Automation, Post-Scarcity and the future of Capital

[Emulation White]

We are entering a future where machines are taking precedence over humanity; are we building technological utopia or cementing our obsoletion? The objective of this thread will be to examine and discuss the possible ramifications of our advancement. The three general considerations will be:

•Automation: The human condition is inseperable of its environment; what will be the societal, cultural and psychological effects of massive numbers of people having zero labor value? Does this warrant new policies such as Universal Basic Income or increased population control? Will humans become hedonistic, lazier or more apathetic because of the increasing automation of their lives? Is Artificial Intelligence the cure to loneliess? In general, how will the human condition be altered?

•Post-Scarcity: Resource maximisation is considered objectively beneficial, but actual Post-Scarcity is unlikely. We are converging on methods of resource maximisation, so what will be the effects of a civilization with a much higher level of material access? Could 3D printing lead to a more complex and personalized market of production since production might be in the hands of the public at large? How will higher amounts of resources change the power structures of control; does increased production of material justify or condemn centralized control of said resources? Will this lead to further over-population or environmental degradation?

•Capitalism: I think the #1 question is would it or should it survive? In the future society, would having a monetary system still be necessary? What would be the arguments for and against its abolishment? Will a much reduced labor pool cause inflation for certain services? How would a future, Capital based market look? How do people earn money or increased access to production? What new sectors of services or goods, be they virtual or material, emerge? Also, here is a video about a bleak possibility of Capitalism induced human extinction that is relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlQrYCacrKo

I am passionate about Robotics and Artificial Intelligence, so I personally am reflexively biased against any limitations or hindrances to their development; that being said, I am wary of the use of technology in the limited wisdom of Man. Our last technological boom, the Industrial Revolution, has not gone off without a hitch, to say the least. Now, we are engineering an even greater era of power; and "With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility". The generations of tomorrow will be the outcome of the choices we make today.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I fundamentally disagree that we're close to resource maximalization. If anything, we will soon run out of resources due to our massive use of them.

[Nakena]

I fundamentally disagree that we're close to resource maximalization. If anything, we will soon run out of resources due to our massive use of them.

I disagree. Alone for the reason because the Solar System has more than enough resources. If the billions that would have been wasted on the lost war, would have been invested into NASA and the likes we could have easily a Moon Colony or two. Maybe even a martian or asteroid one.

Even on Earth theres still a lot around.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I fundamentally disagree that we're close to resource maximalization. If anything, we will soon run out of resources due to our massive use of them.

I disagree. Alone for the reason because the Solar System has more than enough resources. If the billions that would have been wasted on the lost war, would have been invested into NASA and the likes we could have easily a Moon Colony or two. Maybe even a martian or asteroid one.

Even on Earth theres still a lot around.

Space colonization will always be a net loss in resources, not a net gain, because it would cost more resources to transport resources to and from the Earth than would be gained by space colonization.

[Nakena]

I disagree. Alone for the reason because the Solar System has more than enough resources. If the billions that would have been wasted on the lost war, would have been invested into NASA and the likes we could have easily a Moon Colony or two. Maybe even a martian or asteroid one.

Even on Earth theres still a lot around.

Space colonization will always be a net loss in resources, not a net gain, because it would cost more resources to transport resources to and from the Earth than would be gained by space colonization.

Only the initial investment. Once theres infrastructure established in space, orbit, moons, asteroids etc it will get far better. Also space elevators are a thing.

You'd be surprised. Theres a channel on YouTube by a guy named Isaac Arthur, its really mind blowing. Even for me.

[The East Marches II]

I fundamentally disagree that we're close to resource maximalization. If anything, we will soon run out of resources due to our massive use of them.

Then all the more reason to start space mining mein negro. Spanish gold inflation here we come!

[United Muscovite Nations]

Space colonization will always be a net loss in resources, not a net gain, because it would cost more resources to transport resources to and from the Earth than would be gained by space colonization.

Only the initial investment. Once theres infrastructure established in space, orbit, moons, asteroids etc it will get far better. Also space elevators are a thing.

You'd be surprised. Theres a channel on YouTube by a guy named Isaac Arthur, its really mind blowing. Even for me.

Not merely the initial investment. You would still have to get the resources to the places. Moreover, the colonies would never be self-sufficient, as they would always require support from Earth to live.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I fundamentally disagree that we're close to resource maximalization. If anything, we will soon run out of resources due to our massive use of them.

Then all the more reason to start space mining mein negro. Spanish gold inflation here we come!

Space mining isn't economically viable. The investment would be larger than any gain. You would spend more than you would get out of it.

[Nakena]

Only the initial investment. Once theres infrastructure established in space, orbit, moons, asteroids etc it will get far better. Also space elevators are a thing.

You'd be surprised. Theres a channel on YouTube by a guy named Isaac Arthur, its really mind blowing. Even for me.

Not merely the initial investment. You would still have to get the resources to the places. Moreover, the colonies would never be self-sufficient, as they would always require support from Earth to live.

No that be precisely the point to get past through, after the initial investment. Space Elevator or permanent colonies would be. Beyond that it gets very cheap actually due zero g environment with significant lower costs. As in with any big investment, theres some huge losses initially until the operation becomes economically viable. No different than any venture on earth.

[The East Marches II]

Then all the more reason to start space mining mein negro. Spanish gold inflation here we come!

Space mining isn't economically viable. The investment would be larger than any gain. You would spend more than you would get out of it.

Not according to what I've seen. Not to mention the upcoming scarcity combined with automation makes space an attractive option. It just means nations that can't participate in colonization or even space resource extraction will be poor like the ones who couldn't otherwise in the past.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not merely the initial investment. You would still have to get the resources to the places. Moreover, the colonies would never be self-sufficient, as they would always require support from Earth to live.

No that be precisely the point to get past through, after the initial investment. Space Elevator or permanent colonies would be. Beyond that it gets very cheap actually due zero g environment with significant lower costs. As in with any big investment, theres some huge losses initially until the operation becomes economically viable. No different than any venture on earth.

Only in this case you're talking about such expenses that it would bankrupt even governments and would still require more support.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Space mining isn't economically viable. The investment would be larger than any gain. You would spend more than you would get out of it.

Not according to what I've seen. Not to mention the upcoming scarcity combined with automation makes space an attractive option. It just means nations that can't participate in colonization or even space resource extraction will be poor like the ones who couldn't otherwise in the past.

I don't know what you've seen, but the resources required for space flight and transport are enormous. It would cost billions just to move a single mining machine.

You've used the scarcity argument, and it's unconvincing because the implication of it is that value is entirely arbitrary and isn't actually based on resources. The amount of money you can get by selling space gold won't matter when you physically run out of resources.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also there's the fact that space mining is just a red herring so we don't scale back our rapacious production and become economically sustainable and solve our economic problems. Because those who promote it assume that they will be the ones who will benefit, and assume that they won't be among the large numbers of people who will be killed by failure to become sustainable. Yes, the rich will always be fine, but that doesn't mean billions will not be killed by resource shortages.

[The East Marches II]

Not according to what I've seen. Not to mention the upcoming scarcity combined with automation makes space an attractive option. It just means nations that can't participate in colonization or even space resource extraction will be poor like the ones who couldn't otherwise in the past.

I don't know what you've seen, but the resources required for space flight and transport are enormous. It would cost billions just to move a single mining machine.

You've used the scarcity argument, and it's unconvincing because the implication of it is that value is entirely arbitrary and isn't actually based on resources. The amount of money you can get by selling space gold won't matter when you physically run out of resources.

No I was just using your own evidence against you. I don't buy into your doomer worldview.

Yes, things cost money and resources to make happen. I'm only seeing an argument for a crash program to happen to accelerate this process. It's bad enough we wasted time on garbage social issues and have delayed something that should have occured long ago.

[-Ocelot-]

I disagree. Alone for the reason because the Solar System has more than enough resources. If the billions that would have been wasted on the lost war, would have been invested into NASA and the likes we could have easily a Moon Colony or two. Maybe even a martian or asteroid one.

Even on Earth theres still a lot around.

Space colonization will always be a net loss in resources, not a net gain, because it would cost more resources to transport resources to and from the Earth than would be gained by space colonization.

There are some asteroids close to us that are worth hundreds of trillions of $ because they contain insane amounts of metals, such as titanium.

Also we will never run out of resources. We may run out of cheap resources in some occasions but it's not like resources end up lost in the void when used. Some resources may be replaced by more common ones over time or get expensive. But we won't run out of resources.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't know what you've seen, but the resources required for space flight and transport are enormous. It would cost billions just to move a single mining machine.

You've used the scarcity argument, and it's unconvincing because the implication of it is that value is entirely arbitrary and isn't actually based on resources. The amount of money you can get by selling space gold won't matter when you physically run out of resources.

No I was just using your own evidence against you. I don't buy into your doomer worldview.

Yes, things cost money and resources to make happen. I'm only seeing an argument for a crash program to happen to accelerate this process. It's bad enough we wasted time on garbage social issues and have delayed something that should have occured long ago.

If anyone seriously thought it was economically viable, why has no one actually tried to do anything with it?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Space colonization will always be a net loss in resources, not a net gain, because it would cost more resources to transport resources to and from the Earth than would be gained by space colonization.

There are some asteroids close to us that are worth hundreds of trillions of $ because they contain insane amounts of metals, such as titanium.

Also we will never run out of resources. We may run out of cheap resources in some occasions but it's not like resources end up lost in the void when used. Some resources may be replaced by more common ones over time or get expensive. But we won't run out of resources.

Running out of cheap resources is still the end of industrial society.

[Salandriagado]

Space colonization will always be a net loss in resources, not a net gain, because it would cost more resources to transport resources to and from the Earth than would be gained by space colonization.

Only the initial investment. Once theres infrastructure established in space, orbit, moons, asteroids etc it will get far better. Also space elevators are a thing.

You'd be surprised. Theres a channel on YouTube by a guy named Isaac Arthur, its really mind blowing. Even for me.

Space elevators are far from the best option, though. You'd be better off with a launch loop (for small-scale stuff) or a full-on orbital ring (for large-scale stuff).

[Troyskova]

I believe that automation will either result in the good, the bad, or the ugly outcomes. The good: Humans will be able to spend the rest of their lives living their dreams. Robots will have completely replaced jobs and people will be able to pursue their creative dream. A universal basic income will be provided. There would be a population boom because people won't have to worry about not spending enough time with their children and the costs of having a large family. The bad: A universal basic income will be provided, however a tiny amount. A sharp decline in population will occur because they can't afford children. Children will become something only the rich can experience. The ugly: There would be no universal basic income. A decline in population would happen because people would simply starve to death. There would be absolutely no jobs and poverty will be everywhere. The rich corporations would grow richer from automation.

My entire nation is based around the ugly outcome.

[-Ocelot-]

There are some asteroids close to us that are worth hundreds of trillions of $ because they contain insane amounts of metals, such as titanium.

Also we will never run out of resources. We may run out of cheap resources in some occasions but it's not like resources end up lost in the void when used. Some resources may be replaced by more common ones over time or get expensive. But we won't run out of resources.

Running out of cheap resources is still the end of industrial society.

Not true. We are more flexible than that.

We have already ran out of specific resources but you haven't even noticed. For example, there are no metals available for Geiger counters right now, because all newly mined metal is slightly irradiated. So all Geiger counters use the same recycled pre-WW2 metal to be produced. Otherwise they'd be inaccurate.

[The East Marches II]

No I was just using your own evidence against you. I don't buy into your doomer worldview.

Yes, things cost money and resources to make happen. I'm only seeing an argument for a crash program to happen to accelerate this process. It's bad enough we wasted time on garbage social issues and have delayed something that should have occured long ago.

If anyone seriously thought it was economically viable, why has no one actually tried to do anything with it?

Because the West has gone insane clearly. We live in a clown world where diversity is considered a national strength and female defense firm CEOs are hailed as bringing about a new age. Our insanity may doom humanity in general.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Running out of cheap resources is still the end of industrial society.

Not true. We are more flexible than that.

We have already ran out of specific resources but you haven't even noticed. For example, there are no metals available for Geiger counters right now, because all newly mined metal is slightly irradiated. So all Geiger counters use the same recycled pre-WW2 metal to be produced. Otherwise they'd be inaccurate.

We don't have to use those things very much, but when, for example, we run out of cheap copper, that will be a massive blow.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If anyone seriously thought it was economically viable, why has no one actually tried to do anything with it?

Because the West has gone insane clearly. We live in a clown world where diversity is considered a national strength and female defense firm CEOs are hailed as bringing about a new age. Our insanity may doom humanity in general.

It's not just the West that isn't investing in it, it's no one that it is investing in it. The opinion of seemingly every government on Earth is that it's a waste of time. I would say many governments have already accepted the inevitability of industrial collapse because they're unwilling to try to stop it for fear of becoming weaker.

[The East Marches II]

Because the West has gone insane clearly. We live in a clown world where diversity is considered a national strength and female defense firm CEOs are hailed as bringing about a new age. Our insanity may doom humanity in general.

It's not just the West that isn't investing in it, it's no one that it is investing in it. The opinion of seemingly every government on Earth is that it's a waste of time. I would say many governments have already accepted the inevitability of industrial collapse because they're unwilling to try to stop it for fear of becoming weaker.

You would be wrong. As well, you assume in this that the opinion of other cultures won't be colored by their own bad traits or that every other government is as capable. The last time the Chinese had a shot at this sort of thing they burned all their nice things and pretend their admiral didn't exist.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Post scarcity is not remotely possible with overpopulation and greed. Resource maximization is a Dyson sphere which I suspect we will wipe ourselves out before than.

Space colonization will always be a net loss in resources, not a net gain, because it would cost more resources to transport resources to and from the Earth than would be gained by space colonization.

Only the initial investment. Once theres infrastructure established in space, orbit, moons, asteroids etc it will get far better. Also space elevators are a thing.

You'd be surprised. Theres a channel on YouTube by a guy named Isaac Arthur, its really mind blowing. Even for me.

Space elevators are not a thing, they are an idea. One which cannot be built without a massive engineering breakthrough.