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

541–550 of 613 posts

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#541

Post by the_af »

mc32 wrote: post #513
the_af wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, let me clarify my dystopian scenario is extreme. I'm aware of this, and I'm not saying it will necessarily come to pass. (edit: removed a wall of text that was repeating my previous comment). What I describe can start gradually, like arguably it may be already happening, and pick up speed after a certain tipping point. After enough automation + concentration of power and wealth has been achieved, then the mask…

In the USSR, Cuba, China, etc., where expropriation or nationalization happened, first they confiscated everyone’s firearms. That’s always step one to take rights or property from people. I know the 2A is both contentious and leads to problems (like violence), but it also gives pause and prevents overzealous or corrupt governments or individuals from going too far. Yes there was ruby ridge and Waco and Kent state and…

> In the USSR, Cuba, China, etc., where expropriation or nationalization happened, first they confiscated everyone’s firearms.

I don't think this is strictly the order of how it went in any of those cases, even though, of course, access to weapons will be heavily controlled and restricted in any country with a strong centralized government. And rivals will be disarmed.

> I know the 2A is both contentious and leads to problems (like violence), but it also gives pause and prevents overzealous or corrupt governments

I honestly believe this is a red herring. It made sense in the age of musketry and whereabouts, when the weapons available to civilians vs governments were technologically not too dissimilar, but I think in this day and age believing civilians can have AR-style rifles or shotguns and compete with a government-like army of helicopters, rocket launchers, aircraft, drones (even before we get to the AI-autonomous robots in my scenario) is completely absurd. Or even biochemical weapons if they designed to unleash them (and they could be conceivably be of the kind that damages humans but leaves the planet relatively unharmed). Even assuming guerrilla warfare, that only matters when the intent isn't just extermination, which is reasonable to assume in the current world, but what about a dystopian future?

So I think the 2A makes no difference, because the tech gap would be huge. It already is, imagine in the future.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#542

Post by throw0101c »

well_ackshually wrote: post #506
georgeecollins wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL! Thank you. Let’s try: George Collins believes that people can satisfy their material needs by working only a few hours. People usually want more. But at many times and within many social movements— religious, political, artistic— people have chosen to want less. Maybe that is part of the answer.

>George Collins believes that people can satisfy their material needs by working only a few hours And George Collins is wrong. My rent (for two people) is 1000€ (60m²), electricity is 150, food is 600, internet 50, total of about 2000. Say 1000 since we split that in half, and maybe i'll even reduce those needs, live in a smaller space, heat myself less in winter so it goes down to 800. That's about 35 hours of work…

> That's about 35 hours of work for the absolute bare minimum, 70 including my wife.

2000/month is 24k/year in expenses.

Doing some rough math, one person working 35/week would be working for about 13/hour to handle that; for two people it would be 6.5/hour each (US federal minimum wage, which hasn't change in decades, is US$ 7.25/hour).

In the EU wages vary by countries, so minimum wages go from Bulgaria's €620/month to Luxemburg's €2700/month:

* https://eures.europa.eu/minimum-wages-eu-2026-what-they-are-...

(You don't say where you are.)

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#543

Post by mrguyorama »

doctorwho42 wrote: post #430
bluGill wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The actual way the average farmer throughout history survived through failed harvests was the human way:

Their neighbor helped them

The most important human invention ever was a society built around sharing whenever you could because you knew you would rely on that sharing to survive at some point.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#544

Post by vitally3643 »

cm2012 wrote: post #511
devin wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate change would like a word.

If you think that you're simply incorrect. For the average person in a Western country, life is dramatically better anytime in the next hundred years, including the worst possible outcomes of climate change. Not to mention that the exponential growth of solar panels is basically stabilized in climate right now.

I don't think your "worst possible" case is calibrated correctly.

The worst possible case is global famine and food chain collapse. Food wars, water riots. Starvation in the literal billions.

Living in a Western country won't solve the problems of "crops can't grow anymore" or "keystone species in the food chain are extinct". We'll starve and die in mass numbers just like everyone else.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#545

Post by refurb »

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…

How is this any different than it's ever been?

Not making life choices because you're worried they'll turn out bad is a terrible way to approach life.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#546

Post by bluejay2387 »

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…

"End times are nothing new, it's the historic default mode." -- might be the smartest thing I have read in many weeks.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#547

Post by AngryData »

hurtigioll wrote: post #333
AngryData wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean explosively pumped generators aren't new and were invented in the 50s. The hardest part is getting a fast enough explosive, however it doesn't take that much effort or chemistry knowledge to make supersonic explosives if someone needed it. And neodynium magnets are pretty common consumer products these day. It is harder that just blowing stuff up, but when one side is using killer robots and other advanced ele…

it's much cheaper to defend against EMP (Faraday shield) than to make EMPs the fact that EMP blasts are not used in Ukraine, by both sides, to defend against drones also shows its not such a good idea

I think the main reason we don't see the use of EMP weapons is because of collateral damage. Ukraine isn't fighting from a position of little to no electronics, they still rely on radios for communication, radar for enemy detection, their own drone supplies, they are near civilian infrastructure, and they have neighboring countries that would not be happy to get random strong EM noise even if its far enough away to not cause any real damage.

Maybe smaller scale DIY EMPs wouldn't be as effective as I think, they would have to be pretty close to their target to do real damage to non-radio devices, however I think collateral damage is the biggest reason we don't see them.

Drones are weak and fragile enough already that it just easier to shoot or blow them up rather than try to lob a grenade sized EMP up near them, a regular grenade explosive would be similarly or more effective without the extra complexity. But something like a mobile turret platform or multiple smaller ground bots I can see it being the best option.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#548

Post by Ma8ee »

flextheruler wrote: post #478
Ma8ee wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you instead imagine the perspective of anyone from 16th century, you’d realise we are already living as kings. We have way more food and clothes than we can eat and use, we have self driving carriages, magic devices with entertainment in our pockets, not to mention that almost all our kids live to adulthood. At what point do we say that we don’t need to waste more of earth’s resources and instead find time to enjo…

The argument that commoners now live better than historical kings because we possess better technology is reductive if by living better you mean life satisfaction. Happiness is relative. Most people compare themselves to their peers. This is borne out by a multitude of studies one being that upper middle class people are unhappier living in upper class neighborhoods than in middle class neighborhoods despite the rich…

No, I don't mean life satisfaction, I mean exactly what I wrote. Our material standards are unimaginable high compared to a few hundred years ago. I've never imagined kings to be particularly happy.

I am convinced there will be a point where humans will find other ways to compete than buying expensive goods. I thought the whole "humans are slaves to their genes" became quite out of fashion already 30 years or so.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#549

Post by rwyinuse »

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…

"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"

I live in what is supposedly one of the happiest, wealthiest countries in the world, and even here few people trust the healthcare system to take care of them when they're old. My grandpa would have almost certainly died years ago if he had no children to look after him.

It's still valid, if selfish reason to have children.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#550

Post by Windchaser »

bluGill wrote: post #419
chadgpt3 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real killer is the lowest possible rent in the city. You can't opt out of that without exiling yourself.

You can opt out by having roommates.

You're getting downvoted, but roommates used to pretty common (meaning, multiple people in each bedroom).

I'm happy to work more to have my small flat to myself; the lifestyle creep is worth it to me here. But I'm still aware that this is lifestyle creep.

Post reply on HN