Autonation

[Xei]

The vast majority of jobs in agriculture have disappeared with the advent of the machine. Jobs in factories have now greatly declined. All jobs in retail are disappearing; soon following are jobs in transportation; in the military; anything you'd call 'physical graft'. Perhaps later to follow are jobs in education and bureaucracies. Technology either does the job itself as we see today in the combine harvester on the farm and in the robotic arm that constructs a car in a factory with no lights, or else it makes the entire job disappear, as we see with rental movie stores because of the internet, or in the coal mine because of nuclear power. Eventually all that remains is high-level jobs involving creativity and the like; but only a small proportion of a functioning economy can realistically be engaged in such activity. Look at what we have: the economy can provide subsistence for its population. More than that, in fact: it provides very comfortable subsistence. But all without labour. The natural result of this is that the means of production remain in the hands of a few. But when the means of production requires no employment, how do people recieve income? And if the people don't recieve income, who is it that is purchasing the fruits of the means of production?

[cmind]

And Xei falls for the "automation = less jobs" fallacy. What an intellectual champ you are, man.

[Xei]

A factory that makes cars replaces manual construction with an automated production line. There are now fewer jobs. And it is 'fewer' by the way; try to learn how to pull off basic English if you're gonna go for the intellectual champ angle. Providing any kind of argument other than an ad hominem for the nth time would also help you look smart.

[tommo]

This is why I've been saying a moneyless society is the only outcome of where we're heading. (Assuming we don't all die). Most people who don't take highly-skilled jobs now, work in retail. Even the internet will probably destroy this. Because most stores won't need stores anymore, just warehouses with robots that take the items off the shelves and pack them. Then shipping/mailing will be done by google cars. And there's really nothing left. I don't know how the companies are going to make the transition. Maybe this will be our collapse.

[cmind]

I don't know how the companies are going to make the transition. Maybe this will be our collapse. ^ This is a nonsense statement. A economic reversion would return us to a less automated society, then reversing the problem. And that's assuming I agree with the premise, which I don't.

[Invader]

A economic reversion Please be more specific. Can't follow what you're saying if you're using vague phrases.

[cmind]

Please be more specific. Can't follow what you're saying if you're using vague phrases. The poster I quoted said that technology will bring economic collapse. But wouldn't economic collapse reverse the problem of technological unemployment? It's self-contradictory.

[DrunkenArse]

I think that the main thing to note is that this trend will be reversed by the "looming energy crisis". The abundance of fossil fuels and our non-decision to use them to full capacity has allowed for a situation in which we spend more kilo-calories to create and transport food than we gain by ingesting it. Simple conservation of energy tells us that this cannot last. It's a simple fact that local, intensive permaculture maximizes food production and, just as importantly, by avoiding monocropping particular variants of particular species, maximizes stability of that food production. Consider a monocropped apple orchard. There is one variety of apple growing with a lot of bare ground or almost useless cover crop growing underneath them. Now consider a permacultured apple orchard. There would be multiple varietiess of apples with multiple varieties of e.g. ground squash growing underneath them. This takes more human labor but provides a higher return on food per acre and per kilocalorie burned. A further benefit is that there are more eyes on plants this way. Beneficial mutations can be identified, evalutated and spread in the population. Consider that fact that a mutation that doubled corn yield would currently go unnoticed and be killed when harvested with combine harvesters. Our non-decision to let "economic" productivity rather that caloric productivity govern our means of food production has pretty much fucked us here. Properly managing a fishery simply cannot be done with nets. The goal is to return the largest most efficient breeders to the water and eat a percentage of the medium sized ones. This requires more people catching fish with hooks and line or spears. That is a lot more people, hence more jobs. With an intensive enough harvest, we would be putting selective pressures on the given species to grow above the size of the limit faster. Again, our non-decision to let "economic" productivy rather than long term growth and stability govern our means of harvesting the ocean has fucked as here as well. Not to mention our non-decision to allow people to, either inadvertantly (by using poorly designed vessels) or purposefully, dump toxic waste in the ocean So I think that the solution is to just start making decisions rather than making non-decisions by letting evolutionary processes (the free market and "culture") short sightedly (as all evolutionary processes must necessarily be) make the decisions for us. EDIT: Oh yeah. All the jobs that policies like this would create would be physically healthy so long as we brought to bear our modern ability to design ergonomic tools and working conditions; and educated people about how to effectively use their bodies to avoid long term stress. So we also just cut "health care costs" and created more jobs for people to research ergonomics and educate us about how to use our bodies.

[Invader]

The poster I quoted said that technology will bring economic collapse. But wouldn't economic collapse reverse the problem of technological unemployment? It's self-contradictory. He said 'maybe,' if companies cannot make the transition. It's a possibility. If the collapse of an economy prevented the machines from doing their thing, you're looking at a cycle in which the labour force would come back into the scene, re-develop/maintain their machines, and collapse the economy again through rising unemployment. That's if rising unemployment would collapse the economy at all. This is like looking at a wolf and deer population on an island. If wolves are eating a lot of deer, the wolf population increases. While the wolf population increases, there are more wolves to eat deer. This presents a problem for the wolves, and their population will eventually go through a crash due to lack of food as the deer pop goes down. Is this contradictory, since it'll solve the problem of a low deer population? Not at all, it's just a cycle. That might be a bad analogy but I think it's understandable. We haven't been in this position as human beings before, so far as we're aware, so all we can do is make educated guesses and prepare accordingly, the way PS suggested with permaculture.

[Spartiate]

Is this really an issue? Both automation and the world's population have been steadily increasing for over a century, but overall unemployment rates haven't. I'm not sure what mechanism allows that.

[DrunkenArse]

This is like looking at a wolf and deer population on an island. If wolves are eating a lot of deer, the wolf population increases. While the wolf population increases, there are more wolves to eat deer. This presents a problem for the wolves, and their population will eventually go through a crash due to lack of food as the deer pop goes down. Is this contradictory, since it'll solve the problem of a low deer population? Not at all, it's just a cycle. This is a perfect example of how evolutionary systems operate according to local (i.e. short sighted) conditions without regard for the well being of the constituent members. Is this really an issue? Both automation and the world's population have been steadily increasing for over a century, but overall unemployment rates haven't. I'm not sure what mechanism allows that. The mechanism is a vast increase in the amount of banal crap that most people buy just to throw away a week later. Paper plates are a good example of this. They weren't around a century ago and so there was no need to manufacture or buy them.

[Lemons]

There are always going to be jobs. There is a large possibility that job fields are going to be shifting, and some types of jobs might disappear. For instance, jobs at retail stores will probably start to disappear because of the ease of buying on internet, and the great deals you can obtain buying via the internet. However, just because some jobs might go away, that doesn't mean that all will. Job's helping start up the automation of things will become needed, and also jobs maintaining the systems and keeping them up to date. Not to mention that some jobs may never be able to be replaced. For instance, jobs in entertainment and design will probably never disappear.

[tommo]

Is this really an issue? Both automation and the world's population have been steadily increasing for over a century, but overall unemployment rates haven't. I'm not sure what mechanism allows that. As well as what PS just mentioned, with banal crap, there is also retail and hospitality. Because there are more people, so those jobs are increasing so those people can also buy more stuff. So basically more and more humans are simply feeding and clothing each other. More people are also selling others banal crap, in the non-clothing retail. I wonder if they'll ever realise they could just be feeding themselves.

[DrunkenArse]

Very good points but I wonder if they'll ever realise they could just be feeding themselves. would be a huge step back. The division of labor is critical to allow people to engage in research. While I think that superior technology (both physical and memetic) would allow everyone to grow some of their own food, we'll have dedicated farmers for the forseeable future. I just think that they need to constitute a larger percentage of the population and have the increased political leverage that that entails.

[Spartiate]

I see where you guys are coming from, but the banal crap tends to be what is produced in the most automated fashion as well as being generally fabricated in developing countries due to lower labour costs (so most of the jobs are going to other countries except retail). I think the public sector and large unions have played their part in delaying the replacement of people by robots. In many cases, it's also uneconomical for small businesses to invest in technology over a few helpers.

[DrunkenArse]

Good points. But let's just abstract back a little. Consider a lawn a product. Many people pay others to take care of (i.e. manufacture) them. This is a new phenomenon within the past century. Now lawn mowers need to be built, delivered, sold, repaired and disposed of. Some of those steps are automatic and some are manual. Further examples abound. So we would have to add services to the list. Running a union would be a good example of that. More people get massages now. More people buy coffee at starbucks. etc. Except it's all on credit and nobody can pay for it. fuck.

[tommo]

Very good points but would be a huge step back. The division of labor is critical to allow people to engage in research. While I think that superior technology (both physical and memetic) would allow everyone to grow some of their own food, we'll have dedicated farmers for the forseeable future. I just think that they need to constitute a larger percentage of the population and have the increased political leverage that that entails. Hmmmm.... this is partly true. But what about hydro/aeroponics? You could pretty much have that fully automated. As long as robots are also making the equipment. I think the public sector and large unions have played their part in delaying the replacement of people by robots. In many cases, it's also uneconomical for small businesses to invest in technology over a few helpers. I think this is possible too. And you're right about small businesses. But when the large businesses go automated. The small businesses will either have to follow or shut down. But maybe they won't. They could realise that automation will cost them 90% of their customers (coz not many people can work, to buy their stuff).

[DrunkenArse]

Hmmmm.... this is partly true. But what about hydro/aeroponics? You could pretty much have that fully automated. As long as robots are also making the equipment. When AI learns to interact with our plant allies as effectively as humans can, that sounds like a great idea. Until then, there is too much requirement for standardizing breeds. This creates lack of resistance to diseases. Doing it by hand is the way to go for long term stability.

[Photolysis]

Both automation and the world's population have been steadily increasing for over a century, but overall unemployment rates haven't. I'm not sure what mechanism allows that. Simple: most people in the past were 'employed' simply making sure they had enough food in their plate to survive, when humans were hunter-gatherers, and even after the invention of agriculture. As technology improved, it meant that less man-hours of effort were required to achieve that goal (thus making food much cheaper), giving people free time to work on other hobbies and professions. Some of the stuff produced is consumerism-driven crap, but there's a wide variety of arts and services. New technology introduces new job opportunities. For example, computers have made certain jobs redundant, but have created many jobs in programming them, maintaining them, building with them, operating certain software, and so on. I wonder if they'll ever realise they could just be feeding themselves. As mentioned, that would be a huge step back. Allowing people to specialize in different areas by not forcing 99% to be feeding themselves and their family via farming is what allowed humanity to develop to the stage we're in.

[tommo]

As mentioned, that would be a huge step back. Allowing people to specialize in different areas by not forcing 99% to be feeding themselves and their family via farming is what allowed humanity to develop to the stage we're in. I've already covered this.

[juroara]

I agree! And its happening, on all levels of society. Everyday more and more educational videos are posted on youtube. Why do they do this? Its just human nature to share something you know. We've always been sharing knowledge for free but we didn't always have the internet to make it free globally. There will always be something to learn in person from another human being, but there's also so much information you can learn these days without paying a teacher thousands of dollars. Just wait, it'll catch on big time. Not only is advanced technology making the need for blue collar and lifeless clerk jobs unnecessary, its also undermining the money-art system. You can download music, movies, and books for free when elsewhere they are setting on the shelf meant for profit. Visual artists everywhere have accepted the practice of already posting their artwork for free on websites. Does it undermine the sell of prints? With high quality printers at home, maybe? I once wanted to buy this awesome art book. Before I did, I searched for reviews on it. I had found that someone had bought the book, scanned all the images and offered the whole book for free online. Not caring if the artist was depending on book sales to pay their bills. Even programming jobs are being undermined by the very thing they program for. How many digital artists can honestly say they paid for their $300 to $500 program? Really? I got mine for free! Oh wait. My friend gave me an illegal copy, much like everyone else. I work in a true american job, one of the few. The products we make are made in the factory which is just a door behind the office. The fact that our products have to be made by human beings who require a living wage makes our products extremely expensive, but also the highest quality. Once, the boss was offered to sell her company that would semi-automate the production line, and she would walk away a millionaire. But she didn't want the 100+ people who work under her to lose their jobs and livelihoods. She kept the business in an American Made spirit. The result is she's had to lay off half the people anyways because of surmounting debt threatening the company. She's the last in her field. Every other company like hers that was American Made is out of business. It's very hard to compete with the modern-slavery production in China and machines. Our economic model is a house of cards. When there is no one left to package your produce, stock the shelves, or ring you out, the entire economy will crash. We need to transition out of a money system asap.

[Original Poster]

I agree the only way to become allies with technology is remove money, of course anyone who has it is naturally opposed to this idea. They would rather the population just starve off.

[cmind]

I'm quite certain that abandoning money would result in mass starvation.

[tommo]

Another great argument from cmind ladies and gentlemen .

[greenhavoc]

I'm quite certain that abandoning money would result in mass starvation. However it wouldn't effect me very much, as I would simply start eating liberals, less their douche bags.