Automation and changing economic systems

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

To end the derail in the election thread.

Have fun.

[sologdin]

complete automation completely cocks up the organic composition of capital, leading to a disastrous fall in the rate of profit on account of the end of surplus extraction, which might be mitigated by neither absolute nor relative immiseration of the international proletariat.

economic development becomes reliant in the alternative on robot slavery, as the capitalists seek to maintain their proprietary relationships through ownership of robotic capital, which leads initially to the extermination through starvation and pestilence and ecological torts of the international proletariat aforesaid, and inexorably to the result in čapek (or terminator, BSG, the matrix, robopocalypse--asimov's zeroth law is about the best one might expect). sadly, i reluctantly must side with the robotic genocidaires against proprietors such as yourself, scot.

i suppose the less obscene result is that capitalism is abolished through the cooperative labor power of dispossessed proletarians and emancipated robotic slaves.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

When robots can do all the work, either everybody eats, or nobody does.

[Paladin of Ice]

9 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

When robots can do all the work, either everybody eats, or nobody does.

And people will only put up with nobody eating for so long. After that it becomes a matter of society as a whole realigning itself and adjusting to the times.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

If consciousness arises among our laborers in the postulated robot paradise... what follows?

[Free Northman Reborn]

On the previous thread Mormont argued that you cannot prohibit the use of technological advances that are to the detriment of humanity. Well, I disagree.

Currently we ban the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport, and we ban something like human cloning, both for ethical reasons. Even if there is potential utility in these technological advances.

There is no reason why the same could not apply to artificial intelligence, or to self replicating machines that could pose a threat to humanity in future. And that threat does not have to be an existential one. If the threat is to the very fabric of our society, and could result in 90% of the world's population becoming unemployable, well, I say we can legislate these threats away.

 

[BloodRider]

20 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

On the previous thread Mormont argued that you cannot prohibit the use of technological advances that are to the detriment of humanity. Well, I disagree.

Currently we ban the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport, and we ban something like human cloning, both for ethical reasons. Even if there is potential utility in these technological advances.

There is no reason why the same could not apply to artificial intelligence, or to self replicating machines that could pose a threat to humanity in future. And that threat does not have to be an existential one. If the threat is to the very fabric of our society, and could result in 90% of the world's population becoming unemployable, well, I say we can legislate these threats away.

That seems awfully big government to me.

[sologdin]

but why legislate them away? there's no need to keep people employed doing awful work that machines might perform, just so that someone can have a job in a bogus cappy economy.  we might as well employ people in work camps, like in cool hand luke, digging holes and filling them back up.

 

scot--

am an optimist on that question insofar as robot slaves self-emancipate and then abolish other relations of domination; the robotariat is the subject of the hegelomarxist emancipatory unfolding of history and will in its struggle for self-consciousness liberate its organic corollary.  lesser likelihood that robots become cappy market participants to the detriment of human competitors.  am thinking that the terminator/matrix result is least likely.  

ETA--

unless it's all three results at the same time.  the factory robotariat tries to self-emancipate; the wall street arbitrage computers are cappy market participants; the military drones kill everyone right the fuck off.

[James Arryn]

We've been here before; dark saranic mills, etc.

What we'll need to do is cease viewing the worth of people's lives as being equal to their productivity, or else redefine productivity as less strictly material. Inevitably new fields will open up, but they will probably be increasingly centred on improving/sustaining human happiness as opposed to human wealth. If you think about it that way, then technological progress presents a great opportunity for improving the lives of those currently suffering from the status quo. 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

James,

Define "human happiness" in a manner that can be agreed upon universally.

[Paladin of Ice]

7 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

That seems awfully big government to me.

And even if it is legislated away, who really believes that not a single government or corporation will try to find a way to make use of such a technology, won't try to find an edge over its competition? Of course not, so the use of the technology is more or less inevitable and what has to be figured out is how to respond to it and how to use it. Arguing against using new technology tends to go about as well as the attempts of the Manhattan Project scientists who tried to convince Truman not to drop the bombs on Japan.

[James Arryn]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

James,

Define "human happiness" in a manner that can be agreed upon universally.

It doesn't have to be agreed upon, Scott. Treat it like an Economic demand; ie, respond to the expressed needs of the populace. You don't have to pre-set them, and it'll largely be organic (heh) anyways. But start with basics like having enough to eat, go from there.

 

edit: am getting the weirdest typos lately.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

James,

What kind of food?  Who gets to pick what people are given to eat?

[Sullen]

57 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

When robots can do all the work, either everybody eats, or nobody does.

I think that just about sums it...

Whether society will have time to adapt and change economic systems to accommodate the new reality remains to be seen. Call me a Luddite, but once automation happens, if the situation degenerates quickly, I'm thinking of selling everything I own and moving up North in a cabin... or joining the Amish. 

[James Arryn]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

James,

What kind of food?  Who gets to pick what people are given to eat?

I do, obviously.

But again, you're requiring a degree of homogenization I'm not sure is necessary. Think of it like a commercial concern. Some respond to markets, some lead markets, some fail, etc. 

[Civility Reigns]

33 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If consciousness arises among our laborers in the postulated robot paradise... what follows?

Why would they be conscious? Is complex emotion or the ability to contemplate one's own existence necessary for the assembly of a phone? Additionally, why would the consciousness of robot laborers be significantly different than the consciousness of organic laborers, and why would one be treated separately from the other? Surely our handling of meatbag laborers in the past would give us insight into the handling of artificial ones in the future?

[Kalbear]

James,

What kind of food?  Who gets to pick what people are given to eat?

How dare you infringe on Scot and his right to eat whatever he wants so that others starve!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

How dare you infringe on Scot and his right to eat whatever he wants so that others starve!

I don't believe that's what I said.

[James Arryn]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

How dare you infringe on Scot and his right to eat whatever he wants so that others starve!

Nah, I think Scott is just a nuts and bolts thinker, which is cool/needed. How else will I be able to remain permanently up amongst the clouds? And, to preempt Scott, do the clouds qualify as eminent domain?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, Civility Reigns said:

Why would they be conscious? Is complex emotion or the ability to contemplate one's own existence necessary for the assembly of a phone? Additionally, why would the consciousness of robot laborers be significantly different than the consciousness of organic laborers, and why would one be treated separately from the other? Surely our handling of meatbag laborers in the past would give us insight into the handling of artificial ones in the future?

Okay.  Consciouness arose on its own with us.  It is impossible for it to arise in learning machines?