PDA

View Full Version : Sooner or later, a version of socialism will be the only viable economic system...



SkapePhin
05-17-2012, 01:29 PM
When many of the current low and mid-range jobs are displaced by an automated robot workforce, there will be a substantial portion of the population that will be unemployed and with no means to find new employment because they lack the education or cognitive faculties to perform work that involves higher level intelligence.

So what are we going to do with these people? Let them die of starvation? They will need money to survive, and likewise, corporations will need money in their hands so that they can purchase goods, or the economy would collapse. Considering that this would be a substantial portion of the population, if they were left unemployed and in poverty for too long, riots and violence would be inevitable.

As such, people will need to have some sort of stipend just for merely breathing. Does anyone see a way around this? Is our current economic system sustainable in a world where the majority of physical labor and low-end jobs are performed by machines that have the capability of repairing and managing themselves without human assistance?

GoonBoss
05-17-2012, 01:33 PM
I say let them starve.

Tunaphish429
05-17-2012, 01:38 PM
We have social programs now so its not too far off...three options ...give ppl jobs so they can earn. Give them programs so they can survive. Or there will be hell if they don't get one of the latter.

SkapePhin
05-17-2012, 01:41 PM
I say let them starve.

Brutal. GoonBoss is like nature.

Even if you feel that way, the will to survive is strong. If you let them starve, I'm sure there will be an uprising the likes of which not seen in modern times, at which point life in America would resemble a zombie apocalypse movie, with people running around with shotguns blasting everything in sight...

I think everyone has an interest in ensuring that an angry mob of starving people interested in survival aren't roaming the streets...

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------


We have social programs now so its not too far off...three options ...give ppl jobs so they can earn. Give them programs so they can survive. Or there will be hell if they don't get one of the latter.

What do you mean by programs? And if all the jobs they can perform are already performed better by robots, what jobs would we give them? A redundant job just for the purposes of giving them something to do that will give them money?

Dolphins9954
05-17-2012, 01:46 PM
The markets will handle the change. Just like back in the day when there use to be guys that would go door to door selling ice. They would have a big block of it and shave off ice for people to keep there food cold or for other reasons. Then low and behold the refrigerator was invented and put all the ice men out of business. Markets change all the time and will handle this.

SkapePhin
05-17-2012, 01:48 PM
The markets will handle the change. Just like back in the day when there use to be guys that would go door to door selling ice. They would have a big block of it and shave off ice for people to keep there food cold or for other reasons. Then low and behold the refrigerator was invented and put all the ice men out of business. Markets change all the time and will handle this.

This is a much larger shift though, especially considering the change could happen almost over night, and replace a huge portion of the existing workforce. We aren't that far off at this moment. I'd say much of the lower wage jobs could be replaced by an automated workforce within the next 20 years. The transition needs to start happening soon, or there will be a lot of people left out in the cold. Hungry, angry people who will have a strong will to survive...

These are the jobs that could be gone in the next 2 decades:
Any job requiring physical labor
Farming
Manufacturing
Cash registers
Secretaries
Data entry positions
Taxi / Bus drivers
Pilots
Cooks
Servers
Janitors
Customer Service
Law enforcement

These are just a few of the industries and jobs that would be disrupted in a major way. There are many more. Heck, even IT could be disrupted somewhat, as future robots and AI might be capable of human level intelligence and would have resources enough to repair themselves and manufacture more robots.

Almost half of the workforce would be disrupted. That's not a minor change, and I will be interested in how the markets will handle such a sudden shift. Where will all these people find jobs?

Dolphins9954
05-17-2012, 01:55 PM
This is a much larger shift though, especially considering the change could happen almost over night, and replace a huge portion of the existing workforce. We aren't that far off at this moment. I'd say much of the lower wage jobs could be replaced by an automated workforce within the next 20 years. The transition needs to start happening soon, or there will be a lot of people left out in the cold. Hungry, angry people who will have a strong will to survive...

It will be fine. You still need people to build and maintain all these robots or machines. Markets change and adapt to the economy and demand. New things and products will come out that will replace the jobs lost. The biggest mistake will be having the government micro-manage and predict what the economy will be.

SkapePhin
05-17-2012, 01:57 PM
It will be fine. You still need people to build and maintain all these robots or machines. Markets change and adapt to the economy and demand. New things and products will come out that will replace the jobs lost. The biggest mistake will be having the government micro-manage and predict what the economy will be.

That's what I'm saying though. These robots WON'T need humans to build and maintain them... They will be able to do that themselves, in a superior way than any human could do...

Dolphins9954
05-17-2012, 02:04 PM
That's what I'm saying though. These robots WON'T need humans to build and maintain them... They will be able to do that themselves, in a superior way than any human could do...

Then you're talking Terminator. At that point it won't matter anyways.

GoonBoss
05-17-2012, 02:09 PM
Brutal. GoonBoss is like nature.

Even if you feel that way, the will to survive is strong. If you let them starve, I'm sure there will be an uprising the likes of which not seen in modern times, at which point life in America would resemble a zombie apocalypse movie, with people running around with shotguns blasting everything in sight...

I think everyone has an interest in ensuring that an angry mob of starving people interested in survival aren't roaming the streets...

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------



What do you mean by programs? And if all the jobs they can perform are already performed better by robots, what jobs would we give them? A redundant job just for the purposes of giving them something to do that will give them money?

If there are to be mobs, let them come. I've got plenty of ammo.

Your point is well taken, but to what degree to we hamstring a nation by taking care of people who literally, will not fend for themselves?

Tetragrammaton
05-17-2012, 02:16 PM
This all gets very theoretical. It is hard to predict one way or the other.

But yes, many jobs you see so many people in today will disappear. On a smaller scale, you see automated dispensaries like Redbox or centralized warehouses like Netflix laying waste to video stores, and on a larger scale, Amazon's dominance is leading to the bankruptcies of things like Best Buy. The tech industry will grow, but the numbers won't be the same.

GoonBoss
05-17-2012, 02:18 PM
This all gets very theoretical. It is hard to predict one way or the other.

But yes, many jobs you see so many people in today will disappear.

This is why death does not concern me.

It's the process we all go through.

200K people die? Who cares? There's more.

Tetragrammaton
05-17-2012, 02:43 PM
This is why death does not concern me.

It's the process we all go through.

200K people die? Who cares? There's more.

Are you auditioning to be the villain in the new James Bond film?

LANGER72
05-17-2012, 03:18 PM
That's what I'm saying though. These robots WON'T need humans to build and maintain them... They will be able to do that themselves, in a superior way than any human could do...

You have been watching too much Skynet on Terminator channel.

I will be retired living in a 4th world country by then.

GoonBoss
05-17-2012, 03:25 PM
Are you auditioning to be the villain in the new James Bond film?

Brother........I'm a burrito away from stroking a white cat in a motorized wheelchair.

One death is a tragedy. A million deaths are a statistic.

SkapePhin
05-17-2012, 03:26 PM
You have been watching too much Skynet on Terminator channel.

Or not...

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/17/the-dangers-of-an-ai-smarter-than-us


For Armstrong, the AI we should be afraid of is not the "beatable humanoid robot we see in the movies" but rather a computer program or even a digital avatar that has been freed from our "biological limitations" to demonstrate "skills and abilities beyond what is considered to be human"; whether the ability to plan centuries ahead, to see patterns that we cannot or to link instantly to the internet, or even the social skill of "being always able to say the right thing at the right time" to get what it wants without humans even realising the game play.

"AI would be able to use its superpowers to accumulate vast fortunes on the stock exchange, or even 'be Google', as AI would be cheaper and more productive than the human workers currently employed. It could even be a Super Clinton or Super Goebbels, able to take over by persuading us to let it." Or it may gain more powers that we have not even thought of, given that "the space beyond human intelligence is vast".

Technology grows exponentially... The computers we own are becoming obsolete faster and faster. Artificial Intelligence is growing quicker and quicker. There will reach a point when AI is equal to human level intelligence. At that point, what is to stop it from exceeding our intelligence? It has no biological constraints. It is essentially immortal, since it can back itself up and exist in a networked way like the internet, not like an individual human that is constrained by the limits of its body.

An AI will be able to iterate faster and faster and leave us in the dust. Humans are already becoming obsolete.

My initial argument might not matter, because that reality might not exist for long, but there will come a time when the workforce is almost completely automated and humans are the gatekeepers for the time being, until AIs no longer have a need for us... At least that is my fear. I recognize how that sounds like crazy talk, but when you look at the pattern of the data, it really isn't. The world will be unrecognizable in 100 years, just as the world today would be unrecognizable to a person from 100 years ago.

SkapePhin
05-17-2012, 03:37 PM
FYI, If you are worried about AIs and the future of humanity, this is a good cause to support: http://singinst.org/donate/

Valandui
05-17-2012, 03:48 PM
We won't ever be socialist, we're already a fascitst oligarchy. They are basically the same thing, though.

Locke
05-17-2012, 07:35 PM
True socialism will never work. It relies on people being generous and not taking more than they need. There's a better chance of Mila Kunis, Mila Jovovich, and Kate Beckinsale showing up on my doorstep naked and ready to rock my world than of getting an entire population of people to behave that way.

You're right though Skape, eventually some form of socialism will be the norm. Hell, we're already on our way there. In the end, it will be a hybrid capitalism/socialism model, I think...

Tetragrammaton
05-17-2012, 08:23 PM
We won't ever be socialist, we're already a fascitst oligarchy. They are basically the same thing, though.

They are actually the exact opposite.

Valandui
05-17-2012, 09:37 PM
They are actually the exact opposite.

Not really. In one, the "people" own the means of production and the government controls them in the name of the people. In the other, the means of production are privately owned and the government tells the people what they can and can't do with them and how to use them. Either way, the same people are in charge and the only real difference is semantics. Hence, Germany's fascist ruling party was called the National Socialist Workers' Party.

Tetragrammaton
05-17-2012, 09:40 PM
Not really. In one, the "people" own the means of production and the government controls them in the name of the people. In the other, the means of production are privately owned and the government tells the people what they can and can't do with them and how to use them. Either way, the same people are in charge and the only real difference is semantics. Hence, Germany's fascist ruling party was called the National Socialist Workers' Party.

It doesn't matter what the party called itself; after all, would you equate the People's Republic of China with the republican government we enjoy?

If you want to equate Mussolini-Hitler fascism with Stalinist-Maoist communism, fine, but the socialism of Dennis Kucinich, Gandhi, and the European socialist parties are the exact opposite of those. They are all about personal liberty.

Valandui
05-17-2012, 09:57 PM
It doesn't matter what the party called itself; after all, would you equate the People's Republic of China with the republican government we enjoy?

If you want to equate Mussolini-Hitler fascism with Stalinist-Maoist communism, fine, but the socialism of Dennis Kucinich, Gandhi, and the European socialist parties are the exact opposite of those. They are all about personal liberty.

Unfortunately, the former is closer to what the American government is.

Tunaphish429
05-17-2012, 10:13 PM
Brutal. GoonBoss is like nature.

Even if you feel that way, the will to survive is strong. If you let them starve, I'm sure there will be an uprising the likes of which not seen in modern times, at which point life in America would resemble a zombie apocalypse movie, with people running around with shotguns blasting everything in sight...

I think everyone has an interest in ensuring that an angry mob of starving people interested in survival aren't roaming the streets...

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------



What do you mean by programs? And if all the jobs they can perform are already performed better by robots, what jobs would we give them? A redundant job just for the purposes of giving them something to do that will give them money?


Social programs..EBT, Medicaid etc..I think your being a bit dramatic with the jobs things tho...our society and its ppl have to gain skills to earn jobs..I only have a high school diploma and I have a decent job...

LouPhinFan
05-17-2012, 11:36 PM
True socialism will never work. It relies on people being generous and not taking more than they need. There's a better chance of Mila Kunis, Mila Jovovich, and Kate Beckinsale showing up on my doorstep naked and ready to rock my world than of getting an entire population of people to behave that way.


I like your idea of a party, especially the Kate Beckinsale part. My wife likes to call Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson her "boyfriend" and I like to call Kate Beckinsale "my girlfriend". I would literally watch anything with her in it. I happened to catch her on Ellen the other day when I got home from work and man she looked good!

Locke
05-17-2012, 11:40 PM
I like your idea of a party, especially the Kate Beckinsale part. My wife likes to call Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson her "boyfriend" and I like to call Kate Beckinsale "my girlfriend". I would literally watch anything with her in it. I happened to catch her on Ellen the other day when I got home from work and man she looked good!

Right? I don't think anyone will top her in Van Helsing. It was a horrible horrible movie, but good god was she stunning with the accent and the perfectly form-fitting costumes...

LouPhinFan
05-17-2012, 11:47 PM
Right? I don't think anyone will top her in Van Helsing. It was a horrible horrible movie, but good god was she stunning with the accent and the perfectly form-fitting costumes...

Completely agree. That movie was awful but she's never looked better in a movie than that one. Sure she's wearing the catsuit in the Underworld movies (haven't seen the latest one yet) but there was something about her look in Van Helsing that got me. Vavoom!

Can't wait to see her do a turn as a villain in the remake of Total Recall​.

cdz12250
05-18-2012, 03:32 AM
When many of the current low and mid-range jobs are displaced by an automated robot workforce, there will be a substantial portion of the population that will be unemployed and with no means to find new employment because they lack the education or cognitive faculties to perform work that involves higher level intelligence.

So what are we going to do with these people? Let them die of starvation? They will need money to survive, and likewise, corporations will need money in their hands so that they can purchase goods, or the economy would collapse. Considering that this would be a substantial portion of the population, if they were left unemployed and in poverty for too long, riots and violence would be inevitable.

As such, people will need to have some sort of stipend just for merely breathing. Does anyone see a way around this? Is our current economic system sustainable in a world where the majority of physical labor and low-end jobs are performed by machines that have the capability of repairing and managing themselves without human assistance?

Karl, is that you?

Locke
05-18-2012, 11:44 AM
Karl, is that you?

This is why it's hard to have serious discussions on message boards. What does Karl Marx have to do with this conversation? He wrote the COMMUNIST Manifesto. And, if you've ever read it, you'd know it doesn't really talk about communism all that much. It talks much more about the conflict model in sociology...

Eshlemon
05-18-2012, 02:25 PM
True socialism will never work. It relies on people being generous and not taking more than they need. There's a better chance of Mila Kunis, Mila Jovovich, and Kate Beckinsale showing up on my doorstep naked and ready to rock my world than of getting an entire population of people to behave that way.

You're right though Skape, eventually some form of socialism will be the norm. Hell, we're already on our way there. In the end, it will be a hybrid capitalism/socialism model, I think...

So, we'd have a socialist paradise if we're not sinners and all obeyed to its will despite their being no proof of this. Think this was preached to me in my youth at church. Whose heaven doesn't have angels and require devotion? Not trying to be overly santimonious, if thats your faith, fine. I do not believe in it any more than any other utopian fantasylands.

As for posters question of mechanization means the only economic system for humanity is now socialism. Vast amounts of technoligical advancements have changed humanity's work force over time and now we're the ones that won't adapt? We need to give them money because they don't have the jobs to buy stuff being built by robots any more and won't ever be able to do so? The only way they won't is if you try to pay not to, because as Locke pointed out people are selfish. As Dophins9954 stated people are going to find something to do in society whether its ice deliverymen or candlemakers. Does this mean all socialist ideas are bunk, not anymore than all religious...charity for example.

Locke
05-18-2012, 03:37 PM
So, we'd have a socialist paradise if we're not sinners and all obeyed to its will despite their being no proof of this. Think this was preached to me in my youth at church. Whose heaven doesn't have angels and require devotion? Not trying to be overly santimonious, if thats your faith, fine. I do not believe in it any more than any other utopian fantasylands.

As for posters question of mechanization means the only economic system for humanity is now socialism. Vast amounts of technoligical advancements have changed humanity's work force over time and now we're the ones that won't adapt? We need to give them money because they don't have the jobs to buy stuff being built by robots any more and won't ever be able to do so? The only way they won't is if you try to pay not to, because as Locke pointed out people are selfish. As Dophins9954 stated people are going to find something to do in society whether its ice deliverymen or candlemakers. Does this mean all socialist ideas are bunk, not anymore than all religious...charity for example.

You quoted me, so I'm assuming this was directed at me. I didn't say anything about a paradise, and I'm not quite sure how faith was brought into this. My point was socialism is based on the idea that the means of production are owned by the people, and that it is distributed evenly. The implication in that statement, the distributed evenly part, is that each and every person in society will take only what they need, and leave the rest for everyone else to do the same. It sounds great on paper. No one in a society is left wanting. There are no social classes because everyone is at the same socioeconomic level, which means crime rates would plummet. Everyone is pushed to the mean, which means there are no rich people, but also no poor people. The issue with this is that chances are you'd have a tough time finding 10 people willing to take only what they need and leave the rest, nevermind millions. It's the same reason communism failed. What started out as a pretty good idea was taken over by greed, and those in power decided to just keep everything, rather than distribute it.

I'd love to live in a society that was based off of socialism. Unfortunately, like every other sociological model, they are awesome in theory, but never really end up working out the way they were intended...

Eshlemon
05-18-2012, 04:16 PM
You quoted me, so I'm assuming this was directed at me. I didn't say anything about a paradise, and I'm not quite sure how faith was brought into this. My point was socialism is based on the idea that the means of production are owned by the people, and that it is distributed evenly. The implication in that statement, the distributed evenly part, is that each and every person in society will take only what they need, and leave the rest for everyone else to do the same. It sounds great on paper. No one in a society is left wanting. There are no social classes because everyone is at the same socioeconomic level, which means crime rates would plummet. Everyone is pushed to the mean, which means there are no rich people, but also no poor people. The issue with this is that chances are you'd have a tough time finding 10 people willing to take only what they need and leave the rest, nevermind millions. It's the same reason communism failed. What started out as a pretty good idea was taken over by greed, and those in power decided to just keep everything, rather than distribute it.

I'd love to live in a society that was based off of socialism. Unfortunately, like every other sociological model, they are awesome in theory, but never really end up working out the way they were intended...

I apologize for group you with others that refer to communisim and socialism as a mythical workers paradise. The rest is valid if you think it would work if we just weren't greedy...or sloth, envy, pride, etc. In otherwise, it would work if only we weren't human. Anyone can say their ideology would work better or best if only we are angels and not human.

Locke
05-18-2012, 04:40 PM
I apologize for group you with others that refer to communisim and socialism as a mythical workers paradise. The rest is valid if you think it would work if we just weren't greedy...or sloth, envy, pride, etc. In otherwise, it would work if only we weren't human. Anyone can say their ideology would work better or best if only we are angels and not human.

Agreed. Some people tend to romanticize socialism, but don't really have the ability to see some of the fatal flaws in it's practicality. That's not to say an evolved version won't pop up eventually. But as of right now, I don't see a viable form of it. Not with the way the rest of society is structured at this point in time at least...

Eshlemon
05-18-2012, 05:05 PM
Agreed. Some people tend to romanticize socialism, but don't really have the ability to see some of the fatal flaws in it's practicality. That's not to say an evolved version won't pop up eventually. But as of right now, I don't see a viable form of it. Not with the way the rest of society is structured at this point in time at least...

...when individuality replaced with a group mind or machines take over and wire everbody in a matrix?

Locke
05-18-2012, 05:16 PM
...when individuality replaced with a group mind or machines take over and wire everbody in a matrix?

If only. I've always wanted to battle machines in an underground world...

Eshlemon
05-18-2012, 05:47 PM
If only. I've always wanted to battle machines in an underground world...

Always got to be some frakking individualists fighting the tolitarian collective.