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

561–570 of 613 posts

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#561

Post by cheesecakegood »

trolleski wrote: post #374
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…

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…

If I've observed anything about humanity, it's that feeling out of control or that we are subject to randomness is something we absolutely hate, both on an individual and societal level. The easiest way out of it is to conclude that randomness is either a lie or a conspiracy, rather than accept the harder truth.

A thousand years ago, humans believed that natural disasters could be predicted by augurs, portents, etc. not out of a rational understanding, but out of an innate sense that "it can't possibly be random". It's reverse reasoning at its core.

Today, the same instincts are alive and kicking, but the current fad is to blame the ultra rich instead.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#562

Post by asdff »

qsera wrote: post #490
vinyl7 wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the way things are now, the corporations own the government. The 'government' is not some sort of impartial mediator that people have been lead to believe it is

The government at least has to maintain the appearance.

No it doesn't. Propagandize the population sufficiently and they won't accept the reality in front of them.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#563

Post by d2ou »

jameslk wrote: post #108
stephc_int13 wrote: post #79

The idea of a consumer based economy has always appeared dumb to me. The reason why the masses should consume is to motivate them to work. And the reason why having a large amount of people working is that human work has been producing a surplus basically since the dawn of civilization. This surplus is partially shared but tend also to "trickle up", contrary to some weird beliefs, as can clearly be seen almost everyw…

> The reason why the masses should consume is to motivate them to work. The masses work because they want to consume, not the other way around. Everyone wants more > But if you imagine a sci-fi world where machines can build and do everything humans can do, the concept of a human-centric economy would be pointless. There’s a number of obstacles I can think of to get there, in a human governed world, where humans make…

> everyone wants more

Some evidence of satiation have been shown in five western countries. Satiation is defined in the following work as an income level where more money dont increase subjective well being. The threshold varies and could very well depend on the generosity of the social safety net : https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/8199185

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#564

Post by asdff »

tartoran wrote: post #473

People may be excluded from the main capital/robot/AI economy, but they still need to eat, shelter themselves, and trade with one another. That produces an economy, even if it is informal or black-market.

Why would land and water and material be devoted to that by the robot overlords? Just cull the humans.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#565

Post by cm2012 »

vitally3643 wrote: post #544
cm2012 wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even if we had billions dead from starvation worldwide (huge if), life in a western country in 2060 will be better than life for almost anyone born in 1800 anywhere on earth.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#566

Post by alnwlsn »

jstanley wrote: post #408
elvis10ten wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your examples, I can still find the “for whom”, even if that is several layers deep. I’m trying to understand your position: are you saying the same will be true in the ongoing case, just that we don’t know the connections yet?

Approximately, yes. In a sense all this communication is "for somebody". But do you know all the communication your laptop is doing? Do you really claim it is all for you, or all for your benefit? Or is it just something the laptop does that isn't really for anyone in particular?

Since my laptop has a screen and keyboard, I probably would claim that.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#567

Post by bluefirebrand »

sosomoxie wrote: post #105
bluefirebrand wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you accept "fairly" distributed instead of "evenly"? I think it's fair to say that some jobs do actually deserve to be compensated more highly? Jobs that require special skills and training, or require taking on more responsibility? I don't think the problem is that some work earns different amounts of money. To me it seems that the problem is how much wealth is concentrating in such few hands, because the peop…

I would prefer "evenly" but "fairly" would be better than what we have now. If AI and robots are going to make infinite progress and replace all labor, then I definitely would want "evenly".

I don't really want to live in a world where someone bagging groceries makes the exact same living as someone researching cures for cancer

I think both of those people have inherent value and I don't think there is anything wrong with bagging groceries, but I don't think the work they do is equally important and it would be unjust to reward their work equally as a result

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#568

Post by cucumber3732842 »

bluGill wrote: post #468
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…

While child death was common, there is no reason to think it was somehow less devastating to the families it happened too.

From child mortality to soldiers in combat there is a nearly infinite amount of research indicating that whatever bad things you want to look are less devastating when the the entire society around you says "aw shucks, that happens sometimes, maybe just pray better and try again" rather than "omg that sounds horrible you must be so traumatized, have you tried therapy"

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#569

Post by gottorf »

devin wrote: post #505
cm2012 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a lower probability than ever before in human history of those things

Climate change would like a word.

More people will suffer and die over the next 50-100 years from efforts to counteract climate change than from climate change itself.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#570

Post by oh_my_goodness »

vinyl7 wrote: post #446
qsera wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would someone who owns all of the power and resources share with you? Ideally governments will see to it. This also assumes that governments have a much larger army of robots than any private individual. Just like how governments makes it illegal to own firearms, it will be illegal to own certain class of robots with combat capability.. Thus governments (the people really/ideally) will see to it that everyone wi…

With the way things are now, the corporations own the government. The 'government' is not some sort of impartial mediator that people have been lead to believe it is

It needs votes. It is better than dealing directly with the corporations, which don't need votes.
Post reply on HN