This is a question that has been bothering me for a while now. I think we have a cultural problem, as a society, with automation. In the industrial world, wealth creation is being decoupled from (human) work through automation. In the social world, trading work for money is still the primary way of obtaining wealth. At some point, this is going to be unsustainable (many argue it already is). Personally, I thrive on automation. I love building machines and writing programs that do work I believe too humiliating, boring, dangerous or difficult for humans. But I keep encountering people who seem to spend most of their life looking for their next temp job. I can figure out a number of alternative income sources for myself, but I try to think of some for them and it's not easy. I'm not sure what can be done here.
I've thought about it recently, and I suspect the reason it works out for the most part (so far) is that the population self regulates to some degree. That is, people tend to have children when it makes sense for them. Leaving aside the "third world" (I think they might have different reasons), that means they tend to have children when they have jobs and therefore enough money to take care of the children.
Then there is a certain likelihood that the same kind of jobs they had are also available for their children. It happens now and then that entire industries break away, leaving millions of people jobless, but on average it seems to work out.
That doesn't imply it will continue to work like that in the future, though. In theory it is easy to imagine a world in which no human work is required anymore, which would call for new arrangements of society.
I like imagining that world. Trouble is, I don't see a clear political and societal path from here to there. (I do see a technical path.) So the question is, how can we, as a society, become less dependent on jobs at at least the same rate we are becoming more dependent on products of automation?
I used to be more optimistic, because I thought the poor (jobless) would eventually claim their rights. But what if the rich have robot soldiers, too - how are the poor supposed to claim stuff then?
Other than that, I suppose the government has to redistribute stuff. I don't see another way. Also, human reproduction will probably have to be regulated.
Imagine a world where home-made items are being manufactured by machines using increasingly less and less human power. Humans are only doing work that we don't know how to make machines do.
This was the industrial revolution. Now it is the IR part Deux. Same shit, more complexities.
I'm pretty deeply involved with the reprap project. I have 4 printers at home. I don't need to imagine this. During the industrial revolution, access to the means of production was the primary determinant of wealth. Industrialists won big, most of the rest were factory slaves, essentially, except for craftsmen who were not replaceable by machine products. How does this translate to the modern world, where 3d printers are getting cheap enough for individual families, even relatively low-income ones in the developed world, to own?
Your comments would be even more germane 100 years ago. Why didn't that lead to a crisis?
Either the economy is fundamentally broken (and must have been for over a century) or perhaps it's simply a failure to grasp the subtleties and richness of the way the economy works.
I beg your pardon? 1929? World War II? Permanent cycling between "growth" and recession? Our world practically runs on crises! Now, the planet is still spinning, but I very much doubt the way economy runs now is anywhere close to optimal. ("Far away from optimum" counts as "fundamentally broken" in my book, because both call for a fix.)
Regarding automation, imagine for a second that we automate a large part of our industry. Say, driving. That would potentially be awesome: it would significantly reduce the amount of mandatory work. But what will probably happen ? Big economic problems triggered by trucker's unemployment.
The point isn't sentience, but recursive self conception, which opens the door for recursive self improvement. "robots" or "AI", it makes little matter: you may trigger an intelligence explosion anyway. And Friendliness under those circumstances indeed is a Big Problem.
Every now and then managers get the idea that they can outsource a programmer's job: be it to untrained workers who churn out code or by buying into the latest code generation techniques being sold by big vendors. They think "ok we've solved the problem once, lets just describe it so that we can hire 500 programmers to do it 500 more times!"
The thing is that the very definition of 'computer programmer' is to do the part that cannot yet be simplified or automated. Every good programmer has an automation toolbox full of languages and data structures and will replace anything that can be simplified to a set of rules with running code.
There is a certain job security in programming but it means a life of continual hill climbing.
