Technological Unemployment: The Real Reason This Elephant Ch

Post Reply New Topic

That is something I agree with, I support a guaranteed basic income as an alternative to means tested bureaucratic social services and welfare. Means testing serves far more to trap people in poverty than it stops people who shouldn't be collecting welfare from doing so, there shouldn't be people out there where there is more benefit not working and are punished for being productive. Empowering people to make their own decisions and to take agency over their lives is key, I think competition in the market is a much better system than a mandated government monopoly and I think you can apply this public education as well. I still think there are dire cultural and straight up mental health issues from idleness however, people have to feel productive and have some worth but I guess they'll have pills for that in the future too...

I'm really questioning whether this won't be an undeniably noticeable effect in the next 10 to 20 years, any means we'd have at short-cutting evolutionary wiring with a pill or shot are probably much farther off. It's probably a much more imminent threat than rogue AI.

My way of approaching the problem is: Improved technology and automation means less work is needed to provide basic needs for everyone. This is actually a good thing, if we're effective in addressing the pitfalls.

Ineffective: Keep the employment and labor structure as they are, and make workers compete for a declining number of increasingly skill-demanding 40-hour a week jobs; and either have the rest do useless make-work jobs, or just abandon them and let them struggle to survive.

Effective: Attempt reforms like effective training programs for those out of work; reduce the length of the workweek and raise the minimum wage so working- and middle-class people can benefit from the increased productivity resulting from automation; or provide a basic income for everyone so they can focus on work that may not provide society tangible benefits like money, goods, or services, but that would have less tangible, more abstract benefits and strengthen our social bonds, sense of community, culture, and communication with other cultures, and that allow for the development of self-actualization (something like volunteer work).

So I see this as a good thing, provided we can pull our heads out from you know where.

That's my concern, we'll have to rethink hundreds, if not thousands, of years of societal structure and how we've customarily done things in order to take the more effective direction. That we'd be wholly on new terrain sociologically would be a terrifying in its own right and unfortunately I see the temptation to go the ineffective way, for our culture at least, as being almost irresistible. Really the ineffective way is likely to go on until western civilization is on the verge of a coupe and things have been absolutely miserable for at least a decade or so.

That's part of why I really think it needs to be discussed sooner than later - ie. having clear thoughts on what can and should be done, ie. the 'how to make civilization work', taking the full weight of evolutionary psychology and our animal basis of emotions, competition, etc. etc. will be critical to make such a change happen quicker with a more effective plan.

My guess - it will have to, in some way shape or form, mimic capitalism in terms of incentive structures for the sake of discouraging the rotting away effect that taking a dole has on people if it's all that's involved. It probably won't be a very good system, it will probably have just as many if not more problems than what we have today, just that it'll clearly be better than a global banana republic.

Of course, we have just elected a President who is all about getting jobs, and is likely to do whatever he can to do that no matter what anyone says. And, if recent history is any guide, he is not open to intelligent discussion on the topic. Thus, this will have to be done outside the federal government, until there is a change in administrations.

I'd like to think that a new-deal type program could provide employment and work towards common needs, such as housing, food production, environmental cleanup, etc... Automation has a long way to go before it can displace a janitor or maintenance worker completely, robots are still less effective outside of a controlled factory process.

I agree that we will need a countermeasure for complacency when technological unemployment is completely manifested; but that's assuming equal access to the benefits of all the automation. If this results in an underclass being shut out, I doubt they'd be complacent about it.

Unfortunately, most of the skill-building opportunities seem to be in the math/programming area, although I could be wrong since those are the only subjects I've explored.

I know there are a lot of projects you can follow from websites such as instructables, they're another way to build skillsets.

The Venus Project offers ideas on how a full-automation society could work. They argue that a combination of renewable energy and automation will eventually eliminate all production costs and that the real economy will be resource based only. In other words, there wouldn't be any currency, only the elements one needs to make products.

They also argue that without a profit motive, products would be designed for maximum function and reliability. There would be no ownership either since nothing would be scarce, you could just return whatever item you no longer need, and retrieve it at your convenience.

Our incentive to work would be trek-like in that it would be for the betterment of humanity. They even go as far as to say that police and military will become obsolete.

A lot of it sounds utopian, but at least they're starting the discussion on what to do when automation comes full-swing.

I personally think people would be lazier than TVP gives people credit for being able to make contributions to humanity takes a lot of study and effort. Also, young males can be violent and unruly when they form groups.

I think we would need to use a rite-of-passage similar to high-school, college, and boot-camp and expand personal privileges only after they put in the necessary effort. I forget the correct term, but religions often have people make a demonstration of effort to ensure that their new followers are so invested that they don't just walk away from it the next day.

Instilling critical and analytic reasoning would be imperative also.

I think a guaranteed universal income is the way to go. You turn 16, you get say $200 a week. I think it is important to pay out the money in small amounts as those who cannot manage money will spend a large cash amount and be left with nothing for the future (I'm unfortunately talking from my own experience on this one.)

We have to accept as a society that some people simply have nothing to contribute to the functioning of the modern technological world. Unless we start some kind of eugenics program this will continue to be the case.

This thing is that not being able to contribute leads to feelings of uselessness, which is not good for the individual or to society - those who are disaffected turn away and form subcultures.

So there has to be something for people to do that makes them feel useful even if they don't earn money from it. What this could be I have no idea.

That does seem to be a characteristic of poor people. They spend it all. Even a really big windfall big enough to buy a house. Eventually it is all gone and they are poor again.

For sure. I think for me it has to do with my executive function issues. I seem incapable of thinking long-term. Also I am not able to bring money in consistently because of my bipolar issues. So a combination of both, I guess.

It reminds me of The Time Machine by HG Wells. We Morlocks will have our revenge against the Eloi.

...Are you trying to be funny/ironic here ? Yes , most poor people who come into money would have needs and desires that would use up the money eventually , unless they inherited/won some movie-scenario amount . This is a surprise ?



"BTDT"]That does seem to be a characteristic of poor people. They spend it all. Even a really big windfall big enough to buy a house. Eventually it is all gone and they are poor again.[/quote]

Sam Harris chiming in on the topic:

Or possible. Too many ideas, processes and relationships that have grown up through the accident of history or unfortunately realized dream are taken as axiomatic.

They forget the need to share prosperity at their peril.