Elon Musk is a Nazi - Is this shitty future real wtf

  On 12/10/2019 at 10:39 PM, caze said:

You also need a different species of animal to implement it I'm afraid ("great idea, wrong species"), unless you remove all scarcity first, in which case you don't really need communism anyway. The inherent greed and corruptibility of people will just get in the way every time, and communism is far more easily corruptible than capitalism, with far worse results when it inevitably happens as well.

I don't consider it a dogma that humans are incapable of a non-competitive way of live. I think the way they are is shaped by the society they live in. That's why they are assholes. Never said that I think communism is the way to go, though. Market based socialism sounds fine to me. But that's another very broad term. I think that the impending crises will point the way and we have no choice but to rethink our ways of doing economy.

Elon has been spotted driving the Cybertruck around and hit a road pylon:

somebody breathalyze him!

lol

  On 12/10/2019 at 11:16 PM, darreichungsform said:

I don't consider it a dogma that humans are incapable of a non-competitive way of live. I think the way they are is shaped by the society they live in. That's why they are assholes.

our asshole nature is far more deeply embedded than that, it's not just a result of society, it's also a result of evolution. a totalitarian system doesn't even require a majority of people to be assholes either, a tiny few can work their way to the top and do massive amounts of damage.

  On 12/11/2019 at 2:15 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

i still can't process the cybertruck... i'm sure it works fine but it looks so silly. and the name is silly. it's so obviously leaning into being a failure that i think they may actually be onto something with the idea.

I personally don't like the styling. Specs seem decent especially at that price point. 

  On 12/11/2019 at 2:15 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

i still can't process the cybertruck... i'm sure it works fine but it looks so silly. and the name is silly. it's so obviously leaning into being a failure that i think they may actually be onto something with the idea.

This car duder talked to Joe Rogan about it, he seems to think it will never be released. 

forever prototype 

  On 12/10/2019 at 10:35 PM, caze said:

Post-scarcity is possible without mining asteroids, it just won't last for very long. Eventually we'll tap our the resources and once local prices start to go back up again due to renewed scarcity,

Pick one. 
 

Since you are determined to take everything literally, let me rephrase the original statement for you. 
 

A post-scarcity economy is unlikely to be realized due to the prohibitive cost of extracting resources from extra-terrestrial sources, and the lack of available technology in a cost-effective manner (for example, ion drives only work in space, conventional rockets are still needed to escape earth atmosphere, conventional rockets require massive amounts of fuel which is not abundant), combined with uncertainty around resource availability from extra-terrestrial sources (e.g. unlikely to be many dead dinosaurs (read: available biological material (mostly plants, krill and other biomass) to create oil) in space, meaning plastic production will be limited to material found here on earth), results in a significant risk to any corporation willing to take on such a project. 

So yes, 100% you are correct. It is possible. It is however, highly improbable. 

What do you think about the cybertruck though?

  On 12/10/2019 at 7:36 PM, auxien said:

‘hey society that was very successful and got rich via capitalism: time to be communist now’

 

(not saying there’s no valid argument there btw, mostly taken aback by the ridiculous premise. reality is often ridiculous tho)

 

Expand  

Nobody's getting rich except rich people, in poor countries or rich countries, it's not the 80s anymore

Zeff, globally speaking youre in the top % of the rich. Might not feel like it, but yeah...you're a rich fuck.

  On 12/11/2019 at 7:33 AM, goDel said:

Zeff, globally speaking youre in the top % of the rich. Might not feel like it, but yeah...you're a rich fuck.

I never claimed to be perfect or non-hypocritical, you don't see me donating everything I own and becoming homeless because it wouldn't help anything overall and I'm mentally weak and therefore prone to making excuses like that last one.  Everyone is and actual capitalists moreso.  I'm well aware that under global wealth redistribution and communism I personally would start living a life that some people right now would perceive to be less well off, but the self should not be a factor when diagnosing issues of the whole

"less well off"

This idea of communism might just be a brake on the evolution of humanity. We go forward! Towards "better off"  for all! From your comments, I guess that means not towards communism. As that will imply us moving back to the middle ages. And telling us that's in the interest of ... who exactly?

  On 12/11/2019 at 7:28 AM, Zeffolia said:

Nobody's getting rich except rich people, in poor countries or rich countries, it's not the 80s anymore

i said society, i didn't parse it. the inherit societal inequality of literally every single rich nation is a large part of why that argument wouldn't work and is ridiculous. the rich and powerful are exactly that....rich, and powerful. they're in general not going to give up their wealth or their power for 'societal good' (assuming that communism is even a societal good lol) otherwise, they'd almost certainly never have gotten to be rich and powerful.

  On 12/11/2019 at 12:46 PM, auxien said:

i said society, i didn't parse it. the inherit societal inequality of literally every single rich nation is a large part of why that argument wouldn't work and is ridiculous. the rich and powerful are exactly that....rich, and powerful. they're in general not going to give up their wealth or their power for 'societal good' (assuming that communism is even a societal good lol) otherwise, they'd almost certainly never have gotten to be rich and powerful.

You mean there is no hope at all that society transforms into fairer forms? Humanity has been civilizing itself. If you look at history violence and death by starvation have decreased over the centuries, not only as a result of technological progress but also social/political progress. As soon as it becomes clear that everyone profits from a more or less fair society or at least one without poverty, more rich people will start working towards this. The most important factor will be the middle class though. A couple of decades ago there was still race segregation and women needed to ask their husbands if they are allowed to work and earn money. Unthinkable these days at least in major Western countries. So it's not that far fetched that we will continue debrutalizing in other fields as well which ultimately might lead into a form of society that could be described as communist or in its milder form socialist. But again, these are difficult terms as a lot of people associate economical failure and totalitarianism with them

nothing against you personally of course darreich but I literally lolled at “As soon as it becomes clear that everyone profits from a more or less fair society or at least one without poverty, more rich people will start working towards this” that’s just.... there’s so much wrong there. it’s very clear already, the rich/elite do not want that. they do not want a fair society. that’s why capitalism is perfectly human and likely to be the dominant makeup of civilization for a very long time. we could have something very close to a fair and equal society tomorrow if the wealthy (individuals and businesses alike) gave up their wealth out to everyone else. but the amount of change that would entail in the aftermath is nearly unthinkable and a whole other issue

tl;dr as long as money exists there will be the rich

  On 12/11/2019 at 4:53 AM, chenGOD said:

Pick one. 

I don't need to, post-scarcity is possible terrestrially it just won't last for very long.

  On 12/11/2019 at 4:53 AM, chenGOD said:

A non-terrestrial post-scarcity economy is unlikely to be realized in the near term due to the prohibitive cost of extracting resources from extra-terrestrial sources, and the lack of available technology...

fixed that for you. the near term will just see proof of concept missions and technological development.

  On 12/11/2019 at 4:53 AM, chenGOD said:

for example, ion drives only work in space, conventional rockets are still needed to escape earth atmosphere, conventional rockets require massive amounts of fuel which is not abundant), combined with uncertainty around resource availability from extra-terrestrial sources (e.g. unlikely to be many dead dinosaurs (read: available biological material (mostly plants, krill and other biomass) to create oil) in space, meaning plastic production will be limited to material found here on earth), results in a significant risk to any corporation willing to take on such a project. 

you're wrong on several points here:

1) you only need to launch the mining tech into space once, once it's up there you can refuel and re-use it for multiple operations. long-term this stuff would be mostly constructed in space or on the moon anyway. most rockets are over-engineered for spaceflight to get them off the Earth, stuff constructed in space would be a lot simpler to manufacture in many ways (especially if it doesn't have to accomodate people).

2) there is abundant fuel in space, you can easily extract it from water-ice asteroids. there's a bunch of different types of fuel you could make in fact.

3) there is abundant feedstocks for plastic production in space, and on the moon, and on mars. polyethylene is just carbon and hydrogen.

4) sure there are big risks in trying to do this, but there are also big potential rewards, and as the risks go down in the future due to technological advancement, the likelihood goes up; someone will eventually have a go.

  On 12/11/2019 at 4:22 PM, auxien said:

nothing against you personally of course darreich but I literally lolled at “As soon as it becomes clear that everyone profits from a more or less fair society or at least one without poverty, more rich people will start working towards this” that’s just.... there’s so much wrong there. it’s very clear already, the rich/elite do not want that. they do not want a fair society. that’s why capitalism is perfectly human and likely to be the dominant makeup of civilization for a very long time. we could have something very close to a fair and equal society tomorrow if the wealthy (individuals and businesses alike) gave up their wealth out to everyone else. but the amount of change that would entail in the aftermath is nearly unthinkable and a whole other issue

tl;dr as long as money exists there will be the rich

Expand  

That's why I said that the middle class will be the descisive factor

  On 12/11/2019 at 10:00 AM, goDel said:

"less well off"

This idea of communism might just be a brake on the evolution of humanity. We go forward! Towards "better off"  for all! From your comments, I guess that means not towards communism. As that will imply us moving back to the middle ages. And telling us that's in the interest of ... who exactly?

 

So what's going to happen when all labor is automated?  Capitalism ceases to function because it depends on consumers, but there won't be any if nobody can make any money because there are no jobs

UBI is a band-aid at most, giving poor people scraps in hopes of receiving n% of the scraps back again to profit off of.  The only solution is for all of humanity's immense capital to be owned by the people, and for this to be the top priority.  Even above prior conceptions of societal organization and "progress"

Even with our immense technology I would say much of it is not progress.  Do you have any idea how much effort has been poured into proprietary technologies which will never be part of the public commons?  Such a waste, one of the greatest sins of capitalism

  On 12/11/2019 at 6:24 PM, Zeffolia said:

So what's going to happen when all labor is automated?  Capitalism ceases to function because it depends on consumers, but there won't be any if nobody can make any money because there are no jobs

Read your history books. The idea of work being done by machines was already a thing during the industrialisation. And perhaps earlier even. Remember when farmers started using horses to do the heavy lifting? And what happened any time new technologies took over tasks human were used to doing? Some work won't be done by humans. Other work will come in its place.

I don't know what, or why, but this is how it has been for a long time. And the question is whether this will actually change in a world of AI, for instance. (I'm guessing your answer is yes.) Currently, I'd argue, AI is still a (net) job creator. Or something which helps humans already with a job to do their job better/faster/etc.

In a future of AI productivity will be higher than it currently is, I'd argue. And there will still be plenty jobs. There might be an argument about the kind of jobs and the abilities that will be required. The volume of work however doesn't concern me.

I consider the AI-age mostly a generational issue, more so than, say, a cognitive issue (eg.: work will become too complex for your average joe). Things are moving faster, and older generations will have a harder time catching up. Younger generations growing up in this age of information will grow up better able to adapt to these new challenges. And the average joes of the future would be considered todays geniuses. Without actually being smarter, btw. This is about adaption and the effect of growing up in a different environment.

Even if automation ends up creating more new jobs than it gets rid of, at a minimum there will be a lot of people out of work during the transition, and many of them may end up being left behind entirely. The same happened in the past, as agriculture became more productive and mechanised prior to the industrial revolution there was a massive increase in landless unemployed peasants throughout Europe, many of these people ended up going to America and Australia, it wasn't until the industrial revolution was in full swing that their home nations could start to find work for them.

If UBI is just a band aid for this transition period then that's fine, that would be all it needs to be. It is possible though that the new jobs won't materialise, just because it happened before doesn't mean it'll happen this time; in which case a deeper more fundamental change would be required.

yeah, that's what i consider the generational issue. it's a temporal effect. not structural.

  On 12/11/2019 at 6:53 PM, goDel said:

Read your history books. The idea of work being done by machines was already a thing during the industrialisation. And perhaps earlier even. Remember when farmers started using horses to do the heavy lifting? And what happened any time new technologies took over tasks human were used to doing? Some work won't be done by humans. Other work will come in its place.

I don't know what, or why, but this is how it has been for a long time. And the question is whether this will actually change in a world of AI, for instance. (I'm guessing your answer is yes.) Currently, I'd argue, AI is still a (net) job creator. Or something which helps humans already with a job to do their job better/faster/etc.

In a future of AI productivity will be higher than it currently is, I'd argue. And there will still be plenty jobs. There might be an argument about the kind of jobs and the abilities that will be required. The volume of work however doesn't concern me.

I consider the AI-age mostly a generational issue, more so than, say, a cognitive issue (eg.: work will become too complex for your average joe). Things are moving faster, and older generations will have a harder time catching up. Younger generations growing up in this age of information will grow up better able to adapt to these new challenges. And the average joes of the future would be considered todays geniuses. Without actually being smarter, btw. This is about adaption and the effect of growing up in a different environment.

Expand  

If humanity invents more work to do once basic stuff like agriculture, house construction, and appliance manufacturing become completely automated, what's the justification for not giving them to everyone?  That's a minimum requirement

It extends beyond that though - what's the society we want to build in the future?  One owned by corporations or owned by people?  Have you never worked a wage slave job and been alienated from your labor before?  Do we want the majority of humanity to exist forever as nothing more than wage slaves working on things for others to help them extract profit from the world?  I don't care if loopholes are discovered and capitalism can keep patching itself up forever, we still need to get rid of it for the alienation reason alone

No we don't, our labour doesn't define our life. Alienation is as dumb as all of Marx's other ideas. 

Yeah but what do you think about the Tesla cybertruck?