The Laborless Society

Originally Posted by Bradylama

So why is it then that no automobile factory has ever been shut down by hackers?

Because you can't easily anonymously shut down an automobile factory. If no people exited in the plant and if the plant was linked into an internet, then it would be much easier.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Uh, Robots do what they're told, buddy. Unless, of course, they think that the laws they're told to make would harm people. In either case, understanding human reasoning is irrelevant. Unless the law violates the robot's ethical programming, he'll make it.

I get that. But who gets to tell the robots what to do? Step 1 of the RICH project says that we first must make robots that replace all people who do jobs. But two people in the same position can do the exact same job in completely different ways and be equally successful. I work in an office with 3 people, I code rather creatively, one of my partners approaches his work through brute force, and another is quite analytical.

So who gets to tell the robots what to do and how to do it? When you get into important positions, like law enforcement, the athiest will be mad if the Christian gets to make the RoboCops and vice versa. Unless you distribute algorithms, in which case you might have robots that aren't as good as others or you have this bizzare society of robots in which writing enough algorithms for them is so complex that it is completely impractical.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

So explain to me how much creativity is involved in flipping burgers, or taking orders, or driving a truck, or working a mine?

But the system doesn't work if you don't replace all jobs. Why would a person in a skilled position say, "Hey, guys, let's start making robots that replace all the low-skill jobs so they don't have to work anymore...even though we have to keep working..."

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

I'm not sure how much people would like living with Judge Dredd or ED-209 sitting around outside their door.

These are the popular images, but a law-enforcement machine could be made to be much more non-threatening, even non-lethal.

Quote:

And yet you were saying earlier how if someone invents something they would only be doing it for the love of the activity of it, not for the profit.

And? So long as people base the economy on money, profit would always be a factor. The difference is now that people don't really need to make a profit, only if they want to.

Quote:

It's a little absurd to ask that since to this point those factories aren't quite hackable (you know, lack of any form of connectivity to the outside world and everything)

Yeah, pretty much. There's no reason that factories can't have closed systems.

Quote:

I get that. But who gets to tell the robots what to do?

Well, people, obviously. What type of programming goes into robots would be determined by their demand and political force. Step 1 is not all-encompassing. It's a gradual process in which certain jobs are fased out. When the point comes where people are making police bots and politician drones, there would have to be compromises made in their design to satisfy the concerned. It's not as if a representative society goes down the drain with labor.

Quote:

But the system doesn't work if you don't replace all jobs. Why would a person in a skilled position say, "Hey, guys, let's start making robots that replace all the low-skill jobs so they don't have to work anymore...even though we have to keep working..."

Profit. Also, presumably skilled workers would be trying to design machines that replace themselves. Then once they're replaced, they would either do nothing or try and design other machines to replace other jobs for even more profit.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

These are the popular images, but a law-enforcement machine could be made to be much more non-threatening, even non-lethal.

Of course, the one problem is what happens when someone that's just had fun hacking the local factory decides it would be an even better time to try and hack the local police station? Saying you'll make it hackproof doesn't really mean a whole lot, since a motivated individual could just design a machine to do it for them (and then it just comes down to the skill of individual programmers and, oh wait, we're back at people having to do work ).

Quote:

And? So long as people base the economy on money, profit would always be a factor. The difference is now that people don't really need to make a profit, only if they want to.

It's not like today's millionare needs to make a profit, but if they've got a way to raise their consumption compared to everyone else, you can be sure that some of them will do their best to do it, and, during that, will have to deprive other people of wealth in some way.

Quote:

Yeah, pretty much. There's no reason that factories can't have closed systems.

My point was that people are going to go after easier targets that have a larger effect than factories do right now. In the future, if they can get a bigger news story out of figuring out a way to hack a factory, don't you think they'd do it?

One of my biggest problems with this theory is that there's magically enough resources to go around to everyone in the world. Couldn't it be quite possible that there's no way to get everyone's standard of living up to what we'd want?

That, and for someone that's using Asimov's Laws of Robotics in an argument, I'm surprised that you didn't bring up his planet of Solaria in which robots do all the work in the planet and person to person contact is seen as repulsive.

Then again, maybe I just don't like this kinda of utopia because I find the whole idea of it repulsive.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Profit. Also, presumably skilled workers would be trying to design machines that replace themselves. Then once they're replaced, they would either do nothing or try and design other machines to replace other jobs for even more profit.

But not everyone loves computer science and robotic engineering which is absolutely required to run this system. It is one thing to make a robot that can adjust itself to properly weld a car door onto a frame. It is something else to amass the manpower it would take to create this army of robotic laborers.

What would happen to Labor Day?

I was speaking idiomatically.

It would probably be replaced by Robotic Insurrection Day.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

Of course, the one problem is what happens when someone that's just had fun hacking the local factory decides it would be an even better time to try and hack the local police station? Saying you'll make it hackproof doesn't really mean a whole lot, since a motivated individual could just design a machine to do it for them (and then it just comes down to the skill of individual programmers and, oh wait, we're back at people having to do work ).

Which is a minor problem in the first place. So what if people have to be police officers or politicians? They perform the duties because they want to. I suppose one method to encourage public service would be a Starship Troopers-like system of citizenship in exchange for duty.

Quote:

It's not like today's millionare needs to make a profit, but if they've got a way to raise their consumption compared to everyone else, you can be sure that some of them will do their best to do it, and, during that, will have to deprive other people of wealth in some way.

It doesn't matter how rich you are, one always needs to make a profit. A fortune can still be lost, and while it may not matter to the CEO that he makes a few hundred thousand more a year, it certainly matters to the company he runs whether or not it generates a profit.

If you don't make a profit, you end up with a deficit. No matter how massive of a fortune you have, it can be whittled away to nothing depending on the expenditures of the owner, and his progeny.

EDIT: you also seem to be operating on a mercantilistic method of reasoning. The world doesn't have a finite amount of wealth, only resources. Simply because Person A gets richer does not mean that Person B gets poorer.

Quote:

That, and for someone that's using Asimov's Laws of Robotics in an argument, I'm surprised that you didn't bring up his planet of Solaria in which robots do all the work in the planet and person to person contact is seen as repulsive.

Yes, and on Earth humans outnumbered robots, and robots were seen as repulsive, while in his third book, the numbers were proportionately equal.

The problem with Solaria is that they dedicated a massive amount of resources to a very small number of people, which lead to isolation. We also aren't a pioneering civilization going out into the universe to make it our own. We've live on this planet for millenia, and just because we'd reach a higher standard of living for everybody doesn't mean that we would all of a sudden abandon every social norm.

Quote:

One of my biggest problems with this theory is that there's magically enough resources to go around to everyone in the world. Couldn't it be quite possible that there's no way to get everyone's standard of living up to what we'd want?

Yep, it's entirely possible, in fact, probable. Which is why it would still be necessary to go out into outer space and take advantage of its resources. We have worlds-worth of minerals and other resources waiting for us out in the asteroid belt, and we still can't get a man beyond the moon. In an automated society, developing outer space becomes a necessity.

Quote:

In the future, if they can get a bigger news story out of figuring out a way to hack a factory, don't you think they'd do it?

Sure, but that's no reason to resist advancement and adaptation. Like you mentioned before, computer systems are hacked all the time, and yet somehow the global economy hasn't ground to a halt because of it, and we don't stop making increasingly advanced computers.

Quote:

Then again, maybe I just don't like this kinda of utopia because I find the whole idea of it repulsive.

How so?

Quote:

It is one thing to make a robot that can adjust itself to properly weld a car door onto a frame. It is something else to amass the manpower it would take to create this army of robotic laborers.

As the efficiency of extracting more energy from less material increases, the need for the kind of manpower you're thinking of decreases, perhaps exponentially. Don't think of the present as the measuring stick.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

As the efficiency of extracting more energy from less material increases, the need for the kind of manpower you're thinking of decreases, perhaps exponentially. Don't think of the present as the measuring stick.

Oh, I'm not thinking about the material, I'm thinking about the programming. Sure, things get faster and faster and faster, but the problem isn't only computational speeds, it's algorithms. And there is no way beyond working with 1s and 0s (or simple numbers for when multiple voltage can be used better). That will never change.

People have to make the systems work after they are created.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

The same process is being applied to coding. Do you think you'd be typing on a messageboard this good if we were still coding with machine languages?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Of course not, but the level of abstraction cannot get much higher. We're at the object level (which boards like this don't even use outside of AJAX because it is so goddamn slow), which means that things are being modelled as if they were in a real-world state. We've been heavily at this stage now for about 20 years, and the only two major languages to be released since C++, Java and C#, are based on code easier to write and maintain. They're slow as fuck, but assuming Moore's law keeps working for a while, that might not matter. But, anyway, new paradigms are not forthcoming at this point, the research has gone stagnant.

(Not to mention that the something like this message board was missing up until 10 years ago more because of materials and infrastructure, and not the ability to do something like this.)


Consider this: Microsoft, as of late 2005, had already put in somewhere in the ballpark of 30 million man-hours into Vista, and, last I heard, they would be approaching 50 million by release. For something like 8,000 employees. Now, this is the biggest software company in the world employing thousands of the best computer scientists outside of universities and Google taking 4 years to make an operating system of a computer that doesn't have to think. Its two main purposes are to run and be safe, and Vista will likely be riddled with bugs and security issues.

This isn't an industry bogged down by unions or overreaching government oversight. The average Microsoft employee works about 60-70 hours a week, so, if you spread a normal person's work week, you're looking at 10,000 - 12,000 employees needed. So how many man-hours to create a humanish robot? And one with no errors, because you can't go around releasing these things into the public if they don't work?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

We've been heavily at this stage now for about 20 years, and the only two major languages to be released since C++, Java and C#, are based on code easier to write and maintain. They're slow as fuck,

Is Ruby one of them? (Just wondering.)

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

This isn't an industry bogged down by unions or overreaching government oversight. The average Microsoft employee works about 60-70 hours a week, so, if you spread a normal person's work week, you're looking at 10,000 - 12,000 employees needed. So how many man-hours to create a humanish robot? And one with no errors, because you can't go around releasing these things into the public if they don't work?

Quite a lot. Then again, assuming we've already created simple robots that perform simple jobs, you're looking at a huge amount of man-hours that have been freed for robot design. Sure it's not as if everybody who drove a truck for a living would necessarily want to become a robot engineer, but the potential is still there.

Yes, it would take a long time. Quite a lot, actually. Then again, that's progress.

Also, I notice the banner has a lot to advertise to me about robots and engineering.

How ya doing, buddy?

Although this idea does sound interesting, I'd have to agree with many other people here in saying that this is an idea that would ultimately fail. This sounds an awful lot like Communism to me, only with 21st century things applied to it (such as robots).

First reason why I think it will fail is because this idea assumes everyone will willingly take part of this. Although I've noticed an increase in people sharing things, ideas, etc., we're still not ready for that at this point in time. I don't think most Americans (or anyone from a first/second world country) will want to be seen as equal with equal access to stuff as some nomad from Africa or a bum living in the middle of Eastern Europe or the Middle East.

Secondly, there will always be an "elite" class, and a "poor" class, with some "middle class" thrown in for good measure. Communism was supposed to make everyone equal, with everyone having the same things, and doing things that would ensure everyone got what they needed, and when they needed it, at least on paper. Even the government was supposed to have people equal and what not.

In practice, we saw how the more devious and undermining you could do, the better chances you had of getting in a position of power, and staying there (if Stalin or Mao Zedong is of any example). And because not everyone was willing to do the Communism stuff, the human costs were staggering (but who cares about that right? Greater good and what not apparently). And in the end it still failed because people largely lost incentive to be innovative and continue to make stuff which could be competitive with other products out there.

Again, there will always be people who feel they're above everyone else, and therefore should be given more privileges and rights, and they don't want joe blow the bum to be a part of their group. And there will be a lot of people who feel those "elitists" should probably be put on a ship into the deep ocean, then have that ship get hit by several cruise missiles to blow it out of the water. And I don't even want to get into what someone with a terrorist mindset would love to do if they were given the chance (you can bet Al-qaida would love to have the ability to shut down first world countries at the push of a button if they were given the chance to. What would you do then, when they disable all the electronic stuff, or send a code to program the robots to kill all Americans, or anyone else who doesn't believe the way they do?)

Third, this is assuming that we're at a stage where robotics, electronic engineering and computer programming is on the same level as stuff you'd see in Star Wars or Star Trek. They're still trying to design robots that can mimic human movement, and they're probably doing that stuff because of the incentives of getting a ton of fame, and paid the big bucks if they pull it off. While it might be to help out society, I doubt many people are doing a lot of the things they do because "it's the right thing", and if they're not going to get paid for it, or receive some other incentive, why should they bother doing it?

A lot of people will do as little as they can get away with most of the time (yes, I know, this isn't everyone, but I bet you that your coworkers and fellow students probably don't do everything that they're asked to do either). In a society where you have unlimited free time, while there will be some who will no doubt try to improve society, I'm willing to bet there will be a lot more people doing rowdy things and probably committing crimes since they have so much free time on their hands, and not everyone is going to be an engineer to help further this society (unless you can somehow disable "free will" in human minds and then program them from birth to be nothing but drones for this "perfect system").

I know I'd stop doing anything other than surfing the web or playing games if I didn't have school and two jobs to worry about, screw everyone else, I want to enjoy this free time. I'm sure a lot of people would feel the same way if this happened, not working and getting paid for it. If the people who used to have jobs until robots took over continued to get paid for not working, I don't think they would object at all to this idea being implemented. But of course, they get fired/laid off, and a few people get to make more money, while those workers don't get any of it.

Yes, this stuff sounds great on paper, but factor in human nature and it'll fall apart pretty quickly. And I'm trying to be nice about this too (again, you can bet a madman who manages to break into the computer system would go nuts doing whatever the heck he wants, even if it means the death of thousands or millions of people). I could invent some pretty sick and twisted "what if's" for this post, but I'm going to try to stay PG-13 (other versions that stuck in my head would have massive killings and what not, to the point where all humans should just be killed off and replaced with AI robots who will continually improve themselves on their own. But I don't think humans would willingly let themselves be killed off for this to work).

How ya doing, buddy?

I hate making quote-response posts that go on forever, so I'm just going to cherry-pick what's interesting.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

<<In response to a comment about immigration and the rest of the world>>

I don't follow. Presumably as one society becomes automated, others would follow their example, and the process of immigration and naturalisation would be dependant on factors set by society. A robotics engineer, for instance, would be given more priority for immigration than some guy who will open a Qwik-E-Mart.

Or do you mean that it's somehow immoral for some countries to be fully automated while others aren't? Immorality doesn't factor into any of this. Whether or not the members of a nation want to export the surplus of the automated industry is up to them.

I meant both issues. That
a) If a single country or small block of countries achieved this, other people would be desperate to get into that country (Mexico anyone?), and they wouldn't all be desperate to start designing the new urinal cake changers
b) Would it not be infuriating and disgraceful to the rest of the world, for people to die for lack of drinking water while we are soaking 1000s of manhours into eliminating the "watches other robots work McDonald's" jobs?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

<<In response to the thought that designer robots may make solutions that compromise human morals or the environment>>

Again, this is where the Law of Robotics comes in. The first law of Robotics states that no robot can harm a human or allow a human to come into harm. This law supercedes all other laws. Therefore, even if the robot does come up with a way to extract diamonds more efficiently, if that extraction creates a negative impact on the environment, which then leads to human suffering, then the robot will not consider it an acceptible choice.

I have to agree with Mikey: it is impossible enough to create some kind of intelligent, adaptable robot that can work with almost no supervision for days at a time. Even designing a burger-flipping robot would take an insane amount of testing. If you want to start making robots that will be dispensing medical advice, or acting as law enforcement, it's even worse.

It is fine to try to make safe machines, but the more autonomy you try to push onto them the more situations they have to be able to reliably and robustly understand and navigate. It sounds impossible to make these robots operate without constant human supervision, and making them able to take voice commands from anyone just in case they start acting outside scenarios they were programmed for - which really opens the door to pranks.

But to say "the law of robotics comes in" on making complex value judgements on the results of human decisions on the environment, something humans have no way to calculate much less repeatably judge, is pretty out there. These machines can only be prepared to protect us in situations they understand properly.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

So who gets to tell the robots what to do and how to do it? When you get into important positions, like law enforcement, the athiest will be mad if the Christian gets to make the RoboCops and vice versa. Unless you distribute algorithms, in which case you might have robots that aren't as good as others or you have this bizzare society of robots in which writing enough algorithms for them is so complex that it is completely impractical.

I think having robots make laws is fine, if people can put normal political tools to work (voting, lobbying, etc.) and just have the robots be automating the legal legwork and making non-controversial decisions after offering them to complaints and challenges from the public at large. An internet democracy...could be very responsive if it were secure.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Aha! And thus you've struck on the greatest incentive for creative and scientific development of them all: the acquisition of greater resources. An automated industry cannot maintain itself indefinitely with the resources available to us, which means that developing the resources of outer space becomes a necessity.

Getting things into and out of space is pretty damned difficult, to put it lightly. Unless we all suddenly agreed space elevators are viable?

Originally Posted by Gecko3

A lot of people will do as little as they can get away with most of the time (yes, I know, this isn't everyone, but I bet you that your coworkers and fellow students probably don't do everything that they're asked to do either)...I know I'd stop doing anything other than surfing the web or playing games if I didn't have school and two jobs to worry about, screw everyone else, I want to enjoy this free time. I'm sure a lot of people would feel the same way if this happened, not working and getting paid for it. If the people who used to have jobs until robots took over continued to get paid for not working, I don't think they would object at all to this idea being implemented. But of course, they get fired/laid off, and a few people get to make more money, while those workers don't get any of it.

Valid points, but...don't you think you'd get a little bored surfing the web and playing games for your entire life? Won't you start craving a job just to feel a little useful and a little socialized?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

This sounds an awful lot like Communism to me, only with 21st century things applied to it (such as robots).

Only, it's not at all like Communism. Communism requires that a central authority artificially set the income for all citizens regardless of the wealth they produce. That's quite simply not happening here.

Quote:

I don't think most Americans (or anyone from a first/second world country) will want to be seen as equal with equal access to stuff as some nomad from Africa or a bum living in the middle of Eastern Europe or the Middle East.

The system doesn't advocate global equality, only that all participants in the economy have a minimum income. This isn't Communism.

Quote:

Secondly, there will always be an "elite" class, and a "poor" class, with some "middle class" thrown in for good measure.

However, if the "poor" class is on par with what we presently identify as the middle class, then economic class identifiers lose their relevancy. "Elites," then would be based more on merit than any kind of vast wealth.

The failures of Communism simply do not apply in this situation. Nobody is being forced to share the wealth that they have produced, only the wealth produced by machines is being distributed. This system does not require that one cede all aspects of personal sovereignty to the government, nor does it require that one must cede his wealth to the government, which were the exact issues that made people resist Communism.

Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, Communism and Socialism force a maximum ceiling of reward. There is no loss of profit motive, here.

Quote:

Third, this is assuming that we're at a stage where robotics, electronic engineering and computer programming is on the same level as stuff you'd see in Star Wars or Star Trek. They're still trying to design robots that can mimic human movement, and they're probably doing that stuff because of the incentives of getting a ton of fame, and paid the big bucks if they pull it off. While it might be to help out society, I doubt many people are doing a lot of the things they do because "it's the right thing", and if they're not going to get paid for it, or receive some other incentive, why should they bother doing it?

Yes, the system does require an advanced level of robotics in order to replace the need for all menial labor. That is the presumtion of the system.

Secondly, people aren't doing what they want to do because it's "the right thing," they're performing tasks because it's the task that they want to perform. There's nothing "right" about making High-Definition tvs, the only real factor is the want to have one.

Quote:

In a society where you have unlimited free time, while there will be some who will no doubt try to improve society, I'm willing to bet there will be a lot more people doing rowdy things and probably committing crimes since they have so much free time on their hands, and not everyone is going to be an engineer to help further this society

People don't commit crime, however, becuase they have time on their hands, they commit crime because of deviant influences or in order to gain access to opportunities that aren't available to their economic status. Or, as well, to subsidize their habits, which is a topic for another time.

You're essentially making blanket statements about society that have no real bearing on how people function. Every crime has a motive, and "Idle Hands" are not the source.

Quote:

I know I'd stop doing anything other than surfing the web or playing games if I didn't have school and two jobs to worry about, screw everyone else, I want to enjoy this free time.

And you don't think you'd ever get bored just surfing the internet and playing games all day? I know I would, and I lack any respectable work ethic whatsoever. Eventually you'll become possessed with the desire to do something constructive that you've always wanted to do, but never had the time or resources to commit yourself to it. Why do you think lottery winners still hold their old jobs?

Quote:

Yes, this stuff sounds great on paper, but factor in human nature and it'll fall apart pretty quickly. And I'm trying to be nice about this too (again, you can bet a madman who manages to break into the computer system would go nuts doing whatever the heck he wants, even if it means the death of thousands or millions of people). I could invent some pretty sick and twisted "what if's" for this post, but I'm going to try to stay PG-13 (other versions that stuck in my head would have massive killings and what not, to the point where all humans should just be killed off and replaced with AI robots who will continually improve themselves on their own. But I don't think humans would willingly let themselves be killed off for this to work).

Which are themselves wild-eyed paranoid fantasies. There are risks involved in any system, and it's a natural process of error-proofing them. Of course, this would require a perhaps never-ending process.

As for sadists, the gun somehow hasn't caused the downfall of free societies from militias. Nor has NORAD been hacked into and the world held hostage with the threat of nuclear annhilation (hell, we haven't even been threatened by a crackpot with maybe one nuke).

An automated industry is only as vulnerable as the homogenous nature of its automotons, and I can guarantee you that there would be a wide range of robots, AIs, and machine hierarchies. It wouldn't be nearly as simple as you all fear it would be.

Lastly, pranking an automated industry is highly impractical, since the effects of factory closure can be seen in the economy at large. If a factory goes down, everyone feels it, because it becomes reflected in the minimum income. This may not mean much to someone who makes more than that minimum, but it would to the vast majority of concerned society, making the prosecution of such pranks an extreme deterrent.

Quote:

I meant both issues. That
a) If a single country or small block of countries achieved this, other people would be desperate to get into that country (Mexico anyone?), and they wouldn't all be desperate to start designing the new urinal cake changers
b) Would it not be infuriating and disgraceful to the rest of the world, for people to die for lack of drinking water while we are soaking 1000s of manhours into eliminating the "watches other robots work McDonald's" jobs?

All I really have to say to that is... so what? It's not as if we can't close our borders to illegal immigration, nor export the surpluses of an automated society. Presumably the freed manhours would cause more dedication to charity and positive action for the world at large. Bored Americans could spend time in Sub-Saharan Africa digging trenches instead of trying to design better robots.

It's all an issue of culture, and really, who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

Quote:

I have to agree with Mikey: it is impossible enough to create some kind of intelligent, adaptable robot that can work with almost no supervision for days at a time. Even designing a burger-flipping robot would take an insane amount of testing. If you want to start making robots that will be dispensing medical advice, or acting as law enforcement, it's even worse.

It's far from impossible, but only improbable that the solutions are generated withing our lifetimes, which I think is your primary source of concern. I mean, we've created conditions of quantum teleportation on a small scale, and you think it's impossible to create autonomous machines?

Quote:

Getting things into and out of space is pretty damned difficult, to put it lightly. Unless we all suddenly agreed space elevators are viable?

Then the solution is to come up with cheaper methods of launching objects into space. Retrieving objects from space is only difficult on a mathematical level. I mean, objects fall into the earth constantly and it doesn't cost us a dime. Retrieval then, is mostly a matter of propulsion, which isn't going to be that hard to figure out.

FELIPE NO

I don't really have the time to go through quote-wars and read all of the other posts that have happened since then, so I'll just reply to the most important part.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

How so?

I feel that this kind of society would encourage wastefulness and excess luxury which is a problem with America right now. I'm not one of those people that thinks you need to get rid of everything you own in order to be happy; I think that people need to learn to be happy with what they have. I don't think increasing consumption is ever going to increase general happiness of people (as I think you said earlier in the thread, richer people aren't necessarily happier), so we need to try and focus more on what makes people happy than how to give them more stuff.

Also, your plans to grossly increase production kinda appal me from an engineering standpoint since I'm all about sustainability and not increasing the need for using raw materials (mining asteroids doesn't work for me as a long-term solution since it's non-sustainable, eventually we'll run out of asteroids or we won't be able to find certain elements/compounds we need out there).

Quote:

Then the solution is to come up with cheaper methods of launching objects into space. Retrieving objects from space is only difficult on a mathematical level. I mean, objects fall into the earth constantly and it doesn't cost us a dime. Retrieval then, is mostly a matter of propulsion, which isn't going to be that hard to figure out.

Also, no, no, bad non-sciency person reading fantasies in sci-fi novels and "scientific" correspondents in non-peer-reviewed magazines. When they say it's "not hard" it means it'll only take someone really fucking smart instead of just holy shit unbelievably smart in order to come up with one part of the solution. Interspace travel is somewhere between grand unification theory and solving world hunger.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

People know what makes themselves happy, and the whole point of a RICH economy, or Laborless Society, is that it enables people to focus on what they want to do.

While one may presume that it encourages extravagant living, it's like we've all established before, the world only has a finite amount of resources. People would be able to buy frilly outfits and 15 cars (presuming they had the money for it) if they were willing to carry the stigma of being wasteful, thus risking isolation.

Once you've increased average consumtion to the point of "comfort," people will lose the overall desire to consume, and consumtion would drop to what people perceive they need in accordance to their interests. Also, if you don't have to pay machines beyond what is necessary to maintain them, then the long-term livability of a consumer item becomes a non-issue. Consumer items are already designed to go out at almost a pre-determined time as a failsafe to ensure consumtion. Manufacturers have made this a practice since the Depression, when people stopped buying cars and refridgerators because they didn't need another one. When people stopped buying cars, factories shut down, and led to massive unemployment.

What tragedy is there in an unemployed robot? Or, is it even possible for a robot to be unemployed? As consumtion drops, couldn't that machine labor and resources be dedicated to pursuits that would be more beneficial beyond individual consumtion?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

But, see, you're assuming that more wealth will create more happiness. What I'm asking is if we can look at society and see that people with more money are actually more happy. Are all of these upper middle class drugged-out emo kids that cut their wrists for their livejournal e-buddies actually happy and having a good life?

I feel all these resources you want to put into making machines to take over for society's work would be better put into figuring out ways to getting people to actually enjoy their lives (I don't think giving everyone X dollars will get people to escape from the mentality where they have to keep up with the Joneses since it's not like those people don't have enough money to live happily as it is now).

I think it's human nature to always want more and we would be better suited to control that urge than to just give them more.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

What I'm asking is if we can look at society and see that people with more money are actually more happy.

They're not, though if that were the case, then why not make everybody poor so that we have to interact with each other?

Avoiding depression and suicide is a matter of changing the social culture. If suicide reaches epidemic levels, then people will probably be encouraged to "get out" more. Besides, I'd argue that depression is a much more beneficial element of society than we presume, as it causes unique characteristics in the people that suffer from it. Look at any extraordinary individual and chances are that they've suffered through severe bouts of depression.

Quote:

I feel all these resources you want to put into making machines to take over for society's work would be better put into figuring out ways to getting people to actually enjoy their lives

I'm telling you, though, people already know how to enjoy their lives. How can you set general goals of achieving overarching happiness in a society of individuals? It seems like you're making more generalizations about people than I am. What makes people "happy" to begin with? Most studies on depression and suicide tend to pin it on human nature as social animals, and I don't think that a bunch of machines working around the clock on fuck all knows what is going to improve that. Ephemeralization doesn't mean anything if it doesn't enable all people to live leisurely. You think there's going to be much point in Fusion power if we still have both parents working jobs just to maintain a desired level of consumtion in low-child households?

Quote:

People don't do well with absolutes because they're neither predictable nor uniform in decisions.

Which is the beauty of the system. It doesn't force uniformity.

Everything I've said in this thread is based on reasonable assesments of human nature. If economic factors affect everyone through the dividends as opposed to certain sectors, then people will be encouraged through self-interest not to rock the boat. A minimum "comfortable" standard of living will reduce the want for needless consumtion, if not immediately, because there's no point in it, and that fact will dawn on people as they realize that trying to "outdo" the Joneses isn't getting them anywhere.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

A minimum "comfortable" standard of living will reduce the want for needless consumtion, if not immediately, because there's no point in it, and that fact will dawn on people as they realize that trying to "outdo" the Joneses isn't getting them anywhere.

Woah, woah, woooooaaahh.
Where did you get that? Do you mean that, since everyone is guaranteed to be well fed and have a roof over their heads, they will suddenly no longer desire to splurge? Do you mean that people who go out shopping for stuff they don't need will no longer do so because now there are no starving, homeless people to gloat about their exploits to?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Everything I've said in this thread is based on reasonable assesments of human nature.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

and that fact will dawn on people as they realize that trying to "outdo" the Joneses isn't getting them anywhere.

This may just be my pessimism about human nature, but I don't at all think its a reasonable assessment of human nature to say that because everyone has a steady paycheck, they will just completely forget about their very natural competitiveness. Even if the results of their competitiveness turn out with them as coming out on top (or the possibility of coming out on top) reside only in their head, that is enough to encourage them to continue being competitive.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Which is the beauty of the system. It doesn't force uniformity.

You're right, it just assumes it as a given.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

Do you mean that people who go out shopping for stuff they don't need will no longer do so because now there are no starving, homeless people to gloat about their exploits to?

If you consider that the need for economic competitiveness, then yes. People work towards an income because the alternative is starvation. If starvation is no longer a factor, then the need to acquire wealth is removed, and one is only left with the want. Wealth no longer becomes an indicator of success, and it loses its social status, because that's ultimately what people are competing for beyond basic need, status. Comfort doesn't really mean jack when there's no alternative.

If wealth loses its importance, then it becomes replaced by merit as a means of gaining status. As many people as I've worked with, there's always a consistant need to maintain their current level of consumtion. Almost all of the guys I've worked with would have rather spent their time doing what they liked instead of working at a minimal-gain job for some asshole. The company policy was that salary earners had to stay at work and complete their hours regardless of whether or not there was any work. Meaning, that it wasn't a rare occurrence that they'd be sitting in the parking lot, drinking beer, when they'd rather be at home with their families or out doing whatever.

People justify the means (work) with the ends (consumtion), because they despise the means. They reason hating what they do with shiny thingamabobs that are rarely used because they spend the majority of their waking time working. In other words, if people had the time to enjoy what they had, the want to have more decreases.

People work to support their families, and themselves, and the greater amount of wealth one collects, the safer position they are in. Now remove the need for that safety, and remove the need to provide for oneself and one's loved ones. "Splurging" stops, waste stops, because that spending cash is being invested in personal interests as opposed to excess consumtion.

This is not an instantaneous process, but one that requires a long trend of introversion and social interaction. Once people find the time to think, then the reality of the situation will dawn on them.

Quote:

You're right, it just assumes it as a given.

Does the current system not presume uniformity? Do we not now rely on social trends to determine what is and isn't deviant behavior? Simply because a behavior is not legislated against, doesn't mean that it isn't frowned upon, and the same holds true for a laborless society. The difference is, that in a laborless society people would actually have the time to reason for themselves what is truly deviant behavior, and I believe they'll come to the reasonable conclusion.

Maybe I put too much faith in people's ability to think for themselves, I dunno.

How ya doing, buddy?

"Things" won't make people happy, but I gotta agree with B, giving people the option of opting out of the Office Space culture isn't a bad thing.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

They're not, though if that were the case, then why not make everybody poor so that we have to interact with each other?

If it's not, then why should we concern ourselves at all with how much money we need to redistribute to people? Oh, wait, that's right, making it look like I want everyone to be poor makes my ideas look horrible.

Quote:

Avoiding depression and suicide is a matter of changing the social culture. If suicide reaches epidemic levels, then people will probably be encouraged to "get out" more. Besides, I'd argue that depression is a much more beneficial element of society than we presume, as it causes unique characteristics in the people that suffer from it. Look at any extraordinary individual and chances are that they've suffered through severe bouts of depression.

It's just a shame when that depression happens after they've become extraordinary and stops them from continuing to be extraordinary (as it seems to happen quite often).

Quote:

I'm telling you, though, people already know how to enjoy their lives. How can you set general goals of achieving overarching happiness in a society of individuals? It seems like you're making more generalizations about people than I am. What makes people "happy" to begin with? Most studies on depression and suicide tend to pin it on human nature as social animals, and I don't think that a bunch of machines working around the clock on fuck all knows what is going to improve that. Ephemeralization doesn't mean anything if it doesn't enable all people to live leisurely. You think there's going to be much point in Fusion power if we still have both parents working jobs just to maintain a desired level of consumtion in low-child households?

I don't really think most people know how to enjoy their lives, they know what they think they need to achieve in order to have a happy life, but then when they get there they realize it's not actually what they wanted.

Also, I don't really know where you get a room full of robots speculating on human happiness, since I don't think I talked about that anywhere along the line.

I also think a life of leisure is a life of waste, so maybe that's part of my problem with this whole plan.

Quote:

Everything I've said in this thread is based on reasonable assesments of human nature.

...

A minimum "comfortable" standard of living will reduce the want for needless consumtion, if not immediately, because there's no point in it, and that fact will dawn on people as they realize that trying to "outdo" the Joneses isn't getting them anywhere.

Any reason those people haven't realized that outdoing their neighbors hasn't gotten them anywhere yet with our current system?

FELIPE NO

"Whoever is not in the possession of leisure can hardly be said to possess independence. They talk of the dignity of work. Piffle. True Work is the necessity of poor humanity's earthly condition. The dignity is in leisure. Besides,the majority of all the work done in the world is either foolish and unnecessary, or harmful and wicked."

I've always liked that quote by Melville.

As an artist I personally begrieve the fact that I must often put my art aside in order to work a thankless and shallow job. I'm happiest when I'm unemployed and I'm most PRODUCTIVE artistically when I'm unemployed because I have the time and the energy to be creative. But I think this probably only applies to visual artists, writers, and musicians.

I think part of the problem with both sides of the debate at this point is that everyone is speaking in absolutes. There will never - in my opinion - be complete, national unemployment because there ARE a few freaks out there that validate their existences via their careers. They want to work and they like to work, and they would probably gladly be part of the population that goes to work in this pseudo utopia. Maybe they just don't work fifty hours a week, is the thing.

Not all rich people are unhappy - not even most of them. I know quite a few affluent people who are very happy with themselves. Inversely, I'm dirt poor and miserable because of it. So are a lot of people.

Something will someday HAVE to be done as automation increases but I think it's a long way off - as in well after we're all dead.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

Oh, wait, that's right, making it look like I want everyone to be poor makes my ideas look horrible.

No, I'm just saying that I've already stated your point, and that bringing it up doesn't really mean anything. Wealth doesn't guarantee happiness, no fucking shit. Maybe if people had the time provided by leisure they'd be able to find out what it was, exactly, that makes them happy.

As Bucky Fuller says, the first thought of people, once they are delivered from wage slavery, will be, "What was it that I was so interested in as a youth, before I was told I had to earn a living?" The answer to that question, coming from millions and then billions of persons liberated from mechanical toil, will make the Renaissance look like a high school science fair or a Greenwich Village art show.

Quote:

It's just a shame when that depression happens after they've become extraordinary and stops them from continuing to be extraordinary (as it seems to happen quite often).

Such as in what cases? All I can think of right now is Hemingway, and though I'm sure there are plenty more, I'm not certain I get your point. If the depression is the causation for the extraordinary, then these individuals that stopped being extraordinary would have remained mediocre their entire life in the absence of depression.

Quote:

I don't really think most people know how to enjoy their lives, they know what they think they need to achieve in order to have a happy life, but then when they get there they realize it's not actually what they wanted.

Also, I don't really know where you get a room full of robots speculating on human happiness, since I don't think I talked about that anywhere along the line.

I also think a life of leisure is a life of waste, so maybe that's part of my problem with this whole plan.

Only waste, perhaps, in the material. Then again, we have the robots covering for us, so I don't understand the problem.

People don't know what they want because they haven't been granted the time to discover themselves in a world that demands their constant attention just to remain competitive. It took me years to figure out that I wanted to be a journalist. There's no guarantee that I'll be happy with it, but there's no more rewarding experience to me than to write and know that people are being enlightened or better informed because of it.

I didn't mean to imply that we'd have a bank of AIs sitting around trying to figure out what makes Umans tick, but only that your assertion that a bunch of machines could somehow be working towards an unidentified, non-descript general goal that will magically make humanity as a whole (which it won't, because humans don't comprise a whole) happier. What is it that the manufacturing power of machines can be put towards that better humanity? Bigger shit? Bigger guns? More paperweights? I don't follow you. Trying to set machines working towards some goal that you have no concept of while insisting that people remain toiling, unhappy, grudging wage-slaves comes across more sadistic than benevolent.

Quote:

Any reason those people haven't realized that outdoing their neighbors hasn't gotten them anywhere yet with our current system?

Because they aren't granted the time to enjoy the fruits of their labour. People spend so much time working that they honestly don't know what they want. They can't think, can't rest, and can't play. Therefore, people consume what is insisted that they consume.

Jam it back in, in the dark.