6 ms·

Future Economy (2010) [video]

35 points by NurAzhar 10y ago

hacker_9 10y ago
I wish. The truth is the whole world is run on money, meaning the millionaires and billionaires are the ones in charge. It absolutely doesn't have to be this way; we already produce so much food no one need starve. But greed runs deep within humanity, preventing this sort of change from ever happening.
- aiNohY6g 10y ago
  You can make this change happen in your own life. Perhaps not completely, but probably significantly enough to make a big difference. Truth is: the whole world is run on money.... because we're all looking for money. Change your mind, use all the margin you have, promote humanity, and your world starts to change.
  - hacker_9 10y ago
    This isn't a small scale change, everyone has to be on board for it to work.
    - aiNohY6g 10y ago
      A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. It can be yours.
aiNohY6g 10y ago
(haven't watched it yet) Why should we wait for the future to improve ourselves and humanity? IMHO we should start right now. We should even have started a long time ago.
- hacker_9 10y ago
  Mainly because the ones in power want to stay in power, and actively stop change. We are safer than ever, yet according to the media we are super lucky to not be killed by a terrorist every second of the day.
  - aiNohY6g 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Servitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Servitu... The essay argues that any tyrant remains in power until his subjects grant him that, therefore delegitimizing every form of power. The original freedom of men would be indeed abandoned by society which, once corrupted by the habit, would have preferred the servitude of the courtier to the freedom of the free man, who refuses to be submissive and to obey.
flareback 10y ago
It's a nice theory but doesn't solve the problem of supply and demand. If there are 7 billion people on earth that all want a widget, how does this economic philosophy handle the fact that the manufacturing capability can only produce enough widgets for 1 billion people. Who decides which billion people get the widget?
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  Do they have to own said widget, or do they merely require use of said widget?
  - flareback 10y ago
    irrelevant. Only 1 billion people can have it and 7 billion want it.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      It is relevant. Imagine everyone wants to use a car. Is everyone going to be using a car at every point during the day? No. Shared ownership allows you to drastically reduce the number of items that need to be produced. Look around you at the things in your house. How many of those things do you use on a regular basis, and how many things are under utilised for most of the time. Shared ownership means you get access to a much wider range of items whilst reducing the cost of ownership.
- hacker_9 10y ago
  I would think that in such a society, people would upload blueprints for how to create things, which you could then send to your local manufacturing plant to get built. Some sort of advanced 3d printer could even see these sorts of things widespread. Additionally it would be 100% recyclable, with the idea that you would 'give back to the earth' when you were done with it (materialism would be a thing of the past).
  - flareback 10y ago
ZenoArrow 10y ago
Here's the thing, we could live like this now, we don't need any new technological advancements to make this possible, yet we haven't and don't. So if you're waiting for the future to make this altruistic lifestyle mainstream, ask yourself what's holding it back now. It's certainly not a lack of material wealth, we've had that for centuries.
blakeyrat 10y ago
Ok; I want to improve myself by moving into a big house on the shore of Lake Washington. Oh. It takes money to do that? Well shoot. EDIT: to actually respond to the video clip, it's kind of surprising how interesting Star Trek got when they threw out some of Roddenberry's ideas during the Deep Space 9 era. The Starfleet people co-existed with the Ferengi and Bajorans who didn't have post-scarcity economies. The Bajorans were also highly religious. Starfleet had a shadowy spy organization willing to assassinate foreign leaders. A Starfleet Captain becomes a traitor to Earth-- twice! And yet despite that, Deep Space 9 is one of the most beloved Star Trek series. Related to the clip above: (Quark is selling an auction of a 1950s baseball card Jake wants. Jake's convincing Nog, a Ferengi, to help him.) Nog: "It's my money, Jake! If you want to bid at the auction, use your own money." Jake: "I'm Human, I don't have any money." Nog: "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement." Jake: "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity." Nog: "What does that mean exactly?" Jake: "It means... it means we don't need money!" Nog: "Well, if you don't need money, then you certainly don't need mine!"
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  How does moving to a big house improve you?
  - rublev 10y ago
    How doesn't it? I'm living in an apartment right now bordering a psycho neighbour and it's mentally ruining me. I can only dream of having my own quiet space again. Simply having the mental freedom to think about what you want, not 'juggling' thoughts about managing your lifestyle around other peoples lives. If you are well slept and content, then arguably everything you undertake will be the 'improved' version.
    - aiNohY6g 10y ago
      What's the "self" in improving yourself? You as a human being (humanity)? Or your human condition (comfort)?
PoarNeemn 10y ago
I care about myself, not about humanity as a whole.
UK-AL 10y ago
The money is just tool to achieve your goals. You don't need to get rid of it to acheive your personal goals.
- jjaredsimpson 10y ago
  Money isn't a tool. Tool have uses and multiply productivity of their users. Money is, among other things, a representative of value.
  - UK-AL 10y ago
    Money does have multiple uses and multiplies productivity if correctly used
Pica_soO 10y ago
Well at least we have Swedish furniture. Take the wall-alcove Borg for example. Visit the next Ikea-Kubus near you. Transhumanism had a Backdoor.
js8 10y ago
You see, in the future, we don't work to produce; machines can do that handily. We work to prove to other humans that we are worth enough to get a share of the product. But isn't that pointless? You could instead just enjoy life doing whatever else you want to do, if the machines already produce everything you need. Yes. But it is our collective decision, not a decision of any of us. The needs of the society take precedence over the needs of each of us. The only way to reverse the decision is - - to collectively agree that every one of you wants something else? Yes. There is an old economic theory predicting that the preferences of the society should eventually reflect individual preferences of its members, at least in the long run. There is still hope that this will happen in the future, but not before I will be long dead, I'm afraid.
- jjaredsimpson 10y ago
  In the future there will exist people who are equally capable as they are today. These people will also possess the same needs and desires that people today possess. It used to be that each person was responsible for performing tasks that would ensure their survival and the survival of those important to them. Specialization and division of labor allowed certain people to do productive activities that didn't directly connect to their own survival. Some people built houses and thatched roofs. Some people became blacksmiths and made tools. Others farmed large plots of land. Markets in equilibrium allow producers and consumers to exchange goods and services for money and the system as a whole can be said to be more productive. As some point in time though, machines will advanced such that nearly any productive output a human can undertake would be performed more efficiently by a machine instead. The value of human labor output will be driven to nearly zero. Where people go wrong is that they ask the question, "If humans make no money how will they buy anything, won't everyone just starve to death?" The purpose of an economy seems to be to create information in the form of prevailing wages which signal to members what tasks the system values. Once machines are the supermajority of the productive value output and humans are a mere tax on output, we take on a role similar to the ones pets have right now. If the machines are sentient, then they simply outcompete us and we lose unless they support us with generosity. If the machines are owned and directed, then either the majority of people will decide to ensure some component of the machines output will always be directed to the sustaining of humanity. If a minority owns the machines and resist the taxing of their wealth, then there will be revolution and violence.

35 points by NurAzhar 10y ago

I wish. The truth is the whole world is run on money, meaning the millionaires and billionaires are the ones in charge. It absolutely doesn't have to be this way; we already produce so much food no one need starve. But greed runs deep within humanity, preventing this sort of change from ever happening.

aiNohY6g 10y ago
You can make this change happen in your own life. Perhaps not completely, but probably significantly enough to make a big difference. Truth is: the whole world is run on money.... because we're all looking for money. Change your mind, use all the margin you have, promote humanity, and your world starts to change.
- hacker_9 10y ago
  This isn't a small scale change, everyone has to be on board for it to work.
  - aiNohY6g 10y ago
    A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. It can be yours.

aiNohY6g 10y ago

(haven't watched it yet) Why should we wait for the future to improve ourselves and humanity? IMHO we should start right now. We should even have started a long time ago.

hacker_9 10y ago
Mainly because the ones in power want to stay in power, and actively stop change. We are safer than ever, yet according to the media we are super lucky to not be killed by a terrorist every second of the day.
- aiNohY6g 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Servitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Servitu... The essay argues that any tyrant remains in power until his subjects grant him that, therefore delegitimizing every form of power. The original freedom of men would be indeed abandoned by society which, once corrupted by the habit, would have preferred the servitude of the courtier to the freedom of the free man, who refuses to be submissive and to obey.

flareback 10y ago

It's a nice theory but doesn't solve the problem of supply and demand. If there are 7 billion people on earth that all want a widget, how does this economic philosophy handle the fact that the manufacturing capability can only produce enough widgets for 1 billion people. Who decides which billion people get the widget?

ZenoArrow 10y ago
Do they have to own said widget, or do they merely require use of said widget?
- flareback 10y ago
  irrelevant. Only 1 billion people can have it and 7 billion want it.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    It is relevant. Imagine everyone wants to use a car. Is everyone going to be using a car at every point during the day? No. Shared ownership allows you to drastically reduce the number of items that need to be produced. Look around you at the things in your house. How many of those things do you use on a regular basis, and how many things are under utilised for most of the time. Shared ownership means you get access to a much wider range of items whilst reducing the cost of ownership.
hacker_9 10y ago
I would think that in such a society, people would upload blueprints for how to create things, which you could then send to your local manufacturing plant to get built. Some sort of advanced 3d printer could even see these sorts of things widespread. Additionally it would be 100% recyclable, with the idea that you would 'give back to the earth' when you were done with it (materialism would be a thing of the past).
- flareback 10y ago

ZenoArrow 10y ago

Here's the thing, we could live like this now, we don't need any new technological advancements to make this possible, yet we haven't and don't. So if you're waiting for the future to make this altruistic lifestyle mainstream, ask yourself what's holding it back now. It's certainly not a lack of material wealth, we've had that for centuries.

blakeyrat 10y ago

Ok; I want to improve myself by moving into a big house on the shore of Lake Washington. Oh. It takes money to do that? Well shoot. EDIT: to actually respond to the video clip, it's kind of surprising how interesting Star Trek got when they threw out some of Roddenberry's ideas during the Deep Space 9 era. The Starfleet people co-existed with the Ferengi and Bajorans who didn't have post-scarcity economies. The Bajorans were also highly religious. Starfleet had a shadowy spy organization willing to assassinate foreign leaders. A Starfleet Captain becomes a traitor to Earth-- twice! And yet despite that, Deep Space 9 is one of the most beloved Star Trek series. Related to the clip above: (Quark is selling an auction of a 1950s baseball card Jake wants. Jake's convincing Nog, a Ferengi, to help him.) Nog: "It's my money, Jake! If you want to bid at the auction, use your own money." Jake: "I'm Human, I don't have any money." Nog: "It's not my fault that your species decided to abandon currency-based economics in favor of some philosophy of self-enhancement." Jake: "Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity." Nog: "What does that mean exactly?" Jake: "It means... it means we don't need money!" Nog: "Well, if you don't need money, then you certainly don't need mine!"

ZenoArrow 10y ago
How does moving to a big house improve you?
- rublev 10y ago
  How doesn't it? I'm living in an apartment right now bordering a psycho neighbour and it's mentally ruining me. I can only dream of having my own quiet space again. Simply having the mental freedom to think about what you want, not 'juggling' thoughts about managing your lifestyle around other peoples lives. If you are well slept and content, then arguably everything you undertake will be the 'improved' version.
  - aiNohY6g 10y ago
    What's the "self" in improving yourself? You as a human being (humanity)? Or your human condition (comfort)?

PoarNeemn 10y ago

I care about myself, not about humanity as a whole.

UK-AL 10y ago

The money is just tool to achieve your goals. You don't need to get rid of it to acheive your personal goals.

jjaredsimpson 10y ago
Money isn't a tool. Tool have uses and multiply productivity of their users. Money is, among other things, a representative of value.
- UK-AL 10y ago
  Money does have multiple uses and multiplies productivity if correctly used

Pica_soO 10y ago

Well at least we have Swedish furniture. Take the wall-alcove Borg for example. Visit the next Ikea-Kubus near you. Transhumanism had a Backdoor.

js8 10y ago

You see, in the future, we don't work to produce; machines can do that handily. We work to prove to other humans that we are worth enough to get a share of the product. But isn't that pointless? You could instead just enjoy life doing whatever else you want to do, if the machines already produce everything you need. Yes. But it is our collective decision, not a decision of any of us. The needs of the society take precedence over the needs of each of us. The only way to reverse the decision is - - to collectively agree that every one of you wants something else? Yes. There is an old economic theory predicting that the preferences of the society should eventually reflect individual preferences of its members, at least in the long run. There is still hope that this will happen in the future, but not before I will be long dead, I'm afraid.

jjaredsimpson 10y ago
In the future there will exist people who are equally capable as they are today. These people will also possess the same needs and desires that people today possess. It used to be that each person was responsible for performing tasks that would ensure their survival and the survival of those important to them. Specialization and division of labor allowed certain people to do productive activities that didn't directly connect to their own survival. Some people built houses and thatched roofs. Some people became blacksmiths and made tools. Others farmed large plots of land. Markets in equilibrium allow producers and consumers to exchange goods and services for money and the system as a whole can be said to be more productive. As some point in time though, machines will advanced such that nearly any productive output a human can undertake would be performed more efficiently by a machine instead. The value of human labor output will be driven to nearly zero. Where people go wrong is that they ask the question, "If humans make no money how will they buy anything, won't everyone just starve to death?" The purpose of an economy seems to be to create information in the form of prevailing wages which signal to members what tasks the system values. Once machines are the supermajority of the productive value output and humans are a mere tax on output, we take on a role similar to the ones pets have right now. If the machines are sentient, then they simply outcompete us and we lose unless they support us with generosity. If the machines are owned and directed, then either the majority of people will decide to ensure some component of the machines output will always be directed to the sustaining of humanity. If a minority owns the machines and resist the taxing of their wealth, then there will be revolution and violence.