> I'd also be interested in seeing where you do and don't agree I agree that society more or less eventually needs to get to the sort of state you're describin

> I'd also be interested in seeing where you do and don't agree I agree that society more or less eventually needs to get to the sort of state you're describing, or at least something resembling it. It should be plainly obvious to anyone that if machines do more and more work, eventually capitalism just isn't going to make any sense. Of course it's a question of when that line is crossed, but we're moving further and further every day. I mostly "disagree" with regards to how feasible it is in our current global system, or how realistic it is to actually get there. Off the top of my head, a few things: - It'd probably require international cooperation. If we assume (and this isn't a given, but so far seems likely) that a society that prioritizes ruthless progress at all costs goes faster than one that prioritizes the people and their welfare, the former eventually outcompetes the latter, economically and militarily. You already kind of see this with the EU vs the other superpowers, nobody would question that the EU is a nicer place to live, but they're becoming sort of irrelevant globally. We can question whether this really matters, but it is a factor. - In the same vein, whatever country decides to nationalize all its data centers (and more) will presumably soon lose all foreign investors. What would be the point of investing anything in that country if it's just going to get taken the next day? - Public opinion, obviously. The average US voter thinks food stamps are communism, good luck convincing them to nationalize tech companies. Personally I think this is actually less of a barrier than most online people make it out to be, the typical US voter doesn't actually care about economic systems, they just care about aura. Look how many "socialist" adjacent things Trump has done and his party loves him for it. But it is a barrier. - You have to really trust whoever you actually give control (whether a central government, a more anarchist type thing, whatever) of the data centers, etc to to go with this. Or else they'll just end up abusing that power the same as the companies would. - It doesn't quite solve the core problem of, in this hypothetical post scarcity future, people no longer having jobs or meaningful lives. It's sure better than a corporate feudal hellscape, but I think fundamentally people are still going to lead pretty depressing lives if there's literally nothing for them to do other than sit around while robots do everything for them. And yes, obviously we're so, so far away from this, but I think one of the points of the OP is that we're getting closer to it every day, and in particular it seems like intellectual labor and art (the fun things!) might be the first to go. Is our future really to do what's left of the manual labor while chatbots (whether privately or publicly owned) do all the thinking for us? I doubt it, but we have to admit it's kinda scary that it's looking like a possibility. I'm sure there's a few other random things, but that was the few that came to mind. Not explained all that well, but hopefully you find it useful.