Our Automated Future, and the Resulting Social Reforms

[Sorrior]

That is a concept that may return also: The Clan.

In the 20th century the family group and the neighborhood, clan or tribe has been supplanted by the individual, largely. A return to that, though still recognizing the individual's rights and liberties would be a smart thing, I believe. And as you say, clan or tribe is not necessarily blood ties related, but simply who you choose to involve with.

Blood is a poor determining factor of who your family is, I think.

Those who have aspergers like me I term "Kin".

But yeah you still see it in sports and I do feel it is lacking in some ways...But I think what we call "cliques" is the new form of it TBH..

- - - Updated - - -

I must be cynic or a pessimist as the only future I see based on your OP is the grim dark future that is presented in Deus Ex. I mean, any cyberpunk novel worth its salt probably tells a good story of what is to come. The question that begs the answer is why should those with profit and money care for those unfortunate that lose their jobs because of a machine? It is the same problem we are facing even today. What to do with the mass of people for whom there is no job, no future, no nothing.

If history has shown anything(and recent shootings) it's that you push someone too far make them even feel like they have nothing to lose mixed with suicide immunity...And you get bloody massacres...

In short keeo the people happy or death comes.

[Glnger]

what we really need is a robot that can change a geriatrics diaper/sponge bath

wonder what nurses feel like when they have to do that."...I went to school for this?!"

[Cosmic Janitor]

what we really need is a robot that can change a geriatrics diaper/sponge bath

wonder what nurses feel like when they have to do that."...I went to school for this?!"

Unless you construct a washing unit for old people this would be one of the most challenging applications of robots, and one of the most dehumanizing for the old folks that have to endure it. Geriatric care is probably one of the physical labors that will be around for the longest time and one of the most needed for the next couple of generations.

[Mercadi]

There will never be shortage of demand for anyone who can fix hardware/software. The more robots there are, the more tech support will be needed.
Also, the OP forgot to mention automatic cars that will soon eliminate the need to drive on most roads.

[Poopymonster]

what we really need is a robot that can change a geriatrics diaper/sponge bath

wonder what nurses feel like when they have to do that."...I went to school for this?!"

Personally, I thought "If I was this old, in this condition, I'd sure as hell want someone to wipe my ass. AND do it properly." Then I did it properly.

[artemishunter1]

Hahahaha. What sort of crack cocaine are you on?

Nah, what will happen is the same thing that is happening now, the services economy will expand, public sector jobs not run for profit will probably become an increasingly important element, also tech jobs will take a bigger role in absorbing the labor force. Also the need for a better qualified labor force will become greater.

Currently the US especially is suffering from an educational dichotomy, while American College level education is the best in the world, it is neither accessible or really domestic, due to the fact that American pre-college level education is the laughing stock of the developed world. This comes out of the insane anti-science, anti-education culture that has developed in the U.S in the past few decades. American colleges increasingly import their students who after that go into mostly multi-national businesses, that are American on paper alone, and do their utmost not to contribute to the American economy, by evading taxes, lobbying for exceptions etc.

People had made the same assumption when the automation started. Tech jobs have never once replaced the amount of jobs lost in manual labor. Not even close to 1 to 1 ratio.

- - - Updated - - -

Those who have aspergers like me I term "Kin".

But yeah you still see it in sports and I do feel it is lacking in some ways...But I think what we call "cliques" is the new form of it TBH..

- - - Updated - - -



If history has shown anything(and recent shootings) it's that you push someone too far make them even feel like they have nothing to lose mixed with suicide immunity...And you get bloody massacres...

In short keeo the people happy or death comes.

But we never faced with robots.

- - - Updated - - -

There will never be shortage of demand for anyone who can fix hardware/software. The more robots there are, the more tech support will be needed.
Also, the OP forgot to mention automatic cars that will soon eliminate the need to drive on most roads.

Again, not 1 to 1 ratio. It would take 1 tech to fix 1000s of robots, if one creates a robot to maintain other robots.

[Mihalik]

People had made the same assumption when the automation started. Tech jobs have never once replaced the amount of jobs lost in manual labor.

You realize that statement makes absolutely no sense right?

Economic output (GDP) of the Western world expanded exponentially since industrialization (start of automation). The distribution of wealth might be unequal, but that has nothing to do with raw economic output. Again the shift that has occurred is in the method of wealth creation. Services expanded (which is directly tied to the increase in quality of living) and manufacturing and agricultural output increased efficiency while decreasing manpower requirements, freeing up the workforce to engage in other areas of the economy.

Why do you think that developing countries that have high manual labor ratios, also tend to lack a vigorous service economies or the high demand in services and luxury goods that is characteristic of developed economies?

You are also ignoring that fact that the actual size of the labor force also expanded significantly in the past 50 years. The population of the western world doubled in the past 50 years and women also entered the previously male dominated areas of labor, yet unemployment didn't explode.

If you are talking about the effect this shift had on certain localized economic spheres, you are correct that many people never made a successful shift, but in the big macro economic picture we benefited much more from automation overall then we suffered from it.

Literally what you claimed is completely false.

[Sorrior]

People had made the same assumption when the automation started. Tech jobs have never once replaced the amount of jobs lost in manual labor. Not even close to 1 to 1 ratio.

- - - Updated - - -



But we never faced with robots.

- - - Updated - - -



Again, not 1 to 1 ratio. It would take 1 tech to fix 1000s of robots, if one creates a robot to maintain other robots.

You kinda missed the poibt of who I was replying to. Basucally if we created a society with nassive unemployment due to robots and money at the top alone abd no way to feel worthwhile/happy due to shitty economics...Ueah death comes for thee circumstsnces

[Synros]

Increase the amount of automated jobs, means more humans will be out of jobs. Humans being out of jobs, means they aren't getting paid. Not getting paid, means not getting food. Not getting food, means you die...Why is that so hard for people to grasp? The unemployment rate is all over the place, and here we are discussing how cool it would be to have fancy new robots. People want robots to do the most basic daily tasks. From driving your car for you, to opening your blinds in the morning. The long term disadvantages, severely outweigh the few short term benefits. Humans are just becoming more, and more lazy as more of these "wondrous" inventions are made. Maybe it just might take the "Singularity", for people to realize how bad we fucked up. But then we'll all be dead, so I guess it's a lose/lose either way.

[Halicia]

That is a concept that may return also: The Clan.

In the 20th century the family group and the neighborhood, clan or tribe has been supplanted by the individual, largely. A return to that, though still recognizing the individual's rights and liberties would be a smart thing, I believe. And as you say, clan or tribe is not necessarily blood ties related, but simply who you choose to involve with.

Blood is a poor determining factor of who your family is, I think.

Wasn't this addressed in 1984 ? And a few other notable scifi dystopias ?

One of the first steps towards ensuring a permanently docile herd of sheep is to encourage their 'independence and freedom' by breaking down the family unit and replacing it with a support structure that generally answers to authority instead of the individual.

I think the main result of automation in developed countries will be a pushback against capitalism... which will likely translate into an increased amount of blame for 'welfare moochers' and an increased role of money in politics. Cuz seriously, if all someone has to do for work all day is sit and let the robots invest their money, they're gonna try to maintain that way of life... and if people have shown anything in the past decade or two, its that they'll believe anything they're told... so long as you're willing to pay enough money telling it.

What will humanity do with the increased free time (if necessities are ensured) ? I'd like to think we look again towards our dreams... or improve our overall quality of life... but I doubt that will actually occur.

[Mihalik]

That is a concept that may return also: The Clan.

In the 20th century the family group and the neighborhood, clan or tribe has been supplanted by the individual, largely. A return to that, though still recognizing the individual's rights and liberties would be a smart thing, I believe. And as you say, clan or tribe is not necessarily blood ties related, but simply who you choose to involve with.

Blood is a poor determining factor of who your family is, I think.

"Clan" is just a pseudo new age word for Unions. Unions are groups of people with shared common interests, that associate themselves by choice to look out for each other and further their collective interests.

[Endus]

You kinda missed the poibt of who I was replying to. Basucally if we created a society with nassive unemployment due to robots and money at the top alone abd no way to feel worthwhile/happy due to shitty economics...Ueah death comes for thee circumstsnces

The thing is, none of those things are necessary consequences that lead from "massive unemployment".

If we don't overhaul our society's mechanisms, sure. But pretty much everyone who's pro-automation like that is also speaking of wide social change.

A consumer-based economy requires producers, who produce goods for market, and consumers, to buy those goods. It does not require employment. If there's another means for ensuring that everyone can act as a consumer, such as the Basic Income system I mentioned earlier, then the economy will keep ticking along and the issues you mention simple won't come to be.

The idea that one should have to work for the ability to participate in the economy is a feature of mercantilism, not capitalism. Capitalism requires a strong consumer class, not strong employment of those consumers.

[Zigzagzoom]

what we really need is a robot that can change a geriatrics diaper/sponge bath

wonder what nurses feel like when they have to do that."...I went to school for this?!"

I'm a nurse, I've always done pediatrics but caring for others kinda supersedes feeling uncomfortable with bathing ect. Think about how you would feel if you were old or paralyzed laying in a pile of your own waste and no one cared enough to help you clean up.

[Ghostpanther]

The animated cartoon movie, " Wall-E" is a good example of what can happen with too much automation. And you can see the evidence of it even today with such a high obesity rate.

[Anakso]

Increase the amount of automated jobs, means more humans will be out of jobs. Humans being out of jobs, means they aren't getting paid. Not getting paid, means not getting food. Not getting food, means you die...Why is that so hard for people to grasp? The unemployment rate is all over the place, and here we are discussing how cool it would be to have fancy new robots. People want robots to do the most basic daily tasks. From driving your car for you, to opening your blinds in the morning. The long term disadvantages, severely outweigh the few short term benefits. Humans are just becoming more, and more lazy as more of these "wondrous" inventions are made. Maybe it just might take the "Singularity", for people to realize how bad we fucked up. But then we'll all be dead, so I guess it's a lose/lose either way.

One way to look at it though, is the less time spent doing menial tasks the better. Instead of driving, we could be reading, studying, working or more likely spending the time on a leisure activity like watching tv or reading a book, but that has health benefits for those that are over worked.

At large, the replacement of the kind of jobs that are being replaced can benefit society, we just need to find other things for them to do. Although it's possible we won't, with the money saved (for example self driving buses, replacing the need for a bus driver paid for by the government) it's possible you could use that money on education, educating people to do the jobs that are still required. As this thread addresses, the side effect of replacing those jobs is loss of work which means loss of income but it also means we'll need some form of social re-form to account for this.

[Grummgug]

as ive pointed out before, as the value of human labor approaches zero in society, the poor and lower classes of people will begin to lose their rights and probably will be killed off or not allowed to breed. they cannot strike because the system works without them. if they try to fight, elites will raise a robot army and kill them off. both capitalism and socialism break down without scarcity. population collapses to a few million people around the globe.

Kinda what worries me. If the elite are the ones in charge of production and we no longer are seen as a way to give them power, then we effectively begin to be seen as useless to them.

I am afraid of the elite or their fucked up kids born into that status using their power to enforce some kinda of pseudo eugenics program where you technically don't have to consent while realistically you do similar to your pseudo slave trade we have going in the US now where for many, they have no choices or options.

Or if they get bold enough where they are controlling the governments as well where they stage wars or fake riots in poor areas with the main purpose being to kill as many as possible to lower the number of "Undesirable" people as much as possible.

None of them I see as being particularly pleasant for most people. Hopefully they make it where no one person or group of people can end up in control of all this or the power hungry will go for it harder than they ever have in politics or finance.

The problem is it doesn't even have to be the current elites. Let's say the current group of elites attempt to kill off the lower classes and fail. Well, in that scenario, a different group of elites just replace them. There are always elites. And eventually the replacements will go the same route imo.

Hahahaha. What sort of crack cocaine are you on?

Nah, what will happen is the same thing that is happening now, the services economy will expand, public sector jobs not run for profit will probably become an increasingly important element, also tech jobs will take a bigger role in absorbing the labor force. Also the need for a better qualified labor force will become greater.

My assertion is that the services economy only expands only because the lower classes still have power. But as the value to society of the lower classes approaches zero, there is NOTHING to protect their rights. Maybe some like to believe that the elites are good natured, kind, loving, and looking out for the best interests of people they don't know and/or people that hate them for being powerful. I think that's a fairy tale though.

People are not that way. People are OBSESSED with EFFICIENCY. It is incredibly inefficient to support billions of people who are not needed to work, not needed as an army, and whose very existence is a threat to them. It is vastly more efficient to kill them all off and drop the world population to 1-5 million or so.

[Gheld]

My prediction is that those who concentrate "wealth" and "power" will continue to do so at an ever increasing rate. The "people's revolution" will not come. It will happen so gradually that people will just lay down and die. And then "shit" will get "cray" when the elite class will no longer need humans to defend their wealth. It will be the defenseless, starving, unemployed masses, and a handful of wealthy sympathizers vs. automated police/armies programmed to police the losing end of an ever growing disparity.

This I can assure you because of all the things I've witnessed changing throughout my life; never has the fanatical religious belief that wealth and authority are tangible things even once wavered. Even those that reject wealth and stand against authority believe that they stand against physical things and not just ideas.

[IKT]

Hate to burst everyone's bubble but we'll just invent more jobs.

MMORPG game designer wasn't a thing 30 years ago, smart phone product support wasn't a thing 10 years ago, in 30 years time there will be more new job titles and things for humans to do.

[Sorrior]

The thing is, none of those things are necessary consequences that lead from "massive unemployment".

If we don't overhaul our society's mechanisms, sure. But pretty much everyone who's pro-automation like that is also speaking of wide social change.

A consumer-based economy requires producers, who produce goods for market, and consumers, to buy those goods. It does not require employment. If there's another means for ensuring that everyone can act as a consumer, such as the Basic Income system I mentioned earlier, then the economy will keep ticking along and the issues you mention simple won't come to be.

The idea that one should have to work for the ability to participate in the economy is a feature of mercantilism, not capitalism. Capitalism requires a strong consumer class, not strong employment of those consumers.

I was not familiar with mercantalism thank you. But my point was the person i replied to was if I read it right saying most people would live in a shithole like existence and the rich would rule all.

THAT scenario is what I was replying to.

[Raeph]

"Clan" is just a pseudo new age word for Unions. Unions are groups of people with shared common interests, that associate themselves by choice to look out for each other and further their collective interests.

I would say that "Union" is a type of "Clan. And, in the United States anyway, the Unions are a fading representation of a "Clan" that subsumes the rights of the individual for the needs of the collective. That kind of tribal structure is rather old-world. This is brought plainly into view where there are a number of industries and states where Union participation is forced, if not required, where removing the requirement results in a large scale loss of members for the union. (example: http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/20032)

A transition away from that type of "Clan" structure, towards one that more closely represents a traditional family structure, with members free to associate or not, would be a better alternative. To do that though would require a loss of power by current structures, with a higher emphasis on the rights of the individual with regards to free association.