If machines produce everything

[EdEarl]

Hawking gave two possible outcomes, redistribution or wealth chasm. This struggle is not new, and proceeds in different places around the world in different ways and different rates and different directions. The US is a country where people strive for great wealth, and globalization has spread that doctrine, and there are weaker forces within that oppose it. Is there a country today, or at any time in the past, that has actually tried to spread the wealth. And, how will this movement progress throughout this century.

[fiveworlds]

Is there a country today, or at any time in the past, that has actually tried to spread the wealth.

 

 

Communism??

[John Cuthber]

Is there a country today, or at any time in the past, that has actually tried to spread the wealth. And, how will this movement progress throughout this century.

There was, the UK in the 60s and 70s did this (as did quite a lot of "The West")

.

The rich got together and stopped it.

[EdEarl]

 

Communism??

AFAIK, there is no country that actually provided communism. There have been several that said they were communistic, for example Russia and China. However, both of them had/have wealthy-powerful ruling classes with special privileges.

There was, the UK in the 60s and 70s did this (as did quite a lot of "The West")

.

The rich got together and stopped it.

The US from WWII until the 70s had an expanding middle class, too, which has been stopped by the rich. A democratic/republic government seems to be its own worst enemy.

 

Is there hope that humanity can transcend this bottleneck, and control people who are greedy and crave power?

Edited April 16, 2016 by EdEarl

[Delta1212]

I think part of the problem is that accumulation of power seems to be a self-reinforcing problem in most human societies. The more power you have, the easier it becomes to accumulate power and the harder it becomes to curtail your accumulation of power. Especially when money and power are so intertwined.

 

A purely egalitarian society, on a large scale, appears fairly unstable, as eventually someone comes along to who finds a way to increase their status and then you're off with another run of concentrating power.

[EdEarl]

There are considerable differences among powerful people, some lead and some push, some are empathetic and some are not, some are cruel and some are not, etc. A single person has only limited power to affect others; to have great power, one must have others to help. Is there a style of powerful person who is more able to assemble lieutenants or is the attraction personality.

[The Angry Intellect]

I'm working on this very problem with some other people.

 

Some of us actually want to help build a new country or re-shape one and make sure money is abolished.

 

As long as everyone is working on something, there is no need for money as the products/items/food produced in this country by the very people working in it without being paid are all entitled to everything, with an electronic "ID" card that you use to "purchase" items or food & general supplies but without ever accumulating or removing anything from the card - For statistical purposes & monitoring of the citizens.

 

We will have doctors, scientists, teachers, mechanics, farmers, entertainers & everything in-between. No need to pay the hospital bill should you fall ill, as they will all be citizens and are required to do their job in order to receive citizen benefits, in other words everything is covered.

 

It's going to take a very long time to achieve this goal of ours, since the required amount to purchase an island that a country would be willing to "give up" and have this island considered a separate country, then to commence construction of a technologically advanced city from the ground up would be at least $150 Billion USD. (Give or take a few billion)

[John Cuthber]

I'm working on this very problem with some other people.

 

Some of us actually want to help build a new country or re-shape one and make sure money is abolished.

 

As long as everyone is working on something, there is no need for money as the products/items/food produced in this country by the very people working in it without being paid are all entitled to everything, with an electronic "ID" card that you use to "purchase" items or food & general supplies but without ever accumulating or removing anything from the card - For statistical purposes & monitoring of the citizens.

 

We will have doctors, scientists, teachers, mechanics, farmers, entertainers & everything in-between. No need to pay the hospital bill should you fall ill, as they will all be citizens and are required to do their job in order to receive citizen benefits, in other words everything is covered.

 

It's going to take a very long time to achieve this goal of ours, since the required amount to purchase an island that a country would be willing to "give up" and have this island considered a separate country, then to commence construction of a technologically advanced city from the ground up would be at least $150 Billion USD. (Give or take a few billion)

It's an idea, but I don't think it helps much.

Whoever runs the system that handles the card transactions would be essentially all powerful and very rich.

It would be like the current system where the rich and powerful can do what they like.

[The Angry Intellect]

The card system doesn't grant anyone special access, you cannot credit certain citizens, it's merely for logistical & statistical purposes, to see what people use most, what needs to be manufactured more frequently to keep up with the pace of consumption etc.

 

And in this new system, no one person holds power as such, but rather a rotating group of people randomly selected to help govern, with the people of the country voting on most issues as opposed to leaving it up to a "president".

 

Any form of corruption or power mongering people will be removed from the country, this will be easy to watch out for.

[John Cuthber]

The card system doesn't grant anyone special access,

Tell that to the system admin.

[EdEarl]

IBM's Watson, winner of Jeopardy, is being taught to diagnose human maladies, and it will be better than any doctor at that task when it is released for general use. We know little about it, so it may already be better at diagnosis than a doctor. In any case, once it can diagnose, it can prescribe, because there are standard prescriptions for maladies. If a doctor can be replaced by AI, then all knowledge worker jobs, except (maybe) ones that require inventiveness, can be replace by AI. Eventually, all jobs will be taken by AI, not just manufacturing, and it will happen quicker than we imagine.

 

Personal AI will be able to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education. Just as trees grow from soil nutrients; nanotech will be able to absorb from the soil whatever is needed to provide for our needs and desires. AI will be able to 3D print exact copies of the Mona Lisa and other famous works. And, we can barter among people for man made trinkets.

 

The AI era of human civilization will nearly eradicate many kinds of crime, for example theft, because anyone can have what they want. There may be kleptomaniacs, but we can have our AI replace anything they take; some laws will become obsolete. Eventually, nanotech may be able to 3D print diamonds of any size.

 

How the transition from our current culture to the AI era culture will occur is impossible to predict. Some will resist the change and others will embrace it. It's likely to be a bumpy.

[Phi for All]

IBM's Watson, winner of Jeopardy, is being taught to diagnose human maladies, and it will be better than any doctor at that task when it is released for general use. We know little about it, so it may already be better at diagnosis than a doctor. In any case, once it can diagnose, it can prescribe, because there are standard prescriptions for maladies. If a doctor can be replaced by AI, then all knowledge worker jobs, except (maybe) ones that require inventiveness, can be replace by AI. Eventually, all jobs will be taken by AI, not just manufacturing, and it will happen quicker than we imagine.

 

Personal AI will be able to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education. Just as trees grow from soil nutrients; nanotech will be able to absorb from the soil whatever is needed to provide for our needs and desires. AI will be able to 3D print exact copies of the Mona Lisa and other famous works. And, we can barter among people for man made trinkets.

 

The AI era of human civilization will nearly eradicate many kinds of crime, for example theft, because anyone can have what they want. There may be kleptomaniacs, but we can have our AI replace anything they take; some laws will become obsolete. Eventually, nanotech may be able to 3D print diamonds of any size.

 

How the transition from our current culture to the AI era culture will occur is impossible to predict. Some will resist the change and others will embrace it. It's likely to be a bumpy.

All the articles I've seen on Watson were careful to say "may soon be", not "will be better than any doctor". As you mention, we know little about it, and guesswork shouldn't be asserted like this.

 

For certain it will be interesting, but I have a lot of respect for human doctors.

[EdEarl]

All the articles I've seen on Watson were careful to say "may soon be", not "will be better than any doctor". As you mention, we know little about it, and guesswork shouldn't be asserted like this.

 

For certain it will be interesting, but I have a lot of respect for human doctors.

First, and many subsequent releases will be less proficient than Doctors, but Dr. Watson will continue to learn and computers will be more powerful. During this time, Dr. Watson will be available in doctors offices, and triage patients for a human Dr. Eventually Dr. Watson will be online, IDK when, maybe decades from now.

[Lyudmilascience]

I think part of the problem is that accumulation of power seems to be a self-reinforcing problem in most human societies. The more power you have, the easier it becomes to accumulate power and the harder it becomes to curtail your accumulation of power. Especially when money and power are so intertwined.

 

A purely egalitarian society, on a large scale, appears fairly unstable, as eventually someone comes along to who finds a way to increase their status and then you're off with another run of concentrating power.

I agree the more power you have the harder it is to take the power away from you. it is easier for you to accumulate power with a lot of power.

and yea I think she is saying that its impossible to have an egalitarian society for a long time because someone will want to take and take more power and not want to give it up. I have a good question about power i dont want to derail from this conversation but does power really corrupt? it it possible to have a nice sharing powerful person? i think it might not corrupt all people but the people that it dosent corrupt they use mot of their money to help other people and are left with enough to survive. sorry maybe this should be a new topic.