Restructuring the Economy... & Society

[dust]

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/dec/09/amazon-go-means-more-than-just-job-losses-it-will-restructure-the-economy

 

I'm just learning about Amazon Go and similar further implications of technology's unstoppable development. Article is worth a read. Apologies if this is being discussed somewhere else already.

 

Certainly the whole article is worth discussion, but the conclusion perhaps most of all:
 

The role of government in this sort of economy is more to facilitate innovation and education, but that won’t be enough.

 

Left to itself, this sort of economy is also a recipe for massive inequality and insecurity. Platforms like Uber or Amazon Go, because they need so few workers, tend to funnel the wealth they generate to owners and investors rather than distribute it broadly via wages.

 

The role of government therefore becomes one of equalisation, of finding ways to see that the wealth generated in the new economy doesn’t simply flow to a tiny number of people at the top of the new corporations. The most efficient way for governments to do this is by the mechanism of a universal basic income, a guaranteed wage for everyone, that not only provides a financial floor below which no one can fall, but allows us to redefine the sort of work we do and find meaningful.

 

That is to say, by breaking the link between survival and work, UBI allows us all to not only benefit from the technology, but to reinvent what we even mean by the concept of work.

 

Aside from climate change, this reinvention of work is the most wicked problem facing humanity, and we can see the unease it causes reflected in the politics surrounding Brexit, and of Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and Pauline Hanson. What all these politicians have in common is they promise to “bring back the jobs” because they understand how important a decent job is to most people.

 

But developments like Amazon Go are a sharp reminder of how hollow such promises are. Our societies are being transformed right before our eyes. Automation is increasingly displacing human workers and so the politicians we need are not those playing on our insecurities by conjuring an image of the past, but those who can offer us a realistic vision of what comes next.

 

[Taoist Texts]

The most efficient way for governments to do this is by the mechanism of a universal basic income, a guaranteed wage for everyone, 

 

 

Slavery.

[dust]

Slavery.

 

Heh. Could be.

 

The way I see it, society has always been structured around a few elites (whether of 'noble' birth, superior business acumen, willingness to do anything to make money, etc) who amass a majority of the wealth and leave a majority of the people to their scraps, to live in relative discomfort (slavery, or poverty, or just a relatively poor working class).

 

It's still happening -- the capacity of companies like Amazon to amass all this wealth and power is nothing new. But if society wants to get ahead of the coming trend (and it is going to happen, whether we want it to or not), isn't the best way of ensuring that quality of life continues to improve for most people to ensure that nobody gets left behind economically because there is literally nothing for them to do?

 

There are still plenty of things for people to do now. If we're sensible we look ahead and we don't plan on retail as a lifelong career choice, perhaps -- we look at computing, or healthcare, or whatever. But at some point most career paths that now exist won't be needed at all...

[Astral Monk]

Basic wage is not the answer. Supporting any model of economy that requires currency is not the answer. Any proposal to distribute 'wealth' is a vain sttemp to steer the sinking ship.

 

People dont need wages. They need water, air, shelter, clothing, and nutrition. And space. We need liberty of movement.

 

The revolution will not be is fair wages, but in ppl dropping out of the system entirely.

 

I saw an ad recently on how to live like a rich person by going to some poor country, inevitably tropical. Ppl dont see the immorality in this, the injustice and basic violation of the spirit of human rights. Why should a human being's wage-value vary for doing the same work depending on their physical location on the earth? Isnt this absurd?

 

It is absurd. And it paves a humanitarian path to totalitarianism--a single universal government.

 

All current models of 'economy' require poverty. Poverty is desirable, necessary. Without economic class distinctions there IS no economy. Without peasants, how can there be kings?

 

A basic wage only increases inflation and further divides ultra-rich from the bottom dwellers.

 

8)

[dust]

How would you suggest it proceeds, though? If the technology is inevitable, how to prepare for the fact that many jobs will become obsolete, and probably at a faster rate than we can invent new ones?

 

 

Basic wage is not the answer. Supporting any model of economy that requires currency is not the answer. Any proposal to distribute 'wealth' is a vain sttemp to steer the sinking ship.

People dont need wages. They need water, air, shelter, clothing, and nutrition. And space. We need liberty of movement.

The revolution will not be is fair wages, but in ppl dropping out of the system entirely.

I saw an ad recently on how to live like a rich person by going to some poor country, inevitably tropical. Ppl dont see the immorality in this, the injustice and basic violation of the spirit of human rights. Why should a human being's wage-value vary for doing the same work depending on their physical location on the earth? Isnt this absurd?

 

It is certainly absurd. And it's not just people going abroad to take advantage who are taking advantage. Whether we like it or not, we all benefit from the global slave economy, wherever we are. Those of us using computers, with free time to discuss things like this online, are well off compared to a majority of people, especially those who make the things we buy imported from farms and factories around the world. And so unless we make our own clothes and grow our own food and build our own tech, we're contributing, no?

 

But with the advent of further technologies, when at some point in the future drivers, postmen, factory workers, shop workers, journalists, receptionists, secretaries, data enterers, some doctors and teachers and accountants, and various other modern job descriptions are better filled with computers or robots or AI or whatever, a couple of things should happen:

(1) people will create new jobs (that serve no necessary purpose [there are already loads of these, but we'll see a lot more]) and

(2) in optimistic theory, the robot taskforce will be so efficient and productive that we'll no longer need to worry about a "minimum wage": distribution of food and clothes and education and healthcare will no longer be something to worry about. Many people will happily sit in their armchairs and eat themselves to death. Others will have much more freedom to choose a career, guaranteed a certain amount of comfort. Why should anyone, then, have to worry about money?

 

 

All current models of 'economy' require poverty. Poverty is desirable, necessary. Without economic class distinctions there IS no economy. Without peasants, how can there be kings?

A basic wage only increases inflation and further divides ultra-rich from the bottom dwellers.

 

An economy is just 2 or more people exchanging goods and services. If, at some point, most people no longer have any true need to have an occupation, the economy no longer exists. No goods or services are shared: the robots do the work, and people eat and shit.

 

I'm trying to be optimistic. Talking out of my arse, but it's all possible, no?

[Astral Monk]

How would you suggest it proceeds, though? If the technology is inevitable, how to prepare for the fact that many jobs will become obsolete, and probably at a faster rate than we can invent new ones?

 

quick comment. loss of 'jobs' to automation is an opportunity to bring social change to the forefront of evryones minds. it could be a catalyst.

 

what if people were freed from time consuming mundane tasks and able to focus on themselves and their local communities? if robots can be programmed to do everything, what task do I have left but to live life?

 

The implications for social change are far-reaching. People need to realize they can live self-directed lives, rather than the rats-in-a-maze system. If education, innovation, creativity are driven by pure interest (and need, as usual), and not the false promise of the market (glorious riches ne'r ending), we could see the real dawn of a golden era of humanity.

 

We could force ourselves into massive sociopolitical transformation through technology. It will be hard for the old guard to keep the system going because in the light of fully distributed power and water management, in-home 3-d printing, and other incredible developments, it wont be long before ppl--real regular ppl--are asking 'why we jumpin thru dees hoops??'

 

The old way will stop.

 

What we can do is start to unplug.

 

Unplug from banks.

 

Unplug from convenience in favour of sustainability.

 

Unplug from State power, gas.

 

Slowly, bit by bit. Until we collectively find the best route and the State has been pushed back into the position of a true servant of the people.

 

Its difficult to imagine a new way. But if we dont need to work, what do we need money for? Why is this system in place? Why cant we just live life without money? Robots do work and receive no value. Money was the carrot to keep the slaves at their labours. Basic wage is another carrot to keep em runnin on the same old treadmill.

 

We gotta unplug from the mindset that we need money to do things or that money moves the world. This is false. But the way forwrd is not so clear.

 

8)

[Aetherous]

A basic wage only increases inflation and further divides ultra-rich from the bottom dwellers.

 

So adjust the living wage yearly based on inflation and local cost of living.

[Brian]

Government attempted to stop the emerging refrigeration industry because it might negatively impact the ice industry.

 

Wagon-wheel makers were once in great demand.

 

Elevator operators probably thought they were cutting-edge technologists.

 

I remember TV repair shops.

 

My son remembers Blockbuster.

 

Government manages an economy in the rear-view mirror but pretends to see the future. Those who believe politicians' claims of prognoticative skills or of an ability to control economies deserve the disappointment they will receive but they shouldn't expect others to be so naive. People will choose tomorrow from options not dreamt of today and the only way to "manage" the future is to drive it into the ground. It's a fool's errand.

 

Are you vibrant beings of light or are you cattle? You get to choose, you know.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Brian

[dust]

quick comment. loss of 'jobs' to automation is an opportunity to bring social change to the forefront of evryones minds. it could be a catalyst.

 

what if people were freed from time consuming mundane tasks and able to focus on themselves and their local communities? if robots can be programmed to do everything, what task do I have left but to live life?

 

The implications for social change are far-reaching. People need to realize they can live self-directed lives, rather than the rats-in-a-maze system. If education, innovation, creativity are driven by pure interest (and need, as usual), and not the false promise of the market (glorious riches ne'r ending), we could see the real dawn of a golden era of humanity.

 

We could force ourselves into massive sociopolitical transformation through technology. It will be hard for the old guard to keep the system going because in the light of fully distributed power and water management, in-home 3-d printing, and other incredible developments, it wont be long before ppl--real regular ppl--are asking 'why we jumpin thru dees hoops??'

 

I'm going to play the pessimist now because what you've said is about as optimistic as can be! (I like it, but it is optimistic no?)

 

People are being freed from repetitive, time consuming, soul-destroying tasks as we speak. It's been happening for the last few thousand years, really, and sped up greatly at the Industrial Revolution, the likes of which is still happening in different forms around the world. And our current digital revolution is speeding things up even more. Eventually, it seems, robots will be able to do everything.

 

But one of the reasons I posted this topic, ask the question, is that I'm not confident that humanity is capable of freeing itself even when the majority of people theoretically have the means to live without worry.

 

There will still be nations, religions, cultures, separating people from each other. Robot taskforce won't put an end to conflict and greed. I mean, the whole conversation assumes that we're not all dead from war by 2050!

 

People are not good at self-direction. All through history, we've had dictators -- lords, emperors, kings, caesars, fuhrers -- and every reason to say "No, we want to do it ourselves." But ambitious monsters always find their way to the top, and the collective fool always finds a way to accept servitude.

 

When giants like Amazon and Alibaba are already there, monitoring everything we do and the majority accepting their omniscience without question, how can we believe that it won't continue like this? When they benefit so much from having a biased economic structure, why would they let it go? Won't it take some sort of revolution?

 

 

Its difficult to imagine a new way. But if we dont need to work, what do we need money for? Why is this system in place? Why cant we just live life without money? Robots do work and receive no value. Money was the carrot to keep the slaves at their labours. Basic wage is another carrot to keep em runnin on the same old treadmill.

 

We gotta unplug from the mindset that we need money to do things or that money moves the world. This is false. But the way forwrd is not so clear.

 

Indeed.

 

 

 

Government manages an economy in the rear-view mirror but pretends to see the future. Those who believe politicians' claims of prognoticative skills or of an ability to control economies deserve the disappointment they will receive but they shouldn't expect others to be so naive. People will choose tomorrow from options not dreamt of today and the only way to "manage" the future is to drive it into the ground. It's a fool's errand.

 

Are you vibrant beings of light or are you cattle? You get to choose, you know.

 

As you're aware by now, I do not actually fit in at TDB in most respects (I'm no Daoist, or Buddhist, or occultist; I've lost my qigong and taiji practice; I vehemently disagree with the philosophy and politics of many members; etc). But one reason I've remained, I think, is a couple of common threads linking most members. One general thread is that we're all a bit different -- there's no average Joe Starbucks on here; if I walked into the city right now, I'd find 50 trend-following football fans and hipsters and fashionistas and soccer moms before anyone who'd be found dead browsing The Dao Bums.

 

A more specific thread on TDB is a general mistrust of (political) authority. Even with you and Karl and various others with whom I've had fundamental disagreements about politics, I think we share a general wariness of our governments and a feeling that the status quo is undesirable. (Let me know if I'm wrong on that.)

 

But most people are not so wary. I don't see that most people will ever choose not to be cattle.

[Brian]

I'm going to play the pessimist now because what you've said is about as optimistic as can be! (I like it, but it is optimistic no?)

 

People are being freed from repetitive, time consuming, soul-destroying tasks as we speak. It's been happening for the last few thousand years, really, and sped up greatly at the Industrial Revolution, the likes of which is still happening in different forms around the world. And our current digital revolution is speeding things up even more. Eventually, it seems, robots will be able to do everything.

 

But one of the reasons I posted this topic, ask the question, is that I'm not confident that humanity is capable of freeing itself even when the majority of people theoretically have the means to live without worry.

 

There will still be nations, religions, cultures, separating people from each other. Robot taskforce won't put an end to conflict and greed. I mean, the whole conversation assumes that we're not all dead from war by 2050!

 

People are not good at self-direction. All through history, we've had dictators -- lords, emperors, kings, caesars, fuhrers -- and every reason to say "No, we want to do it ourselves." But ambitious monsters always find their way to the top, and the collective fool always finds a way to accept servitude.

 

When giants like Amazon and Alibaba are already there, monitoring everything we do and the majority accepting their omniscience without question, how can we believe that it won't continue like this? When they benefit so much from having a biased economic structure, why would they let it go? Won't it take some sort of revolution?

 

 

 

Indeed.

 

 

 

 

As you're aware by now, I do not actually fit in at TDB in most respects (I'm no Daoist, or Buddhist, or occultist; I've lost my qigong and taiji practice; I vehemently disagree with the philosophy and politics of many members; etc). But one reason I've remained, I think, is a couple of common threads linking most members. One general thread is that we're all a bit different -- there's no average Joe Starbucks on here; if I walked into the city right now, I'd find 50 trend-following football fans and hipsters and fashionistas and soccer moms before anyone who'd be found dead browsing The Dao Bums.

 

A more specific thread on TDB is a general mistrust of (political) authority. Even with you and Karl and various others with whom I've had fundamental disagreements about politics, I think we share a general wariness of our governments and a feeling that the status quo is undesirable. (Let me know if I'm wrong on that.)

 

But most people are not so wary. I don't see that most people will ever choose not to be cattle.

No, you are not wrong about that.

 

I'd offer, though, some thoughts to consider.

 

First is an overarching one -- what are ways in which this (any) well-intentioned concept could go awry? For this particular idea, there are several very disturbing possibilities which, if explored, seem both difficult to avoid and very significant in impact if they come to fruition. An analysis should include potential negative aspects and results.

 

Second is related to efficiency. Automation is about efficiency but a more important element in the pursuit of efficiency is process improvement. Key in this endeavor is the elimination of wasteful components. Removing unnecessary steps, choices and materials prior to automating a process is ideal but doing so in an incremental and reiterative fashion is generally more practical because the impact is less obvious. In the process of automating an economy and society to maximize efficiency in order to free the masses from a contributory role, what steps, choices and materials are the controlling elite likely to identify?

[TheWhiteRabbit]

Here is a good question and it seems to have been touched upon a bit already.  Is not unplugging kind of what many countries are starting to do now?  What is the difference between a Nationalistic perspective that a person can do things in and of themselves (in a way) vs. being dependent upon a failing system (Old Empire ways that lead to a united totalitarian government)?

 

I envision a future using Graphene coated pitted silicon wafers as a form of harvesting ionic energy as the energy never runs out unless you apply a charge directly to them (try to charge them).  Magnetic generator-alternators can be used to supplement this energy and given a suspended setup, where the wheel is repelled on its side by powerful magnets reduces friction many times.  In this way the wheel is kept in place by magnets, magnets turn the wheel-pole-alternator.

 

I imagine in any distant future scenario bartering would eventually be necessary and social and networking skills would be very important. As above, so below.  The beginning is the end and so on.  Eventually, people might just be less dependent upon energy.  If we realize we all had what we really needed anyway, light, soil, water... Eventually we realize how silly it is that we wanted all the things that people try to get or covet now.

 

I mean if you realized that you could just go dig that potato out of the ground and go fishing for that fish and have a meal in less than a couple of hours... How silly does it seem spending so much extra energy for something you buy in a store that does not somehow taste just as good.  Crazy is it not?

[dust]

First is an overarching one -- what are ways in which this (any) well-intentioned concept could go awry? For this particular idea, there are several very disturbing possibilities which, if explored, seem both difficult to avoid and very significant in impact if they come to fruition. An analysis should include potential negative aspects and results.

 

Are you talking Terminator? Matrix? I, Robot?

 

Heh.. I'm only half-kidding. There are many ways that automation and ever more capable robots could do more harm than good, and a lot of these have been explored in sci-fi for a long time (though they do tend towards the extreme!)

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at specifically, though. Are you just talking about the aforementioned stuff, further automation of jobs/processes that machines can/will do better than humans? Or more complex things that might be possible in the future, with development of AI?

 

 

Second is related to efficiency. Automation is about efficiency but a more important element in the pursuit of efficiency is process improvement. Key in this endeavor is the elimination of wasteful components. Removing unnecessary steps, choices and materials prior to automating a process is ideal but doing so in an incremental and reiterative fashion is generally more practical because the impact is less obvious. In the process of automating an economy and society to maximize efficiency in order to free the masses from a contributory role, what steps, choices and materials are the controlling elite likely to identify?

 

You are an educator, aren't you? These sound an awful lot like exam questions...!

[mvingon]

So, in going off grid, what are the crippled, sick, dying, and alone in all of this to do? Some people have no hands or arms to chop wood, some have no legs to carry water.

 

What I'm trying to say is, some can't cook, clean, fish, farm, or do much else, but still have a will or desire or what have you, to live. Should we just close our ears and eyes and let them suffer to death?

[dust]

So, in going off grid, what are the crippled, sick, dying, and alone in all of this to do? Some people have no hands or arms to chop wood, some have no legs to carry water.

 

What I'm trying to say is, some can't cook, clean, fish, farm, or do much else, but still have a will or desire or what have you, to live. Should we just close our ears and eyes and let them suffer to death?

 

Do we have to go off-grid? I don't know if it benefits any individual unless they truly desire to live in such a way.

 

Not long ago I had daydreams of going off into the wilderness and making my own way -- I never seriously considered it, but it was a nice idea. Now, I don't see it as such a nice idea. Technology isn't always positive, but a lot of it is. Some technology is amazing and I have grown up with it; I wouldn't give it up. I don't mean smartphones, or cars, but the printed word and electronic music and peanut butter factories.

 

Perhaps we should look towards a future in which machines are able to either cure the crippled and sick, or help them do the things they are unable to do? Why do you assume these people will be left alone?

Edited December 27, 2016 by dust

[mvingon]

Why do you assume I assume anything?

 

I'm talking about people here and now. I know they exist, because I cared for them, when I was able. I didn't get paid, and some were quite nasty, literally and metaphorically, but I cared for them anyway, because society and their own families sure didn't and do not.

[dust]

Why do you assume I assume anything?

 

I'm talking about people here and now. I know they exist, because I cared for them, when I was able. I didn't get paid, and some were quite nasty, literally and metaphorically, but I cared for them anyway, because society and their own families sure didn't and do not.

 

OK.. I assumed you were talking about the future (because that's a major theme of the topic!) but yes, many people are 'left behind' right now, I am not contradicting that.

 

And based on human nature it's possible that this will continue in the future; but based on what technology has done for our health and longevity so far (human life expectancy is longer now than since civilization began.. though perhaps we lived longer lives before civilization..) we might be optimistic about what technology has to offer in the future, even if humans are still shitty.

Edited December 27, 2016 by dust

[Brian]

Are you talking Terminator? Matrix? I, Robot?

 

Heh.. I'm only half-kidding. There are many ways that automation and ever more capable robots could do more harm than good, and a lot of these have been explored in sci-fi for a long time (though they do tend towards the extreme!)

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at specifically, though. Are you just talking about the aforementioned stuff, further automation of jobs/processes that machines can/will do better than humans? Or more complex things that might be possible in the future, with development of AI?

 

 

 

You are an educator, aren't you? These sound an awful lot like exam questions...!

Let me try a very straightforward question, then. In the automated future, who will make the decisions which need to be made?

[dust]

Let me try a very straightforward question, then. In the automated future, who will make the decisions which need to be made?

 

Exams are OK. I never dreaded them like some people.

 

I suspect that the answer you have in mind to your question is that the few who control the machines, or the machines themselves, will make the decisions. I suspect that your answers to all your questions thus far have been in that vein. But I don't think we can predict that with any certainty.

 

Technology is becoming more personal again. In centuries past, people made things themselves, or within their own family or tribe; and later on within their own village (smiths, carpenters, cobblers, tailors..). With the advent of automation, people became dependent on factories, mass-produced things, and 'tailor-made' became unusual; we still rely on things that other people designed, other people produced, other people sell us, and those 'at the top' of the production have taken a decent amount of control from government (though in theory the consumer should be in control, and is in control if he realizes the power of his dollar).

 

But aren't we moving away from that again? We already have 3D printing, where people can (design and) produce their own objects -- major portions of guns, bicycles, drones, wheelchairs, shoes, are printable now. We have myriad options when it comes to computers, self-built computers, open source software, etc. At a certain point, if we continue to build more capable machines, might we not each have our own machines that design machines for us? Couldn't the next cyber revolution be empowering?

[mvingon]

To be fair, I'm talking about both. If those people exist and have existed since time immemorial, I fail to see that they won't exist, then.

 

That aside, just because some prefer little human contact doesn't mean everyone doesn't need it, occasionally.

[TheWhiteRabbit]

I was just wondering how raising objections before a working model is produced based upon what works, or confining a discussion based upon bias helps stimulate creativity?

In project management you have to have a working model based upon what is known and test it first, build it up.  There are a lot of opportunities for creating a working model based upon what others have done that works.

I enjoy the discussion. I hope it continues.

Edited December 31, 2016 by TheWhiteRabbit

[dust]

[Astral Monk]

I mean to return to this thread, but its a sit-down-desktop-cpu thing rather than phone texting lol. My feeling, generally, is that humans shouldnt try to fix or restructure economy, but dissolve it altogether. Economy is a system designed to create and maintain inequality perpetually. It closes and narrows minds and starves spirits.

 

Even now we can only talk about how to use the system to fix the system. Something not right there.

 

8)

[dust]

When you get to a sit-down computer I'm curious to know what dissolving the economy would look like in your view.

 

As I understand the term 'economy', it's no more than the relationship between producers and consumers, or the process in which goods and services are exchanged. Even if there were just 2 humans on the planet, there could still be an economy of 2 in which, for a very simple example, one makes tools and the other makes clothes and they both grow different types of food, and they exchange things with each other as needed. Assuming this definition of economy (production, exchange, and consumption of goods & services between 2 or more people), it's impossible to not have any economy unless we all do everything by ourselves. But in theory we could drastically change the way we produce and exchange.

 

But anyway, yeah I'm curious to know how you think we might achieve such a change.