Why do people argue that when all things become automated, we shall live in a post scarcity society that needs not any human work?
First how does full automation remove the limited resources that earth itself has?
Second how does full automation step into the place of replacing specialist careers and careers that take intellect?
Even if you automated everything there would still be limited resources and there would still be products to be bought and sold and there would still many careers and jobs that require actual mental work.
Can someone explain how I am wrong and how full automation actually somehow makes us into a post-scarcity society without capitalism?
Anyone?
>>69236668
It doesn't, you're right. Never will humans have no role at all in the work force. Recourses are finite, we have to expand to other planets. Moreover, presumably we'd build in limitations to AI such that they don't overthrow us, in which case we'd need to do everything that required independent thought. Also, there are areas wherein robots cannot tread, but people can. Electromagnetic radiation doesn't do anything to humans, but it revecocably fucks up a robot.
Will there be human garbage collectors? Probably not. But we'll still be useful.
>>69236668
Soon there will be no work. No need for currency. No need to work. Upload your consciousness and let the nanobots do their magic.
>>69236668
> How does full automation remove the limited resources the earth itself has
It doesn't, but the earth is actually much less limited than we think. If we get better at exploiting the available resources and energy on earth, we could power a civilization much larger than ours.
> How does full automation replace specialist careers and intellect careers?
It doesn't, but less jobs require a human touch or intellect than you might expect. (For example, even with the limited technology we have today, we have machines that can form their own hypotheses, experiments, and perform lab work.)
It's questionable whether we'd ever have AI fully capable of replacing humans in all jobs, but I'd say probably 90-95% of jobs that exist today can be replaced by automation tech that either currently exists or will exist 20 years from now.
Whether it's currently worth the cost to replace humans is another question, but the tech is only ever going to get cheaper.
>>69236668
Its just a meme by progressive cucks. They think justifys various government programs and wealth redistribution. They think robots are going to take all the jobs and everyone is going to be dirt poor because only the 1% can own robots. Theyre that retarded.
>>69237651
If his happens, the elites will genocide 90% of the human species in order to secure their rule.
>>69240124
People have been saying that technology is going to destroy all jobs since the 1700s. And they have been wrong every time.
Before the industrial revolution 97% of Americans worked on farms. Technology has replaced farm jobs for 94% of Americans. But somehow, we don't have massive unemployment. Technology created new jobs that weren't even imaginable before. We are constantly inventing new jobs.
>>69240484
and some of those jobs are pretty fucking useless
>>69240484
> Somehow we don't have massive unemployment
Except we kind of do, it's just masked by broad definitions of "disability", retirement that is ridiculously early by any measure, "schooling" that goes on ridiculously late into life by any measure, and the fact that people who stop looking for jobs are no longer counted.
>>69240742
Is right, too. A lot of those jobs are really just dead weight kept there by social momentum. It's why companies were able to downsize by huge amounts after the last recession, and actually increase productivity.
>>69236668
Then entire progressive movement is plagued by golden age mythology with no scarcity and no conflict.
Automation leading to the millenium is just another of the excuses they use to implement their dreams.
It's not the main progressive numinous image right now. It's more of a 70s kind of thing. Though some particular tech brining about millenium is a recurrent theme of progressives. Even Engels thought electrical power would inevitably lead to the socialist commonwealth.
>>69241321
We dont have unemployment from technology. We have unemployment far a whole lot of other reasons.
If the luddites were right about anything we would all be living at the dump while a handful of people live in unfathomable luxury
>>69241690
> We don't have unemployment from technology
Yes, we do. Technology acts as a productivity amplifier. When 10 people can do the work that used to take 1000, it is inevitably going to cause unemployment.
> muh luddites
You don't have to be a luddite to notice that technology has some downsides. I'm a fucking computer engineer, I'm hardly some anti-tech fanatic.
Bumping thread
>>69236668
You are right.
This "post scarcity" thing is only a new scheme from socialists to get them in power.
The current scheme is this unconditional basic income.
They tried it the same way during the last industrial revolution.
They will always try. Because there is a percentage of humans who are just lazy and buy into it.
Wouldn't capitalism in a post-scarcity just automatically become ultra-capitalism? Relying on consumerism completely and becoming many times more decadent and alive?
>>69240484
>service sector
>real jobs
>>69241409
Honestly, I think it would be much better if the progressives kept this narrative up. At least it would make them fight for technology and science rather than minorities.
>>69243049
We already live post scarcity from a standpoint of 100 years ago.
Literally everything they did back then is now automated.
But then there are smartphones, smart tvs, internet which in the form we have now was unimaginable even in the 90ies.
Post scarcity of today will not be post scarcity in 30 or 50 years, just in the limited imagination of today.
Capitalism will always win in the long run, because it does not require authority, it does only require two humans voluntarily interacting and it is just the most efficient way to do stuff.
And yes consumerism is what drives humans to do more.
Socialists are just happy when it is safe and they have food. But thankfully this will not be enough for most humans.
>>69243709
>We already live post scarcity from a standpoint of 100 years ago.
>No
