A few years ago, I read the Communist Manifesto for a history class in college. Now, the one thing that stuck out was a prediction by Karl Marx that inevitably, mechanization would eliminate much of the work force causing Capitalism to collapse with too small an economic base. While much of Communism has proven to be a failure, what if Karl was right about this one prediction.
Over the past 100 years or so, we've seen an explosive growth in our technological capabilities. Over the past 50 years, many factory workers have lost their jobs as robots have come in to do the job both cheaper and with more precision. Within 25 years, artificial intelligence and robotics will likely reach a point where we can begin to replace jobs in the service sector. Currently, there is research being done on Robots that can perform many of the functions of hospital orderlies. Some warehouses are beginning to use automated fork lifts that can deliver pallets to their appropriate shipping docks, so there is no reason to believe that stock clerks couldn't be replaced with a similar system once the price goes down.
If this does come to pass, what happens to Capitalism and society? Do we insist that everyone who currently works in these jobs have to gain higher degrees of education? What do we do with those, such as the mentally challenged, who don't have the capacity to perform skilled or semi skilled labor? Will this be enough to limit the consumer base to the point where it won't be able to support the business owners? Can anyone else think of other consequences of that these developments will have?
Discuss.
The Internet is like a screwdriver. You can use it to take an engine apart and understand it, or you can see how far you can stick it in your ear until you hit resistance.
I'd just like to point out that it was not robots that destroyed the western world's industrial job market, it was foreign competition. However, robots in the service industry does scare me, though I'd like to think that business owners would be smart enough to not replace their employees with robots, immediately putting all of their customers into poverty.
At 1/25/09 05:45 PM, Chickidydow wrote: I'd just like to point out that it was not robots that destroyed the western world's industrial job market, it was foreign competition.
You are correct that robots didn't destroy the Western industrial job market, but it did eliminate jobs.
However, robots in the service industry does scare me, though I'd like to think that business owners would be smart enough to not replace their employees with robots, immediately putting all of their customers into poverty.
The problem I think, though, is that such a transition would be gradual. You wouldn't replace your staff that interacted customers with robots immediately, for instance. The first areas you will likely see this occur in are support and logistics roles, such as stock and janitorial. In the scenario I envision, the tipping point will be reached gradually. Those owners that a forward thinking will likely miss the effect until it has happened. Other owners concerned only with short term profits won't even think twice.
The Internet is like a screwdriver. You can use it to take an engine apart and understand it, or you can see how far you can stick it in your ear until you hit resistance.
It's obvious that as robots starts replacing jobs, the general public earns less money, and less product is sold. The cost of human labor will drop like a stone, since they have to out price robots. Basically, companies will be forced to downsize their workforce robots into human workers who works for dirt, to be able to maintain themselves despite selling less.
I'm not sure how it will end, but I'm pretty sure it will involve poor people working for less and rich people being richer. I mean, that's the general trend of anything really.
http://drakim.net - My exploits for those interested
What you're talking about is post-scarcity economics. Hypothetically speaking, under the current capitalist system without labor costs there would be virtually no way to set prices for goods. Even the price of raw materials is set by the price of the labor required to produce them, so that metric would also be obliterated.
In my opinion we would see a move from production-based economies to intellectual property based economies. Or, we would see a redefinition of value from the price of labor to how much a good is desired (pure demand economics, with no thought given to supply).
Unless otherwise noted, I am not being sarcastic.
/o\
At 1/25/09 05:54 PM, Drakim wrote: It's obvious that as robots starts replacing jobs, the general public earns less money, and less product is sold. The cost of human labor will drop like a stone, since they have to out price robots. Basically, companies will be forced to downsize their workforce robots into human workers who works for dirt, to be able to maintain themselves despite selling less.
I'm not sure how it will end, but I'm pretty sure it will involve poor people working for less and rich people being richer. I mean, that's the general trend of anything really.
That is a good point, but I doubt it would hold. If too many people can't afford the basics of life, you will get massive civil unrest. Being rich doesn't matter too much if an angry mob is hanging a rope from a tree branch right outside your mansion gates.
The Internet is like a screwdriver. You can use it to take an engine apart and understand it, or you can see how far you can stick it in your ear until you hit resistance.
At 1/25/09 05:58 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: That is a good point, but I doubt it would hold. If too many people can't afford the basics of life, you will get massive civil unrest. Being rich doesn't matter too much if an angry mob is hanging a rope from a tree branch right outside your mansion gates.
Sadly, we've moved beyond the days where an angry but poor mob can power through all opposition. How would this mob face armored police vehicles? Or anti-crowd energy weapons? Or, if it came to it, automated mass-kill systems like metal storm? No, the super rich in this hypothetical future will have little to fear from any sort of prole uprising.
Unless otherwise noted, I am not being sarcastic.
/o\
At 1/25/09 06:05 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote: Sadly, we've moved beyond the days where an angry but poor mob can power through all opposition. How would this mob face armored police vehicles? Or anti-crowd energy weapons? Or, if it came to it, automated mass-kill systems like metal storm? No, the super rich in this hypothetical future will have little to fear from any sort of prole uprising.
I seriously doubt they will have "nothing" to fear. When 90% of the population takes up arms against the other 10%, armored vehicles and other advanced weaponry offer little protection. Besides, there's nothing to stop such a rebellion from procuring their own armored vehicles and "mass-kill" systems. This is America after all.
I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs
Hopefully this is the death of capitalism, cause I can't wait.
"We anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves."-Errico Malatesta
At 1/25/09 07:14 PM, Musician wrote: I seriously doubt they will have "nothing" to fear. When 90% of the population takes up arms against the other 10%, armored vehicles and other advanced weaponry offer little protection. Besides, there's nothing to stop such a rebellion from procuring their own armored vehicles and "mass-kill" systems. This is America after all.
For starters, we're talking about a hypothetical rebellion of the super poor against the super rich. And these aren't the kind of weapons that you can just make in your backyard. The army hasn't released the cost-per-unit for the ADS, but its estimated at over $7 million per unit. In other words, if you can afford it, you wont be the one rebelling.
Secondly, there is NO defense against the ADS or metal storm. ADS hits you, you're out of the game. It can clear an entire football field in seconds. And if metal storm hits anywhere near you, you're not only dead, you are probably completely unrecognizable as ever having been a human being (and metal storm's firing rate can hit 1 million rounds per minute).
Unless otherwise noted, I am not being sarcastic.
/o\
At 1/25/09 07:34 PM, Kev-o wrote: Hopefully this is the death of capitalism, cause I can't wait.
As the wise man once said, "You don't know what you have until it's gone."
The fall of capitalism and the rise of communism may sound like some grand deal, but you gotta remember one very important thing. Humans are greedy, and without an incentive, most people will not work.
Can anyone here name anything that was invented in a country that was full blown communist?
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 1/25/09 08:07 PM, Korriken wrote: The fall of capitalism and the rise of communism may sound like some grand deal, but you gotta remember one very important thing. Humans are greedy, and without an incentive, most people will not work.
but this wouldn't be a problem if all the work is done for us.
At 1/25/09 08:07 PM, Korriken wrote: Can anyone here name anything that was invented in a country that was full blown communist?
Tetris.
Unless otherwise noted, I am not being sarcastic.
/o\
At 1/25/09 08:07 PM, Korriken wrote:At 1/25/09 07:34 PM, Kev-o wrote: Hopefully this is the death of capitalism, cause I can't wait.As the wise man once said, "You don't know what you have until it's gone."
The fall of capitalism and the rise of communism may sound like some grand deal, but you gotta remember one very important thing. Humans are greedy, and without an incentive, most people will not work.
Can anyone here name anything that was invented in a country that was full blown communist?
I'll know what I'll have when it's gone, bliss.
I'm not a communist.
AK-47s, RPGs, Molotov Cocktails...Mostly weapons. Though, some people might dispute whether or not those countries labeled communist are actually communist.
"We anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves."-Errico Malatesta
At 1/25/09 08:02 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote:At 1/25/09 07:14 PM, Musician wrote: I seriously doubt they will have "nothing" to fear. When 90% of the population takes up arms against the other 10%, armored vehicles and other advanced weaponry offer little protection. Besides, there's nothing to stop such a rebellion from procuring their own armored vehicles and "mass-kill" systems. This is America after all.For starters, we're talking about a hypothetical rebellion of the super poor against the super rich. And these aren't the kind of weapons that you can just make in your backyard. The army hasn't released the cost-per-unit for the ADS, but its estimated at over $7 million per unit. In other words, if you can afford it, you wont be the one rebelling.
Theft.
Secondly, there is NO defense against the ADS or metal storm. ADS hits you, you're out of the game.
Mirrors.
It can clear an entire football field in seconds. And if metal storm hits anywhere near you, you're not only dead, you are probably completely unrecognizable as ever having been a human being (and metal storm's firing rate can hit 1 million rounds per minute).
A 50-Pound block of steel with a handle on the back should suffice against everything except gas and RPGs. Gas mask for gas. If it starts launching RPGs, then I'll need more time to think of a solution.
Either way, a crowd of super poor people are not necessarily going to gather as an angry mob. Once dispersed using the ADS, they will smarten up and begin implementing guerrilla warfare tactics. Probably sending in assassins with sniper-rifles, or flooding the area with poison gases. The super-rich won't want to live in a war-zone for the rest of their lives. Besides, if a fort is under siege long enough, it eventually falls.
yes.
People fail to realize that communism may never rise in that scenario, and the world would probably stay in a state of anarchy.
At 1/25/09 09:24 PM, BetaOrionis wrote:Secondly, there is NO defense against the ADS or metal storm. ADS hits you, you're out of the game.Mirrors.
or wire-mesh.
laugh, but tin foil would work too.
At 1/25/09 08:02 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote: For starters, we're talking about a hypothetical rebellion of the super poor against the super rich.
The super poor being those who can be replaced by robots. Namely, everyone who isn't in high level management... which would be the vast majority of the populous. Even if they can't "afford" weaponry that doesn't mean they can't procure by force. Such things are not unheard of. Besides that, even without cutting edge technology they're hardly at a disadvantage due to sheer numbers. It's how the Chinese drew the technologically superior US army out of Korea in the 1950s.
Secondly, there is NO defense against the ADS or metal storm.
Thats what they said about bullets. Even if there really was "no defense" you're still not considering the social consequences of such actions. Do you think the US military would really tolerate opening fire with such deadly weapons on their own civilians? Do you claim that Soldiers, cut from the same social class as those they would be asked to kill, would perform such such atrocities? Because I cannot see it.
I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs
While there is nothingi would love more then the downfall of capitalism and its evils , But mechanazation and tehcnology will not kill capitalism it will either kill itself slowly with Foreign Labour , or The proper way Thorogh Uprising and revolution quickly (though i do not see this in the near future)
Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners. VLADIMIR ILYICH LENIN V OKTYBRYE
Huh. I'm surprised over the amount of people that outright reject capitalism.
I mean, I'm not very happy with the "free unregulated market no matter the cost"-stance (especially after what has recently happened in 2008). But it's not like I would want capitalism to suddenly die, to be replaced by full blown communism all over the world. Even if communism was better, such a sudden change sound scary. What happens to all the existing companies? How would growth be handled? Production? I mean, It's not exactly a minor change in how you run things we are talking about here.
http://drakim.net - My exploits for those interested
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/atlasshrug ged/section1.html
Chapter 1, Analysis.
The Oak Tree.
Capitalism died a LONG time ago. I would wager that in the united states there was never a pure capitalism, at the best of it's existence capitalism has run at close to about 80% freedom, at least in this country. Because even before the progressive age you still had slavery, which Smith and Mill both denounced as unproductive, and you still had tariffs.
Currently, i think the world leaders in free economics can be found in Asia. One of the things i'm considering doing is learning to speak Japanese and Chinese.
Now... on the topic at hand
Unless you are using Karl Marx's definition of capitalism, (in which case you are a fool because his definition is so broad that every country in history is a capitalist country to some degree, it's simply a matter of who controls the capital. (Whether it be hereditary groups, the state, or private entrepreneurs) Under this definition of capitalism, capitalism will survive until the ends of the earth or until some strange technological phenomenon removes the actual need for capital.) Capitalism, much like worker collectives, communism as was portrayed by Karl Marx, was never achieved,
Communism in this sense failed because of man's nature to be primarilly vested in self-interest, not communial interest. [especially not if one isn't even rewarded in a communist society with good deeds by personal admiration, the driving force behind all secular charity]
As for soviet inventions, one notices with soviet inventions that you can categorize the inventions that were developed in the country. Nearly all of them were military, because the soviet union, with all of the money it had to pump into subverting it's neighbors and controlling it's people, could do little else. You can also note that some of the inventions may have been stolen from the Nazis, who likely pumped as much of their money into military research as did the soviets. It makes sense all of the soviet innovations were military, because the only people with economic incentive were military and political leaders, their economic incentive was to keep their people's suppressed.
In the case of the united states compared to Russia, i don't think there are any more than a dozen or so noteable russians who as individuals invented NON military goods, and with good reason since you can't profit in making them. John Galt describes these individuals as some of the "strikers" who don't actually know that they are on strike. They refuse to think for others and often times even for themselfs because they are not rewarded and often times punished for thinking.
On the other hand, the US government probably didn't invent even half of the things that popped up in the years between 1945 and 1990, it didn't have to. And note how many of those innovations were not involved in the military, because the US had more business than bossing other people around. [While that was certainly part of it's business, wealth created from the profit incentive atleast made it capable of performing other functions]
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 1/25/09 09:24 PM, BetaOrionis wrote: Mirrors.
Not that kind of energy weapon. And no, metal mesh won't help either. Nor tinfoil. The army tested both.
A 50-Pound block of steel with a handle on the back should suffice against everything except gas and RPGs. Gas mask for gas. If it starts launching RPGs, then I'll need more time to think of a solution.
Metal storm fires 20mm anti-tank grenades at a rate of up to 1 million rounds per minute. It was designed to destroy an entire tank battalion in a singe shot. It's also fully automated, so instead of needing soldiers to operate it who could refuse to fire on civilians, you have some fat guy with a joystick (possibly on the other side of the world) making the call.
Either way, a crowd of super poor people are not necessarily going to gather as an angry mob. Once dispersed using the ADS, they will smarten up and begin implementing guerrilla warfare tactics. Probably sending in assassins with sniper-rifles, or flooding the area with poison gases. The super-rich won't want to live in a war-zone for the rest of their lives. Besides, if a fort is under siege long enough, it eventually falls.
Doubtful. If they were that bright, they'd be running the show.
Unless otherwise noted, I am not being sarcastic.
/o\
Horselover, I just like to ask you something.
According to this, the US has a projected population of 305 million people.
The super-rich accounts for only 0.9% since 2005 though.
That's only 2,745,000 super-rich people, while there is 302,255,000 non super-rich people.
Now, take a away...let's say a third of both statistics to account for children.
1,830,000 super-rich adult people are left, while 201,503,333 adult non-super rich people are left.
Now, don't forget that police and soldiers are in the latter category.
So, what you're saying is that the government will have no problem with robots policing us and fighting for us? How will robots react if they see civilians? Surrendering soldiers? Crazed criminals? Hostages? There's too many variables. Plus, there's a chance the family of those police and soldiers will be protesting (or rioting), and the police may not have a problem with using a non-lethal weapon, how are the soldiers suppose to use their weapons on the civilian populace? Who all just want to have income equality? And what about their family and friends, what would happen if they riot?
I know this isn't a bulletproof post, but I just wanted to point that out.
Quite honestly, I hope you're right. It's just that I've seen some of the new weapons coming out being demonstrated, and quite honestly I don't see how anyone can stand up to them. It wouldn't be so bad if they were just guns, with human minds deciding who they kill. But these things are fully automated. They pick targets, aim, and fire all on their own.
Already, there have been writings on how the ADS may be the death of civil protesting as we know it. At least for now there are actual people on the spot who decide whether or not to subject protesters or rioters to it, but once the decision can be made totally remotely, well, I'm not optimistic. At the risk of invoking Godwin's wrath, the events of WWII should be enough to show how distance from a situation reduces empathy.
Unless otherwise noted, I am not being sarcastic.
/o\
At 1/26/09 10:00 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote:
Thanks for that article. I found it interesting. Cheap and effective nano-tech could also be the positive end to capitalism. Once we've developed nano tech that can produce anything by recycling components, anyone could have almost anything they wanted. Thus everyone would be fed and would have have everything they desired. Want a Ferrari, download the plans the have the nano machines copy them.
I am somewhat concerned though about what will happen to humanity once it is effectively useless. If we assume that the machines will be under our full control and take care of all of our needs, including innovation, what will become of humanity? Will we simply become vacuous hedonists with nothing left to strive for? Even if all of my material wants and needs were met, I doubt that that is an existence I would enjoy.
Quite honestly, I hope you're right. It's just that I've seen some of the new weapons coming out being demonstrated, and quite honestly I don't see how anyone can stand up to them. It wouldn't be so bad if they were just guns, with human minds deciding who they kill. But these things are fully automated. They pick targets, aim, and fire all on their own.
You could very well be correct in your analysis, but I don't see thing playing out the way you've described. Of course, this is all speculation, so there isn't really a right answer.
1) You are correct about the automated weapons in an all out assault situation, but I don't think this is how a guerrilla assault would take place. I'm assuming that other techniques would be used. The rich may be safe in their compounds, but they'd have to leave at some point. When they do this, they'd be vulnerable to rocket fire and IED's. This is not to dissimilar to Iraq, where the insurgency has developed very effective tactics with little technology. Even if they can have robots leave to get supplies, those robots will be vulnerable, and the wealthy could be starved out. It could come to the point where the wealthy wouldn't even have to be defeated, but instead they could give up because the cost of maintaining their defense would outweigh that of just giving people work, and that is just in raw capital and not even considering quality of life.
2) I doubt that all of the super rich as you put it would side against the common people. Some of them would likely lend support to insurgents opposing the unjust.
3) The reliance on technology could be a double edge sword. By the time we get to this point, many people with technology based skills would be out of work and starving as well. Anything that required remote communication could be vulnerable to being broken into and turned against its owner. Furthermore, these individuals would have little to do except build their own weapons to counter the weapons of the wealthy.
4) In your a scenario, I'm assuming that democratic, civilian government has broken down or become completely co-opted. I believe that the social breakdown would occur before this point has been reached. There would still be a civilian government that would not take too kindly to privately armed forces gunning down civilians. Even if there wasn't, at this point I believe we'd still have a military, and many in this military would not tolerate what was happening on there soil. Many signed up to protect democracy. We could see a coup de tat or civil war.
5) Even if we reached the point you described, there would still be lots of angry ex soldiers and lots of powerful military equipment that could be taken and used.
Already, there have been writings on how the ADS may be the death of civil protesting as we know it. At least for now there are actual people on the spot who decide whether or not to subject protesters or rioters to it, but once the decision can be made totally remotely, well, I'm not optimistic. At the risk of invoking Godwin's wrath, the events of WWII should be enough to show how distance from a situation reduces empathy.
This is a sad state, and I hope it does not come to pass. Fortunately, until the systems become reliable enough to make decisions on their own, they will still have to activated remotely and thus will be vulnerable to either having their command lines severed or broken into. Although the author of the article you've sited believes that we could have general AI in five years, I doubt we are anywhere near that point. While I'm certainly not at the forefront of the AI research, I am currently studying AI techniques for both video games and data analysis applications, and from what I've seen thus far, we aren't anywhere near their yet. I'm not personally a fan of General AI for several reasons, including what I mentioned above, as well as the unlikely terminator scenario and the possibility of creating a new slave race.
At 1/25/09 08:07 PM, Korriken wrote:At 1/25/09 07:34 PM, Kev-o wrote:
The fall of capitalism and the rise of communism may sound like some grand deal, but you gotta remember one very important thing. Humans are greedy, and without an incentive, most people will not work.
While I realize that you were talking to Kev-o, the situation I'm talking about is one in which machines are doing much of the work, so this is not an issue as far as material productivity is concerned.
Personally, though, I've completely bought into the whole no one would work if they weren't paid for it, angle. I'll admit that there are many jobs where people must be motivated by money, but I have a lot of trouble believing that most people wouldn't do anything.
I suppose the reason is that money only motivates me in so far as I need it to live and get a few extras. Currently, I'm working as web application developer taking overflow server side work from larger firms. I'm currently in the process of opening my own business to have more freedom in my work. The truth is I love the work. It exercises both my creative and rational sides. I was doing this on my own for free, and if I didn't have to work, I'd probably be free to work on even more interesting projects. The fact that I can organize this into a career only enables me to do what I love, but it doesn't motivate me to do the work. The nano tech scenario above could liberate many of our best and brightest to do research that find rewarding and could benefit humanity instead of focusing it on profit driven methods.
I will of course admit that my situation is one of the things I like about Capitalism, which I'm willing to admit has both drawbacks and benefits. Anyone who is clever enough (or, as in my case, in a sector with low capital requirements), can find a way a to do what they love for a living. I'm pretty much neutral on Capitalism, though I don't believe it should be our primary moral system as some have turned it into. My main issue s with those who have turned it into a religion.
Can anyone here name anything that was invented in a country that was full blown communist?
Do long lines for toilet paper count?
The Internet is like a screwdriver. You can use it to take an engine apart and understand it, or you can see how far you can stick it in your ear until you hit resistance.
At 1/26/09 08:41 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote: Not that kind of energy weapon. And no, metal mesh won't help either. Nor tinfoil. The army tested both.
your link said they worked?
At 1/27/09 02:20 AM, SolInvictus wrote: your link said they worked?
Wikipedia is wrong.
Well OK, right in a way. It can't pass through some forms EM shielding. However, a person would need to have absolutely no exposed skin, not even a slit to see through, and the mesh would have to be extremely tightly woven, to the point that it would be totally inflexible. While I'm sure someone will eventually work it out, a quick home-made kit just won't cut it.
Unless otherwise noted, I am not being sarcastic.
/o\
Sorry for the double post, I realized I forgot to include my source.
Unless otherwise noted, I am not being sarcastic.
/o\
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
