The Second Machine Age Is Upon Us: Time To Reconsider The Luddites?

[winkie]

I don't think there's any intention to maintain a human population that does nothing but consume resources, food and energy without being useful to the system in some way.

It was always possible to mop up unemployment all the time you could create "service sector" jobs in banking and IT but with outsourcing, there's nothing to replace them. Low skill labour is in over supply since the iron curtain came down and now the potential for great poverty exists in ever wider geographies. Once rich nations find their middle classes being undercut and out-competed by people who are willing to work in the "capitalist dream" of the west, even though they've barely improved their lot.

How the population is reduced/culled I don't know. Maybe it will be a gradual process of natural wastage with no need to keep people in subsistence or perhaps the plan is to eliminate us in a great war "to end all wars". Whatever happens, it won't be pleasant unless you're a member of the 1%.

What if the time comes where people are catogrised by their productive potential....like babies with defects in the womb terminated not supported, elderly to be deprived of certain non productivity/cost effective health services …

Is this already starting to happen?..........having said that, the unemployed, uneducated, sick,needy, disadvantaged create the majority of the

jobs......

May be a world where part of a 'days work' could be dedicated to voluntary work, the highest paid dedicating more free hours.

[Riedquat]

Depends.. it's not as if the majority of people in the country work to their full intellectual potential right now. I doubt that this would be a huge problem, and there is the question: If people were forced to work a 20 hour week - long hours were simply not an option - would they get any less done? Even more so.. if a company had people working 20 hour weeks at full steam instead of 40 hour weeks spending half the time messing around on the internet would they even notice the difference..?

(Ironically this would reduce the impact of the shorter working week!)

Although I suspect that would happen to a certain extent I think the impact would be minor. People aren't going to start working harder because their overall hours are shorter, particularly if the days are the same length. Whilst there are very committed and very lazy exceptions people probably work at the rate they find comfortable; forcing half the hours but twice the effort may well make life more unpleasant for many.

[tomandlu]

Even Star Trek is a product of that time - a post-scarcity civilization with no real money, FFS.

I do wish they'd put a bit more thought into ST economics. Most of the series managed to skim over it, but DS9 really highlighted some of the inconsistencies. Sisko's dad ran a restaurant - how did that work? How did federation citizens pay Quark to use his bar and gambling tables?

[Traktion]

Always?

Most locations humans live in the future will be artificially created in space. Worrying about land is incredibly short-term thinking; very soon we will be 'making more of it', far more than exists here on the surface of Earth.

All that will matter in the long-term future is raw resources, intelligence and energy, because anything can be built from that once you're off this planet. Including land.

'Always' as in while we are stuck on this planet.

[interestrateripoff]

I do wish they'd put a bit more thought into ST economics. Most of the series managed to skim over it, but DS9 really highlighted some of the inconsistencies. Sisko's dad ran a restaurant - how did that work? How did federation citizens pay Quark to use his bar and gambling tables?

By getting gold pressed latinum?

Perhaps the Federation just had a tab and picked up the bill each month?

I thought the whole premise was money didn't exist and everyone just did what they did for love so to speak?

[Self Employed Youth]

Always?

Most locations humans live in the future will be artificially created in space. Worrying about land is incredibly short-term thinking; very soon we will be 'making more of it', far more than exists here on the surface of Earth.

All that will matter in the long-term future is raw resources, intelligence and energy, because anything can be built from that once you're off this planet. Including land.

Accessing that space, and the construction of locations in that space will be dependent upon access to land here.

[wonderpup]

Relative to wages rents haven't moved much. Relative to wages prices have moved a great deal, due to the availability of cheap credit. The fact remains you cannot have a business producing something that no-one can afford to buy. It self corrects. Thats why rents have needed to stay within affordability constraints. You cannot sell something for more than can be paid !

That last line would include labor itself of course- you can't sell you labor for more than anyone is willing to pay for it. But what happens when the price you can get for your labor falls below the amount you need to stay alive?

The free market answer is that you die- but most people are not willing to accept that answer- hence we have riots and revolutions when the ability of a critical mass of people to feed themselves is called into question.

You are right to point out that if lots of people lost their jobs to automation lots of business's would die- leading to more people without jobs, causing more business's to die and more people without jobs.

And it's true to say that at some point an equilibrium would be reached where production and demand from those who managed to keep their jobs came into balance- but what about the people who have been excluded from this arrangement- what do they do?

So while in theory a technocratic elite could live happily ever after in a highly automated system that provided their every need- in practice they would be torn apart by the starving mobs who had the bad taste to continue to exist despite no longer having any productive value.

We are already seeing the emergence of a distinct elite who are the clear winners in the current system- and there is every sign that their wealth and power will continue to increase in the future- but this is not a stable arrangement- and capitalism in it's present form seems to have no solution to offer us- except more of the same and a growing divide between the have's and the have not's.

[Traktion]

That last line would include labor itself of course- you can't sell you labor for more than anyone is willing to pay for it. But what happens when the price you can get for your labor falls below the amount you need to stay alive?

The free market answer is that you die- but most people are not willing to accept that answer- hence we have riots and revolutions when the ability of a critical mass of people to feed themselves is called into question.

...

Charity is also a product of the free market and free association.

[cybernoid]

That last line would include labor itself of course- you can't sell you labor for more than anyone is willing to pay for it. But what happens when the price you can get for your labor falls below the amount you need to stay alive?

It won't. No-one would work for less than they need to survive. An employer would find no workers when offering pay at that level. It self corrects at that end as well.

Identifying a theoretical trend and extending it to a point where the world ends isn't a useful predicting technique ! It won't get there.

"if lots of people lost their jobs to automation lots of business's would die"

I didn't say that, I said the businesses would be able to sell their goods at a lower price which the population could afford even if they were earning less due to automation.

"You are right to point out "

A note about your tone. Your musings and/or opinion are not the definition of what is correct. Do you think you are teaching or being taught?

[Pindar]

What if the time comes where people are catogrised by their productive potential....like babies with defects in the womb terminated not supported, elderly to be deprived of certain non productivity/cost effective health services …

Is this already starting to happen?..........having said that, the unemployed, uneducated, sick,needy, disadvantaged create the majority of the

jobs......

May be a world where part of a 'days work' could be dedicated to voluntary work, the highest paid dedicating more free hours.

Yes, it's already started to happen. The "Liverpool care plan" is an example of euthanasia by the back door. In a time when there is no longer any need for small countries to groom children for certain occupations through education and nurturing of talent, there is only so far the state will go to support people who serve no economic purpose <sic>. I'm not against euthanasia if it's voluntary, but the trend it seems, is towards soft-killing the sick and elderly by passive means.

For now, the care of the disadvantaged, sick and elderly is a growth industry but long term I suspect that science will seek ways to remove such cases from society, in a perfectly ordered and controlled society, just as predicted by Aldous Huxley.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Pindar

[wonderpup]

Charity is also a product of the free market and free association.

Charity is a contradiction of the free market- at least the free market in which self interest is supposed to be the source of all solutions.

But I suppose a sufficiently smart elite might realize that it would be in their self interest to be charitable- even the Emperors of ancient Rome were smart enough to placate the mob with bread and circus's.

[wonderpup]

It won't. No-one would work for less than they need to survive. An employer would find no workers when offering pay at that level. It self corrects at that end as well.

I didn't say that people would work for less than they need to survive-I said they would be reluctant to stop surviving simply because the system defined them as surplus to requirements.

Identifying a theoretical trend and extending it to a point where the world ends isn't a useful predicting technique ! It won't get there.

Correct- the scenario you imagine in which prices and wages gently deflate together will not happen due to the binary nature of unemployment. When you lose your job your income does not depreciate over many months or years it drops off a cliff. So you end up with a schism between those still employed who can still afford to buy- and a growing number of others who are totally excluded.

The distinction between a low wage and no wage is not merely quantitative- it's absolute. To a man with zero income even the lowest price is beyond his reach- deflation will not help him in any way at all.

"if lots of people lost their jobs to automation lots of business's would die"

I didn't say that, I said the businesses would be able to sell their goods at a lower price which the population could afford even if they were earning less due to automation.

Again you fail here to make the vital distinction between a low wage and no wage. Unemployment is binary- you either have an income or you do not. How does the free market system deal with a large number of zero wage individuals? It does not- because it cannot process the concept of wageless labor.

"You are right to point out "

A note about your tone. Your musings and/or opinion are not the definition of what is correct. Do you think you are teaching or being taught?

It's quite funny you lecturing me about tone- given that you regularly sprinkle your replies with assertions that I am either insane or a moron.

Obviously if I express an opinion on something I believe that opinion to be the correct opinion- I simply give you credit for being bright enough not to need me to preface every comment I make with an IMPO.

I can't win anyway- even when I say you are right you disagree with me.

[scepticus]

Or, people will starve until people are sufficiently scarce.

A seemingly flippant but IMO prescient comment.

The first machine revolution was about replacing human labour, thereby freeing people to become better educated, allowing larger concentrations in urban areas so as to develop general economies of scale. The energy situation was a non issue because there was so much untapped energy stores - starting with coal. Any labour freed up by automation was gainfully employed building our urban infrastructure and unlocking yet more energy flows from newly accessible reservoirs.

The second machine revolution is about substituting machines for people.

If one believes the energy situation is in theory entirely unconstrained like Traktion thinks, then the scenario of the first revolution should play out. If, OTOH, there exists material constraints on energy either from an existing stocks (and stocks EROEI perspective), then the man-machine substitution scenario is valid.

Even in the latter case, there would be some optimal trade off between man and machine since for the foreseeable future the machine infrastructure needs a vast human knowledge/education infrastructure to sustain it. Personally, while I believe in the energy constraint scenario, I don't believe in the hard AI scenario. There are many many jobs that are well out of range of cost effective (read: total energy cost effective) automation.

I think we have to accept that:

1) various existing technologies are actually net energy wasters and will have to be de-emphasised

2) a good portion of the human population are net energy wasters and will have to be substituted with more efficient processes

The optimisation point between these two probably results in the gradual loss of some of the human population and some of the machinery via attrition. The resulting remainder is the maximally efficient hybrid. I would say this process is underway, and whether it happens via inflation/deflation for example, is rather secondary.

[tomandlu]

Yes, it's already started to happen. The "Liverpool care plan" is an example of euthanasia by the back door. In a time when there is no longer any need for small countries to groom children for certain occupations through education and nurturing of talent, there is only so far the state will go to support people who serve no economic purpose <sic>. I'm not against euthanasia if it's voluntary, but the trend it seems, is towards soft-killing the sick and elderly by passive means.

For now, the care of the disadvantaged, sick and elderly is a growth industry but long term I suspect that science will seek ways to remove such cases from society, in a perfectly ordered and controlled society, just as predicted by Aldous Huxley.

My wife and I work in the area of renal medicine, and if you think shoving a 85 year old man on dialysis is a humane action, I'd ask you to consider the matter again.

Passive withdrawal of treatment is not euthanasia - it's just recognising that people get old and die.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't try to treat chronic degenerative diseases in the old. It's a waste of resources and effort and generally seems to bring nothing but misery for the patient and the patient's family.

Medical science will continue to advance, but until we can actually restore someone to vitality, we will need to consider more than just "can we keep this patient alive?"

[200p]

In France, hundreds of years ago, there was a textile factory where the workers were being replaced by the machines that could sew and stitch much faster than humans could. In retaliation, the workers threw they shoes into the machines to jam them and break them. In France, their shoes were called Sabots. The word Saboteur, possibly comes from this.

Edited February 26, 2014 by 200p

[Riedquat]

The optimisation point between these two probably results in the gradual loss of some of the human population and some of the machinery via attrition. The resulting remainder is the maximally efficient hybrid. I would say this process is underway, and whether it happens via inflation/deflation for example, is rather secondary.

What stopes it eroding away to zero people then? Fewer people overall means less work needs doing anyway - the percentage left employed remains constant, not the absolute number.

We should also consider what we actually want - is the most efficient system economically (or perhaps energetically) the most desirable? Ultimately it doesn't make sense to build a machine to do a job a person can do unless that person can be better employed elsewhere. So it's not efficient anyway - labour becomes a resource going entirely to waste.

[Traktion]

Charity is a contradiction of the free market- at least the free market in which self interest is supposed to be the source of all solutions.

But I suppose a sufficiently smart elite might realize that it would be in their self interest to be charitable- even the Emperors of ancient Rome were smart enough to placate the mob with bread and circus's.

Alternatively, it is just a reflection of humanity, where people actually care about one another and those around them - they call this society, I believe.

[cybernoid]

I didn't say that people would work for less than they need to survive-I said they would be reluctant to stop surviving simply because the system defined them as surplus to requirements.

Alternatively, it is just a reflection of humanity, where people actually care about one another and those around them - they call this society, I believe.

Those like wonderpup enjoy pretending capitalism with free market economics is inherently inhuman, that those who point out the benefits of such systems are uncaring etc etc. Its a silly common meme put about by socialists in the absence of a workable ideology of their own.

Again all of this stuff ignores reality, that we are a collection of people, that 'the system' is not allowed to get to these theoretical end game scenarios these types love to announce as inevitable. These theories always remain just that, but reality is rather more complicated and doesn't excite them quite so much. Neither is it as easy to understand so you can see why such people gravitate towards them rather than accept the real world views offered by those with actual experience of it.

It's quite funny you lecturing me about tone- given that you regularly sprinkle your replies with assertions that I am either insane or a moron.

I will leave you, gentle reader, to make your own judgement about that.

[tomandlu]

Those like wonderpup enjoy pretending capitalism with free market economics is inherently inhuman, that those who point out the benefits of such systems are uncaring etc etc. Its a silly common meme put about by socialists in the absence of a workable ideology of their own.

Again all of this stuff ignores reality, that we are a collection of people, that 'the system' is not allowed to get to these theoretical end game scenarios these types love to announce as inevitable. These theories always remain just that, but reality is rather more complicated and doesn't excite them quite so much. Neither is it as easy to understand so you can see why such people gravitate towards them rather than accept the real world views offered by those with actual experience of it.

Jobs displaced by automation can only be replaced by new technologies or by lowering the cost of labour such that it is cheaper to employ a human than a machine. The former implies perpetual growth, the latter implies reduced consumption and increased poverty. Growth as a natural occurrence is fine, but to demand it as the only solution to increased productive efficiency is just as stupid as ludditism.

The end game of 100% robots is a theoretical experiment, but that doesn't make it irrelevant.

What solution do you think capitalism gives? Why are you so rude?

[Riedquat]

Again all of this stuff ignores reality, that we are a collection of people, that 'the system' is not allowed to get to these theoretical end game scenarios these types love to announce as inevitable. These theories always remain just that, but reality is rather more complicated and doesn't excite them quite so much. Neither is it as easy to understand so you can see why such people gravitate towards them rather than accept the real world views offered by those with actual experience of it.

Extremes and simplifications from reality are necessary in order to consider the main underlying functions at work. The complexity of reality is just noise on top of that and is meaningless to examine if you don't get a good idea of the fundamentals.

Whilst society will generally stop us progressing right to the extremes it doesn't really do much about the underlying funamentals - you need to consider those if you want a better society, and only the most out of touch could possibly think we've got the best possible society right now. Even if you know that we won't hit the extremes it's also useful to recognise whether we're heading in that direction. The means by which they're avoided are generally unpleasant - prevention is definitely better than cure, as well as hopefully stopping us from lurching from one disaster to another.

Finally (and I admit you didn't mention this, but it often is brought up) - "Well what do you suggest we do about it?" A valid question but not having an answer isn't necessarily a bad thing. The first stage is to even acknowledge that there's an issue.

[scepticus]

What stopes it eroding away to zero people then? Fewer people overall means less work needs doing anyway - the percentage left employed remains constant, not the absolute number.

If machines are perfect - or even adequate - substitutes for humans then there is nothing to stop it. That would be the 'HARD AI' scenario. However as I said I don't think machines are there yet and I don't think machines as we know and understand the term will get there in any meaningful horizon.

The burden of educating humans sufficiently to sustain a given technological machine base (in terms of both the machine capability and quantity) is sufficiently large - especially given that for any set of humans some will always fall below the required education level to contribute much - that I would expect a stable equilibrium to be likely.

We should also consider what we actually want - is the most efficient system economically (or perhaps energetically) the most desirable? Ultimately it doesn't make sense to build a machine to do a job a person can do unless that person can be better employed elsewhere. So it's not efficient anyway - labour becomes a resource going entirely to waste.

I think its a fallacy to think human civilisation evolves according to 'what we want'. Both humans and machines (and other complex structures) come into existence as a result stimulation of the environment by sufficiently steep free energy gradients. The result is creation or sustenance of complexity and the degradation of that free energy,

Any mix of men and machines could in theory suffice to perform that function as long as the whole can sustain its existence and retain sufficient ability to adapt, and the whole assemblage is not leaving available free energy untapped (because eif it does something will arise to use it up).

[cybernoid]

The end game of 100% robots is a theoretical experiment, but that doesn't make it irrelevant.

It also doesn't make it reality, some people here I fear actually think its reality.

Finally (and I admit you didn't mention this, but it often is brought up) - "Well what do you suggest we do about it?" A valid question but not having an answer isn't necessarily a bad thing. The first stage is to even acknowledge that there's an issue.

You say you got a real solution

Well, you know

We'd all love to see the plan

You ask me for a contribution

Well, you know

We're doing what we can

…

You say you'll change the constitution

Well, you know

We all want to change your head

You tell me it's the institution

Well, you know

You better free you mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao

You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know it's gonna be all right

[wonderpup]

Alternatively, it is just a reflection of humanity, where people actually care about one another and those around them - they call this society, I believe.

The arms trade is also a reflection of society- and it's much better funded than the charity sector. The UK has the forth largest military on earth- which does not come cheap- and yet we are told that the same UK must make disabled kids homeless because the house they live in has a spare bedroom- an apparently unsupportable cost to the nation with the forth largest military on the f*cking planet? Really?

If anything we seem to be going backwards as far as humanity is concerned- so I am not optimistic that those who are thrown out of work by technology will be treated very well- especially if their numbers grow to any large extent.

The truth is that we love automation but hate the unemployed- we cherish efficiency of production but despise it's 'waste product' - the people whose jobs have been sacrificed to achieve it.

As a society we are totally schizophrenic on this issue- everyone agrees that those jobs that can be eliminated by technology should be eliminated by technology- but no one has any coherent answer as to what to do with the people who that technology replaces.

[tomandlu]

As a society we are totally schizophrenic on this issue- everyone agrees that those jobs that can be eliminated by technology should be eliminated by technology- but no one has any coherent answer as to what to do with the people who that technology replaces.

*cough* CI *cough*

[winkie]

Charity is a contradiction of the free market- at least the free market in which self interest is supposed to be the source of all solutions.

But I suppose a sufficiently smart elite might realize that it would be in their self interest to be charitable- even the Emperors of ancient Rome were smart enough to placate the mob with bread and circus's.

The 'elites' know very well all about charity, charity gets them where they want to be....free gifts for those with power and influence pays bonuses......the greatest fear is for the 'workers' to gather strength in numbers, the way to avoid trouble is to 'divide and conquer' keeping people competing amongst themselves for the crumbs, more bread for themselves.