Could robots eventually make the economy obsolete?

[vger]

I'm simplifying this for the sake of tldr; Likely this would happen with much more complexity, and competitive businesses trying to one-up each other, but it at least seems like it might arrive at the question I'm posing here.

Consider the following. There are currently whispers of replacing fast food workers with robots, IF the workers ever manage to unionize. Cheaper and more efficient 3D printing has ushered in a small revolution in production. AI is capable of doing things that people believed just a decade ago, that would NEVER be possible.

Suppose a super-genius inventor were to create a "Skynet" of sorts. The most advanced form of AI imaginable, with access to factories that it could retool on its own, for the purposes of producing robots designed to replace every form of labor on the planet. Only a handful of jobs would be replaced initially, but eventually you would reach a point where the only people who still have jobs, are those who work in a tiny handful of elite tech industries. It seems to me that this would wipe out the financial system, because nobody can afford to pay for the services provided by these robots. Nevertheless, there are no alternatives, because robots are doing ALL of the work. The people who have provided these services still want to be paid for it, but they can't get paid. Even debt or slavery is not an option. It's impossible to undersell the robots.

Assuming a robot revolt didn't happen, would we have no choice but to abandon capitalism and accept a 'utopia?' Or is there some element to this I'm overlooking. Given the imbalance that automation has already placed in the labor world, it seems that we are indeed heading in this direction, if at a VERY slow pace.

Edited April 30, 2014 by vger

[Skyler4856]

Man is horribly paranoid and proud, he will never accept a future where he no longer rules over the Earth. Perhaps for menial and tedious jobs, Mankind may accept.

[MartGonzo]

The economy is already obsolete.

fractional reserve credit based money creation is a system that can only end in economic collapse.

[Dkmdlb]

eventually you would reach a point where the only people who still have jobs, are those who work in a tiny handful of elite tech industries. It seems to me that this would wipe out the financial system, because nobody can afford to pay for the services provided by these robots.

Robits will only be built if it is projected to be profitable. How are robits going to replace everybody and send the word into economic collapse? You don't think the robit manufacturers will see this coming? You think the megacorporations will present their idea to put everybody out of work through the use of robits and the board of directors will say, "that sounds great, let's do it?"

Assuming a robot revolt didn't happen, would we have no choice but to abandon capitalism and accept a 'utopia?' Or is there some element to this I'm overlooking.

It's not an issue of capitalism, it's an issue of the fact of scarcity in the face of infinite human wants. Utopia is impossible because scarcity (in the economic sense) is a fact of the universe.

[Idobox]

We probably won't abandon capitalism easily, but it won't be based on human labor anymore.

It's been a big question for economic science and its predecessors to determine where wealth comes from. At some point, it was from land, because a farmer could feed 1.1 people, you needed a lot of land to feed people who were not farmers, like priests, masons or soldiers.

With better technology, a farmer can feed more people, so wealth is not anymore defined by just being able to eat, but by being able to buy goods and services, created by skilled work. In this system, human work becomes slowly the main source of wealth. It is not very useful to have land if you don't have good farmers, and an iron plow made by a blacksmith.

With the industrial revolution, mineral resources and technology start to replace humans as the main source of wealth. It is commonly accepted that today, it's mostly human labor, information and energy that create wealth. Perfect robotics essentially mean free human labor, so an explosion in wealth, limited only by energy production and mineral resources.

The problem is that if people don't have jobs, they can't buy things. But this is not the case, right now, in the USA, roughly 60% of people have a job, the others are either unemployed, too young, too old, sick, studying, etc...

Assuming Asimovian robots, there will still be a number of jobs for humans: designing products, designing robots, marketing, real TV, butlers for posh people...

As the number of employed people drops, sensible governments will increase welfare, levying higher and higher taxes on the richest part of the population. Because rich people like to not pay taxes, and some countries will harbor them, it will result in governments either setting protectionism or nationalizing production capacities.

In the end, we will end up with a small number of people controlling all the wealth and giving scraps to the rest in exchange for obedience. It could look like a communist system, except people don't have to work to justify whatever the government gives them, or in a corporatist police state with a strong government in cahoots with the richs.

If a country didn't increase welfare, its economy would collapse, people would riot, and it would result in either near complete destruction of the country (for example by massive emigration or death) or to a revolution resembling one of the two previous scenarios.

After some time, robots building power plants and rockets mean even energy and mineral resources will stop to be a limiting factor, it becomes a post-scarcity society and all bets are off.

[Dkmdlb]

After some time, robots building power plants and rockets mean even energy and mineral resources will stop to be a limiting factor, it becomes a post-scarcity society and all bets are off.

Nope. There is no such thing as "post-scarcity" (economically speaking) because scarcity is a built-in fact of the universe. There's no getting around it.

[Red Iron Crown]

The economy is already obsolete.

fractional reserve credit based money creation is a system that can only end in economic collapse.

There's nothing inherently wrong with fractional reserve and credit when used responsibly.

I don't think robots would make the economy obsolete, but they would certainly cause significant changes to it. I'm not a big believer in "post-scarcity", I think when scarcity is eliminated in a resource it is replaced by some other resource. Even with unlimited supplies of energy, minerals, and labor, there would still be scarcity of real estate and time.

Edit: I've got to be the most ninja'd poster on these forums.

[MartGonzo]

There's nothing inherently wrong with fractional reserve and credit when used responsibly.

I don't think robots would make the economy obsolete, but they would certainly cause significant changes to it. I'm not a big believer in "post-scarcity", I think when scarcity is eliminated in a resource it is replaced by some other resource. Even with unlimited supplies of energy, minerals, and labor, there would still be scarcity of real estate and time.

Edit: I've got to be the most ninja'd poster on these forums.

I don't agree, but this is getting into politics I suppose.

happy to discuss in PM's though

[vger]

Robits will only be built if it is projected to be profitable. How are robits going to replace everybody and send the word into economic collapse? You don't think the robit manufacturers will see this coming? You think the megacorporations will present their idea to put everybody out of work through the use of robits and the board of directors will say, "that sounds great, let's do it?"

Aren't we already experiencing this in some fashion? Outsourcing isn't too different from the robot scenario. All the jobs go one place, while all the consumers are in another. The result is consumers who can't afford anything. The Megacorps don't seem to care.

Nope. There is no such thing as "post-scarcity" (economically speaking) because scarcity is a built-in fact of the universe. There's no getting around it.

Uhh, where are you getting this exactly?

I think you're confusing "we can't" with "we don't know how." Our civilization is far too young to treat such assumptions as facts.

[Ralathon]

Nope. There is no such thing as "post-scarcity" (economically speaking) because scarcity is a built-in fact of the universe. There's no getting around it.

You can get pretty close if you get full access to all the resources and energy available within the solar system. Sure, you won't be able to say "I want a sphere the size of the sun made out of gold!" but for all practical purposes it could be considered post scarcity.

Anyway, I think that at least the production jobs will start to shift away from human workers to robotic systems. We're already seeing that happen today and I expect it to continue. The service economy will probably survive a little longer, you need to be flexible as cashier and it is hard to program robots versatile enough to replace humans in that regard. But eventually we'll also crack that problem and there's really nothing to do for humans other than sit around, have fun and produce ever cooler playthings to occupy ourselves. We would probably shift to a more socialistic system along the way. Goods are plentiful and practically free, so there's no reason to deprive people of them.

[Dkmdlb]

Aren't we already experiencing this in some fashion? Outsourcing isn't too different from the robot scenario. All the jobs go one place, while all the consumers are in another. The result is consumers who can't afford anything. The Megacorps don't seem to care.

Please cite. Where are these consumers who can't afford anything?

Uhh, where are you getting this exactly?

The definition of scarcity (in the economic context), which is simply that there are unlimited human wants and finite resources available. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Even if we had everything we wanted at the blink of an eye (impossible, I know), there is *STILL* scarcity in that a given person can only be in one place at one time.

People who think post-scarcity is an actual possible state don't understand what the term scarcity means.

[Ralathon]

Please cite. Where are these consumers who can't afford anything?

The definition of scarcity (in the economic context), which is simply that there are unlimited human wants and finite resources available. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Even if we had everything we wanted at the blink of an eye (impossible, I know), there is *STILL* scarcity in that a given person can only be in one place at one time.

People who think post-scarcity is an actual possible state don't understand what the term scarcity means.

I think you harp too much on the textbook definition and ignore the actual idea behind post scarcity. Humans want to consume resources and information. If you produce resources and information faster than humanity can consume them you have effectively achieved post scarcity even if the actual goods produced are not infinite.

[vger]

Please cite. Where are these consumers who can't afford anything?

On their own they can't. Through taxes, the wealthy are now giving them money to buy things. But that will only last so long as the unemployment % increases.

The definition of scarcity (in the economic context), which is simply that there are unlimited human wants and finite resources available. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Even if we had everything we wanted at the blink of an eye (impossible, I know), there is *STILL* scarcity in that a given person can only be in one place at one time.

I don't think that we'd be in such a situation where people's desires would exceed infinite power. If someone has all his TV channels for free, but is unhappy because his brain lacks the multitasking capability for him to watch all of them at once, that is not scarcity. It's also rather moot. That kind of dissatisfaction would not be sufficient to keep an economy alive.

Edited April 30, 2014 by vger

[m4v]

If you produce resources and information faster than humanity can consume.

Hard to believe that will happen, if there's an excess of resources then we will find ways to consume more of it until there's no excess.

[Guest]

I don't think so. There's a limit on how much we can consume. Barring wars, you could have a post-scarcity economy. First thing is power, it has to be effectively free to produce, since that's the easiest thing to gobble up. If you have unlimited power you have unlimited water (you can distill it from the ocean, since Earth is a closed system, it won't run out). Unlimited food would be the hardest part, but with unlimited power and water it might be possible to achieve via genetic engineering. Then there's a matter of space for all that, but with unlimited power and water you can electrolyse to get unlimited fuel for hydrolox rockets, and set stuff up in space. Beyond that, it's just a matter of setting up enough resource mines in the Solar System, and enough robotic factories for making robots (and other things, as a side job) from those resources. If those factories are good enough, you end up with a system that not only expands itself exponentially (or nearly so), while providing more and more goods for human consumption. Since it would grow exponentially, humanity would have a hard time keeping up with what it can provide. Of course, it'll be limited by resources available in Solar System, so we'd have to "throttle" it's growth at some point. Still shouldn't be a problem, because at that point, it'd be producing a huge amount of excess anyway. If we managed travel to the other systems, humanity would be pretty much set. The only thing we'd have to do would be to improve the robots, and of course explore and research the universe. We could get to "dyson spheres and ringworlds" level after some time (remember, exponential growth!).

Edited April 30, 2014 by Guest

[m4v]

And likewise there's a limit at how much you can produce. If your scenario has unlimited sources of power then there's not reason to put a limit to what you can consume: an unlimited source of power would consume unlimited amounts of resources.

Edited April 30, 2014 by m4v

[Stargate525]

And likewise there's a limit at how much you can produce. If your scenario has unlimited sources of power then there's not reason to put a limit to what you can consume: an unlimited source of power would consume unlimited amounts of resources.

You're confusing unlimited in reality with unlimited in practicality. If humanity were suddenly given a dyson shell and all the power it captured, for a good half milenia we'd have unlimited power in every practical purpose we could bend it to.

[Red Iron Crown]

Time and real estate will always be scarce. Even if we eliminate constraints on material goods, there will always be an economy on those resources, if not others like reputation and Veblen goods.

[Ralathon]

Hard to believe that will happen, if there's an excess of resources then we will find ways to consume more of it until there's no excess.

I don't know about you. But after dinner I have a hard time consuming any more food. Likewise, my ability to consume entertainment is limited by the time available to me, which can never exceed 24 hours a day.

The only real thing that can grow unbounded about human consumption is our want for flashier gadgets to dazzle our peers. But if everyone has the same access to these new gadgets because they're dirt cheap this becomes entirely pointless. Nobody is going to be impressed if you show them a gizmo that they could replicate in 2 seconds. The only things that would be scarce and appreciated in that scenario would be art, ideas and ground. And we could make more of the latter if we wanted to.

[m4v]

You're confusing unlimited in reality with unlimited in practicality. If humanity were suddenly given a dyson shell and all the power it captured, for a good half milenia we'd have unlimited power in every practical purpose we could bend it to.

And the resources for build that dyson shell from where will come? dunno about you, but I think that the sheer amounts of resources needed for build a dyson shell in first place counts an unlimited resource sink for all practical purposes.

[vger]

The only real thing that can grow unbounded about human consumption is our want for flashier gadgets to dazzle our peers. But if everyone has the same access to these new gadgets because they're dirt cheap this becomes entirely pointless. Nobody is going to be impressed if you show them a gizmo that they could replicate in 2 seconds.

Heh, once upon a time, being 'overweight' was a good thing. Food was scarce, and it was a sign of your status in society. Now we have snacks that have more calories than a whole cow, and hardly anyone in 'first world' countries has to worry about food, so it's desirable for adults to have the same weight as toddlers.

Not sure how similar thinking would apply to the robot scenario. Maybe people would start saying, "I did that MYSELF" as a way of distancing themselves from the status quo?

And the resources for build that dyson shell from where will come? dunno about you, but I think that the sheer amounts of resources needed for build a dyson shell in first place counts an unlimited resource sink for all practical purposes.

When you have a whole galaxy to work with, the question of finding enough resources to build a dyson would be trivial.

Edited April 30, 2014 by vger

[m4v]

I don't know about you. But after dinner I have a hard time consuming any more food. Likewise, my ability to consume entertainment is limited by the time available to me, which can never exceed 24 hours a day.

The only real thing that can grow unbounded about human consumption is our want for flashier gadgets to dazzle our peers. But if everyone has the same access to these new gadgets because they're dirt cheap this becomes entirely pointless. Nobody is going to be impressed if you show them a gizmo that they could replicate in 2 seconds. The only things that would be scarce and appreciated in that scenario would be art, ideas and ground. And we could make more of the latter if we wanted to.

What we consume isn't limited to what we see, when you use the GPS of your cellphone you're taking advantage of all the resources used to put those satellites in orbit. We didn't spent a great real of energy and material in putting tons of stuff in orbit because nobody was going to use it.

[m4v]

When you have a whole galaxy to work with, the question of finding enough resources to build a dyson would be trivial.

Well, I disagree with your idea of trivial. But if you have to harvest other solar system for construct a dyson sphere then just proves that constructing your unlimited source of power (for all practical purposes) is an endeavour that will require unlimited amount of resources (for all practical purposes as well)

[vger]

Well, I disagree with your idea of trivial. But if you have to harvest other solar system for construct a dyson sphere then just proves that constructing your unlimited source of power (for all practical purposes) is an endeavour that will require unlimited amount of resources (for all practical purposes as well)

Based on what? Our current limited scientific knowledge?

We're talking future concepts here, possibly even to the point of machines researching science for us. We could be sucking dark matter out of space and turning it into something tangible.

Edited April 30, 2014 by vger

[m4v]

Based on what? Our current limited scientific knowledge?

I'm just arguing that if we can build a machine that can supply us with "unlimited amounts" of energy then there's no reason to think that we can't build another that can consume "unlimited amounts" of resources, so is absurd to assume that consumption of resources has an upper limit given that setting.

Consumption is limited to production, and if production is unlimited, then consumption should be unlimited as well.