Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds Aren't we at the point where these issues are more than science fiction? @tshrimp - That's a good point. Without work, or even without enough work (unemployment >30%) capitalism will fail and we will quickly need to look at an alternative solution. We would have to live in some sort of hybrid economy to support the many unemployed while still respecting the intrinsic value of limited resources and the remaining workers. To me this is an extremely realistic future. With technology progressing the way it is, I wouldn't be surprised to see 20-30% unemployment within 10-20 years. No such thing will happen. By the time, we automate everything, terraforming will be a reality. The rich is will on Earth, while everyone else will be mining the moon or some asteroid. The non-rich will just be sent off to the void to work. I don't believe honestly that a tech boom of that sort will be mainstream in the next 30 years. There will be still be manufacturing jobs but very specialized. The move to green tech will spur that sector again. More space travel (if that every gets picked up again) will also pick up blue-collar workers (again in the next 50 years or so). I think the jobs of today are rapidly becoming extinct, but they are being replaced with newer systems that still need human hands.

What would keep dangerous space travel and mining from being a robot's job? Manual labor of any kind is one of the first jobs that robots in the modern world are replacing. I find it hard to believe that we won't ever be able to build robots that perform all tasks better, cheaper, and with less liability than a human. The only things that won't ever be able to be replaced by a robot are intrinsically human tasks like art, conversation, relationships, etc. So I imagine there will always be a market for... maybe a human bartender and other things along that line.

The jobs that are replacing the jobs we are losing are of higher skill and require fewer humans. A farming town that becomes obsolete due to nano-biotechnology has few alternatives at that point. I agree that this may not be a problem for a while, but eventually we are going to see an unsustainable unemployment.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds Aren't we at the point where these issues are more than science fiction? @tshrimp - That's a good point. Without work, or even without enough work (unemployment >30%) capitalism will fail and we will quickly need to look at an alternative solution. We would have to live in some sort of hybrid economy to support the many unemployed while still respecting the intrinsic value of limited resources and the remaining workers. To me this is an extremely realistic future. With technology progressing the way it is, I wouldn't be surprised to see 20-30% unemployment within 10-20 years. No such thing will happen. By the time, we automate everything, terraforming will be a reality. The rich is will on Earth, while everyone else will be mining the moon or some asteroid. The non-rich will just be sent off to the void to work. I don't believe honestly that a tech boom of that sort will be mainstream in the next 30 years. There will be still be manufacturing jobs but very specialized. The move to green tech will spur that sector again. More space travel (if that every gets picked up again) will also pick up blue-collar workers (again in the next 50 years or so). I think the jobs of today are rapidly becoming extinct, but they are being replaced with newer systems that still need human hands.

The idea of the poor humans being sent off world to work goes against the whole "Humans are soft fleshy creatures easily killed by basically anything". A human is highly unlikely to ever be mining an asteroid, it will be yet another job that is done by robotics. If some equipment fails for a robot, it sits there till it gets repaired. If some equipment fails for a human space habitat, chances are the soft fleshy humans end up dead and new ones need to be trained.

Humans in space cost many times more than a robot. Humans need life support and a fairly large protected volume to live in, robots need lube and energy, and maybe the odd spare part. In short, robotics take far less to keep going. And if they're coupled with human level Artificial Intelligence, they're honestly far better workers.

I think we have two choices to pick from as robotics continue to advance and replace human workers:
1. Ban robotic advancements and keep things as is.
2. Accept that robotics and do more and more work for humans, and we move to a culture centered around art, learning, and travel.

It might be worth remembering that the word robot is derived from the slavic word for worker...

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp If we get to the point where machines replace the majority of human work, we will likely have to shift away from our current capitalist style economy. I wonder if communism could actually work when machines are doing all of the work.

That's an interesting idea, but don't forget that communism is premised on the existence of workers. WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS!

I don't see capitalism fading away, at least not as long as our concepts of real property are retained, that is, land ownership. There's also the question of ownership regarding other things that can't be created. And don't forget that the machines would likely also still be owned. The capitalists who invested in their creation aren't going to easily give up ownership or control of them, at least not while they provide leverage over others. What we're talking about is the removal of direct human involvement in mass production. Presumably direct human involvement in creative endeavors would be retained. That would include the design of mass produced products for human use, but hand crafted, unique and individual objects would likely acquire greater status. Art, music, theater, dance, literature, journalism, education, child care, religion, funeral services, food services, even health care - would all still need human workers. Video games will still need designers. The question is how the "end of work" will alter relations of exchange.

with no manual labour left to do all work will be geared towards entertainment. There is no limit to the amount of art people can create.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread It might be worth remembering that the word robot is derived from the slavic word for worker... Quote: Original post by tstrimp If we get to the point where machines replace the majority of human work, we will likely have to shift away from our current capitalist style economy. I wonder if communism could actually work when machines are doing all of the work. That's an interesting idea, but don't forget that communism is premised on the existence of workers.

But one of the problems with communism is the complete lack of productivity that follows when people realize they will be taken care of regardless of how hard they work. There is no incentive to achieve more when you'll receive exactly the same as everyone else regardless of amount of effort. Robots take away a lot of that burden if they are doing the vast majority of the work. It no longer matters how lazy people are. What you'd have to find is a way to incentivize technology workers who enable the system to continue functioning while everyone else can get by doing nothing.

It would be one hell of a painful transition though.

Quote:

Original post by RivieraKid with no manual labour left to do all work will be geared towards entertainment. There is no limit to the amount of art people can create.

Having seen a season of American Idol, I think this is a seriously Bad Idea.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by RivieraKid with no manual labour left to do all work will be geared towards entertainment. There is no limit to the amount of art people can create. Having seen a season of American Idol, I think this is a seriously Bad Idea.

Agreed. We have too many "artists" already. Consider 10 billion of them.

Quote:

Original post by szecs Quote: Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by RivieraKid with no manual labour left to do all work will be geared towards entertainment. There is no limit to the amount of art people can create. Having seen a season of American Idol, I think this is a seriously Bad Idea. Agreed. We have too many "artists" already. Consider 10 billion of them.

Yes, but we'll likely end up with 3 classes of citizens:
Artists, those who can actually create something meaningful, unique, interesting, whatever.
Critics, those who aren't as talented as actual artists, but still skilled enough to form and express opinions and critical examinations of works.
Consumers/praisers/sheep, those who aren't skilled or smart enough to be in either of the two groups, but really have nothing else to do in life because all their jobs have been replaced by robots.


It really wouldn't surprise me if we see a shift toward "Robotic Enlightenment" in developed nations. Replacing labour with robotics, raising wages, and limiting hours to employ more people than are actually 'needed' for the job. Rather than having a manager and two foremen and 12 workers in a small shop each work day, you get a manager, a foreman, and two technical aids, and most work one or two days a week and we see the same/more production out of the shop. After all, if providing X units of production onto the markets was enough to support Y employees and their families, then putting more than X units of production onto the markets should still support Y employees and their families.

Quote:

Original post by Talroth It really wouldn't surprise me if we see a shift toward "Robotic Enlightenment" in developed nations. Replacing labour with robotics, raising wages, and limiting hours to employ more people than are actually 'needed' for the job. Rather than having a manager and two foremen and 12 workers in a small shop each work day, you get a manager, a foreman, and two technical aids, and most work one or two days a week and we see the same/more production out of the shop. After all, if providing X units of production onto the markets was enough to support Y employees and their families, then putting more than X units of production onto the markets should still support Y employees and their families.

Would this still be a private market? Would the businesses be required to pay, or is this some sort of government mandated payment and employment schedule? If things stay private, it's still going to be a lot cheaper to have fewer people working longer hours.

If it's going the more communist route, I agree that is one solution. People need something to do and having more people working part time might help.

Another thought... If very few people had to work, would crime go up? Not violent crime, but vandalism and such simply due to boredom.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by LessBread It might be worth remembering that the word robot is derived from the slavic word for worker... Quote: Original post by tstrimp If we get to the point where machines replace the majority of human work, we will likely have to shift away from our current capitalist style economy. I wonder if communism could actually work when machines are doing all of the work. That's an interesting idea, but don't forget that communism is premised on the existence of workers. But one of the problems with communism is the complete lack of productivity that follows when people realize they will be taken care of regardless of how hard they work. There is no incentive to achieve more when you'll receive exactly the same as everyone else regardless of amount of effort. Robots take away a lot of that burden if they are doing the vast majority of the work. It no longer matters how lazy people are. What you'd have to find is a way to incentivize technology workers who enable the system to continue functioning while everyone else can get by doing nothing. It would be one hell of a painful transition though.

Speaking of robots, er, robotic thinking...

Does Brett Favre play for the money of for the love of the game?

Does money matter when people are employed doing things they love to do?

Money doesn't matter when the focus is on vocation and not occupation.

Where did you get the idea that under communism every gets exactly the same as everyone else regardless of how hard anyone works?

At any rate, regardless of the truth or untruth of your point, the end of work doesn't necessary mean the end of capitalism and the onset of communism.