What jobs will human have left once we perfect automation technology?

[Guest]

Scotius tells the truth.

[magnemoe]

Since when bread, cheap candies and even shoes (yes, sometimes there were no shoes in shops) are considered "luxury items"? At least in moderately advanced European country at the end of XX century? Clearly, your knowledge about socialism\communism is drawn from books written either by socialists themselves, or enthusiasts just like you - people who never experienced "joys" of living under such regime. Let me tell you this straight: It sucked big time. I don't want to ever relieve it, and you shouldn't either.

Yes, it did not work, not saying it never will work, US used central planning during WW2 it worked very well, it was also used large scale rebuilding Europe after WW2,

Other settings any family run with everybody give that they can, and you distribute after need. Many tribal cultures was run this way and it worked in thousands of years.

Main problem of having an AI run the economy is that I would rater let it control the nuclear weapons, why should the AI see you as important? With nukes its only one way to screw up.

Soviet Union failed because the efficiency demands to be competitive with the US economical and military would not be solvable, efficiency of systems has gone up a lot since 1930, this is part of the reason labor and conservative parties became more and more equal, the rules of the game is set and known. Today we would see the roman empire as an failed state, it worked as it was better than the others.

Trying something new and radical in the economy is not cost effective compared to trying out new high performance nuclear reactors downtown, this has far less failure points and the effects of an catastrophic fail is far less.

[ZetaX]

Scotius tells the truth.

What, that the sovjet union and such sucked¿ Sure. But his hasty generalisation is just wrong.

[vger]

Yeah, decades of cold war propaganda and centuries of institutional sexim, racism etc wouldn't be solved by this.

Once money was removed, wouldn't social status go along with it?

On what grounds would people judge one another at that point? Most racism these days is intertwined with finance. You can't, for example, label people as 'ghetto' when the very concept of a ghetto is no longer relevant.

[magnemoe]

Once money was removed, wouldn't social status go along with it?

On what grounds would people judge one another at that point? Most racism these days is intertwined with finance. You can't, for example, label people as 'ghetto' when the very concept of a ghetto is no longer relevant.

Social status predated money by some million years, most mammals living in groups has social status.

Money is probably our primary status marker, yes its not the only one however getting an billion is easy compared becoming president of the US or heavyweight champion.

This will probably change somewhat, owning land tend to be the primary status, no you would not be on the top anyway

Most racism today is group based today, not race, I hate Muslims and inner city blacks because of .... is an newer version of I hate the guys in the other valley as they steal out goats.

[ComradeWolfe]

By the time we get done debating the pros and cons of robot socialism vs human socialism I think the robots will be here.

I still think that regardless of the end point, the transitional period will be the most interesting (and difficult) period. Regardless of whether the robots kill us, farm for us, or farm us (eek?) there will still be a time where a rich few individuals or corporations will control a limited supply of robots which they will use for their own gain. I can't help but wonder what kind of societal upheaval will occur when we reach the point that human labor is almost but not entirely obsolete.

Who knows; maybe the most selfish robot owners will band together to put an end to all those who oppose them? This would leave the robotopia freeconomy to be enjoyed only by those who could afford the price of entry.

[AngelOfDeath642]

Since when bread, cheap candies and even shoes (yes, sometimes there were no shoes in shops) are considered "luxury items"? At least in moderately advanced European country at the end of XX century? Clearly, your knowledge about socialism\communism is drawn from books written either by socialists themselves, or enthusiasts just like you - people who never experienced "joys" of living under such regime. Let me tell you this straight: It sucked big time. I don't want to ever relieve it, and you shouldn't either.

I like how you assume that you are the absolute authority on how Eastern Europeans think about socialism. Did it suck near the end? YES. Does thats stop, for example the CPRF (with most of its members having lived through socialism) from being the second largest party in russia? Nope. It doesn't stop the fact that multiple polls in several former socialist countries (Russia, Romainia and East Germany) showed support for socialism to be as high as 60%, with most support coming from people who had LIVED THROUGH IT.

So again, I know that nearing the end of the cold war life in socialist countries sucked. I also know that many people prefer it to the quality of life they have today, especially those who have seen socialism before the crippling economic problems.

Furthermore, as you would know if you had actually read the thread rather than attacking me on my word choice, I was talking about how automation could help fix socialism so it works as intended.

- - - Updated - - -

By the time we get done debating the pros and cons of robot socialism vs human socialism I think the robots will be here.

I still think that regardless of the end point, the transitional period will be the most interesting (and difficult) period. Regardless of whether the robots kill us, farm for us, or farm us (eek?) there will still be a time where a rich few individuals or corporations will control a limited supply of robots which they will use for their own gain. I can't help but wonder what kind of societal upheaval will occur when we reach the point that human labor is almost but not entirely obsolete.

Who knows; maybe the most selfish robot owners will band together to put an end to all those who oppose them? This would leave the robotopia freeconomy to be enjoyed only by those who could afford the price of entry.

A possible scenario is that assuming that they use automation to replace sweatshops first, the millions that were once employed there will have nowhere else to go. Considering that many of these countries already have large guerilla movements it is highly likely that the countries' governments would be swiftly overthrown.

Although at that point they wouldn't care about sweatshop labour, they would still have been extracting resources so the US goverment will probably try to bring them some "freedom and democracy". Unfortunately for them this would probably happen in several countries at the same time so the American military will once again be fighting a prolonged conflict on multiple fronts with no real prospect of victory.

The large anti war movement this will create, combined with the social unrest from even further automation and the existing unrest from police brutality may lead to the collapse of the US government, the few capitalists with control of the robots will try to prevent them but at that point there is nothing they can really do.

[Louella]

Who buys the products that the robot workers make ?

[AngelOfDeath642]

Who buys the products that the robot workers make ?

No one. If complete automation happens under capitalism then nobody would have any money except for the few people who own the robots because competing businesses would crumble and the workers would all lose their jobs. If it happens under socialism or communism then the robots would give their products to humans for free since robots don't need a profit motive. Either way full automation is incompatible with money.

Edited May 5, 2015 by AngelOfDeath642

[Bill Phil]

Angel...i was born and raised in a socialist country before Iron Courtain fell. I remember well standing in a long queue for over an hour, so i could buy one leaf of bread for my family. One - because that was the limit per day. Or how my father could not buy me some candies, because he had to keep state issued coupons for sugar - more important than a pack of candies. It was not caused by the lack of money - both my parents had good, relatively well paid jobs. It was general, widespread lack of products available. There was a bitter joke circulating between people: Thanks to the Party, stores are full - of empty hooks and winegar. Life under the Socialism was not fun, and very far from Utopia promised by leaders.

So please, spare me tall tales about paradise on Earth under Socialist or Communist rule. I've seen it. Didn't like it one bit.

In the history of our planet, the closest anyone came to socialism and communism were the people living before civilization even dawned.

The ideas behind socialism are good, the execution was not, and it can not be. This is because humans will be humans. Anyone with power will exploit it to the extreme.

[magnemoe]

No one. If complete automation happens under capitalism then nobody would have any money except for the few people who own the robots because competing businesses would crumble and the workers would all lose theier jobs. If it happens under socialism or communism then the robots would give their products to humans for free since robots don't need a profit motive. Either way full automation is incompatible with money.

In the first setting where would be no need to build the robots, robots makes most sense in an mass production setting where you have an large marked. Expensive stuff produced in small series are not mass produced. Without an mass market the rapid progress in miniature electronic would not have happened, had cpu and mobile phones cost an million each we would be lucky if we had pentium cpu's and 3 kg phones, the last 40 years rapid progress has happened in areas with mass marked applications. Military, industrial and luxury are low volume,

In the second setting, money would still be needed as resources are limited. Take late career gameplay in KSP you have plenty of funds but you still don't want to waste it doing stupid stuff like using an giant rocket sending an small rover to Mun, you have better uses for the money like the Eve sample return mission.

Yes you can distribute resources after need and availability, military works this way and it works pretty well in that setting. It would not be fun on an personal level, you are an kid again and you parent decides that you will get Giving away stuff for free in large quantities also generates lots of waste, military again is an good example.

Fun story Indian army was giving out free condoms to soldiers, this worked well until someone looked at the budget and found that the soldiers used multiple condoms every day, weirder use was higher in remote bases with few ladies around than garrisons in cities, soldiers had found that they was perfect for two uses, one was to protect guns from dust, they was also nice to protect phones and radios from water. Yes condoms was overenginered for this but they was free.

[AngelOfDeath642]

In the first setting where would be no need to build the robots, robots makes most sense in an mass production setting where you have an large marked. Expensive stuff produced in small series are not mass produced. Without an mass market the rapid progress in miniature electronic would not have happened, had cpu and mobile phones cost an million each we would be lucky if we had pentium cpu's and 3 kg phones, the last 40 years rapid progress has happened in areas with mass marked applications. Military, industrial and luxury are low volume,

In the second setting, money would still be needed as resources are limited. Take late career gameplay in KSP you have plenty of funds but you still don't want to waste it doing stupid stuff like using an giant rocket sending an small rover to Mun, you have better uses for the money like the Eve sample return mission.

Yes you can distribute resources after need and availability, military works this way and it works pretty well in that setting. It would not be fun on an personal level, you are an kid again and you parent decides that you will get Giving away stuff for free in large quantities also generates lots of waste, military again is an good example.

Fun story Indian army was giving out free condoms to soldiers, this worked well until someone looked at the budget and found that the soldiers used multiple condoms every day, weirder use was higher in remote bases with few ladies around than garrisons in cities, soldiers had found that they was perfect for two uses, one was to protect guns from dust, they was also nice to protect phones and radios from water. Yes condoms was overenginered for this but they was free.

Yes, in capitalism they wouldn't use full automation, basically for the reasons that you said. My post was outlining what would happen if capitalists were dunb enough to try.

In the second setting, maybe money would be needed initially but advances in automation would allow automated resource gathering on scales previously impossible for humans due to various factors. The same would go for agriculture too. This scenario is going to be atleast several decades into the future so there would be the opportunity for more efficient spacecraft propulsion and possibly SSTOs with high payload to orbit capabilities allowing large scale asteroid mining. With the new abundance in resources and widespead access to the means of production it will be possible to get rid of money. Any waste can be handled by recycling, again on a larger scale than humans can currently achieve but well withing the capabilites of a fully automated society.

[magnemoe]

In the history of our planet, the closest anyone came to socialism and communism were the people living before civilization even dawned.

The ideas behind socialism are good, the execution was not, and it can not be. This is because humans will be humans. Anyone with power will exploit it to the extreme.

Correction families work this way, it works as its little opportunity to abuse it. Dysfunctional families tend to have more serious issues than money managment.

Else you are right that plenty of tribal cultures worked this way, makes sense: most stuff was pretty easy to get, it generated an good safety net, social pressure and status made it hard to be an parasite. it failed with farming as primitive farming is hard work and the villages was far larger than tribes.

Now the idea of having an AI control all production will have some failure nodes, first it would have its personal preferences in that should be produced. Yes you could use an committee to instruct the AI, problem is that committees tend to be filled up with special interest and people with an agenda as they are the ones who want an seat hard.

I rather have the AI control the nukes, far safer, yes it know the Russian and Chinese know the location of its nodes. C3 (Command, control and communication) is always first targets.

[Aanker]

In the history of our planet, the closest anyone came to socialism and communism were the people living before civilization even dawned.

The ideas behind socialism are good, the execution was not, and it can not be. This is because humans will be humans. Anyone with power will exploit it to the extreme.

Indeed. I often hear the argument that "[communist country] wasn't really communist/control economy". That doesn't mean we should try it again. It means that in spite of several real world attempts the idea behind the political-economic system is broken and it cannot be realized.

[AngelOfDeath642]

Correction families work this way, it works as its little opportunity to abuse it. Dysfunctional families tend to have more serious issues than money managment.

Else you are right that plenty of tribal cultures worked this way, makes sense: most stuff was pretty easy to get, it generated an good safety net, social pressure and status made it hard to be an parasite. it failed with farming as primitive farming is hard work and the villages was far larger than tribes.

Now the idea of having an AI control all production will have some failure nodes, first it would have its personal preferences in that should be produced. Yes you could use an committee to instruct the AI, problem is that committees tend to be filled up with special interest and people with an agenda as they are the ones who want an seat hard.

I rather have the AI control the nukes, far safer, yes it know the Russian and Chinese know the location of its nodes. C3 (Command, control and communication) is always first targets.

I doubt an AI would have any preference that wasn't created out of in depth analysis and extensive simulation determining that its preference would actually be beneficial. Even if they did, just have multiple AIs in addition to a human imput. I also doubt that there would be much corruption going on in the Human committee at that point due to the ability to provide everyone with the same high quality of life due to the abundance of resources.

[vger]

I also doubt that there would be much corruption going on in the Human committee at that point due to the ability to provide everyone with the same high quality of life due to the abundance of resources.

We don't know if abundance would even have an impact humanity's "jerk tendencies." Take a look at the people who already have it all. And I don't mean a couple million in the bank. I mean a couple billion. What do they do with it? Hoard it, and hardly spend any of it, like a squirrel burying nuts in anticipation of an unusually harsh winter.

That's assuming that capitalism creates them. A socialist state with the required technological development could implement it. Infact they would prioritise it since that's basically the whole point of socialism.

Well, now there's a thought. Imagine, the final battle to liberate humanity being fought by socialist robots. Quite the opposite of the stereotypical sci-fi.

Edited May 6, 2015 by vger

[AngelOfDeath642]

We don't know if abundance would even have an impact humanity's "jerk tendencies." Take a look at the people who already have it all. And I don't mean a couple million in the bank. I mean a couple billion. What do they do with it? Hoard it, and hardly spend any of it, like a squirrel burying nuts in anticipation of an unusually harsh winter.

The difference is, those people are capitalists. They are competing with other capitalists for scarce resources and new ways to increase profits because they want to be on top and not end up like the workers that they exploit. And even if there was corruption going on, the AIs wouldn't take kindly to that.

[ComradeWolfe]

We don't know if abundance would even have an impact humanity's "jerk tendencies." Take a look at the people who already have it all. And I don't mean a couple million in the bank. I mean a couple billion. What do they do with it? Hoard it, and hardly spend any of it, like a squirrel burying nuts in anticipation of an unusually harsh winter.

It might dampen the jerk tendencies if everyone knows that they will always be provided for just as much as the other guy regardless of any actions they take.

The difference is, those people are capitalists. They are competing with other capitalists for scarce resources and new ways to increase profits because they want to be on top and not end up like the workers that they exploit. And even if there was corruption going on, the AIs wouldn't take kindly to that.

It's scary to think that the robots might punish anyone who wants to be "more than equal". Maybe robot socialism does have the potential to end as poorly as the human attempts...

----

This might be a bit much of a departure from the original train of thought we all have, but I just realized that there will be a finite resource to fight over: people.

Until we have emotionally complex, sexually active subservient robots who are indiscernible in all regards from humans there will always be fights relating to love, lust, and jealousy over human relationships... And yet, when they become indiscernible from humans it will mean the robots basically ARE us. We'd reach the point of human slaves who are not human -- whom we might have feelings for.

[RainDreamer]

This might be a bit much of a departure from the original train of thought we all have, but I just realized that there will be a finite resource to fight over: people.

Well, I think if human has extreme abundance of resources and has a large amount of of free time...I think chances are they will spend a lot of that free time just...ahem...procreating. I think space would be a more limited resource, as human being limited by their living space. Though that too might be solved with advancement in spaceflight and terraforming technology, and then we will just have to send robots to new planets to colonize.

Perhaps the only currency that human will have left is social capital. Networks, relationships, favours, those things are likely to still be something that human use and trade even when all other currencies are eliminated and life sustaining resources are abundant.

[vger]

Well, I think if human has extreme abundance of resources and has a large amount of of free time...I think chances are they will spend a lot of that free time just...ahem...procreating. I think space would be a more limited resource, as human being limited by their living space.

Well if abundance, can dampen the jerk tendencies, as ComradeWolfe suggested, then I assume it could also dampen the reproductive urge. Both hoarding, and multiplying like rabbits are instinctive drives that evolved to keep us from going extinct. The more this threat becomes removed from our experience, the better our chances are at overcoming the instincts that exist to compensate for such threats. But I don't really want to get into a debate about population control as it's too much of a derail, and not really relevant here. We're going to run into a space shortage, whether a socialist robotic revolution happens or not.