Computers That Can Learn---What Happens When A Majority Of Humans Don't Contribute Value
Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
Is this where we're heading? How does our philosophy deal with this eventuality?
From the Article:
A: If we remove the idea of the soul, at some point in history [there's nothing that] computers and machines won't be able to do at least as well as us. We can argue about when that will happen. I think it will be in the next few decades.
Q: No one will have to work anymore?
A: Some very large percentage of the world. The vast majority of things that are necessary will have been automated.
The question that is actually much more interesting is: What happens when we're halfway there? What happens when the amount of things that can't be automated is much smaller than the amount of people that exist to do them? That's this point where half the world can't add economic value. That means half the world is destitute and unable to feed themselves. So we have to start to allocate some wealth on a basis other than the basis of labor or capital inputs. The alternative would be to say, "Most of humanity can't add any economic value, so we'll just let them die."
From the Article:
A: If we remove the idea of the soul, at some point in history [there's nothing that] computers and machines won't be able to do at least as well as us. We can argue about when that will happen. I think it will be in the next few decades.
Q: No one will have to work anymore?
A: Some very large percentage of the world. The vast majority of things that are necessary will have been automated.
The question that is actually much more interesting is: What happens when we're halfway there? What happens when the amount of things that can't be automated is much smaller than the amount of people that exist to do them? That's this point where half the world can't add economic value. That means half the world is destitute and unable to feed themselves. So we have to start to allocate some wealth on a basis other than the basis of labor or capital inputs. The alternative would be to say, "Most of humanity can't add any economic value, so we'll just let them die."
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
A number of countries are providing incentives to increase birth rate to slow the decrease. Of course there are some regions with higher birth rates and immigration is filling in the gaps but as standards of living improve it is is reasonable to expect that they will follow the pattern.
Of course there is a lag to this and the population will continue to rise for the next couple of decades. I expect it to peak around 9.5 billion which is a bit less than generally expected. After that we should see it begin to decrease with the lower birth rate offset to a degree by extended longevity.
It turns out that the solution to population control is not to force birth control but to increase standards of living and, especially, opportunities for women.
Maybe in 30 years, but for now, not even the Asian countries can make a robot stable enough to walk, let alone try to do tasks.
For assembly plants, where the motion is the same, robots can do this, but for the level needed to carry out tasks on their own, in environments that are constantly changing, they can't adapt.
As for population control, that would be a great idea, world wide.
The idea of people having children that can not support them, not just with money, but emotionally, this is why we, and the rest of the world are so screwed up.
You should have to get a permit to have a child, after a long review.
We would not need welfare, food stamps, medicaid, or any other social programs if only multimillionaires were allowed to have children.
Out infrastructure would last longer, our resources would last longer. It would be a much better world.
Terminator Movies
Logan's Run
Soilent Green
1984
Out of Time
Hunger Games
iRobot
Do we learn NOTHING?
Jan
I posit that many people who work for a living do not find that work is the purpose of their life. There is something else - let us say 'tennis' - that is what their life is built around. So removing the 'work' part of their day would not cause these individuals a philosophical problem, nor would it require a re-evaluation of a Randist philosophy.
I feel that businessmen are being forced to buy robots by the liberal agenda. With the increased requirements for health care and wage minimums, human people will not be able to compete with a no-rights, no time off automation. This is amusing to me. It is worthwhile for a business owner to buy a $100K robot to replace one of his staff, even if that robot only lasts a few years. We need to get robots to the next level of capability, and this will happen.
Insofar as letting people die, I think we have to set the base line. Right now, with the world population as it is, we could provide food and water and a shelter for everyone in the world. The problems in achieving this are logistical and political, not technical. When the world population reaches 10.5 Billion (its probably max) then we will still be able to provide food etc for everyone. And we will be able to do this without increasing the acreage under cultivation - given that the agricultural land now in use in 3rd world countries is converted to use modern farming techniques.
When the entire world could be fed/housed for a small amount of expense on the part of the developed nations (who would have to support this for a couple of generations) would it be in any way to our advantage to not do this? If we had a free hand politically, it would be in our best interest to provide a good standard of living to Africa (for example) because we would automatically limit the spread of disease (which knows no borders), decrease current peacekeeping expenses, and tap the imagination of the .2% of the African population who are innovative geniuses and who are currently engaged in re-thatching the roof of their hut.
Jan
The answer to "They'll take our jobs" has always been, "But the technology will create new jobs". And, so far, it has because the automation has created to handle specific tasks. But when you create a machine that can change a bed, fry a burger, pick cherries and paint a house a large percentage of the workforce will find themselves competing with these creations – unsuccessfully. Mass production, the robots will also make themselves, will lower the cost of the machines to the point where no human can economically compete.
Yes, there will be new jobs for roboticists as well as other artists and artisans. But let’s not pretend there will be a big industry built to sell them and maintain them. We’ll buy them on the internet and they will be self maintaining. The UPS truck that delivers one will be driverless.
We work to live. This is a necessity because without human labor we cannot produce the goods and services we need, and simple fairness requires that people contribute to the creation of the bread they eat. No one should live off of the labor of others.
But what happens when the labor of a relatively small percentage of specialists is sufficient to produce sufficient goods to support the entire population?
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1f...
+1 Zen, thanks for posting the article for new arrivals ;^)
I think it does ask some very compelling questions. Limits on human procreation are very likely, imo.