When asked about fears of automation in 1969, Arthur C. Clarke famously said that we shouldn't worry about automation: "the goal of the future is full unemployment, so we can play." I have never seen his answer quoted in full.

@yogthos Image description: A scanned excerpt, reading:
by a computer, reduced to an IBM card and filed away.
CLARKE: The goal of the future is full unemployment, so we can play. That's why we have to destroy the present politico-economic system.

@yogthos I like that quote. And Clarke is correct: the current system thrives on keeping a large amount of people poor and struggling. Those who are making money face a paradox: automation is cheaper than humans, but that means the humans have less money to buy stuff, and more time to throw fits.

@yogthos Communism doesn't work, socialism too. And what system will be more efficient than capitalism?

@Revertron @yogthos if by "efficient" you're talking about money, then none. Money is a capitalist construct. If you're talking about resource use, then capitalism is the least efficient one.

@grilix @yogthos Okay, consider the situation:
One man works hard, another is not working at all.
Why the first one should feed the other?
What can motivate one human to waste his time and energy on others, unknown people?

@Revertron @yogthos the working class already works hard to feed the rich, most of which don't add any value to society. You're implying the rich would starve to death if it weren't for the money they're stealing, basically.

@Revertron @yogthos there are a lot of people who waste a lot of time and energy helping "unknown" people. You can start with the people who makes open source stuff (like this platform we're using,) or people who feeds hungry people all around the globe. Most of the people that don't work today, is because this system doesn't help them do whatever they want to do, but even if they don't want to work, it should be allowed, we have a lot of food, and we can produce even more with almost no effort.

@Revertron @grilix @yogthos If somebody is working while there is all the basic needs taking care of by the use of automation and distribution of production then they have chosen to work. Why would they feel distress at another that has decided to not spend their life in a job?

@Niquarl Everyone should "spend his life in a job" to be paid. If you need something from one person - you need to do something for someone.
It's like gaining "social points" for your activity and then spending them on some goods or services.

No one should work for free!

@grilix @yogthos

@ninesigns @yogthos @Revertron oh, thanks for the correction. I don't think it makes any difference, tho. Other systems wont focus on making money, so if that's your measure, no other system is more "efficient" than capitalism.

@grilix @yogthos @Revertron Until all human species are linked into hive mind with low latency, money is the best method of information transmission about what people need.

@ninesigns @yogthos @Revertron I don't think that's true, a planned economy would work much better, since would produce only what we need

@ninesigns @yogthos @Revertron we have enough computing power to make those decisions with too little human effort

@grilix @yogthos @Revertron If and only if all minds are connected to planning network directly.

@grilix @ninesigns @yogthos > planned economy will produce only what we need? Then no progress and innovation?

@yogthos @Revertron @grilix Lets start with enumeration of consumer goods launched first in USSR for mass consumption.

@Revertron @ninesigns @yogthos if you're talking about gold plated phones or that shit the free market is heading towards, then no, probably not. If you're talking about anything that will improve people's lives, then I don't see why not. The question will be "will this help?" instead of "will this make me tons of money?"

@grilix @ninesigns @yogthos Why do you think that gold plated phones do not improve people's lives?
Some of them are happier if they have such phones. Do you want to forbid the happiness for them?

@Revertron @ninesigns @yogthos yeah, I will not only forbid the happiness to those rich idiots who only care about themselves, but I'd probably burn them.

@grilix @ninesigns @yogthos Then... you will forbid richness at all, right?
But richness is power, and seeking the power, becoming alpha-male in a pack is in our very nature.
Will you punish every human for it's biological needs?

@Revertron @ninesigns @yogthos dude, you are the farthest from nature you could ever be. We're being taught to be the alpha-male by this idiotic patriarchal system since we're born, we can do better than that, don't blame it on nature.

@grilix @ninesigns @yogthos Almost all animals have these intents, and especially primates, and we somehow don't have them? :)
Anyway, why I should work hard and pay very big taxes to feed those, who doesn't work?
Don't say that robots will do all the hard work for me, we don't have such technology yet.

@ninesigns @yogthos @Revertron that's not the only example of planned economies. Amazon is a planned economy on itself, and boy it works. Chile tried a planned economy and was working just right, until the US organized a coup.

@grilix @yogthos @Revertron Amazon is integrated in global market, where price signals are available. I hear this argument a lot, but this comparison is of no use.

@ninesigns @yogthos @Revertron do you say Amazon plans according to prices? I'd say they plan according to what the can guess people want. Prices are only used for maximizing profit.

@grilix @ninesigns @yogthos Yep, and they kill all independent goods producers in the process.

@Revertron @ninesigns @yogthos that's an issue of capitalism, IMHO. That happens over and over again with international companies all around the world.

@grilix @ninesigns @yogthos Then, you don't want anybody to produce something on their own? If you like Amazons deeds.

@Revertron @ninesigns @yogthos I don't like Amazon, I'm just saying we already know how to plan consumption on a huge scale. What Amazon and other companies do, works well enough to guarantee the supply of needs for everyone.

@grilix @ninesigns @yogthos You know, that Amazon workers are constantly struggling about their salaries? That Amazon is literally exploiting them?

@Revertron @ninesigns @yogthos yes, the whole working class is being exploited, not just Amazon workers, but yeah, Amazon sucks.

@Revertron @grilix @yogthos "All" => certanly not true. Amazon is so successful because of their warehouse & distribution efficiency, though some may say it needs some regulations in specific places.

@ninesigns @yogthos @Revertron exactly, the distribution efficiency is what we are talking about, they achieve that by planning a lot what they have available and where to have it. That's not related to prices, but needs.

@grilix @ninesigns @yogthos If the need defines goods that I will have, then I will procreate indefinitely to grow my family and my family needs. And I will waste 80% of it!!! Because the state will give me more! It has plans!
And I don't give a fuck how many good and super-minded people will work for that!

@Revertron @ninesigns @yogthos yeah, what's the point? If we had production automated (which is the original discussion,) that wouldn't be a problem for anyone. Many people will find something to do instead of having more children, so your big family will be welcome.

@grilix @ninesigns @yogthos That "fully automated" point in time will be in StarTrek era. Why bother now?

@Revertron @ninesigns @yogthos if we really wanted to, I'm pretty sure we'll have the technology in a couple of years or so. The main issue would be convincing people that we can't just focus on money, but we also need to take into account millions of people suffering, in hunger, overworking. We need to start improving people's lives even if that's not profitable. They don't need to work to have a decent life, yet, when people have a decent life, most of them will contribute back.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit