So if basic income doesn't become a thing will billions of people just starve to death because they can't afford to buy food?
Also after AI becomes a thing do we even need to have a population higher than 500 million people?
>>7708537
If there were a billion people who wanted to buy my product, I would probably be able to make a profit by selling it to them.
>>7708537
>after AI becomes a thing do we even need to have people
ftfy
>>7708537
>So if basic income doesn't become a thing will billions of people just starve to death because they can't afford to buy food?
Well, alternatively, the US could also just quit subsidizing useless corn fuel and put our maize back in the food supply while clamping down on commodities speculation.
>>7708617
>while clamping down on commodities speculation.
So you think the right of a poor person not starving to death is more important than the free market?
>>7708537
I'm confused about the question. You mean if there was no form of currency around/people stopped being paid to contribute to society?
Yeah everything would crumble. Even those with money would suffer because there'd be no one to buy anything from or use for various services -- I'd venture to guess that in the aftermath of whenever this currency collapse happens, no one would work whatsoever. People in cities would go first, people with land or in rural areas will be fine for a while assuming there's access to water and calories.
>>7708627
Evantually 80% of jobs will be able to be done by robots.
How do you feed those that can't get a job?
Letting them starve is inefficient because of rebellions but basic income is parasitic to the system.
>>7708619
Actually I think he was arguing that subsidized ethanol and commodities speculation adds volatility to and inflates food prices, not arguing for the free market. But that would require some knowledge and thought to figure out instead of just reacting with political bullshit.
>>7708635
>Evantually 80% of jobs will be able to be done by robots
Citation needed.
Robotics is no where near that level and won't be for some time to come; and even if so, I highly doubt 80% of employees work in jobs that could be replaced by robots that haven't already.
>>7708627
Basic income means scrapping all social support and replacing it with a "citizenship dividend" which is played out to every adult, regardless of income from other sources.
>>7708635
Basic income won't encourage parasites any more than our current system does, especially since we pay thousands of office drones to administer the distribution of food stamps, wellfare, etc., who are otherwise contributing nothing to society.
>>7708652
The world has changed more in the past 10 years than it has in the past 100.
Technology is exponential not linear.
>>7708619
Yes. Markets are useful when they distribute goods effectively and a pest when they don't. The present environment in commodities speculation has only existed since the commodities futures modernization act of 2000, if I'm not mistaken. We allow it by choice and we can disallow it by choice.
>>7708652
Most jobs in postindustrial countries are in the service sector these days and largely involve low-skill data handling and conversation. Welcome to the 20th century, where we already have most of the robots we need.
>>7708537
>because they can't afford to buy food?
If you're talking about "robots dun terk ur jerbs" then this would mean that food would become incredibly cheap.
In fact, everything that is replaced with a robot will become much cheaper. Which means everyone buying those things effectively becomes richer, as cost of living goes down. Which means they will spend that extra money on other stuff, which has to be produced by someone, who will buy stuff in turn, etc. etc.
So tl;dr the automation era will be more prosperous than ever, not some dystopia.
>>7708664
But why does consumption need to exists when humans are no longer needed for their labor?
Wouldn't it just be easier for the 1% to kill everyone else and have the world to themselves being catered and pampered by their robots?
>>7708676
No because the 1% are not particularly skilled with technology and would get destroyed by the other portion of humanity, which contains most of the people who know how to maintain and produce killbots, among other things.
>>7708676
We'd all be "the 1%." The 99% would be robots.
>>7708683
Right but the makers of the armored machine gun drones would be paid for by the 1%.
And I mean they would also keep some technocrats around to keep advancing science and maintaining the robots.
It just seems easier to assume billions of people are going to die in the future than billions of people are going to have wonderful post-scarcity lives.
>>7708684
The planet would seem awfully chaotic and violent if there where 9 billion cyborgs walking/flying around doing their own shit.
>>7708537
Saturn is so interesting!!!
>>7708658
Yes, I agree. But there's no substantial evidence right now that we could create a computer to match the human brain. And so many jobs, the vast majority, require a human brain. We've already implemented robots when available, as I mentioned. But jobs that require interaction, troubleshooting, collaboration, creativity, detection of human emotion, sarcasm, making decisions based off of numerous changing variables around you, pleasing others and the emotions of others, etc.
You're also not taking into account the human market at all. If you consider robots taking over a restaurant, for instance: it may become a fad to eat there, but when people realize that the prices are astronomical (no, fully autonomous robots with infinite computing ability are not cheap), and they miss the principle of interacting with other humans (innate within almost all of us to be social and cooperative), then the fad will die out. Alternatively, if we begin to see that robots are taking the jobs of 80 fucking % of people, then we will make a change or implement policy. It will never happen.
>>7708687
If the past is anything to go by, our improved capabilities will be pushed to their limit as the population explodes in response to the new abundance. The few who understand that just because you can now feed 30 children easily doesn't mean you should will live like gods, just as it is now.
>>7708696
You would have to be retarded to think that most jobs, especially anything but the fanciest restaurant work, require anything approaching human-level intelligence. Most people are annoyed that they have to interact with others at a store.
>>7708691
>cyborgs walking/flying around doing their own shit.
Who said anything about that?
>>7708706
Will a middle class person in 50 years have a better quality of life than a billionaire now?
>>7708722
Ray Kurzweil
>>7708683
>No because the 1% are not particularly skilled with technology
Right, yeah, everyone's getting priced out of SF and Seattle by unwashed masses of ragged industrial proletarians
>>7708717
It's not a matter of magnitude of intelligence, but the highly evolved social mechanisms of the human brain that a robot could never match. We are born with it, it's free, doesn't require countless hours of research to develop, powers itself, doesn't consume valuable resources (financial and natural), etc. If we're talking the job-market, I'd argue that you would have to be retarded to think that robots will be taking any more of our jobs that they already have.
All of these is in the extremely unlikely event that will even create such capable robots and AI.
>>7708740
> that a robot could never match
Famous last words
>>7708742
I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong.
