Automation, Population Growth, and the Economy

[Ocram's Razr 964]

[THIS HAS BEEN COPIED FROM MY THREAD I POSTED LAST NIGHT ON MOD THE SIMS]

I would like to have a discussion on the nature of the economy here on Simtropolis. If this looks familiar, it is because I wanted to discuss this on other communities, especially because politics, philosophy, news, society, and current events are now forbidden on Minecraft Forum.

Most of you should be fully aware of the fact that automation has made life easier for many people and has brought great abundance while decreasing the requirement for manual labor in agriculture, extraction and industry. Well, now we have computer programs that even do the white collar jobs for us as well. We also have made great strides in efficiency in many sectors of the economy.

As some of you are also aware of, the natural growth rate (birth rate minus death rate) in post-industrial countries is neutral or negative. If one looks at census data, read the news, or taken any courses/classes having to do with population ecology, one can see that the technologically advanced developed nations have far lower birth rates than the developing and least developed nations. Japan, for instance, has a negative birth rate and low immigration rate and is thus seeing the consequences of an aging population right now.

What do these two things have in common? Well, all economic systems that rely on currency (whether it is backed by specie or goods or just by the government), require two things in order to perpetuate, scarcity and growth. Automation has removed most of real scarcity while most scarcity we see in the world is maintained by artificial manipulation. Human population growth will eventually slow down or go negative as the human population nears the Earth's highest carrying capacity for humans.

In conclusion, there are two outcomes for the end of the 21st Century, money continues to exist but the unemployment rate in developed nations reaches over half of the population or money stops existing and the world transitions towards at least a somewhat sustainable mostly post-scarcity economy. I understand that resources on Earth are finite but if we as a civilization put enough effort into research and development of space travel, then mining and colonization of other planets and asteroids will allow humanity to continue in comfort for a very long time. However, if our economy still relies on money and jobs, which means workers need employment for their livelihoods, then the over 50% unemployment rate will be disastrous and poverty and violence will become rampant.

I do not want to bore you with dry academic articles so I will link to a 15 minute video by CPG Grey, who sums things up nicely.

http://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU

If you believe differently from this and see other outcomes, feel free to share them, I would appreciate the enlightenment and discussion. If you wish for me to elaborate, express my opinion, or provide more sources, feel free to reply. I have tried to present a well-written first post that follows all the rules and guidelines so I am pretty sure that I am not supposed to express my opinion in the first post.

Thank you for your time,

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

First of all, this discussion belongs in off topic, if some sympathetic moderator will oblige.

 

I am not the least fazed by what is going on in the world right now.  Of course, I am at the end of my life span and may not live more than a couple of more decades, so where the western economies are going is rather moot for me.  My kids can fend for themselves.

 

Present technology is, at the moment, running rampant ahead of society and dragging society, holus bolus, along with it.  This is particulary true in communications, especially in the heavily urban populations.  I do not foresee a disaster in having a higher than normal unemployment rate.  There is a period of adjustment in progress where the ageing population is leaving the workforce. 

 

The insurance industry has been promoting the idea of early retirement at age 55 into some mythical "golden years".  Removing people from the workforce in this manner is reducing the tax revenues necessary to support the long term commitments of governments.  So, I am somewhat against the idea that you can retire around age 50 and play golf and be a drone the rest of your life.  You will be bored to tears within a year unless you have a serious second career in the works.  People are not designed to be idle.

 

Technology is running ahead of the social mores, as I have stated.  The idea of my generation was to "work diligently all your life when you will get your just reward".  For a large number of people in my group, the reward has been a pine box and six feet of dirt.  Fortunately or unfortunately the medical fraternity is doing its level best to put a stop to all this.  I see the next century as turning out differently.

 

In the 21st century, as the transition continues, more people will find themselves into multiple careers and/or job sharing.  The multiple careers may very well be serial.  I am an example, albeit in the 20th century.  One has to be flexible, but I have had two careers, both of them in automation.  First, I was a computer worker with posts from programmer/analyst to consultant (real, not some guy with a briefcase and an airline ticket) in large scale computers (mainframes).  When my industry was reorganized due to the PC revolution, I became a teacher.  At first in the private vocational colleges then finally at a public college, always with the title of 'Professor'.  You know, even though I worked on it occasionally and even worked in a large university, I never gathered up a formal degree of any kind.  Of course, these days, I think good old HKU is not offering degrees like mine any more.  Hard Knocks University has been replaced by the bubble wrap generation.  When I started the only way to get any education in computers was to become an electrical engineer.  Now, you can get a degree in Computer Science, whatever that is.

 

So, perhaps the exchange system will change from currency to something else.  We've been using a currency system since sometime in the 14th or 15th century with the founding of banks by the Italians (clever folks).  Before that it was specie or no deal and before that it was barter.  There have been some attacks on the currency system recently, notably by the Bit-coin thing, but there has also been some serious trouble with these alternate value systems.  The only real value is produced by making something that someone else wants.  So maybe the new exchange system will involve a standard value for man-hours, but the quality of the man-hours must be factored in.  Work hoeing a row of carrots is not worth as much as work building an aircraft, or is it?  The skill set is certainly different.

 

So, where the economy will go in the next century is for the rest of you to work out.  I've already put my effort in, paid my taxes and now expect to reap the benefits I paid for.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

This is relevant to Current Events and politics in addition to economics so I thought it would be more appropriate in the Current Events section than General Off-Topic.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________

 

I admit that I have not taken many classes on economics. In high school, I took a home economics class and in Running Start (community college), I took a business calculus class (before changing my major to chemistry). However, I read and watch the news as well as watch seminars and documentaries on economics (and other topics). I have also passed all 3 quarters of biology, which taught me about populaton ecology (among many other things). I have watched a seminar that said that capitalism and it's predecessor, mercantilism require scarcity and growth and those have been common throughout human history until recently.

It is now possible to provide food and adequate (though not luxurious) shelter to every human in the world but it is not desired politically. If you watched my video, computers and robots don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better than humans. And they currently are in most fields except for creativity and face-to-face communication.

Most humans will soon become unemployable through no fault of their own. This means that machines and computers can outperform them. This means that employment will become a thing of the past but this does not have to mean that those without employment need to suffer. However, if we as a civilization do not make the proper preparations to ensure a smooth transition, then the result will be like the Great Depression but far worse.

If desired, I could provide the sources I learned about scarcity and growth.

I forgot to share my opinion in this thread. I have shared it elsewhere many times. I sincerely believe that the current civilization has already reached its apex somewhere between 1950 and 2000 but if you know about the equation y=-x², the rate of decline after the apex is very small for a while. However, technology and science has shown us that another, better civilization is possible to replace the current one, if the current one does not resist change too much.

 

--Ocram

[LexusInfernus 908]

Present technology is, at the moment, running rampant ahead of society and dragging society, holus bolus, along with it.  This is particulary true in communications, especially in the heavily urban populations.  I do not foresee a disaster in having a higher than normal unemployment rate.  There is a period of adjustment in progress where the ageing population is leaving the workforce. 

We are not talking about a few percent extra on chronic unemployment. We are not even talking Depression Era unemployment (about 25%). We are talking full on chronic unemployment for the majority of the human race. Even under the most positive circumstances where old people are simply phased out instead of flat out fired, the jobs they leave will not be available for the next generation, because simply put, a robot or an automated computer program is cheaper and within a few decades, probably also a lot more effective. 

 

To put it simply, the only jobs that will remain are jobs where the fact that you are human adds value to the work process. Every other job is gone within the next 35-50 years.

 

In short, capitalism is about to fail, it cannot sustain in a society where 90% of the human race is chronically unemployed because there are simply not enough jobs. We need a better system, a new system, one where the prerequisite for material wealth is no longer employment.  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ There is no doubt that capitalism has run its course.  It will resist, kicking and screaming all the way to the oubliette.  I have no suggestions as to what might replace it, does anyone?

 

Perhaps the next Malthusian plague will be suicides by sheer ennui.  The resulting thinning of the population might be what nature wants.

[Easy Bakes 253]

well when no one can afford buy the products the robots/mega corporations produce how long can they last?

good thing there are lots of guns around right?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

That sounds like a recommendation for anarchy.

[Easy Bakes 253]

That sounds like a recommendation for anarchy.

A recipe

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Yes, well all the ingredients are running around armed to the teeth.

[mrsmartman 200]

Scarcity and opportunity cost will probably continue to exist in the foreseeable future. This is the reality. As people have more, they want more. How rich a person is, is a relative concept, as compared to others and the past. All things above survival are a bonus.

 

Growth slows down as matured. When people don't have money, they can choose to consume less and I believe the living standard would not be significantly impaired. In the financial market, assets return to their intrinsic value when bubble bursts. People can adjust to a sustainable way of life.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The period of adjustment is often bloody and quite fatal to many.  An upsurge in violent crime contributes to this as well as numerous suicides of people who simply cannot cope with the idea of having nothing and restarting from zero.

 

The general populace is really a herd of sheep, and without the guidance of the sheep dogs they will fall prey to the wolves.

[mrsmartman 200]

Although general long-term trend is difficult to change (the market will adjust to equilibrium), as it is influenced by numerous socioeconomic factors, the government can have some control over the fiscal, monetary and other policies to avoid a hard landing.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Governments are totally non-productive.  They produce nothing of themselves, having only taxes as a source of funds.  Don't expect a government to come to the rescue of the fiscal system because it has no resources other than tax revenues.  If a people is wealthy, then their government is wealthy and the converse is true except in the cases of corrupt administrations living on the proceeds of their misfeasance.

 

When the collapse of the current system comes it will be double plus not nice all around.

[mrsmartman 200]

The government is responsible for part of the social welfare, including education, health care and social security.

To return to fiscal balance, the government can increase tax rate, issue debt or reduce expenditure.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

A government can make a lot of paper laws and shift tax money around, but other than the common duty to look after the common weal of its citizens really has no other function.  It exists only on the sufferance of those who pay their taxes.  Governments can only govern with the consent of the governed, and if there is a major economic crash, that consent can be withdrawn in an instant.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

What are your ideas for improving civilization once productivity has reached a point where fewer people are employed?

--Ocram

[47ply 1,100]

the problem with all of this is EGO!!!!!! pull your !phone out of your pocket dismantle it do a sum of the parts and with out rounding up show me 300 dollars of worth of parts. lucky to have 50 dollars in parts to your 300 dollar phone but then you need the 100dollar a month service to use it all because some one told you you cant live a productive live with out it. cant take pictures with out it cant pay for things with out it we are so easy to fool

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

What productivity?  The productivity of the North American economy is going the way of the Dodo.  We have out-sourced as much as possible because labour has priced itself out of the market.  Continuing consumerism with things like smart-phones (unnecessary) and such crap is only making things worse. 

 

Does anyone remember when the prince of gold was $35 per fine ounce?  The current price of gold bullion reflects the rate of inflation since then.  I'd quote it, but it changes second by second.

 

The world is so different now from what it was when I was a kid, that I have trouble keeping up.  Imagine what would happen to someone like Leonardo Da Vinci if someone grabbed him and ported him to the present.  I suspect he'd go insane within 10 minutes.

 

Anyway, returning to productivity.  Only production produces actual value.  If there is not production, then it is all paper shuffling.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Relatively new information that is pertinent to this discussion. The article was published in Scientific American in January but I have not read my subscriptions since November.

 

The End of Economic Growth? by Carl Benedikt Frey

In this article, is a good quote I was only peripherally aware of until recently.

When a revolutionary new industry...reaches maturity and ceases to grow, as all industries must, the whole economy must experience a profound stagnation... And when giant new industries have spent their force, it may take a long time before something else of equal magnitude emerges.

This proves that economy will soon enter another recession (or if you consider the current not over yet, a second dip), one which we have not seen before and may never fully recover from. That is unless, a giant change occurs in the way resources are extracted, processed, and especially distributed. If humanity is to continue at a similar or better (on average) quality of life as we have now, there must be a major change in the economy, in culture, and in the government. This is unlikely so we (those born after 1990, and the civilization we belong to) are screwed.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, Marco, you have to understand how we of the pre-war group, having grown up in the end of the Great Depression, are experienced in an economy of want.  You are about to enter this phase of economic development, and you won't like it.  I expect the suicide rate to increase as those who can't cope accept their Darwin awards.  If the upcoming period of deprivation and want doesn't kill you, it will make you stronger.

 

You will know when the real crash starts when inflation goes to zero or negative.  This means the currency is being devalued, and if you are at all with it, you will convert any savings you have into specie (gold, jewels, other hard things like land).  Only specie holds any value.  Money is a fiction that we have all agreed on, but currencies now far outstrip any value they may have represented.  Consider bank notes to be junk bonds and you'd have it about right. 

 

When the end of the depressed period comes, the numerical value of everything will be considerably less than before the crunch, but specie can then be converted back into whatever currency emerges.  Expect considerable social unrest, and even widespread war and famine.  Things are coming to Peter's Pretty Pass for the whole economic system.  It will have to be replaced, and all the experiments so far have been flops.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I earned a grade of 96% in my online summer microeconomics class at Washington State University. I now know enough to refine what I previously said.

1. If enough changes are made soon, humanity can reach new great heights of prosperity in a civilization that might superficially resemble the current one without too much suffering. However, this is highly unlikely; therefore, the longer things get worse, the more difficult it will become for existing structures to adapt to bring forth the new era of prosperity; this means that the longer it takes for change to happen, the more difficult and painful the changes will be to make things better, up to the point where a peaceful transition to a better civilization becomes impossible (at which point the possibilities become Dark Age, Violent Uprising/Revolution, or Apocalypse).

2. Computer programs augment jobs that require creative thinking, critical thinking, and advanced communication (skilled labor, artistry, and some other jobs) and replaces jobs that are rules-based (assembly lines, accounting, etc) but have little potential to greatly affect employment in live entertainment (sports and theatre), politics, and professions that require subtle observation and make decisions and diagnoses based on face-to-face meetings (such as doctors, teachers, courtroom lawyers, and therapists).

3. I now have to expand the number of categories for employment in the future: 

a) Owners of the means of production
b) Rulers
c) Workers whose skills become more important with technology
d) Workers with skills where demand for their service is mostly unaffected by technology
e) Workers in direct competition with technology
f) Unemployable humans

 

The first category will be the most secure, stable, and safe. The second category is always in flux (very few persons can be politicians the majority of their lives but most politicians can live comfortably from the time they are elected until their death, which can mean decades of retirement). The third category see the majority of the gains in opportunity (though not necessarily in wealth). The fourth category comprises mostly of the types of jobs that typically start with apprenticeship or trade school. The fifth category is the largest category and will see the biggest negative impact of the technological revolution. They are likeliest to put up a fight. The sixth category includes children, retirees, and people with disabilities and other health issues. Everyone in the sixth and last category cannot contribute to the economy and cannot contribute as much to society in general than those in the fifth category. Currently they take more out of the system than they put in and are funded in part off the backs of those in the fifth category. Those in the fifth category have lower expenses than those in the 6th category but everyone has spent a portion of their lives in this 6th category.

 

4. The current sum of consumption by humanity exceeds the carrying capacity of Earth. In order to rectify the issue, the population must decrease and/or the mean consumption by humans must decrease.

Below is a quote of something I wrote on facebook on August 11, 2015.

Spoiler

All persons incapable of supporting themselves or contributing to society in the present and future (which means they will never be valuable to society at large in the future) should be cut off from all forms of public assistance except for nutrition credits (which would pay by nutrients and not by dollar amount). They can still live comfortable lives if they can receive help volunteered to them by others (such as loved ones and charity). Furthermore, all persons directly responsible for more than $1 billion of debt should have their assets taken away until it covers all their debt. No more golden parachutes for corrupt corporate executives. Some extreme cases (such as persons who owe more than $5 billion more in debt than total combined assets should go to debtor's prison; prison labor already produces billions if not trillions of dollars worth of products). If bankruptcy was changed to such a system, Donald Trump would not be as powerful as he is today. All these savings would then be able to be used for quality public education for all citizens and there should be enough left over to reduce (or eliminate) the deficit and pay off the debt sooner than later (it is impossible for any entity to hold vast amounts of debt indefinitely, especially if it increases).

--Ocram 

  Edited March 26, 2017 by OcramsRzr  

[blade2k5 1,523]

I don't care what happens in the future, like Nonny said, my kid can fend for himself as I taught him to.  I probably won't make it past 60 since nearly every member of my family drops dead by then, so I see no reason to expect anything different with my lifespan and quite frankly, I look forward to death as dying doesn't scare me at all, it'll be a relief and the best chance to get away from nosy, self-centered/self righteous know-it-alls and ignorant people who seem to be everywhere these days.  After all, death is a part of life.  If the human race, the so-called intelligent species dies out, I wouldn't care about that either since I'll already be dead.

[hym 358]

2. Computer programs augment jobs that require creative thinking, critical thinking, and advanced communication (skilled labor, artistry, and some other jobs) and replaces jobs that are rules-based (assembly lines, accounting, etc) but have little potential to greatly affect employment in live entertainment (sports and theatre), politics, and professions that require subtle observation and make decisions and diagnoses based on face-to-face meetings (such as doctors, teachers, courtroom lawyers, and therapists).

Artificial intelligence constructs actually offer tremendous potential for the displacement of medical and teaching professionals.  We have already developed computer programs that do a better job diagnosing illnesses than their human counterparts.  As for teachers, we have been looking at using virtual humans for teaching.  Not only have we found that they can provided personalized instruction tailored to each student's learning style, but we have also found that the student can actually learn the same socialization skills (s)he would learn from interacting with a human teacher.  Considering the difficulty that a lot of states are having in acquiring and retaining teachers, and the massive cost saving promises associated with online learning, it is almost inevitable that we are going to develop the technology to eliminate the need for human teachers. 

[AkemiAzula 280]

The question is whether we become Vaderian cyborgs and try to carry on our Aryan 'humanity' against the Jewish 'Technology' or whether we admit the computers are our superiors and head for singularity.

At which point we will digitise society and become Sims, we will engod a new world of cyber reality and become programmed objects.

Or a cool but grungy 'apocalypse' anarchy will transpire where we don't have to obey 'the man' but it'll be every man for himself (Mad Max)

[TekindusT 3,809]

2. Computer programs augment jobs that require creative thinking, critical thinking, and advanced communication (skilled labor, artistry, and some other jobs) and replaces jobs that are rules-based (assembly lines, accounting, etc) but have little potential to greatly affect employment in live entertainment (sports and theatre), politics, and professions that require subtle observation and make decisions and diagnoses based on face-to-face meetings (such as doctors, teachers, courtroom lawyers, and therapists).

Artificial intelligence constructs actually offer tremendous potential for the displacement of medical and teaching professionals.  We have already developed computer programs that do a better job diagnosing illnesses than their human counterparts.  As for teachers, we have been looking at using virtual humans for teaching.  Not only have we found that they can provided personalized instruction tailored to each student's learning style, but we have also found that the student can actually learn the same socialization skills (s)he would learn from interacting with a human teacher.  Considering the difficulty that a lot of states are having in acquiring and retaining teachers, and the massive cost saving promises associated with online learning, it is almost inevitable that we are going to develop the technology to eliminate the need for human teachers. 

That would be yet another big mistake by the technocrats. Teachers can't be robots, can't be machines. They can hardly be iPads. Teachers need to emphasize, be there, pay more attention to the slower children and stimulate the intelligence of the brighter ones. They have to be open for discussions and interchange of ideas, no matter how stupid they are. They have to heal wounds the children suffer at the schoolyard, they have to be capable of describing to the parents that, although there are no clear leads, something is a bit wrong with their child if necessary. 

My general feeling after going through all these futuristic threads is that we're going down the road of the dehumanization, those who would like to see the studies of fine arts and humanities, and language studies outside of the universities (I'm an engineer, BTW). The ones who think that a Skype chat or several Whatsapp texts have the same value as a face to face talk with a cup of coffee in a cozy place. 

Maybe some of you will have won. You'll find me at home, enjoying my last bits of humanity, before you force me to upload my all my thoughts to the cloud. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

If I were to somehow live in a future with advanced technology, I would personally prefer to have all my memories backed up on a secure server (to remember things a human brain forgets), upload my neural network once a decade (a snapshot of my full personality at the time) but live in a human body with mostly my genetics (besides possible diseases and defects), maybe with technology enhanced sight and hearing.

 

--Ocram

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Some of the so-called unemployables are people like myself who put in several decades of productive work then were forcibly retired by rules not set with their agreement.  I did my bit, and I expect to be compensated accordingly.  Instead, I have retired on a minimum income and don't expect anything more.

As for age:  Well, I'll be 78 this month, and I expect to see at least the next 20 years to pull even with my paternal grandmother who was hale and hearty up to the very end.  All those millions I paid in tax money might even have come back to me by then.

[Duke87 1,070]

I have no doubt that AI can in theory perform just about any functional task better than a human. What AI can't do is fully replicate interpersonal interaction. AI can speak, and if advanced enough can pick up on subtle human cues and respond appropriately. Given an artificial body, AI can gesture and move and appear, visually, as human as you might want. But what AI can't do and never will be able to do is provide a substitute for the sensation of humanity. I don't care how advanced an artificial creature you make, hugging one will never be the same as hugging a person. 

This doesn't mean things have to be totally dystopian, though. Perhaps, when there are no jobs left for humans to do, we will be free to spend as much of our spare time (which we surely will have plenty of) interacting with others as we like.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Self conciousness and emotion can be replicated by machines. I would wager a good amount one day AI will be able to feel or think like us or superior to how we feel and think.

Hugging provides several nervous communications for consideration/reaction/appreciation.

Pressure, warmth and emotional feelings (dopamine or somesuch elationary neurotransmitter agent).

But I think we will go cyber rather than cyborg. Vader is clunky and quaint, an ape with metal legs and lungs.

Rather methinks life will become digital, become a object like a program object, and exist in 'the cloud'.

Or Donald Trump and IS will start a nuclear war and blow up Earth. Not quite sure which.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

We have to be careful that we can always pull the plug.  If we ever give control to an autonomous, self-reproducing AI, I expect we will have created our successor species.