E pluribus unum

[nitro]

The problem ultimately is that any system is necessarily going to be a bootstrap until the bootstrap is no longer needed. If Economists just realized this fact, that they are not talking about the thing itself but the scaffold, we would not be as confused as we are. The sad fact is, until we get to a point where we have advanced enough that labor is no longer needed, there is no other way to get there from here. What would the world look like if everyone had a small plot of land, a humble place to live in peace without fear, enough to eat and drink extremely cheaply, easy and abundant transportation, and a self-sustaining nuclear reactor the size of a microwave to power their homes and transport? I wonder...

Agent Smith- "Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered; where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world, but I believe that as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. So the perfect world we dreamed, but your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why The Matrix was redesigned to this...the peak of your civilization."

The human condition is and has been on scaffolds since antiquity. It may take another thousand years for it to reach "The Singularity".

 

[Renegen]

Quote from logic_man:

As a thought experiment, imagine a world where population growth had proceeded as it did during the 20th century to today and where capitalism had not created the vast amounts of wealth it did, but where growth rates were more in line with the "social democracies" of Europe over the past 60 years. My hypothesis would be that such a world would be much more unstable than anything we see in place today.

Why do you say that? Are you using as a basis that you need growth to put people to work? That's not true. The amount of growth needed to create jobs depends on the industries and on how capital intensive or labor intensive the economy is. The more you demand that growth be accelerated, the more growth is required in the future to create any jobs. As the 2008 crisis has shown, usually in the drive for more growth, the economy becomes more fragile, people mortgage more and more etc

This means that on one hand you have 1) an economy that needs to grow more and more to create jobs, 2) an economy that is very unstable, and likely to shed a lot of jobs quickly. It's a self defeating strategy.

 

[Bakinec]

Fact...

The "solution" to human condition was the replacement of manual labor with automation (industrial revolution), in terms of making things cheaper and more available by mass production. The same "solution" is now the cause of the "human condition", making humans obsolete.

Fact of the matter is, the world is overpopulated. As harsh and horrible as that sounds.

Ever if some tech will be developed to make things free for everyone as nitro imagines, there won't be paradise on earth. Humans will always remain humans. Former concerns will be replaced with new concerns. Everything evolves in-step. A wealthy man's needs evolve with his bank account.

 

[nitro]

Quote from Gubinec:

Fact...

The "solution" to human condition was the replacement of manual labor with automation (industrial revolution), in terms of making things cheaper and more available by mass production. The same "solution" is now the cause of the "human condition", making humans obsolete.

Fact of the matter is, the world is overpopulated. As harsh and horrible as that sounds.

Ever if some tech will be developed to make things free for everyone as nitro imagines, there won't be paradise on earth. Humans will always remain humans. Former concerns will be replaced with new concerns. Everything evolves in-step. A wealthy man's needs evolve with his bank account.

I am not convinced. Although, if sex drives so much of human activity, how would women (I realize men choose women too, but for the sake of argument) choose among completely homogeneous men (power and money would be a thing of the past, or would it) ? For example, "men in suits" would no longer mean "good provider." Would gender even exist in such a society? A marketing nightmare for sure.

One does begin to wonder, since it turns "evolution" on its head...

 

[oldtime]

Last I heard, if it wasn't for immigration, population in U.S. is actually shrinking. Bad deal if you're in the diaper bussiness.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from oldtime:
Last I heard, if it wasn't for immigration, population in U.S. is actually shrinking. Bad deal if you're in the diaper bussiness.

Not the adult type, though...

 

[achilles28]

Quote from nitro:

I see the following scenario.

Just 20 years ago, world-wide there were maybe 1 billion people full time employed. Today, that number is probably closer to 3 or 4 billion. At the same time, automation is becoming more prominent.

Let's follow this to its logical conclusion. Population continues to grow. Automation does more of menial jobs for us. Do you see where this is going? Gigantic number of unemployed. There is simply nothing for huge sums of the population to do to earn a living, at least in an old world definition of being employed and earning money to survive. It cannot continue indefinitely.

People say, that is why we have to have a more educated work force. But that too has some sort of limit. Economics can not be the answer on geological time scales. We are simply stuck in this intellectual struggle because we don't know what the real answer is, so we just approximate the best we can.

Technological evolution cannibalizes obsolete industries to fuel new ones. Auto factories employed more workers than the horse-drawn carriage industry it replaced, while motorized transport slashed the cost of goods. This meant more jobs at lower prices. Standard of living went up for everyone!

So lets take your example: a technological utopia where machines do every conceivable task and humans do nothing but sit on their duff and suck back margaritas all day. Great. That's the best possible outcome. We don't work for works sake. We work to improve our standard of life. If nobody works, money is no longer necessary because human cost is no longer associated with the production of any good or service. That means each person consumes as much as they reasonably desired, at no cost to any one else! Theoretically, the West could automate their economies, and 200 years from now, work (besides invention) becomes obsolete. AI, computers, and robots do it all. 2nd and 3rd world nations would erect tariffs to protect their human-driven economies, and that's it. We travel, study and enjoy a life of leisure while the rest of the globe works 50 hour weeks to produce what the machines do for us at no cost!

Reality is, to get to there from here, vast amounts of ground-breaking R&D must be accomplished, then hoards of factories built to build the machines (who build machines). This creates tens of millions of new jobs in the process (net), while driving down prices even further........Win win. Economics is win win. The more automation, the less people spend on manufactured products. Which means the more discretionary income available to spend on other life enhancing products (education, health, travel, homes). Which creates the same amount (or more) jobs in 'emergent' industries that were previously destroyed by automation. Net employment remains static (or improves). And goods become cheaper for everyone. Pretty good deal. That's why electricity, the phone, combustion engine, computer etc enriched humanity. It's also why free-energy would usher in the biggest economic revolution the world has ever seen. Free energy decimates the petroleum industry. Hundreds of millions of workers in the energy sector get shit-canned. The upside? The price of every manufactured good, metal and agricultural product falls through the basement. Purchasing power explodes. Incomes buy twice, three, or four times what they did before!! The demand for tangibles and services goes through the roof. Job losses in energy are more than offset by gains made in the other sectors, and everyone is much, much richer (in terms of goods/services). Win win.

 

[nitro]

Quote from achilles28:

Technological evolution cannibalizes obsolete industries to fuel new ones. Auto factories employed more workers than the horse-drawn carriage industry it replaced, while motorized transport slashed the cost of goods. This meant more jobs at lower prices. Standard of living went up for everyone!

So lets take your example: a technological utopia where machines do every conceivable task and humans do nothing but sit on their duff and suck back margaritas all day. Great. That's the best possible outcome. We don't work for works sake. We work to improve our standard of life. If nobody works, money is no longer necessary because human cost is no longer associated with the production of any good or service. That means each person consumes as much as they reasonably desired, at no cost to any one else! Theoretically, the West could automate their economies, and 200 years from now, work (besides invention) becomes obsolete. AI, computers, and robots do it all. 2nd and 3rd world nations would erect tariffs to protect their human-driven economies, and that's it. We travel, study and enjoy a life of leisure while the rest of the globe works 50 hour weeks to produce what the machines do for us at no cost!

Reality is, to get to there from here, vast amounts of ground-breaking R&D must be accomplished, then hoards of factories built to build the machines (who build machines). This creates tens of millions of new jobs in the process (net), while driving down prices even further........Win win. Economics is win win. The more automation, the less people spend on manufactured products. Which means the more discretionary income available to spend on other life enhancing products (education, health, travel, homes). Which creates the same amount (or more) jobs in 'emergent' industries that were previously destroyed by automation. Net employment remains static (or improves). And goods become cheaper for everyone. Pretty good deal. That's why electricity, the phone, combustion engine, computer etc enriched humanity. It's also why free-energy would usher in the biggest economic revolution the world has ever seen. Free energy decimates the petroleum industry. Hundreds of millions of workers in the energy sector get shit-canned. The upside? The price of every manufactured good, metal and agricultural product falls through the basement. Purchasing power explodes. Incomes buy twice, three, or four times what they did before!! The demand for tangibles and services goes through the roof. Job losses in energy are more than offset by gains made in the other sectors, and everyone is much, much richer (in terms of goods/services). Win win.

All good points. I have wondered why we don't build ships with giant batteries, that is then put close to the sun and collects sunlight to be stored in these batteries to be brought back to earth. If we had ten thousand of these ships constantly traveling back and forth between the Sun and the Earth delivering batteries with huge amounts of stored energy...

Problems are many technologically, but to leave the equivalent energy output of one billion hydrogen bomb detonations a second untapped as an energy source just seems inane to me. They are trying controlled fusion on Earth (yeah that is going to work well we are afraid of our own shadow already look at the world after Japan), but why bother when a measly 93 million miles away is already a fusion reactor?

 

[Bakinec]

If you're referring to solar power, then it's still a work in progress. No matter how green leaders talk, money walks. Current lowest photovoltaic cost per watt is about $0.70, by First Solar. Levelized cost per kw-hour is over $0.30/kwh. It's gonna have to come down to at least 10 cents to be competitive with traditional energy sources.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from nitro:

All good points. I have wondered why we don't build ships with giant batteries, that is then put close to the sun and collects sunlight to be stored in these batteries to be brought back to earth. If we had ten thousand of these ships constantly traveling back and forth between the Sun and the Earth delivering batteries with huge amounts of stored energy...

Problems are many technologically, but to leave the equivalent energy output of one billion hydrogen bomb detonations a second untapped as an energy source just seems inane to me. They are trying controlled fusion on Earth (yeah that is going to work well we are afraid of our own shadow already look at the world after Japan), but why bother when a measly 93 million miles away is already a fusion reactor?

Yup. The physical universe abounds with energy yet "peak oil", "peak water" and over-population are the Malthusian buzz-words that frame the debate. I think it comes down to politics. Nobody wants to upset the apple cart. I don't believe for a second the fastest plane ever built was the SR-71 Blackbird (50 years ago). Since then, it's no coincidence UFO sightings exploded alongside military R&D budgets, which arguably, benefited from well over a trillion dollars in funding. It's in the establishments best interest to hoard next generation technologies because their commercialization erases centuries of economic dependency and control they've engineered into the system. Energy is the lynch pin to the global economy. It gives the military industrial complex an excuse to invade the middle east and by proxy, control the industrial development of emerging powers (China, India, Brazil). But it's primary intent is to deprive Americans of untold wealth. Wealth is power. A broad, rich and deep middle class is the number#1 threat to the Welfare-Warfare-Big Government Nanny State. Affluence doesn't need a handout. So the armies of bureaucrats (and taxes) cease to be useful. And the resource wars cease to be necessary. Truth be told, fractional reserve banking accomplishes the same thing: makes us all debt-slaves to bankers (who loan us our own money) which keeps us broke, dependent and beholden to the money masters. Politicians are just useful whores. Sometimes complicit, sometimes not. But they go along because deficits keep the pork flowing and them re-elected. It's an evil world. I would love to be a one-term President and reform the entire thing. Expose all the secrets, publicize the energy tech, go back to 100% reserve banking and have the Government spend debt-free money (like colonial scrip). Then abolish the income tax and watch the economy take off like a rocket. No better thing could happen to this world, short of Christ Himself returning. But that won't be allowed to be happen. Too many parasites feasting on the working class. Alas, the rich have screwed the poor since time began. The secrets of money (debasement/seniorage/credit) have been around for millennia. The Egyptians probably did the same thing to their people. Despotic Government and Usury seem to go hand-in-hand. They're a blight on humanity.