Technology and the Future of Humanity.

Astorre

Ever-evolving technology opens up new questions for modern humans. Robots, increasingly successfully replacing humans in areas where they were once needed, are more efficient, willing to work as long as their batteries last, and, most importantly, don't question employers' respect for their rights.

It's not as if this problem suddenly arose today. Factories where labor was replaced by machines didn't emerge today. But humans have always been needed. There have always been jobs that machines couldn't handle. The world found some balance between manual and machine labor back then.

Today's new wave of "technologization" of production, the partial replacement of intellectual labor by AI, and the automation of processes, is once again pushing humans even further into the background.

I see several hypothetical problems here, which I may be exaggerating, but I can't help but ask you, dear forum members, what you think about this.

1. Humans remain needed as consumers, but not as producers. Given that the population of our planet is much higher today than in previous times, the problem is intensifying. So, how should people earn their living? Perhaps they can fill a niche in services? But even this is not infinite and will eventually be automated over time.

2. Since humanity today is more educated than in previous times, the demands on work are high. Will the world be able to provide such a large number of jobs?

3. How will a market economy cope with this challenge? After all, if we simply start handing out money to people simply for living, inflation will instantly reduce this money to nothing. Prices will simply rise. For example, if tomorrow everyone had one million dollars, then a loaf of bread would cost a million dollars.

4. Human rights. People have always been a necessary balancer for the state or employer. In cases of excesses or abuses, people rebelled. But they were heard because the state and employers needed them. Now, with the diminishing need for humans for production or defense, the human voice risks becoming less audible.

5. Education. It's already clear that the classic school and university format of education doesn't meet modern needs. First, it's too long, second, too traditional, and third, it produces far more specialists than is needed. A large supply of specialists, combined with their rapid replacement by robots and AI, lowers the cost of their labor.

6. And finally, humans themselves. What should they do? What should they do? Even in everyday life, machines already do our laundry, robot vacuums, and so on. And tomorrow, will a specially trained robot entertain and educate our children? Provide attention to our wives? What will remain for us?

I'm not claiming that all this is necessarily true, but questions arise. For now, reality itself doesn't pose them, but who can guarantee that it won't tomorrow?

Pierre-Normand

I think most of the worries you express are are real and well-motivated. Even if some of the scenarios you sketch turn out to be exaggerated, it's reasonable to examine them now rather than after the fact.

One thing that strikes me in your post, though, is a kind of slide from a salient technological "event" (e.g. a new wave of automation, AI replacing tasks, etc.) to very large social outcomes (e.g. mass unemployment, loss of bargaining power, markets breaking down, etc.) as if the event itself were doing most of the causal work. But in many cases what does the heavy lifting isn't the technology as such but rather the surrounding structure: who owns the productive capital, how bargaining power is distributed, what the welfare state looks like, how competition works, what education and retraining institutions do, and what fiscal/monetary policies are in place. The same technical capability can produce very different social outcomes under different institutional arrangements.

Your "if tomorrow everyone gets $1M, bread costs $1M" example could be instructive. As a thought experiment, it shows that nominal money isn't the same thing as real resources. But it's also an "extreme event-style" scenario: overnight, universal, unconditioned, with no or little matching change in the background neo-liberal free-market structures. Real policy proposals that aim to keep people solvent in an automated economy don’t have to look like that. Inflation depends on system-level constraints: whether the transfer is financed by taxes vs new money, whether the economy has slack or is supply-constrained, whether production can expand, whether rents/monopoly pricing dominate, etc. So "handing out money" isn’t automatically self-defeating (and often isn't in social democracies) It’s a collective design question about how purchasing power is distributed relative to real productive capacity.

Athena

Your "if tomorrow everyone gets $1M, bread costs $1M" example could be instructive. As a thought experiment, it shows that nominal money isn't the same thing as real resources. But it's also an "extreme event-style" scenario: overnight, universal, unconditioned, with no or little matching change in the background neo-liberal free-market structures. Real policy proposals that aim to keep people solvent in an automated economy don’t have to look like that. Inflation depends on system-level constraints: whether the transfer is financed by taxes vs new money, whether the economy has slack or is supply-constrained, whether production can expand, whether rents/monopoly pricing dominate, etc. So "handing out money" isn’t automatically self-defeating (and often isn't in social democracies) It’s a collective design question about how purchasing power is distributed relative to real productive capacity. — Pierre-Normand

Good morning, both of you- With Trump as president, we might have a real-life experiment of what happens when everyone is given a million dollars. I think mathematicians could use math to predict much of what happens. I was not that worried about every Greenlander getting a million dollars until reading Pierre-Normand's explanation, and now I am even more opposed to Trump's desire to buy Greenland. Unfortunately, Denmark made some very bad decisions regarding birth control and the education of Greenland's children. The relationship between Greenland and Denmark is damaged, and having a million dollars seems wonderful, but an even worse decision could come out of this.

For sure, we need a better understanding of economics. We can look at Alaska, which pays everyone who lives in Alaska.... This is too important to ignore, and we need better information than I can provide without the help of AI.

Yes, Alaska pays its citizens an annual Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) from oil revenue, not a "royalist tax," but a share of state mineral royalties, providing yearly checks to eligible residents (including children) ranging from a few hundred to over $2,000, funded by oil extraction, and used as a model for Universal Basic Income.

.

Also, when I lived in a small coastal town, many women earned much-needed money in a shrimp factory where we removed the shrimp shells by hand. A man came to town with a shrimp-picking machine and all the women lost their seasonal income. The man who owned the machine made so much money that every year he invested in a new business to reduce the taxes he had to pay. This one man was getting richer and richer, while the women lost their much-needed money.

That is how capitalism works, but I was one of those women so, coming from the worker's point of view, what if we all got to buy the machine, and we shared the work and the profit? I was of childbearing age, and sharing the work would mean working a lot less and still having money to raise a child. As a young mother, that looks pretty good. But it does not build the capital to create new businesses. But then again, our income would go back into the community.

I want to add something very important. We not only have capitalism, but we also have autocratic industry, and from my point of view, that is the devil, a terrible evil we need to get rid of. Autocratic capitalism is a hierarchy of power, and it can be dehumanizing and bad for families and the whole community. The solution is Deming's democratic model for industry. His model of industry enables everyone to keep learning and contribute to providing a better product or service.

I could be wrong, but I think empowering us to own and manage our income could yield positive economic and social outcomes. If the US returned to education for democracy and we replaced the autocratic industrial model with a democratic model, we might have healthier communities. Now the machine that takes our jobs improves our lives and leaves us independent of government assistance.

Technology and the Future of Humanity.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions