The future looks good - or bad?

[BigMike]

Who will pay for the services provided by wealthy people with robots if everyone loses their jobs? Unless they revolt, those unfortunate souls will die of starvation, and only the robot owners will survive. Either way, every living human being will eventually be an owner, supported by their own robots, correct?

Everyone won't lose their jobs - we don't have AGI (and we may never have AGI). But many jobs are so low-key they can be done by robots even today.

You are changing the premise for my question. First, I've never said we have that kind of technology as of 2022. I was talking about a time in the future when there was artificial general intelligence and unlimited energy. So that was my starting point.

Every economic system ultimately finds some sort of homeostatis/equilibrium.
The question is whether that economy becomes self-sufficient and maintains an equilibrium of 100 million people; or 100 billion people.

The economy is the study of scarcity. There is no economy when there is no scarcity.

But even if we play out the AGI scenario - everything you knew about economics will flip on its head. How much should you pay for goods/services that costs nothing to produce? The AGI works for free and can make everything we ever wanted, right?

That is precisely my point.

[Skepdick]

You are changing the premise for my question. First, I've never said we have that kind of technology as of 2022. I was talking about a time in the future when there was artificial general intelligence and unlimited energy. So that was my starting point.

Your starting point is not within this universe.

We may or may not invent AGI, but there is no such thing as unlimited energy. Surely you are familiar with the limits of physics?

When we arrive at thermodynamic equilibrium - exploitation of heat sources becomes impossible.

The economy is the study of scarcity.

There is no economy when there is no scarcity.

I don't really agree with that conception, but lets go with it anyway.

Free energy is a scarce resource.

Computation is a scarce resource.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margolus% ... in_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremermann%27s_limit

That is precisely my point.

Yeah, so lets imagine a situation where we are the benefactors of the economic externalities of an AGI munching energy and doing its thing. Lets even imagine that the benefits produced by the AGI far outweighs the average human needs for food, shelter, transportation, drugs, leisure and whatever else for the next 10 million years.

How do you ensure equal distribution of those benefits amongst all humans? The utility monster is the degenerate case of such an economy - greed.

[BigMike]

You are changing the premise for my question. First, I've never said we have that kind of technology as of 2022. I was talking about a time in the future when there was artificial general intelligence and unlimited energy. So that was my starting point.

Your starting point is not within this universe.

We may or may not invent AGI, but there is no such thing as unlimited energy. Surely you are familiar with the limits of physics?

It should be clear from my opening remarks:

Seven seconds of sunlight can keep the whole world running for 24 hours. This means that the sun is a nearly limitless source of energy. If more is needed, they will just put up more solar panels, or find other ways.

... that I used the term unlimited in the sense of "nearly limitless." Don't make me say everything I've said over and over again in every little detail every time I refer to it.

When we arrive at thermodynamic equilibrium - exploitation of heat sources becomes impossible.

Clearly, the human race and all other living things would have perished long before thermodynamic equilibrium was achieved. This remark was needlessly stupid and out of context.

[Skepdick]

You are changing the premise for my question. First, I've never said we have that kind of technology as of 2022. I was talking about a time in the future when there was artificial general intelligence and unlimited energy. So that was my starting point.

Your starting point is not within this universe.

We may or may not invent AGI, but there is no such thing as unlimited energy. Surely you are familiar with the limits of physics?

It should be clear from my opening remarks:

Seven seconds of sunlight can keep the whole world running for 24 hours. This means that the sun is a nearly limitless source of energy. If more is needed, they will just put up more solar panels, or find other ways.

... that I used the term unlimited in the sense of "nearly limitless." Don't make me say everything I've said over and over again in every little detail every time I refer to it.

When we arrive at thermodynamic equilibrium - exploitation of heat sources becomes impossible.

Clearly, the human race and all other living things would have perished long before thermodynamic equilibrium was achieved. This remark was needlessly stupid and out of context.

Well, you are going to ahve to excuse me from this conversation - the context in which I am talking about is this universe; together with its inherent limits.

I don't know how to engage with your hypothetical which chooses to ignore those limits.

Without limits - anything is possible.

[BigMike]

Well, you are going to ahve to excuse me from this conversation - the context in which I am talking about is this universe; together with its inherent limits.

I don't know how to engage with your hypothetical which chooses to ignore those limits.

Without limits - anything is possible.

Let me say this again: It should be clear from my opening remarks:

Seven seconds of sunlight can keep the whole world running for 24 hours. This means that the sun is a nearly limitless source of energy. If more is needed, they will just put up more solar panels, or find other ways.

... that I used the term unlimited in the sense of "nearly limitless." Don't make me say everything I've said over and over again in every little detail every time I refer to it.

[Skepdick]

Well, you are going to ahve to excuse me from this conversation - the context in which I am talking about is this universe; together with its inherent limits.

I don't know how to engage with your hypothetical which chooses to ignore those limits.

Without limits - anything is possible.

Let me say this again: It should be clear from my opening remarks:

Seven seconds of sunlight can keep the whole world running for 24 hours. This means that the sun is a nearly limitless source of energy. If more is needed, they will just put up more solar panels, or find other ways.

... that I used the term unlimited in the sense of "nearly limitless." Don't make me say everything I've said over and over again in every little detail every time I refer to it.

Well, if the sun is a "nearly limitless energy source" (e.g there's no scarcity of energy) and "economics is the study of scarcity" then why do we even have an energy economy?

Why are we even paying for electricity today?

There's no clear path from where humanity is at today (energy is not free; or limitless) to where your hypothetical scenario starts.

[BigMike]

Foe-listed!

[Skepdick]

Foe-listed!

Oh no! Anyway...

Looks like yet another idiot who has no interest in ideas.

idea

noun
1.
a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

Probably can't even navigate the ambiguity between "free energy'" (free as in physics free), and "free energy" (free as in money free).

[phyllo]

Computers will be able to do much more than just manual labor and number crunching in the future. As a result, humans will gradually be phased out of the labor market and eventually out of work. That includes managers, programmers, doctors, judges, politicians, and everyone else. Computers will be able to do everything that people can do, but they will do it faster and better every time. They will even fix computers that are broken or replace them with ones they designed and built themselves that are smarter. And because computers work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the vast majority of all value produced will be to the benefit of humans. Only a tiny amount of that will be used by the computers themselves to keep the lights on.

Vast networks of robots controlled by computers will work together wirelessly to mine minerals, grow food, and everything necessary, including every aspect of healthcare, entertainment, etc. Their only goal will be to meet the needs of humans to ensure they enjoy a high standard of living. All that humans need to do is tell the computers what they want.

These robots will also move materials to factories and goods to stores. Of course, all of this will be controlled, managed, and executed by computers. This will keep production levels up. Other computers keep track of the consumer goods inventory and make orders to get more when supplies run low. In the same way, they will make sure there are enough robots and computers and make more if they need to.

They will get all of their energy from the sun by putting up big solar panels in space. In fact, about 10,000 times more energy comes from the sun to the earth's surface every day than we use. Seven seconds of sunlight can keep the whole world running for 24 hours. This means that the sun is a nearly limitless source of energy. If more is needed, they will just put up more solar panels, or find other ways.

So, using people to work would waste resources when that advanced technology is available. It would be much better if robots did everything instead of people. A significant shift like that in society would impact economic activity, to say the least. Because nothing would be in short supply, there wouldn't even be an economy. Who needs money when everything is available for free? Money would no longer change hands. The economy would come to a screeching halt.

The future looks good. Or bad?

1. The resources of the planet are not limitless. We are already consuming them faster than they can be regenerated.
That's before we use materials and energy to fabricate all those robots. And before we use resources to meet the expanded needs of a huge world population. Much of that population now lives at a minimal consumption level. But that would change in the future unless you envision a two class world - those who are served by robots and those who are not.

2. People need mental and physical stimulation in order to thrive. If all their needs are met, then they are going to get bored and restless. You can see that happening in pets and zoo animals. People and animals need to have challenging tasks.

3. This planet is full of living organisms. They have needs as well. We should not be entirely focused on satisfying the needs of humans. That focus comes at a cost to other life.
If we are not careful, we could end up with a planet of robots, bored humans and nothing else.

[Sculptor]

Mechanisation has always been used it two ways.
1) A means by which the people have been freed from labour
2) A means by which the people have been alienated from their crafts and professions, and has been used as an engine of inequality and penury.

It is a social and political choice as to which path we follow.
1) is a left wing tendency, whilst 2) is a right wing tendency.

in the early decades of the 21stC we ought to be seeing the people enjoy the fruits of mechanisation and computerisation, yet what we find is more poverty , unemployment and homelessness now than existed 40 years ago - the period of human history which has seen the fastest growth in inequality in human history..

Thanks you Milton Friedman for making this possible.

[BigMike]

The future looks good. Or bad?

1. The resources of the planet are not limitless. We are already consuming them faster than they can be regenerated.
That's before we use materials and energy to fabricate all those robots. And before we use resources to meet the expanded needs of a huge world population. Much of that population now lives at a minimal consumption level. But that would change in the future unless you envision a two class world - those who are served by robots and those who are not.

In our current primitive state, humans can use energy to convert lighter substances into heavier ones. For instance, gold and diamonds have already been produced in this manner in the past. In addition, our solar system, which consists of planets and asteroids that orbit the sun, contains vast quantities of every mineral imaginable. In the not-too-distant future, we should be able to use all of these resources by harnessing the sun's power.
I think we have enough resources right now to make sure that everyone alive today has what they need to live a good life. It's not our resources or technology that are lacking; it's our lack of political will. But how we manage our current lives is another discussion.

2. People need mental and physical stimulation in order to thrive. If all their needs are met, then they are going to get bored and restless. You can see that happening in pets and zoo animals. People and animals need to have challenging tasks.

I don't see why people can't meet the other needs without having to work.

3. This planet is full of living organisms. They have needs as well. We should not be entirely focused on satisfying the needs of humans. That focus comes at a cost to other life.

The quality of a human's life shouldn't negatively affect other living things. When our energy consumption is pollution-free, there is no reason for people to destroy the planet or nature in general.

[BigMike]

Mechanisation has always been used it two ways.
1) A means by which the people have been freed from labour
2) A means by which the people have been alienated from their crafts and professions, and has been used as an engine of inequality and penury.

It is a social and political choice as to which path we follow.
1) is a left wing tendency, whilst 2) is a right wing tendency.

in the early decades of the 21stC we ought to be seeing the people enjoy the fruits of mechanisation and computerisation, yet what we find is more poverty , unemployment and homelessness now than existed 40 years ago - the period of human history which has seen the fastest growth in inequality in human history..

Thanks you Milton Friedman for making this possible.

I agree with most of that in general, I think. But I think greedy people are to blame, not technology itself.

My point is that when technology is allowed to grow to its fullest potential, we will reach a point where people will no longer need to be greedy because nothing will be scarce.

[phyllo]

In our current primitive state, humans can use energy to convert lighter substances into heavier ones. For instance, gold and diamonds have already been produced in this manner in the past. In addition, our solar system, which consists of planets and asteroids that orbit the sun, contains vast quantities of every mineral imaginable. In the not-too-distant future, we should be able to use all of these resources by harnessing the sun's power.

So this is some sort of fantasy tread? Star Trek food synthesizers, transporters, warp engines ...?
There is nothing concrete or practical here?

I think we have enough resources right now to make sure that everyone alive today has what they need to live a good life. It's not our resources or technology that are lacking; it's our lack of political will. But how we manage our current lives is another discussion.

Well then that's your opinion but it doesn't agree with current science:

According to latest projections, the global population could grow to around 8.5 billion in 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050. The equivalent of almost three planets could be required to provide the natural resources needed to sustain current lifestyles.

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopme ... roduction/

I don't see why people can't meet the other needs without having to work.

Would you care to expand on how you think this would work?

The quality of a human's life shouldn't negatively affect other living things. When our energy consumption is pollution-free, there is no reason for people to destroy the planet or nature in general.

It's not just about energy consumption. People are going to want cars, houses, products. And they are going to want land and water. Space that other life forms need.

[BigMike]

So this is some sort of fantasy tread? Star Trek food synthesizers, transporters, warp engines ...?
There is nothing concrete or practical here?

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I am not a fortuneteller. I observe that people lose their jobs to automation, and by extrapolating, I can only see that that will continue. Also, I can't think of why this process should stop before everyone is replaced by computers or robots. I find it difficult to believe that even 2% of people would be content if they were required to work eight hours a day while the rest of the population enjoyed themselves at the beach. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that 98% of people would be happy to scavenge for food while the other 2% ran the show.

I think we have enough resources right now to make sure that everyone alive today has what they need to live a good life. It's not our resources or technology that are lacking; it's our lack of political will. But how we manage our current lives is another discussion.

Well then that's your opinion but it doesn't agree with current science:

According to latest projections, the global population could grow to around 8.5 billion in 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050. The equivalent of almost three planets could be required to provide the natural resources needed to sustain current lifestyles.

I think about more than just the next 28 years. You have a very short-term perspective. I see a world, maybe 500 years into the future, where technology is much more advanced than it is now.

I don't see why people can't meet the other needs without having to work.

Would you care to expand on how you think this would work?

I think most people understand what we need. Aside from basic needs like food, water, air, etc., we also need to feel safe, love and belong, have self-esteem, find and keep a mate, and raise children. None of these needs will require human labor in the future.

The quality of a human's life shouldn't negatively affect other living things. When our energy consumption is pollution-free, there is no reason for people to destroy the planet or nature in general.

It's not just about energy consumption. People are going to want cars, houses, products. And they are going to want land and water. Space that other life forms need.

In 500 years, if people are still driving cars, they can be made by robots. I don't understand why you think land and water will disappear if robots do all the work.

[Sculptor]

Mechanisation has always been used it two ways.
1) A means by which the people have been freed from labour
2) A means by which the people have been alienated from their crafts and professions, and has been used as an engine of inequality and penury.

It is a social and political choice as to which path we follow.
1) is a left wing tendency, whilst 2) is a right wing tendency.

in the early decades of the 21stC we ought to be seeing the people enjoy the fruits of mechanisation and computerisation, yet what we find is more poverty , unemployment and homelessness now than existed 40 years ago - the period of human history which has seen the fastest growth in inequality in human history..

Thanks you Milton Friedman for making this possible.

I agree with most of that in general, I think. But I think greedy people are to blame, not technology itself.

My point is that when technology is allowed to grow to its fullest potential, we will reach a point where people will no longer need to be greedy because nothing will be scarce.

But I have not blamed technology.
And it seems that no matter how much tech grows it never seems to exceed the ability of the greedy to keep it for themselves.
One major and obvious problem is that because we live in a capitalist world technology is only developed if and when it makes money. So the aim in development is not got the good of the people but always for the good of the 1%.