First of all, did you not read the part where I said: "it's only a matter of time before all of our jobs become automated - extrapolating from historical data, this is likely to happen in around ~100 or so years"? This means there will be no money, and everything will be either free or distributed equally to everyone.
Secondly, overfishing won't be much more of a problem in the future since world population will stabilise at around 10 billion, which is only a 25% increase from the current population.
Thirdly, is overfishing REALLY your biggest concern with respect to the fate of humanity? Your measure of advancement of humanity is access to fish? I am not sure if this is a joke or something, but this sounds totally ridiculous. If anything, fishing is controversial in its own right, as fish are also able to feel pain, just like us humans. It would probably be a good thing if we all stopped fishing.
Lastly, and most importantly, my entire post is based off the idea that, in less than 200 years, reality simulation will be possible. This means that, whatever product it is that you desire, you can get it in infinite amounts. This includes fish, but also yachts, houses, planets, etc. If you didn't bother to read my post past its title, why did you bother replying?
Sounds like you desire a fantasy world that wont happen. We cant produce product out of thin air nor is over fising my biggest concern nor will the population stabilize at 10 billion. You are just avstrsighg up idiot if you think people will suddenly just stop wanting kids. Nor will everything ever be fully automated as someone who has worked a factory job and a manufacturing job you seminply cant input the data a robot would need for that. Theres to much to do. To many variables. Your a dreamer and I can respect that but this is reality were theres limited ground, limited fish, limited nutrients in soil. We are actually running low on sand. So those alive in about 80 years give or take are gonna have problems with that. Not to mention drinking water. Feed for animals unless you think everyone is gonna be vegetarian. Then theres still crops but heres the thing unless we start finding a way to purify human waste we will still be reliant on animals for fertilizer to add nutrients to the soil. We are constantly loosing farmland for housing. And forest for farm land. Guess what we need trees. Trees provide is with oxygen through a process called photosynthesis.
Plus with the increase in your carbon footprint and all the pesticides we use we are killing all the bees. Bees pollinate and without pollination we dont have crops and growth. So in 200 years at a rate of growth you mention with full automation pollution will be at an all time high killing of insects and others that we actually rely on wich will invariable kill us all of in no time at all and most likely cause a huge world war over resources wich will eventually devolve into a civil war with the winners over the last of the resources till eventually we are all dead or we smarten up and basically put ourselves back in the stone age and the chance of our scientists figuring out a solution being very unlikely.
So basically your dream is the end of all humanity if you add in the facts of human needs, animal needs the planets needs and well you know facts of life. Utopias dont exist for a reason. Because they can't. Besides the fact you cant have machine repairing machines. the amount of times machines have broken down at work and its something so stupid and little. It's not even funny.
I am not really "dreaming" about anything here - I am just being objective and thinking critically. Thinking critically doesn't always mean thinking pessimistically, and instead sometimes means thinking ambitiously, like in this case.
I never said that we can produce products of our thin air in real life, but, in a digitally simulated world, almost no computing power is required to simulate a single fish. And, yes, in such a world, resources, just like our wants, are infinite, and yes we can produce them out of thin air. That's what I mean by "utopia" - anything that you want, you get on-demand, and there is nothing that you can possibly want that won't get on-demand. As far as I'm aware, that's pretty much what the word "utopia" means - a world where all of everyone's needs are met.
World population will actually stabilise at 10b or thereabouts due to the limitation of resources on Earth. Sure, there are many population projections out there, but all of them agree that population growth will either stop completely or slow down enormously this century and that it won't ever reach 15b. You can read more about this on Wikipedia's entry on "Projections of population growth".
As for factory job automation, I seriously hope you don't still work there because otherwise I've got bad news for you... most factory and manufacturing jobs are already automated, with some factories being fully self-functional (the only human workers in such factories are maintenance workers). But it's not only manufacturing jobs that will be automated in the near future - ALL of the professions that currently exist will get automated within the next 100 years, including those of scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs, etc; it's only a matter of time. There is plenty of evidence for this: if we look at the computer processing power over the past 150 years, we can extrapolate with a very high degree of confidence that, in 15 years, the most powerful computer will have more processing power than the entire human race combined. But yes, I know, processing power isn't everything. How about the fact that the same programme (AlphaZero), which doesn't know anything about chess, go, and many other games other than the rules of these games, can teach itself to become far better than any professional human in every one of these games? And it's not just brute-force calculation, either - its entire expertise actually comes from intuition. With the current super-exponential rate of advancement, what possible reason can there be for programmes such as AlphaZero not becoming more general and eventually being able to perform every human job? In order for automation to suddenly stop, all progress needs to suddenly come to a standstill, which can only happen in the event of a global catastrophe. If that doesn't happen, there is no reason whatsoever to expect automation to stop, and if it doesn't and instead continues at its current rate, all human jobs will be automated within the next 100 years.
Pollution? I agree it's not ideal, and it is certainly one of our very top priorities to reduce the effects of global warming, but it's just not going to make us extinct. Like with fish, I am not convinced that the lack of particular crops (as bees are only responsible for about 1/3 of the pollination of most crops) or honey will kill humanity. On the other hand, I know this sounds a bit "selfish" (probably not as selfish as torturing animals and then eating their flesh, though), but once we are in a simulation, we won't care about pollution or insects. Also, with money having gone extinct, politics will probably die as well. There simply wouldn't be a need for war when the same resources are available to everybody, and there is nothing than anybody can do it about this (as all jobs are now performed by robots, who will always be more efficient at their job than humans). Honestly, I don't think your end-of-the-world scenarios are realistic. Even in the worst possible scenarios that you describe (which aren't realistic to start with, as most bee species aren't even endangered or threatened), there is no way that every single person on Earth will go extinct.
My dream is certainly not "the end of all humanity", and we are not even discussing what my dream is - we are discussing the future of humanity. Sure, there are loads of problems for us to solve (as there have always been), but given that we solve them, it's very difficult to imagine what will stop us from achieving the state that I described in the post. If we can agree that we won't go extinct in the next 200 years, then us not doing so will require some explanation, which I haven't seen as of yet.
Utopias don't exist for a reason - that's because they do. We live in our ancestors' utopia already. You see, everyone's definition of "utopia" is different, so, as long as the world isn't objectively perfect according to everyone, it's easy to argue that the contemporary world isn't a utopian world. But that doesn't mean that our contemporary world wasn't considered utopian in some other contemporary world - I imagine many people in the Middle Ages would think that it can't get much better than having access to free education, having an entire lifetime just to do what they love and nothing more, with all the tedious tasks being done for them, being able to travel physically to any part of the world in less than a day, and having the collective knowledge of the entire human race always available on-demand. But, okay, even if the modern world is someone's utopia, it's only a subjective utopia. The reason why an objective utopia doesn't exist yet is that we aren't quite there yet, but we are getting there at a rapid pace, and are already very close.
Finally, on machine self-reparation: note that modern machines don't have the ability to fix themselves simply because they aren't general enough to do that. However, when AI exceeds both the generality and the intelligence of humans, there will be absolutely nothing that a human will be able to do that a machine won't be able to do more reliably and efficiently. Yep, that includes repairing and maintaining robots.
What you are imagining is Luke digigstruct in borderlands that's not how it works in real life. You cant make something out of nothing. Plus you forget people thought we would have flying cars by this point.
You simply cant do construction with robots.nor manufacturing. And yea I still work it. I make just shy of 20$ an hour in a state who's minimum wage is 7.25 wich is what manh places pay. To not work for more than double is idiotic when you can. You really have clearly never worked manufacturing then.
Machines cant quality check they just cant. Nor can they communicate effectively in such a location. Communication being essential. Theres so many variables in manufacturing that you can easily have the easiest day if your life or the hardest with a snap of a finger. Something anyone who's worked such a job knows. uNless we somehow get the robots from that will Smith movie with an intelligence and capality like that it's not gonna happen.
Wich creating a bipedal robot is far 2 difficult and anything with more than 2 legs is gonna be 2 damn big for manufacturing.
Just look at my job. Something goes across the belt it might fly off, get tuck or go through perfectly. The next item of the exact same cut slightly diffrent weight plays those same dice. I've seen hundreds of them go through perfectly than it gets stuck for no reason. The cost alone to program and create something that could replace humans would cost more than anything a human could ever cost. It's not happening. Not in 100 not in a 1000 it's far 2 difficult and costly. Not to mention unethical. Even doctors cant be robots. This isnt some universe were you can just inject yourself with something and watch your wounds close. You need a dock. Wounds vary in far too many regards both internally and externally.
Machines are good and very helpful but they are nothing more than a tool. They will never replace humans.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Imagine a video game. Do you think it's possible to write a bit of code that loops a particular fish in and out of existence ad Infinitum? Well, reality simulation is basically a video game, except it's so advanced that it's impossible to tell it apart from the real world. Do you think it's possible to programme such a virtual world to have the resources that the people inside it desire?
I think you should say this to factories which are fully, 100% autonomous (https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/automated-factories-video). Construction is a bit more complicated than manufacturing, although construction robot prototypes already exist and will replace construction workers in the near future (https://www.robotics.org/blog-article.cfm/Construction-Robots-Will-Change-the-Industry-Forever/93). You are right in saying that I have never worked in manufacturing, but I do have access to the internet, which tells me that some factories are fully autonomous, which will be true regardless of whether I or you have ever worked in manufacturing.
Indeed, machines can perform quality checks, sometimes better than humans (https://www.sheltonvision.co.uk/news/automated-quality-control-vs-manual-inspection/). Some products are too complex for machines to master currently, but, as is the case with every other human job in existence, this will change in the not-so-distant future. Also, even if you believe that mastering your job requires human-level intelligence, human-level intelligence will itself be achieved in ~100 years' time. Sooner or later, even the most sophisticated jobs will get automated.
Mobile bipedal robots already exist. See Atlas from Boston Dynamics, who I'm sure you'll have heard of or seen, as one example.
You are thinking linearly. To you, the next 1000 years will see 1000 years' worth of modern-day progress. Very counterintuitively, they will actually see more like 10,000,000 years' worth of modern-day progress. What this also means is that some things which you see as totally outrageous and unrealistic, and which are currently far too expensive to impossible to manufacture, like robots which can replace your job, are actually likely to become reality in the near future. When I say "in the next 100 years", you should really read that as "in the next 20,000 years", as that would be a more accurate representation of the amount of progress that we will make in this time period. And I think you would agree with me that it isn't that far-fetched to say that AI may become advanced enough and cheap enough to be a viable replacement for humans in your field.
Believe or not, robots have been better at diagnosing diseases than humans for over 30 years. Now, diagnosis is only a small part of the field of medicine, but, as AI becomes more precise and general, it will be able to cure the diseases that it diagnoses as well. Actually, doctors (apart from perhaps psychiatrists and other types of doctors whose field of expertise is based around social interaction, or in which social interaction plays an important part) are likely to be fully replaced by robots in the next 30 or so years.
I'm not even gonna bother reading this. Yea in a video game go for it but at the end of the day virtual reality isn't reality we have nutritional needs
You still don't get it. I don't mean virtual reality. I mean a full-on "Matrix", to put it in terms you are more likely to understand. Every function of our body will be digitally simulated, and it would be impossible to differentiate this simulated world from the "real" world. That is to say, if you closed your eyes and were told you'd be either kept in the real world or be transferred to the simulated world, you'd have precisely a 50% chance of guessing whether you are in the real world or not, no matter how much time I give you to explore the world that you are in. Btw, none of this will be done through "VR glasses" or whatever - either the human brain itself will be digitally recreated, or the neurons in the real human brains will be manipulated in such a way as to produce the experience of being in the virtual world. There won't be any nutritional needs in such a world.
If you don't want to read my previous comment, here is a short summary: basically, for every thing that you claim is impossible to ever produce, I provide a link to a real-world example such a thing that exists today. Towards the end, I also explain how your thinking is linear, while progress is super-exponential (faster than exponential), meaning that 100 years in your understanding are actually 20,000 real-life years, while 1000 years in your understanding are 10,000,000 real-life years. I conclude by saying that you'd probably agree with me that your job may become automated in 20,000 years, which translates to 100 actual years, which matches up with my prediction that the world will become fully automated in ~100 years. That's it.
And is there any particular reason why you doubt that? When all jobs become automated, capitalism won't work by definition - "a system where industry is controlled by PRIVATE owners" - because there are no private owners, aka workers. Also, I am sorry to upset your capitalistic feelings, but UBI will have to be introduced pretty damn soon (15 to 20 years maximum), or else inequality will rise to the point where the majority of the population are in poverty. Capitalism is an efficient system of driving economic growth and progress but only so far as only humans are involved. When robots join the game, the situation becomes very different.
Humanity will invariably reach a state of utopia in at most 200 years
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
There are so many problems with this comment.
First of all, did you not read the part where I said: "it's only a matter of time before all of our jobs become automated - extrapolating from historical data, this is likely to happen in around ~100 or so years"? This means there will be no money, and everything will be either free or distributed equally to everyone.
Secondly, overfishing won't be much more of a problem in the future since world population will stabilise at around 10 billion, which is only a 25% increase from the current population.
Thirdly, is overfishing REALLY your biggest concern with respect to the fate of humanity? Your measure of advancement of humanity is access to fish? I am not sure if this is a joke or something, but this sounds totally ridiculous. If anything, fishing is controversial in its own right, as fish are also able to feel pain, just like us humans. It would probably be a good thing if we all stopped fishing.
Lastly, and most importantly, my entire post is based off the idea that, in less than 200 years, reality simulation will be possible. This means that, whatever product it is that you desire, you can get it in infinite amounts. This includes fish, but also yachts, houses, planets, etc. If you didn't bother to read my post past its title, why did you bother replying?
--
Mammal-lover
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
Clunk42
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Sounds like you desire a fantasy world that wont happen. We cant produce product out of thin air nor is over fising my biggest concern nor will the population stabilize at 10 billion. You are just avstrsighg up idiot if you think people will suddenly just stop wanting kids. Nor will everything ever be fully automated as someone who has worked a factory job and a manufacturing job you seminply cant input the data a robot would need for that. Theres to much to do. To many variables. Your a dreamer and I can respect that but this is reality were theres limited ground, limited fish, limited nutrients in soil. We are actually running low on sand. So those alive in about 80 years give or take are gonna have problems with that. Not to mention drinking water. Feed for animals unless you think everyone is gonna be vegetarian. Then theres still crops but heres the thing unless we start finding a way to purify human waste we will still be reliant on animals for fertilizer to add nutrients to the soil. We are constantly loosing farmland for housing. And forest for farm land. Guess what we need trees. Trees provide is with oxygen through a process called photosynthesis.
Plus with the increase in your carbon footprint and all the pesticides we use we are killing all the bees. Bees pollinate and without pollination we dont have crops and growth. So in 200 years at a rate of growth you mention with full automation pollution will be at an all time high killing of insects and others that we actually rely on wich will invariable kill us all of in no time at all and most likely cause a huge world war over resources wich will eventually devolve into a civil war with the winners over the last of the resources till eventually we are all dead or we smarten up and basically put ourselves back in the stone age and the chance of our scientists figuring out a solution being very unlikely.
So basically your dream is the end of all humanity if you add in the facts of human needs, animal needs the planets needs and well you know facts of life. Utopias dont exist for a reason. Because they can't. Besides the fact you cant have machine repairing machines. the amount of times machines have broken down at work and its something so stupid and little. It's not even funny.
--
SingleUse
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I am not really "dreaming" about anything here - I am just being objective and thinking critically. Thinking critically doesn't always mean thinking pessimistically, and instead sometimes means thinking ambitiously, like in this case.
I never said that we can produce products of our thin air in real life, but, in a digitally simulated world, almost no computing power is required to simulate a single fish. And, yes, in such a world, resources, just like our wants, are infinite, and yes we can produce them out of thin air. That's what I mean by "utopia" - anything that you want, you get on-demand, and there is nothing that you can possibly want that won't get on-demand. As far as I'm aware, that's pretty much what the word "utopia" means - a world where all of everyone's needs are met.
World population will actually stabilise at 10b or thereabouts due to the limitation of resources on Earth. Sure, there are many population projections out there, but all of them agree that population growth will either stop completely or slow down enormously this century and that it won't ever reach 15b. You can read more about this on Wikipedia's entry on "Projections of population growth".
As for factory job automation, I seriously hope you don't still work there because otherwise I've got bad news for you... most factory and manufacturing jobs are already automated, with some factories being fully self-functional (the only human workers in such factories are maintenance workers). But it's not only manufacturing jobs that will be automated in the near future - ALL of the professions that currently exist will get automated within the next 100 years, including those of scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs, etc; it's only a matter of time. There is plenty of evidence for this: if we look at the computer processing power over the past 150 years, we can extrapolate with a very high degree of confidence that, in 15 years, the most powerful computer will have more processing power than the entire human race combined. But yes, I know, processing power isn't everything. How about the fact that the same programme (AlphaZero), which doesn't know anything about chess, go, and many other games other than the rules of these games, can teach itself to become far better than any professional human in every one of these games? And it's not just brute-force calculation, either - its entire expertise actually comes from intuition. With the current super-exponential rate of advancement, what possible reason can there be for programmes such as AlphaZero not becoming more general and eventually being able to perform every human job? In order for automation to suddenly stop, all progress needs to suddenly come to a standstill, which can only happen in the event of a global catastrophe. If that doesn't happen, there is no reason whatsoever to expect automation to stop, and if it doesn't and instead continues at its current rate, all human jobs will be automated within the next 100 years.
Pollution? I agree it's not ideal, and it is certainly one of our very top priorities to reduce the effects of global warming, but it's just not going to make us extinct. Like with fish, I am not convinced that the lack of particular crops (as bees are only responsible for about 1/3 of the pollination of most crops) or honey will kill humanity. On the other hand, I know this sounds a bit "selfish" (probably not as selfish as torturing animals and then eating their flesh, though), but once we are in a simulation, we won't care about pollution or insects. Also, with money having gone extinct, politics will probably die as well. There simply wouldn't be a need for war when the same resources are available to everybody, and there is nothing than anybody can do it about this (as all jobs are now performed by robots, who will always be more efficient at their job than humans). Honestly, I don't think your end-of-the-world scenarios are realistic. Even in the worst possible scenarios that you describe (which aren't realistic to start with, as most bee species aren't even endangered or threatened), there is no way that every single person on Earth will go extinct.
My dream is certainly not "the end of all humanity", and we are not even discussing what my dream is - we are discussing the future of humanity. Sure, there are loads of problems for us to solve (as there have always been), but given that we solve them, it's very difficult to imagine what will stop us from achieving the state that I described in the post. If we can agree that we won't go extinct in the next 200 years, then us not doing so will require some explanation, which I haven't seen as of yet.
Utopias don't exist for a reason - that's because they do. We live in our ancestors' utopia already. You see, everyone's definition of "utopia" is different, so, as long as the world isn't objectively perfect according to everyone, it's easy to argue that the contemporary world isn't a utopian world. But that doesn't mean that our contemporary world wasn't considered utopian in some other contemporary world - I imagine many people in the Middle Ages would think that it can't get much better than having access to free education, having an entire lifetime just to do what they love and nothing more, with all the tedious tasks being done for them, being able to travel physically to any part of the world in less than a day, and having the collective knowledge of the entire human race always available on-demand. But, okay, even if the modern world is someone's utopia, it's only a subjective utopia. The reason why an objective utopia doesn't exist yet is that we aren't quite there yet, but we are getting there at a rapid pace, and are already very close.
Finally, on machine self-reparation: note that modern machines don't have the ability to fix themselves simply because they aren't general enough to do that. However, when AI exceeds both the generality and the intelligence of humans, there will be absolutely nothing that a human will be able to do that a machine won't be able to do more reliably and efficiently. Yep, that includes repairing and maintaining robots.
--
Mammal-lover
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
What you are imagining is Luke digigstruct in borderlands that's not how it works in real life. You cant make something out of nothing. Plus you forget people thought we would have flying cars by this point.
You simply cant do construction with robots.nor manufacturing. And yea I still work it. I make just shy of 20$ an hour in a state who's minimum wage is 7.25 wich is what manh places pay. To not work for more than double is idiotic when you can. You really have clearly never worked manufacturing then.
Machines cant quality check they just cant. Nor can they communicate effectively in such a location. Communication being essential. Theres so many variables in manufacturing that you can easily have the easiest day if your life or the hardest with a snap of a finger. Something anyone who's worked such a job knows. uNless we somehow get the robots from that will Smith movie with an intelligence and capality like that it's not gonna happen.
Wich creating a bipedal robot is far 2 difficult and anything with more than 2 legs is gonna be 2 damn big for manufacturing.
Just look at my job. Something goes across the belt it might fly off, get tuck or go through perfectly. The next item of the exact same cut slightly diffrent weight plays those same dice. I've seen hundreds of them go through perfectly than it gets stuck for no reason. The cost alone to program and create something that could replace humans would cost more than anything a human could ever cost. It's not happening. Not in 100 not in a 1000 it's far 2 difficult and costly. Not to mention unethical. Even doctors cant be robots. This isnt some universe were you can just inject yourself with something and watch your wounds close. You need a dock. Wounds vary in far too many regards both internally and externally.
Machines are good and very helpful but they are nothing more than a tool. They will never replace humans.
--
SingleUse
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Imagine a video game. Do you think it's possible to write a bit of code that loops a particular fish in and out of existence ad Infinitum? Well, reality simulation is basically a video game, except it's so advanced that it's impossible to tell it apart from the real world. Do you think it's possible to programme such a virtual world to have the resources that the people inside it desire?
I think you should say this to factories which are fully, 100% autonomous (https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/automated-factories-video). Construction is a bit more complicated than manufacturing, although construction robot prototypes already exist and will replace construction workers in the near future (https://www.robotics.org/blog-article.cfm/Construction-Robots-Will-Change-the-Industry-Forever/93). You are right in saying that I have never worked in manufacturing, but I do have access to the internet, which tells me that some factories are fully autonomous, which will be true regardless of whether I or you have ever worked in manufacturing.
Indeed, machines can perform quality checks, sometimes better than humans (https://www.sheltonvision.co.uk/news/automated-quality-control-vs-manual-inspection/). Some products are too complex for machines to master currently, but, as is the case with every other human job in existence, this will change in the not-so-distant future. Also, even if you believe that mastering your job requires human-level intelligence, human-level intelligence will itself be achieved in ~100 years' time. Sooner or later, even the most sophisticated jobs will get automated.
Mobile bipedal robots already exist. See Atlas from Boston Dynamics, who I'm sure you'll have heard of or seen, as one example.
You are thinking linearly. To you, the next 1000 years will see 1000 years' worth of modern-day progress. Very counterintuitively, they will actually see more like 10,000,000 years' worth of modern-day progress. What this also means is that some things which you see as totally outrageous and unrealistic, and which are currently far too expensive to impossible to manufacture, like robots which can replace your job, are actually likely to become reality in the near future. When I say "in the next 100 years", you should really read that as "in the next 20,000 years", as that would be a more accurate representation of the amount of progress that we will make in this time period. And I think you would agree with me that it isn't that far-fetched to say that AI may become advanced enough and cheap enough to be a viable replacement for humans in your field.
Believe or not, robots have been better at diagnosing diseases than humans for over 30 years. Now, diagnosis is only a small part of the field of medicine, but, as AI becomes more precise and general, it will be able to cure the diseases that it diagnoses as well. Actually, doctors (apart from perhaps psychiatrists and other types of doctors whose field of expertise is based around social interaction, or in which social interaction plays an important part) are likely to be fully replaced by robots in the next 30 or so years.
--
Mammal-lover
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm not even gonna bother reading this. Yea in a video game go for it but at the end of the day virtual reality isn't reality we have nutritional needs
--
SingleUse
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
You still don't get it. I don't mean virtual reality. I mean a full-on "Matrix", to put it in terms you are more likely to understand. Every function of our body will be digitally simulated, and it would be impossible to differentiate this simulated world from the "real" world. That is to say, if you closed your eyes and were told you'd be either kept in the real world or be transferred to the simulated world, you'd have precisely a 50% chance of guessing whether you are in the real world or not, no matter how much time I give you to explore the world that you are in. Btw, none of this will be done through "VR glasses" or whatever - either the human brain itself will be digitally recreated, or the neurons in the real human brains will be manipulated in such a way as to produce the experience of being in the virtual world. There won't be any nutritional needs in such a world.
If you don't want to read my previous comment, here is a short summary: basically, for every thing that you claim is impossible to ever produce, I provide a link to a real-world example such a thing that exists today. Towards the end, I also explain how your thinking is linear, while progress is super-exponential (faster than exponential), meaning that 100 years in your understanding are actually 20,000 real-life years, while 1000 years in your understanding are 10,000,000 real-life years. I conclude by saying that you'd probably agree with me that your job may become automated in 20,000 years, which translates to 100 actual years, which matches up with my prediction that the world will become fully automated in ~100 years. That's it.
So you think that technological improvements will somehow allow communism to be successful? I highly doubt that.
--
SingleUse
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
And is there any particular reason why you doubt that? When all jobs become automated, capitalism won't work by definition - "a system where industry is controlled by PRIVATE owners" - because there are no private owners, aka workers. Also, I am sorry to upset your capitalistic feelings, but UBI will have to be introduced pretty damn soon (15 to 20 years maximum), or else inequality will rise to the point where the majority of the population are in poverty. Capitalism is an efficient system of driving economic growth and progress but only so far as only humans are involved. When robots join the game, the situation becomes very different.