, while everyone else goes thirsty?

It does when you abstract it to our current situation.

It's like having a caravan in which every oasis you pass you only get a miniscule amount of water to refill.

While another caravan of one, that you never see or interact with directly gets to gorge on the oasis... While simultaneously filling up extra barrels of its water to bring back home.

You don't know where this caravan of one is based nor do you ever see them... But everytime you go by the oasis it is noticeably worse for wear.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#423

Post by trolleski »

malfist wrote: post #413
trolleski wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They make it impossible to predict on purpose. The more the population is disoriented the better for the ultra rich, paradoxically it maximizes control. It is a hostile act of course, but as always they're at war with you but you are not at war with them. Choose offline communities, organize, organize, organize. Peacefully, constructively, remember a coordinated general strike is much more dangerous to them than your…

Who is "they" in your story?

I stated that in the post. :)

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#424

Post by arethuza »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #359
arethuza wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see why you might think that - but people and machines and groups are free to leave if they want - at least one of the Culture stories is based on this: e.g. "A Gift from the Culture".

What would the Minds do if all humans wanted to leave?

Probably sublime... who knows!

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#425

Post by inglor_cz »

nkrisc wrote: post #363
inglor_cz wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancer kills about 25 per cent of the population and would kill maybe 35 per cent in absence of modern medicine. Granted, most of its victims are old people. You personally may not care about regressing to 19xx medicine, but in a democratic society, I doubt that this would be an attractive policy for voters. BTW I believe that "shipping fruit around the world" was already a thing 120+ years ago. United Fruit Company…

> Cancer kills about 25 per cent of the population and would kill maybe 35 per cent in absence of modern medicine. Granted, most of its victims are old people. You have to dig a little deeper with your numbers, because everyone is going to die from something . Deaths from cancer would probably go down without modern medicine because most people wouldn’t be living long enough to die from cancer.

GP seems to prefer the 1960s, which would mean that the "not living enough to die from cancer" would likely be off the table.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#426

Post by doctorwho42 »

otikik wrote: post #392
dominicrose wrote: post #320

It is frustrating to not be able to predict the future. How can you get married, have children, get a 25 year mortgage on a house, buy a car for comfort even though you don't absolutely need it? Even if you do consider buying a home, how do you know it's worth anything if you can't predict this particular place's future situation? Some countries tax enough to make the risk of buying quite high. A leap of faith is req…

Well, imagine being able to actually predict the future. It would suck. There would always be an optimal choice all of the time. You would be a slave to your prescience. The only way free will is possible is that we are oblivious to the future. Good luck with your choices, and your life!

Sooooo...

We are doomed because we can predict the sun will rise tomorrow?

We are doomed because we can predict the weather 7-10 days out with reasonable accuracy?

We are doomed because we can predict the climate change based on models?

We are doomed because with our knowledge of physics we can predict the outcome of many events?

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#428

Post by qsera »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #394
qsera wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am thinking of a case where governments will own the robots. People will pay some minimal tax to pay for the maintenance of the robots. If other robots can be made to do it, then even that cost is saved. Government will, among other things, oversee that the needs of the people are well served by these robots.

If you think about it states are not much different than corporations. Taxes is human labor dedicated to the maintenance of state. I think it is naive to think that once humans are not needed they will magically be fed by the machines.

>If you think about it states are not much different than corporations.

At least democracies have elections and that is a big difference.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#429

Post by inglor_cz »

toasty228 wrote: post #380
inglor_cz wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancer kills about 25 per cent of the population and would kill maybe 35 per cent in absence of modern medicine. Granted, most of its victims are old people. You personally may not care about regressing to 19xx medicine, but in a democratic society, I doubt that this would be an attractive policy for voters. BTW I believe that "shipping fruit around the world" was already a thing 120+ years ago. United Fruit Company…

And how many people suffer/die from obesity, diabetes and other lifestyle disease (lookup the main causes of deaths in the US, and their causes) ? All I'm saying is that there is a middle ground between "living in huts made of cow dung and dying at 35" and "75% of your population is obese and die from literal over consumption and lack of physical activity" > but in a democratic society, I doubt that this would be an…

At scale lucrative enough to stage coups in Latin America. Read up upon this.

Let us not even go deeper to the Age of Sail. Large-scale trade and consumption of sugar, tobacco and cotton fueled slavery operations from Virginia down to Brazil, long before a lightbulb was even a thing.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#430

Post by doctorwho42 »

bluGill wrote: post #410
mothballed wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of those people were able to do it without debt which made it far less precarious. I have equally pessimistic view of the future so I built my house one piece of wood at a time with cash. I bought a piece of shit car with cash. I've never used debt, I just got all the things I have by buying shit cars and shit land and slowly slowly making things better until I have nice things. For much of the youth, this is i…

Their existence was even more precarious because they were one crop failure from starvation. They couldn't save food for long, and even if they tried an army is likely to come and take it all (if mice didn't get it first). Dept is bad, but it isn't nearly as bad as the things they dealt with.

Umm, have you ever heard of pickling? Root cellars? Canning?

I hate this fake idea that everyone in the past was one bad harvest from starvation.

They could survive a bad harvest every so often, its when the weather changed due to drought/etc. that caused famine.

Post reply on HN