If Machines Produce Everything...

Forums › Off topic › If Machines Produce Everything...

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#181380 13-Oct-2015 15:10

If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.

Source

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 7

1527 posts

Uber Geek

#1405106 13-Oct-2015 16:14

People drive inequality not machines. Humans are greedy and stupid, we want more than we need and destroy the planet we live on.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1405111 13-Oct-2015 16:24

I can recall when young being told in documentaries etc that these scenarios would be fact by circa 2,000. I think these are just another 'alas woe alas the end of the world is nigh'

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1405121 13-Oct-2015 16:46

MikeB4: I can recall when young being told in documentaries etc that these scenarios would be fact by circa 2,000. I think these are just another 'alas woe alas the end of the world is nigh'

I suspect that some of that relates to what I'd call "the jetson's flying car effect".

I think you're similar age to me (50s - gulp).

Pretty sure we've seen some profound changes over our lives so far, particularly regarding automation and technology, and it doesn't look like slowing down any time soon.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1405124 13-Oct-2015 16:57

Fred99:
MikeB4: I can recall when young being told in documentaries etc that these scenarios would be fact by circa 2,000. I think these are just another 'alas woe alas the end of the world is nigh'

I suspect that some of that relates to what I'd call "the jetson's flying car effect".

I think you're similar age to me (50s - gulp).

Pretty sure we've seen some profound changes over our lives so far, particularly regarding automation and technology, and it doesn't look like slowing down any time soon.

Certainly have seen a lot of changes and it's exciting. My mother's life seemed in some ways more exciting, she always said she saw us go from Bi-Planes to the Moon.

I have always embraced change.

sleemanj

1485 posts

Uber Geek

#1405135 13-Oct-2015 17:15

Tesla have in the last couple days announced that they have approvals to soon be enable existing vehicles to self-drive hands-free (well, at least during cruise, parking etc).

Think about the size of the transport industry.

Think how transport operators might feel about being able to, in the not very distant future, have a vehicle that can drive itself, can do so 24 hours a day, without getting tired, making fewer errors, drive in manners which consistently optimise between time and wear, can monitor and problems and all manner of other advantages, consequently reducing the cost of operations and increasing profit.

The transport industry WILL switch to self-driving vehicles (unless it's artificially restricted from doing so due to laws), it's not a question of IF at all, it's just WHEN. An entire industry.

The time to prepare for this shift, and in other industries which will suffer similar fates, is now, not in 20 or 30 years when things are looking pretty bleak and we say "damn, why didn't we see this coming".

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1405203 13-Oct-2015 19:15

Ummm.... it's kind of a pointless question, because it seems unlikely to happen.

The weavers ran that argument in about 1810, and it still hasn't happened.

Producing more with less people, in industry and agriculture etc, and substituting capital for labour isn't a bad thing. Yes, it's disruptive for industries and entrenched interests, what has driven prosperity for the last few hundred years. It's why your average family now lives in a house, has a TV, a bed and a flush toilet, not to mention the computer you are using to read this, and is probably more at risk of obesity than starvation.

The labour released from the transport industry will be used for other things. Output per head will continue rise as a consequence. Just like it did when mechanisation meant that most of the labour force didn't need to be on the land to produce enough food, and were able to move to manufacturing and services. And just like it did when mechanisation dramatically raised industrial productivity starting with the Industrial Revolution.

Maybe we will, on average, all have more stuff. Maybe as prosperity and income per-hour rises further (which it has been, with minor blips, relentlessly since about 1750) we will also work less hours. Probably some combination of the two. The short-term is anyone's guess. I'm optimistic about the long-term trend.

frankv

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1405349 14-Oct-2015 07:17

Fred99:

If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed.

No... nowadays, we live in an "energy" economy. As the cost of manufacture has reduced, the cost of goods is increasingly determined by their energy content... the amount of energy used to build them and distribute them.

When energy is cheap and plentiful, this will change.

roobarb

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1405412 14-Oct-2015 08:47

What you want and what you need are two different things, I think you would be rather disappointed.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1405421 14-Oct-2015 08:55

I'm not believing that analogy / comparison with the "industrial revolution" is valid, as the base point and conditions are very different:
The starting point was feudalism. The benefits of industrialisation didn't "trickle down" until equilibrium was reached between available work and available workers, then formation of worker unions. In the early period (pre mid 1800s) there's scant evidence that quality of life improved at all for ordinary folks. There was no universal suffrage. Economic growth was no doubt boosted by global imperialism to secure raw materials/resources.
Urbanisation / population shift to where there were jobs is one thing. Hawking's comments are based on the possibility (probability) of when machines produce everything - and there are no "jobs" - not "different" jobs as in the industrial revolution. What happens then?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1405434 14-Oct-2015 09:12

Fred99: I'm not believing that analogy / comparison with the "industrial revolution" is valid, as the base point and conditions are very different:
The starting point was feudalism. The benefits of industrialisation didn't "trickle down" until equilibrium was reached between available work and available workers, then formation of worker unions. In the early period (pre mid 1800s) there's scant evidence that quality of life improved at all for ordinary folks. There was no universal suffrage. Economic growth was no doubt boosted by global imperialism to secure raw materials/resources.
Urbanisation / population shift to where there were jobs is one thing. Hawking's comments are based on the possibility (probability) of when machines produce everything - and there are no "jobs" - not "different" jobs as in the industrial revolution. What happens then?

I remember in business school being advised that by Y2K governments will need to have in place policies and programmes to cope with virtually zero employment due to automation. It would seem the same stories are being told just with different timelines.

sleemanj

1485 posts

Uber Geek

#1405500 14-Oct-2015 09:58

I've posted this before, but I'll post it again because it's good.

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

frankv

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1405502 14-Oct-2015 09:59

Ah yes... back in the 80s I was approached by a mother, who was concerned about her son being interested in programming. Her concern stemmed from an item in the news about a program called "The Last One", so-called because it was the last program that ever needed to be written. It was a program generator that anyone could use to, well, generate whatever programs they needed.

When I forget this, will it have disappeared without trace?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29675 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405506 14-Oct-2015 10:05

I'm not sure what to think.

At first look, 80% of wealth belong to 5-20% (depending on sources) of people and that's very bad.

But in the past (and present I must add) there are slaves, etc people who have to rob and steal to get bread. Of course there are the elites that we know of, the queens, kings, surgeons, traders, etc.

I don't think anything's changed or is going to change. Even in a Communist regime (where wealth is supposed to be equal) the same thing happens, only worse.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1405513 14-Oct-2015 10:09

joker97: I'm not sure what to think.

At first look, 80% of wealth belong to 5-20% (depending on sources) of people and that's very bad.

But in the past (and present I must add) there are slaves, etc people who have to rob and steal to get bread. Of course there are the elites that we know of, the queens, kings, surgeons, traders, etc.

I don't think anything's changed or is going to change. Even in a Communist regime (where wealth is supposed to be equal) the same thing happens, only worse.

The distribution of wealth is not the bad thing it is what is done with that wealth. If the holders of wealth did the Uncle Scrooge thing and pilled it up in a big box then yes that would be very bad. Of course they don't do
that as they want the wealth to grow thus they invest and by that investment they create employment and share their wealth.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405570 14-Oct-2015 11:12

Wealth is, at least to some degree, distributed based on the ability of individuals to both create it and keep it.

Not everyone has those abilities and thus not everyone will be wealthy.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 7