Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheUmgawa t1_ivsmz0f wrote

We’ve always been on the brink of societal collapse. I mean, my bet is that you’re going to see a lot of carrots and sticks after automation really starts putting tens of millions of people out of work in under fifteen or twenty years, where you’ll see rewards for people to not have kids or something. It won’t quite be China style population control, but it’s definitely going to be necessary until such time as first-world governments figure out what to do with people who just refuse to learn skills that aren’t easily automated. Universal basic income would be necessary, but it’s so expensive that it would require a total rewrite of tax and benefit structures, and the only way to pay for that is something like a national sales tax, because there aren’t enough millionaires and billionaires to pay for it. You could tax them into oblivion and that would get you maybe a year or two. It’s going to be borne on the backs of the people, like it or not.

What has historically kept society from collapsing is adaptation. Right now, there’s a big flashing neon sign that says human wages are going to outpace the all-in cost of automating no-skill and semi-skilled labor, and nobody’s doing anything about it. The laborers see it and think they’ll just destroy the machines, but that didn’t work when the Luddites tried it, and we have cameras and alarms, now, and better yet, we have insurance, so the company could just close up shop and use the payout to open an even more automated factory in a more favorable location, since they’re no longer beholden to needing a large pool of employees. After all, who’s going to object to a factory that doesn’t displace workers because it never had any? But, assuming we don’t want the displaced workers to starve to death, it’s really important for elected officials to start discussing this stuff now, rather than when it’s already happening, and the first question should be, “What are the long-term effects of increasing wages?” because the most important answer is not inflation.

And, as for climate refugees, nobody’s going to want to move to a country that doesn’t have any jobs for the people that already live there. Think about all of the immigrants who became cab drivers because the skill barrier for that is relatively low, and then think about what they’d do if those cabs drove themselves. Agriculture jobs will go out, and that will take a while, because programming a robotic hand to not crush a tomato is really difficult, but it’ll happen. Farms will require fewer and fewer workers, just as they have for the last hundred or so years.

It’s going to be interesting, but I don’t think it’ll go to full collapse, at least not in the first-world countries. Maybe a couple, toward the beginning, but that’ll be countries like Turkey or Argentina, where they’ve never really had a firm grasp on economics, so their whole economy just falls apart every twenty or forty years. And then maybe it’ll happen to someplace like Spain or Italy or something, and then everybody else will see what happens and start moving to prevent that in their own countries.

0

First-Translator966 t1_ivspsas wrote

The bigger issue is population DECLINE. We’ll be paying people to HAVE kids, not the other way around. If automation and AI displace blue and white collar workers in droves, they won’t be able to afford children. And this problem is already baked into the cake. Every developed country has this problem. Immigration is a bandaid, because they too stop having kids after a generation or two ascending into the middle class. The ones that can’t do that… well, they’re basically the extras from Idiocracy.

Just look at the population structures and fertility rates of North America, Europe, China, Japan, Australia, etc. global population is going to peak in 50 years, give or take, and then it’s a terminal decline unless people are incentivized to reproduce.

The other issue is that you can’t force people to learn jobs that they don’t have the cognitive ability to perform. You can’t force people to learn advanced physics if they have a 100 IQ. They just don’t have the intellectual horsepower. Likewise, you can’t force someone to learn basic skills if they’re on the left end of the bell curve.

2

Ambiwlans t1_ivtpcui wrote

Pop decline is only bad for the stock market. It is good for people and the environment.

1

First-Translator966 t1_ivu441x wrote

No, it is absolutely horrible for people. First, “people” will cease to exist if these demographic trends don’t change. We will literally just go extinct.

Secondly, everything from basic civilizational support to the mental health of society is based on family formation. Wide swaths of jobless, childless people is a recipe for catastrophe.

1

Ambiwlans t1_ivu91qg wrote

Lol... you're concerned that humanity will cease due to child birth reductions? You think that we'll fall from 10 billion to 0 because of not enough babies?

Hahahahahhahahahaaaaa

0

First-Translator966 t1_ivwzgfy wrote

“If they don’t change.”

Yes, it’s called math.

In any case, plenty of civilizations have been destroyed by collapsing populations. The precedent is pretty clear. And the math of replacing humans with robots is pretty clear as well: input and maintenance costs are far less economical for a lot of labor than relatively cheap humans.

So as the human population declines it becomes more and more expensive to upkeep the complex systems that allow for modern society. We can see this vulnerability today with the strain on the logistical system and supply chains and energy costs. A hypothetical future of robot workers will be exponentially more complex and exponentially more vulnerable to disruption.

1

TheUmgawa t1_ivsqei7 wrote

And those people are just going to be jobless and will have to survive on the subsistence income that is UBI. Short of a mental defect, stupidity is 100 percent curable; most people are just the living representation of, “Ignorance is bliss.”

0