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

491–500 of 613 posts

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#491

Post by smallmancontrov »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #182
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We didn't have a far-right Hitler or a far-left Stalin because we had a Roosevelt. We should aim for that again... I would much rather not have a repeat of the president who ran the federal government like he was a king, and the Constitution a bare semblance of a suggestion. FDR was one of the worst presidents in history, and many of the problems we face in our country today can be traced back to his immense execut…

Wonder how many read that first sentence thinking it was referring to the current times… (;->

Yeah, the Republicans are very keen on the unitary executive, it's time for the Democrats to get their mojo back.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#492

Post by vel0city »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #486
lqet wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, predicting the future was never possible. In fact, for most of the time in human history, the future looked incredibly bleak. Yet I am immensely grateful that my ancestors chose to build homes and marry and have children and live life through the great plague, through middle ages in which most of the population expected the apocalypse to be just around the corner, the 30 years war with up to 70% of the populatio…

> In fact, for most of the time in human history, the future looked incredibly bleak In the past, this was a reason to have children, because you needed somebody to help out and look after you when you were old. Now, it's a reason not to have children, because you're putting people into a world knowing that there is a non-trivial probability that they will suffer all their lives through wars, famine, social unrest, a…

> you needed somebody to help out and look after you when you were old

Even with social programs in society, this still hasn't gone away. This is still kind of a reason to have kids, and for your siblings to have kids, and have family networks grow to help support each other.

> you're putting people into a world knowing that there is a non-trivial probability that they will suffer all their lives through wars, famine, social unrest, and other man-made disasters

Once again, all of this has also been true for all of human history. Other than a brief moment for the northwestern part of the world for wealtheir people in the 90s-maybe 00s, this has just been the normal state of affairs. Life has always had suffering involved.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#493

Post by skybrian »

randusername wrote: post #469

Nobody wants to live in a mining economy. Human slavery, extraordinary taxes, no public infrastructure. Conceivably you only need two roads total: one from the palace to the airport and another from the mine to the docks. Any more and someone might try to build a school. It seems to me that human quality of life is really tightly coupled to economic systems where there is a high ROI in investing in the public. This i…

This suggests to me more separation into industrial versus residential areas. (Or what is the mining for?)

Historically, mechanized agriculture allowed most people to move to cities, then to suburbs. Industry became globalized and off-shored.

These changes in land use have gone on for a long time. Now we’re getting more solar farms and data centers. Due to Internet shopping, malls close and get converted into residential. There are more warehouses, but shoppers don’t go there.

You could think of it as people being increasingly alienated from where the work is done. The logical conclusion is something like a retirement community where goods and services are delivered where possible and the people who work locally are directly providing services to other people there.

And retirees are people who secured an income through whatever means and don’t have to work anymore. They don’t have to worry about how AI will affect their job.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#495

Post by theptip »

david_shi wrote: post #303
theptip wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The important question is, who has power in such an economy? In the current economy by necessity labor and capital are both required, and when capital tries to subjugate labor there tends to eventually be a violent reaction. Given the dependency on labor it has been hard to fully centralize capital. Labor can unite to unseat the biggest monopolies. I don’t see any such safety valves once you cross the rubicon into a…

Perhaps we are perceptually anchored to the last few hundred years where guns provided a scalable way for peasants to kill well-trained, well-armored knights. If political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, then much of the post Enlightenment rebalancing from absolute monarchies and feudalism could have been an accident. In the future, the owners of autonomous weapon systems and surveillance will be able to easi…

Right. And if one actor happens to accrue greater power you would have less disincentive to crush your competitors. (Honestly this could happen even before people-less economies, but the disconnect from democratic opinion is even stronger with humans out of the loop.)

Basically if you don’t need voters, and / or none of your voters are dying in your wars, the biggest practical rate limiter on modern conflict is removed.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#496

Post by skybrian »

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…

It seems like if real estate becomes a more uncertain investment, it has more to do with climate change than AI.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#497

Post by mothballed »

jmye wrote: post #483
mothballed wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything about being a male parent was far less precarious, and being a female parent was less precarious after childbirth. There was literally basically no liability if the children died, and not only that, the people around you would likely understand and sympathize with you. You could just make a best effort and if you failed, chalk it up to bad luck and try again. And if you died of starvation, welp your respon…

What a weird take. You make it sound like their dead children were no big deal, but by god, someone not paying for your children for you is a catastrophe. > And if you died of starvation, welp your responsibilities in life have ended. Yes, gosh, imagine people making a big deal out of starving to death. At least they didn't owe someone money .

>ou make it sound like their dead children were no big deal, but by god, someone not paying for your children for you is a catastrophe.

No I'm pointing out American society's fake concern for the welfare of children. They don't punish parents to help children. In fact, it's almost totally crickets when it comes to helping the children. We even spend a gazillion dollars on guided missiles to bomb girls' schools in Iran with barely a fuck given about the children inside. The point is to assert smug moral superiority and to punish, jail, and harass parents not help the children. Society wants all the upside of asserting their opinion on parenting and stomping the boot down on parents but none of the responsibility that goes with the choice to assert your opinion on how children should be raised. Wanting kids raised a certain way while shunting all the responsibility on others at ~no cost to yourself except to punish those who fail to live up to your standards, it's the cheapest and most disingenuous kind of concern but frighteningly actually backed by the precious projection of the "rule of law" that arguably makes children even worse off while also acting as a signal towards inhibiting people to have children since they don't want to subject their every lifestyle choice to the whims of "think of the children" psychopaths that can start a CPS investigation ("we investigate every tip") at the drop of a hat.

> imagine people making a big deal out of starving to death. At least they didn't owe someone money.

I don't think I need to explain why people who have starved to death are able to make less of a "big deal" out of their lot than living people who owe money.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#498

Post by thatfrenchguy »

lqet wrote: post #399
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…

Yes, predicting the future was never possible. In fact, for most of the time in human history, the future looked incredibly bleak. Yet I am immensely grateful that my ancestors chose to build homes and marry and have children and live life through the great plague, through middle ages in which most of the population expected the apocalypse to be just around the corner, the 30 years war with up to 70% of the populatio…

Folks did not have kids during WW1 though: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalité_en_France#/media/Fich... :)

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#499

Post by vel0city »

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 sure seems like it with us having so many billionaires while there's still massive poverty at the same time.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#500

Post by Kuyawa »

For the remaining rulers sharing their slice of the world – once the working class has been replaced by robots – land, food and resources are they key ingredients for the post-capitalist economy.

They can fly in planes built by their robots, in airports controlled by their robots, their luggage carried, their limo to the yacht, the captain, the haute cuisine, (the escort service?), everything can be done by robots off the coast of Monaco.

So for those lucky thousands that will own the world, there will be a few entertainers made of flesh, but also a few fellow rulers that will want to wipe them out to control their share of resources as theirs dwindle. So wars will never end, until the last one.

Post reply on HN