The future looks good - or bad?

[BigMike]

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%.

Do you really think that only the top 1% of people will have jobs and money to buy things? Do you really think that the 99% of people who don't have jobs will be okay with dying of hunger?

[Skepdick]

Do you really think that only the top 1% of people will have jobs and money to buy things? Do you really think that the 99% of people who don't have jobs will be okay with dying of hunger?

How are you going to fight the self-regenerating AI robot-army protecting the elites' interests?

[Sculptor]

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%.

Do you really think that only the top 1% of people will have jobs and money to buy things? Do you really think that the 99% of people who don't have jobs will be okay with dying of hunger?

The top 1% do not have to work. They generally have sufficient money to make money from money. Machinery is designed so that they pay fewer workers, not designed to free people from drudgery.

aside from that I have no ideas why you are asking these questions.

[BigMike]

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%.

Do you really think that only the top 1% of people will have jobs and money to buy things? Do you really think that the 99% of people who don't have jobs will be okay with dying of hunger?

The top 1% do not have to work. They generally have sufficient money to make money from money. Machinery is designed so that they pay fewer workers, not designed to free people from drudgery.

aside from that I have no ideas why you are asking these questions.

But, if they are the only ones with money, who will buy their goods and services? They will not stay wealthy without paying customers or clients.

[Sculptor]

Do you really think that only the top 1% of people will have jobs and money to buy things? Do you really think that the 99% of people who don't have jobs will be okay with dying of hunger?

The top 1% do not have to work. They generally have sufficient money to make money from money. Machinery is designed so that they pay fewer workers, not designed to free people from drudgery.

aside from that I have no ideas why you are asking these questions.

But, if they are the only ones with money, who will buy their goods and services? They will not stay wealthy without paying customers or clients.

I think you are thinking a bit black and white.
More inequality does mean more poverty, more homelessness and more unemployment. But as long as the 1% have more than enough they tend not to notice.
THough this is a tendency the ultimate end of this process is one person with everything served by the masses. But there is also a point in the equation where the 1% are limited by progressive taxation for example and wealth to put back to the people that create it - workers.
The last 40 years is characterised by more inequality. so despite advances in technology there has been no improvement in living standards for the people in most western countries.
Rather than the fruits of mechanisation and computerisation improving the lives of ordinary people young people now have no prospect of by their own homes and living independently from their parents. And for the first time in 150 years the net generation's life expectancy is now LOWER than their parents.

[BigMike]

But, if they are the only ones with money, who will buy their goods and services? They will not stay wealthy without paying customers or clients.

I think you are thinking a bit black and white.
More inequality does mean more poverty, more homelessness and more unemployment. But as long as the 1% have more than enough they tend not to notice.
THough this is a tendency the ultimate end of this process is one person with everything served by the masses. But there is also a point in the equation where the 1% are limited by progressive taxation for example and wealth to put back to the people that create it - workers.
The last 40 years is characterised by more inequality. so despite advances in technology there has been no improvement in living standards for the people in most western countries.
Rather than the fruits of mechanisation and computerisation improving the lives of ordinary people young people now have no prospect of by their own homes and living independently from their parents. And for the first time in 150 years the net generation's life expectancy is now LOWER than their parents.

Well, things will be very different in the future. The way things are going now can't last. It won't be the same. For better or worse, that is the question.

[Agent Smith]

Quite obviously, something's missing, oui?

Like what?

The future is predictable but only in ways that are trivial.

[BigMike]

Quite obviously, something's missing, oui?

Like what?

The future is predictable but only in ways that are trivial.

Quite obviously

[Agent Smith]

Like what?

The future is predictable but only in ways that are trivial.

Quite obviously

Hmmm.

[phyllo]

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 extrapolate from the short term.

I don't close my eyes to the short term.

I don't expect the Techno-God to save humans or any other life on this planet.

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.

People won't need a sense of accomplishment? They won't need a purpose?

Those are some things that people get from working.

If you look as some of the positive aspects of work, aside from getting money.

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.

Habitat and biodiversity will disappear. Forests cut down, animals going extinct.

[BigMike]

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 extrapolate from the short term.

I don't close my eyes to the short term.

I don't expect the Techno-God to save humans or any other life on this planet.

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.

People won't need a sense of accomplishment? They won't need a purpose?

Those are some things that people get from working.

If you look as some of the positive aspects of work, aside from getting money.

That's an interesting way to look at it. As you say, people need to feel like they've accomplished something. But it doesn't have to be because of their job or how much money they make. You can boost your self-esteem by giving yourself a break, being more assertive, getting healthier, and taking on challenges. Other ways are to recognize and question one's negative beliefs, learn about one's positive qualities, form positive relationships with others and stay away from negative ones, be good at sports or chess, look your best, and on and on.

What other purposes do you have in mind, aside from those I mentioned above, "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?" Again, none of that requires having a job.

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.

Habitat and biodiversity will disappear. Forests cut down, animals going extinct.

Explain why you believe an advanced civilization would require forest destruction. After all, felling trees is a 10,000-year-old technology that we easily could do without in the future. Don't you think?

[phyllo]

Explain why you believe an advanced civilization would require forest destruction. After all, felling trees is a 10,000-year-old technology that we easily could do without in the future. Don't you think?

The average size house in the USA is 2500 square feet. That's been increasing over the last 50 years.

People who are now living in minimal accommodation are going to want houses. Those houses are going to have to be built on some land. They will have to be built with materials and the furnishings will also require materials.

Since they won't going out to work, it's reasonable to believe that they will want a spacious house. So one would expect that house size will continue to increase.

Admittedly, since robots won't need offices or they will need smaller offices, some existing office buildings could be converted to apartments. And office furnishing won't be required so those materials can be used for home furnishings. I doubt it would much dent in the demand for land and materials.

Consider the Star Wars planet Coruscant ... an ecumenopolis ... a planet that is entirely one city.

Are you familiar with the deforestation taking place in the Amazon?

On the southern crest of the unscathed Amazon rain forest, a storm inundates a wooden shack just off a sodden mud road. Inside, Antonio Bertola sits clutching a $1 beer under a painting of the Virgin Mary, his face ruddy and his clothes tatty from a lifetime of work on the land. The frontier town of Realidade is a mere speck on a changing map. To the north stretch hundreds of billions of trees and more than 1 million species never charted by man. To the south the muddy trail of human conquest reaches back for centuries. In a bittersweet tone of voice, Bertola recounts how his family of migrants had hungered for prosperity, security and, most of all, land to call their own.

Five decades ago Brazil incentivized millions of its people to colonize the Amazon. Today their logging yards, cattle enclosures and soy farms sit on the fringes of a vanishing forest. Powered by murky sources of capital and rising demand for beef, a violent and corrupt frontier is now pushing into indigenous land, national parks and one of the most preserved parts of the jungle.

Brazil’s new President, Jair Bolsonaro, an unapologetic cheerleader for the exploitation of the Amazon, has the colonists’ backs; he’s sacked key environmental officials and slashed enforcement. His message: the Amazon is open for business. Since his inauguration in January, the rate of deforestation has soared by as much as 92%, according to satellite imaging.

As human activity in the Amazon ramps up, its future has never been less clear. Scientists warn that decades of human activity and a changing climate has brought the jungle near a “tipping point.” The rain forest is so-called because it’s such a wet place, where the trees pull up water from the earth that then gathers in the atmosphere to become rain. That balance is upended by deforestation, forest fires and global temperature rises. Experts warn that soon the water cycle will become irreversibly broken, locking in a trend of declining rainfall and longer dry seasons that began decades ago. At least half of the shrinking forest will give way to savanna. With as much as 17% of the forest lost already, scientists believe that the tipping point will be reached at 20% to 25% of deforestation even if climate change is tamed. If, as predicted, global temperatures rise by 4°C, much of the central, eastern and southern Amazon will certainly become barren scrubland.

https://time.com/amazon-rainforest-disappearing/

[BigMike]

Explain why you believe an advanced civilization would require forest destruction. After all, felling trees is a 10,000-year-old technology that we easily could do without in the future. Don't you think?

The average size house in the USA is 2500 square feet. That's been increasing over the last 50 years.

People who are now living in minimal accommodation are going to want houses. Those houses are going to have to be built on some land. They will have to be built with materials and the furnishings will also require materials.

Since they won't going out to work, it's reasonable to believe that they will want a spacious house. So one would expect that house size will continue to increase.

Admittedly, since robots won't need offices or they will need smaller offices, some existing office buildings could be converted to apartments. And office furnishing won't be required so those materials can be used for home furnishings. I doubt it would much dent in the demand for land and materials.

Consider the Star Wars planet Coruscant ... an ecumenopolis ... a planet that is entirely one city.

Are you familiar with the deforestation taking place in the Amazon?

I am acutely aware of the unsustainable current rate of deforestation in the Amazonas and elsewhere. And this concerns me greatly. However, I find it difficult to comprehend how future advanced technology could be blamed for exacerbating this problem. Our outdated technology has caused this issue, which must be resolved immediately. We cannot wait for a solution for 500 years. By then it would be too late.

[phyllo]

However, I find it difficult to comprehend how future advanced technology could be blamed for exacerbating this problem. Our outdated technology has caused this issue, which must be resolved immediately. We cannot wait for a solution for 500 years. By then it would be too late.

High demand is the problem.

If demand was low, then even our lame technology would not be depleting resources at an unsustainable rate. And the planet could 'fix' the small problems created the technology ... problems like pollution and carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

Even if you have advanced technology, you're still limited to this planet and this environment. You're still going to be using up resources like land, water, wood, minerals ...

Unless we reduce our demand, things are going to get worse.

Our technology is more advanced in 2022 than it was in 1922. And that advancement has accelerated our problems. Think about it.

[BigMike]

However, I find it difficult to comprehend how future advanced technology could be blamed for exacerbating this problem. Our outdated technology has caused this issue, which must be resolved immediately. We cannot wait for a solution for 500 years. By then it would be too late.

High demand is the problem.
Even if you have advanced technology, you're still limited to this planet and this environment.

No, we wouldn't be. I'm referring to a society that not only has the ability and knowledge to create synthetic materials (including, if necessary, synthetic foods) from any available basic material, but also harvests whatever we need from all of the planets and asteroids in our solar system.