Speculation: what happens when robots obsolete us?

[Anh_Minh]

I'm talking about a profound change in society. One in which 99% of humanity is... unnecessary, because there is no work where they wouldn't be outperformed by robots.

If you want to believe that it would mean the 1% would tell the 99% to starve, that's fine. If you want to think the 99% would go quietly... I'm going to have to call you naive.

So, think about it: we can't employ anyone because robots do it better. What's left to do but to give everyone enough to live on and then some (panem et circenses) and just... kick back and let robots do everything for us?

Today, we need money and jobs because, ultimately, we need other people to do things for us. To sweat for us. Since they're not slaves, we have to pay them. But what if we didn't? Robots don't mind being slaves. That's the point.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by GDB

This does not appear to make sense. You're going to 3D print money? And expect money to still have value?

not money but materials for for stuff ship in a bottle,

the 3D-printer can print all the parts including the bottle

the glue if ti can't be made by 3D printer can order form a central system which makes the glue form organic waste collected robotic garbage collectors.

The glue will either be free or paid for by hours volunteer by the buyer.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I know. But I'm not that interested in what people will do for fun.

Think about our great achievements. Or even about everyday things today. You can get dozens, or thousands of people working together on something, adding their strengths to each other to make what one individual cannot, no matter how good his tools. And even if they don't get along all that well, even if they must face unpleasant situations, they endure. A lot of the time, because they don't want to lose their jobs. So what if we remove that fear? What if "losing your job" just means you have more "you" time, rather than "worry you'll become a hobo" time? Will we still be able to work together?

As long as there is a common goal to be achieved, cooperation and teamwork will always exist.

Even with my example above about sports/concerts/plays, you still see people working together (or in competition with one another) as athletes/performers/artists. These and other types of jobs where humans are at the center should not be affected by robots taking over other types of jobs.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by GDB

Still not understanding how having robots somehow equates to no job but still having money. If you're replaced, you're replaced. It's not like your robot would be needed; management could just buy their own robot to do the same (or probably better, as they could invest more money into it and get a better robot).

at this point there would be no "money" as system as we currently know it.

by the time robots are doing all the work, the world would also have 3D-printers that can pretty much anything we need.

Everyone would be guaranteed a standard of living with those who chose to work able to get extras.

This would also necessitate a smaller population then we currently have.

however the process to get to this point would be very painful. For people who don't have the right skills and people who can't make the adjustments.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

at this point there would be no "money" as system as we currently know it.

Depends, money is just a tool to quantify scarce resources and store value. Even in a world without physical need, there would still be a role for money if there are things in limited supply. Human time, land and locations, intellectual property etc.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

however the process to get to this point would be very painful. For people who don't have the right skills and people who can't make the adjustments.

Then it would be trade and barter, then currency, all over again. A cycle of another millenium.

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Yeah but if the introduction of automation wouldn't cause a reduction of working force nobody would spend money on it.

Being a ex-electrical technician/computer engineer myself studying Bizman/Econs, I say that isn't true. There are many production machines that require more than one man to take apart and many different kinds of specialists to maintain, a single machine turning curry chicken into cans has to be run by 20 operators, excluding 4-6 technicians, an old engineering supervisor, a 60-year-old systems programmer (one of those few who knows about hybrid controls) and a trio of useless, unmotivated interns with no respect for wise magi that make a packer like me look like the ES's disciple.

And that line has been running the same way since the past 20 years (or so the ES told me), with the same number of staff; special thanks to increased demand and output scaled to equilibrium. The only thing that changed are profits.

Things will always scale to equilibrium. Sooner or later, employment will fall back in place - the question is, will we have enough resources to keep producing equally to demand at the break-even point?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Bri

Depends, money is just a tool to quantify scarce resources and store value. Even in a world without physical need, there would still be a role for money if there are things in limited supply. Human time, land and locations, intellectual property etc.

obviously money would still exist but the financial system would be completely different then what it is now.

it would be a system were people are not working for a living but for luxuries.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

obviously money would still exist but the financial system would be completely different then what it is now.

it would be a system were people are not working for a living but for luxuries.

Only the top 1%. Or a world state filled with soma.

[hyl]

Isn't the idea of "people not having to work, but they only work if they want to" just a general utopian idea?

Also why are we bringing up 3d printers in the whole robots replacing human labor speculation? 3d printers makes this whole discussion even more complicated. Depending on what the limitations are of such printers in this speculation, do we even need robots for labour if we can print virtually everything what we need ?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by hyl

do we even need robots for labour if we can print virtually everything that we need ?

waste dispose
farming
mining
manufacturing the stuff that can't be made by 3D-printing.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

waste dispose
farming
mining
manufacturing the stuff that can't be made by 3D-printing.

Like i said, depends on what the limitations we are setting on these printers in this discussion. If these are so far advanced that it can virtually everything then most of the things you mentioned should not be a problem
If it's like the replicators from star trek, then it can recycle matter.
Farming and mining should not be needed if it can actually replicate similar materials and if it can replicate food , then i can assume it can also create other things.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by hyl

Like i said, depends on what the limitations we are setting on these printers in this discussion. If these are so far advanced that it can virtually everything then most of the things you mentioned should not be a problem
If it's like the replicators from star trek, then it can recycle matter.
Farming and mining should not be needed if it can actually replicate similar materials and if it can replicate food , then i can assume it can also create other things.

assuming we don't transporter, the operation of a motor vehicle (plane, car, boat)

medical care, not even Star trek replicators can heal.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

assuming we don't transporter, the operation of a motor vehicle (plane, car, boat)

If we are at the point in which most people have no to little motivation and life goals because work is not needed don't have a fixed daily lifecycle or when people retreat to virtual worlds, then i don't think we need ways of transportation (also assuming that we haven't invented teleporters or whatever)

And what is the size of your 3d printers? If those are large enough (like the industrial replicators in star trek) it might create larger objects such as cars, planes or boats

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

medical care, not even Star trek replicators can heal.

But there are still medical equipment in star trek

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by GDB

Still not understanding how having robots somehow equates to no job but still having money. If you're replaced, you're replaced. It's not like your robot would be needed; management could just buy their own robot to do the same (or probably better, as they could invest more money into it and get a better robot).

That's not how it will work, of course you won't send your robot to work for you, the production system and the distribution will be completely automated.

Of course I guess that your first objection is but why wouldn't the owner of that production system own all the profits for himself?

Well it's actually simple when you consider the inevitable outcome of a completely automated production scenario. Who are they even going to sell their products to if 99% of the people isn't working?

The whole economic system as we know it by that point is bound to fall apart. A socio-economic revolution will happen and capitalism will be something young people will learn from the mandatory automated education system.


Perhaps the idea that a product will be simply produced and distributed for free to everyone is preposterous to you, but I can mention one good that is absolutely vital for us and yet it gets produced and distributed equally to every single human in the world: oxygen.

In a fully automated scenario it will work the same, think of the robots as immensely evolved trees that instead of converting raw CO2 into O2 for your consumption will produce any kind of good that you need in a perfectly self-preserving, self-replicating, self-adjusting automated system.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Being a ex-electrical technician/computer engineer myself studying Bizman/Econs, I say that isn't true. There are many production machines that require more than one man to take apart and many different kinds of specialists to maintain, a single machine turning curry chicken into cans has to be run by 20 operators, excluding 4-6 technicians, an old engineering supervisor, a 60-year-old systems programmer (one of those few who knows about hybrid controls) and a trio of useless, unmotivated interns with no respect for wise magi that make a packer like me look like the ES's disciple.

And that line has been running the same way since the past 20 years (or so the ES told me), with the same number of staff; special thanks to increased demand and output scaled to equilibrium. The only thing that changed are profits.

And where those profits come from if the costs not only remain unchanged but even increased?
So far it worked because production improved drastically but it is naive to think this system will work indefinitely. There will be a point where increasing production will be pointless because no matter how many more goods you can make per minute, there's someone that needs to buy them and simply producing more won't increase the sales.

Think of it this way.
Let's say that you have 5 people that can produce a certain product for 10.000 persons, now for the sake of argument let's say that it's the kind of product that a single person can't possibly need more even if it costs shit, for example food or toothpaste. the ratio is 5 to 10.000. Now let's say a new machine is introduced so now 5 people can produce for 50.000 persons.
Your argument is that nothing changed because that's still 5 people working, but it's not true. The ratio has changed, it's now 5 to 50.000 and that means that whereas before you needed 5 people for those 10.000 customers now you only need 1 in comparison.


The basic trend is that the more technology advances the less people you need to produce a product and the less it will cost. This will go on until production will require 0 workers and the cost will be equally null.

[hyl]

I agree that the system that we know now, will collapse if we get the point when robots take over all of our labour.

Why do we need to keep most of the people in the world alive if they can't contribute to anything? We might get get into a phase in which only the rich or those with power will benefit from this and the poor end starving and dying. Eventually we might reach this "utopian world" in which people will all live in luxury of robots doing all of the work for them and not needing to do anything themselves, but not without sacrificing most of the population

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I'm talking about a profound change in society. One in which 99% of humanity is... unnecessary, because there is no work where they wouldn't be outperformed by robots.

If you want to believe that it would mean the 1% would tell the 99% to starve, that's fine. If you want to think the 99% would go quietly... I'm going to have to call you naive.

I think you might be overestimating your percentages a bit. There are a lot of jobs that I doubt most people will be comfortable handing over to robots. Jobs like teachers, professors, doctors, nurses, psychologists, politicians, police officers, financial advisers, lawyers, judges, etc... Basically, any profession where you have to deal a lot with the general public (with the possible exception of very basic clerical work - working on the counter at McDonalds, say). And a lot of these professions are absolutely essential to a modern, functioning society.

The only way I see people being comfortable with robots handling these jobs is if the robot is almost indistinguishable from a human being (think of the anime Time of Eve, or Data in Star Trek). But at this level of robots being like humans, you're going to get people pushing for "robots rights" legislation, arguing its ethically wrong for them to be treated like slaves or servants. We'll ironically just end up going full-circle if robots develop this far.


Now, I do think we'll get to a point where capitalism becomes seriously threatened, and its utility becomes deeply questioned. But it's going to be a difficult situation - A lot of jobs we'll prefer robots to do (Janitor, Manufacturer, Builder, Farmer, basically any construction/production/maintenance job that doesn't involve dealing a lot with the general public). A lot of other jobs we'll prefer humans to do. There won't be anywhere near enough jobs to go around for all humans, meaning very high unemployment and capitalism appearing out-of-date.

On the other hand, how do you motivate people to be Nurses, for example? My mother was a nurse most of her adult life, and that's a hard, physically laborious job. I certainly don't see people doing it just for a hobby. There will have to be significant personal benefit (i.e. some form of financial compensation, gifts, perks, etc...) for people to sacrifice free time to do that job.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

On the other hand, how do you motivate people to be Nurses, for example? My mother was a nurse most of her adult life, and that's a hard, physically laborious job. I certainly don't see people doing it just for a hobby. There will have to be significant personal benefit (i.e. some form of financial compensation, gifts, perks, etc...) for people to sacrifice free time to do that job.

more raw materials for their 3D printers
bigger houses in area of their choice
social recognition - bill board on time square applauding so-so for contributing to society.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

more raw materials for their 3D printers
bigger houses in area of their choice
social recognition - bill board on time square applauding so-so for contributing to society.

That might work.

It is possible that capitalism (at least as we know it) will one day become obsolete.

I can imagine some people competing heavily for the top jobs that are left for humans, while a lot of other people just decide to chill out and enjoy something a notch or two above subsistence living, provided to them by the government. You could even make a good anime out of it, lol.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I can imagine some people competing heavily for the top jobs that are left for humans, while a lot of other people just decide to chill out and enjoy something a notch or two above subsistence living, provided to them by the government. You could even make a good anime out of it, lol.

In the Soviet Union, for all it's faults, scientists in many disciplines were prepared to put in a lot of effort for little to no extra benefits over simpler jobs. There is something about taking part in projects that are larger than one self (space exploration, fundamental sciences, cure for cancer, etc) that would provide an incentive for people to work.

The ancient Greek city states might have come closest to a society where it's citizens were left to pursue other interests, and they didn't really stay in bed all day. Ironically it was built on slave labor, although automation/robots would remove the ethical side of the problem in a future society.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

more raw materials for their 3D printers
bigger houses in area of their choice
social recognition - bill board on time square applauding so-so for contributing to society.

But these are alll....

SOCIALIST!!!!!