Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

illusoryMechanist t1_j6hrk4q wrote

I think, as this becomes more common and the staff becomes yet more automatized, we're gonna need to tax these things more and redistribute the wealth produced back to the local population it'd otherwise be hiring.

6

4444444vr t1_j6i0d43 wrote

I’m sorry sir, this is 🇺🇸 /s

(But not really sarcastic, more serious)

5

[deleted] t1_j6iicc9 wrote

[deleted]

−5

eshade94 t1_j6ik3tu wrote

Well, yes? That's the idea behind post-scarcity. At a certain level of machine intelligence/automation, it's impossible to provide enough useful work for everyone in society. Hell, it's kinda impossible now, with how many bullshit jobs there are out there.

8

[deleted] t1_j6ikpq3 wrote

[deleted]

−4

eshade94 t1_j6iky8t wrote

How so? What law of thermodynamics does post-scarcity violate?

8

[deleted] t1_j6ilk48 wrote

[deleted]

−3

eshade94 t1_j6imrnw wrote

A large number of robots, yes. At a certain level in automation, most goods will be able to be produced without human effort involved. At which point, it doesn't make sense to require people to contribute to society in order to procure said goods.

There would obviously limits to how much one person can procure, as robots would not have infinite energy and matter, but post-scarcity never meant that all goods would be availably freely and cheaply, just most of them. The ones for our basic survival and a significant proportion of our other desires.

UBI would be the first step, and once implemented, the amount of UBI each person gets should continue to grow as automation and technology improves.

4