When are we going to realize that we have reached limits of growth? We should replace term "growth" with "development". For example free public transport in cities is a sign of degrowth but it is a development in society. GDP declines, but life gets better.
We aren't going to realize it because we haven't. Your limits to growth thesis is as fundamentally flawed as it has always been, as it was flawed in the 1970s when it predicted we'd all be dead by now, as it was flawed back in the days of Malthus 200 years ago when he 'scientifically proved' that unless the inferior classes were all forcibly sterilized, the world would run out of food in just a few decades.
It is real, It's Called the Social Progress index. :) www.ted.com/talks/michael_green_what_the_social_progress_index_can_reveal_about_your_country?language=en
I disagree with you there, no need to invent new terms. "Degrowth" as you call it implies that public transport is a hassle for most people - and if so, it is not a positive development. Assuming, however, it actually IS an improvement (and not just a hassle for everyone), it is because the new mode of transportation solves a problem - be it congestion, pollution or something else - and problems can usually be given an economic cost. Basically you put a price on what it would cost (=how much effort it would be) to do something about the problem in the first place. This cost can then be measured against the cost in increased hassle (if any) to the people "forced" to take public transport. It's the same thinking as the classic story about a factory that can produce some stuff dirt cheap, but where doing so will pollute the environment. They sell at a price that reflects the cost of power and raw materials, but not the price of cleaning up their mess - that part of the cost is left to others, possibly without those "others" even realizing they are being sent a big bill. However; the fact that the factory owner managed to sleaze his way out of paying the _true_ cost of production, doesn't make that _true_ cost any less real. If eg. public transportation pollutes less, this is a cost that is now saved and you have achieved an economically measurable improvement. "Cost" in this context can be measured in some specific currency, or you can calculate work hours or some other metric - but unless you find a way to put a number on it, you are necessarily reduced to spouting personal opinion. I think we should aspire to go beyond simple "I-feel-X-because-it's-Monday"- type arguments when we determine what is a desirable outcome for society.
growth is the problem we need sustainability and our endless growth is only making things worse we are currently using 150% of the earths yearly resources every year if we don't stop growth and start focusing on reform soon growth will be the death of our civilization and way of life. Endless growth is literally unsustainable in any fashion no matter what you do eventually we run out of space energy and resources to support the people on our planet.
Not necessarily. If you can do more with fewer resources, then you can grow an economy without increasing its demand for resources. Throw in advanced recycling technologies, and your "new" resources can be old resources that have been re-purposed.
I don't necessarily believe in the following, but I'll play the devils advocate and say that all that grown and using resources on the max is going to lead to Singularity and increased automation, which will find solutions to deal with almost all externalities introduced (like climate change, resource scarcity, etc). It's like investing your last dime in something (unsustainable high investment of resources), because you have that then getting your return on investment (Singularity), and then you don't need to invest anymore in it. The only thing that is not potentially reversible is population and occupied physical space. You can, in theory, with sufficiently futuristic technology reverse climate change, recreate ecosystems, etc.
"...we are currently using 150% of the earths yearly resources every year..." I see, so the whole earth is going to run out of all resources in eight months. What is surprising to me is not how absurd your statement is, it is that 13 people as of this point, thumbed up your nonsense.
Increasing productivity is not unsustainable, in fact it may be necessary for sustainability. In essense, an increase in productivity is to use resources more efficicently. Less material, energy and labor is required to produce the same amount of value.
***** I disagree, if the government invested in infrastructure such as the driverless cars and automated farming we could be there in the next couple of years. The technology is there, but the government is so reliant on slave labor at this point that they're not willing to make the change. But also it's not something we should wait for until we can FULLY automate, it's something we should instigate now because the displacement caused by automation already is causing so many problems. We're so far beyond the point of needing full participation in the workforce already
***** My toaster does not use microchips and therefore you analogy is invalid. Besides carbon nanotubes are replacing classic silicon tranzistors:phys.org/news/2016-09-carbon-nanotube-transistors-outperform-silicon.html
The future is here.....I would recommend this inspiring Ted Talk to anyone with a interested in innovation, manufacturing, industrial arts, engineering, academia, entrepreneurs, economist, Bankers and investors.
as many recycling manufactures as producing, imagine! clean processes, respected matter having journeys, valued and shared compounds, workforce's training serving individual development stages... maybe...
The need for growth in a capitalistic, consumerist-driven society is like a smoker's need for a lung transplant. Sure, we can celebrate growth stimulation, just as we can celebrate our new improved medical advancements to perform a more efficient transplant, but it's not really getting to the root of the problem. What we need is a combination of carbon footprint reducing methods of production, as well as a MASSIVE reduction of consumerism. We need to start sharing resources on a scale we've never seen before. If you only measure growth by economic output and not economic efficiency, then the planet's life support is eventually going to give way.
Socialism is death it certainly killed Europe and Latin America. Taking people's stuff and giving it to other people so they will love you is an unsustainable 19th-century idea that has never lived up to the hype.
It's def a good idea but it will need to start up something, small something simple like maybe clothing aesthetics to be more eco friendly reusable, now I'm not gonna say I'm a Einstein and know were to start but I think that would still be a perfect place to start since well.. most people wear clothes 😂
State regulation squashes competition in the market place because only big companies can deal with it. Competition is what drives innovation and growth.
i think human curiosity and the motivation to create drive innovation. competition simply makes me want to win, as long as i can win with less effort than innovation requires, i'll always choose the other way. be it cartels, corruption, patents, marketing, etc. ... innovation is an optional strategy in this game. and in the real world economy we see how corruption strumps innovation like 9 out of 10 times...
+fatalmystic people have always been curious and motivated. Under a free market system it's much easier to achieve your goals. Countries that move away from free market principles always lower the standard of living and ability to succeed
As a previous TED talk pointed out, when countries don't have assets in other countries it is easier for them to be aggressive towards each other. We have to be interdependent to not start pointless fights. If everybody is self sufficient it can easily adopt a "f**k the rest" attitude. Also, currently robotic production generates individual wealth, not social equity. Parts of the advantages identified in this talk are real but the implementation is the real hard part. How to produce locally but still be interdependent enough to maintain peace? How to automate production and not increase the income gap and even reduce it? If i recall correctly in one of those Zeitgeist movies it was proposed that the machines should work for all of us. But that sound a little to close to the socialist doctrina where the wealth resulted from labor is equally spread to the population. And it might have the same disadvantages that type of society has. This is a really hard problem to solve and it appears we will need to face it in the not so near future...
1. If labor taxing policies remain similar, robots will work and humans will die of poverty. Except the rich businessmen, of course. 2. The promise of a better future brought by new technology is like anesthesia before torture to death. With a few exceptions, technology has nothing to do with good life.
People with low intelligent (like you) wont die, but living with minimum income / gov aids. People with good brain (like me) will find a way to enjoy technology advance instead of whining
+Pham He probably is offended. He just doesn't want to sink to your level of mental constriction. Can you not see that massively unequal distribution is actually going to neutralise the benefit of technological advances unless it is solved? + I hope English is not your first language
Xifong Christian why bringing English here? How are you gonna define / measure / enforce "equal distribution" ? Are you gonna follow the Soviet style ? Or confiscate Bill Gates, Warren , etc.. income ? Anyway, distribute don't have much ( if any) to do with technology. It is political/economical rules. I hope you know what you are talking about
I think most people that are criticizing are missing the point here. He said some cool things about downscalling and agile / lean concepts that we could incorporate for a better development. It isn't just robots+ 3d printing, it's a new way of thinking, we can't just rely on china / india for cheaper products and grow for the sake or growth
Eh, I'd argue it was less about technology and more about economic models, but I'll agree that if you're a standard TED viewer you've heard a lot of this already.
***** It's just that he built this huge mystery around it throughout the entire talk, I would have preferred it if he just got to the point from the start, revealing the innovation is 3D printing and going right into the economic models. But you're totally right.
I am a 15 year machinist. I have to respectfully disagree that 3d printing in most cases increases productivity. Additive processes ( while necessary to produce certain things like carbon fiber wings) will be much slower and more expensive for a long time to come. 3D printing some of the plastic parts I make which cannot be injection molded would take 8-9 hours. The same part (including the creation of the plastic) will become a finished part in a total of around 16 minutes.
I'm not very old, but from what I can understand from this "fourth industrial revolution" a lot of things need to happen in order for it to reach its full potential. Additionally, this coudl be a great opportunity to bring back over sea jobs back into their original native countries.
If your job can be done by a robot, you should be using your amazing human mind and capabilities to do something more productive. And yes, I have been replaced by automation before as well. You're allowed to be salty about it, but it doesn't change anything.
Advanced robots and AI, meaning advanced and complex tasks in a new way than it is currently happening with automation. The more complex it is the AI, the worse is the impact for a lot of families in a long term, more thousands of people will have no jobs or have worse income than currently it is now even when they have multiple jobs, regardless of their capabilities and skills, no jobs or low income in a long term it is not a positive thing at all, I've seen it with many people, increasing insecurity and unstable wealth for a lot of families worldwide, poorer education, among other negative things.
why would there be a need for money to make a living when there are no jobs left? obviously there isn't. so to me, the decline of jobs is generally a good thing. however, the transition might be rough...
+Seiaeka AI can be as intelligent as the humans. In future they can be a lot more intelligent than the humans. I doubt if at that stage humans could actually do something "more". The way I see it - Man + Computer > Computer. Humans must complement computers.
Growth does not equal production increases. Demand also matters. GDP growth is not the only measure of wealth. It is possible to have greater wealth with lower production, by for example durable products and the sharing economy. Still, the next wave of manufacturing is probably as the speaker says.
i don't like his proposed solution. but i don't see many others and it seems that he is going to be right whether we like it or not. so although i don't like the talk, i "liked" the talk, because it is necessary. this does sound like the future of manufacturing, and it may be the best we can do.
We can't assume that "experts" like this know much about the road ahead. But there are visionaries like Jobs and others that see the way forward in their narrow field. And it is the collective efforts of these visionaries that make up the coming revolution. I tend to doubt the greatest returns will be had eliminating unskilled, unintelligent labor. The highest returns may be had freeing up the most intelligent sectors of labor. And seeing that our intellectual elites are well funded in the research that creates the greatest growth. We need to establish what economy sectors will provide the greatest prosperity. Perhaps, space mining, cures for diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, alcoholism and drug addiction. Low cost energy, more efficient batteries, lower cost access to space, and transportation improvements.
There are three major revolutions named in the talk, and yet the graph of productivity presented during the talk no sign of productivity bump is visible in corresponding dates. Growth is slumping because we are reaching the limits of what we responsibly can extract from the Earth.
Back in the 1960's and 70's, half the world was starving. Nowadays only ten percent don't have enough quality food. That improvement was made solely through growth. We grew the economies of those peoples to the point where they were no longer starving. In the process, also due to the growth that vastly improved their standards of living, we also slowed down the population explosion, massively. By most accounts, the human population growth is expected to stop this century at somewhere around 11 billion people, assuming the increase in standards of living continues. The surest way to guarantee that human population growth does not stop, and the most certain path to the disaster you fear, is to stop the growth in the standard of living of the world's current poor. That is why we need growth.
I agree. we need growth in the standard of living for the poorest in society. But growth on its own is not good or bad. We don't need growth in the rich being marketed ever more tat. We need to grow or reorganize so that everyone has enough and we are using resources sustainability. I suspect that if current resources were used for the common good and shared equally that everyone could have an adequate standard of living.
+Donald Hobson The sad reality is that the instant you start 'sharing equally' for the 'common good', you wind up with a shrinking pie and ultimately everyone worse off, except for the ruling class of course. You need freedom for far more than freedom itself, freedom ultimately is the machine that produces the very wealth socialists want to share. Sadly with freedom comes both inequity and responsibility. A person is necessarily responsible for themselves to the direct proportion they are free, and vice versa, a person is only as free as they are responsible for themselves. Many, if not most people in society, eschew the responsibility side of the freedom coin, and are more than willing to throw out freedom for the sake of not having to be responsible for themselves. Sadly for them, they almost always wind up far worse off as a result, as the state quite frankly doesn't give a damn about the individuals that comprise society. The state cares about the state.
If we need to grow or not depends on what we want to archive. Look at population growth, it seems to start regulating itself in japan but the authorities think its a bad thing. In Afrika people have like 5+ children, Europe 1-2. In the past it was harsher, out of these 5 3 died now it starts to change with help and medicine. When they get to the same level of development as japan they are also going to have only one child. hope this makes sense
Where the distributed manufacturers make their mistake is allowing free downloading of schematics to build things. Schematics should be streamed like music or video content on a pay for play basis allowing payment to be made to the creator of the idea every time it is used. The cost of raw materials needed + payment to the creator of the design + service charge to the local automated manufacturing facility for the manufacture of said product should determine the cost of goods. Streaming servers can actually hold the data and deliver a single copy communicating it directly to the licensed automated manufacturing facility ensuring profits are made and taxes are paid. This would prevent economic anarchy.
Michael Spence, a Nobel Prize laureate who is also an emeritus professor at Stanford, Said: “Missing from growth are many things: health, distributional aspects of growth patterns, sense of security, freedoms of various kinds, leisure broadly defined, and more.” A new economy could also focus more on the health of the environment. For half a century, developed nations have focused on how to make their economies grow faster, hoping that strong growth would improve life for all their populations. But what if growth isn’t the key to raising the standard of living across a society? Many economists are now challenging the view, that Economy needs to grow every year, arguing that it makes more sense to focus on measures of well-being other than growth. After all, despite a growth rate that has averaged three percent over the last 60 years (which is quite robust), there are still 43 million Americans living in poverty, and most people’s wages are essentially unchanged from the end of the Reagan administration. There is a significant economic gap, (a shrinking middle class). In fact, the median income of households in 2014 was 4 percent lower than it was in 2000, despite positive economic growth in all but two of the years during that time period. And if you consider environmental pollution (oceans and deforestation, clean water) it getting worst every year! SO what is the real value of this year after year Economic Growth? Nature is far more complex system that any of our economies? It creates local growths in a dynamic system which achieves equilibrium but over all it demonstrates zero growth!
Dude,our system works with an economic paradigm , money has to go! And those monster we call bankers and CEO's from big corporations have to pay for what they done to humanity
Universal income sounds nice but it still involves paying taxes to hand out the universal income. Why not make stuff extremely cheap, like their real value. Why does a bread cost money, actually? With all these technology and machinery a bread could be made for 10 cents. The rest of the bread price is tax.
+bock228 I love it...but what will we be doing all day? Utopia I guess...regardless how will the robots conquer greed? The greedy will be creating the robots for us to party?
Because that's how you incentivize innovation. If there is no incentive for the top 10% of people to push themselves to the limit and beyond, the system will stagnate and become corrupt. You can't ask people to cut their personal lives in half for the majority of their time on Earth to make innovation happen while you are at home with your family, reading books and going on vacations and give them nothing in return.
classic old designs and styles are really cool and timeless you may called them the retro etc. In fact they are way better than many of trendy garbages.
Why would it be? We represent many emotional complications, not recognized by AI. Any attempt to reprogram AI will be seen as a downgrade of efficiency. Traveling some thousands years to another planet will produce complains amongst humans who want their own wife and family. Humans and AI aren't compatible.
They are a majority and there is no plan for that. It will coma like a surprise. They will want food and other groups will constantly chase them away. Perhaps camps will be reintroduced where billions will live their life.
There are no "simple minded" humans, unless you are talking about people who suffered brain damage. People who decide to do the least cognitive development and work they need will continue to do so when this minimum changes. Plebs will just have fewer topics they can refuse to learn because "they don't need them".
Just wondering when and how the manufacturing revolution (4.0) gets its maturity to support the idea it derived from. If you take a look at the principles of TPS (TOYOTA PRODUCTION SYSTEM) based on staff minds and skills to create value in any step they take in order to optimize process and build the competitive edge, you will know why this company is so effective. Automatization in this particular matter such as 4.0 does not mean to be a step with the wrong foot, but is it ready to think in KAIZEN way - create value steps instead of speeding up waste? // The idea to write in here crossed my mind when recalling a visit in Japan, Nagoya, Motomachi TOYOTA plant with German process engineers who got to know that their internal logistics based on robots is way less efficient than this one we could see at TOYOTA created by shop floor people during KAIZEN sessions...Eiji Toyoda used to say "Before cars, make people" is it still valid?
La situación en la actualidad nos indica que los modelos de producción están resultando obsoletos a corto tiempo, lo cual propicia el empleo de mejores tecnologías para lograr una mayor productividad mediante el empleo de mano de obra realmente capacitada para el desempeño de estas actividades. La era del empleo de tecnologías robóticas en nuestras fabricas en un periodo no mayor de 20 años se hace cada vez más imprescindible. La tecnología de las impresiones en 3D augura un desarrollo jamás antes visto en los modelos de producción anteriores implementados durante las revoluciones industriales tecnológicas pasadas.
That weirdly funny moment when you close your eyes and imagine Inspector Jacques Clouseau (from Pink Panther movies) ramble on about this in his French accent. :P
First, the guy shows economies that were still on a process of rebuilding their capital stock after getting wrecked in a war (Japan and Germany) seeing their growth rate decline after the 1960s (ignoring how much subtler that fall was for the US, also plotted on the graph). That's no surprise, if anything it's common place in economic growth theory. Then, he says that producing abroad doesn't imply increased productivity, especially after the initially low wages start to rise. Well, actually, it does - to the underdevelopped economy that receives the investment -, the wage growth being an evidence to that. Then, the guy shows a graph that demonstrates the decrease in productivity GROWTH, and says productivity is declining worldwide (when in fact the graph only shows it's increasing slower). At last, he says poduction scale will decrease - ironically in a world in which fixed capital will be much bigger, without presenting any convincig argument for such a counterintuitive statement. And even goes as far as saying that's good for emerging economies, despite the disinvestment it represents and the fact most of them are far behind the mature economies in Research and Development. I don't wanna be a troll, but, correct me if I'm wrong, I think this lecture was deeply misinformative.
Is it just me or what he describes as being the 4-th manufacturing revolution started already in Elon Musk's Tesla and SpaceX bussiness? Automated production, vertical integration, local development of manufacturing and so on..
sustainable growth. because we dont have enough products yet, we dont need enough resources yet. there will always be a limit to growth, and there will always be change happening. the higher you fly the deeper you fall.
We have no vision of consequences when we produce. We think progress is success, but without moral forethought, technology will lead to dangerous times for human beings.
We need to turn that production line into a closed loop, make trash and sewage new resources for an united world where humanity and nature can live together. The problem is, rich corporations are naturally greed and are not whiling to a big change in the structure of the economy.
Just wondering where those 'more jobs' will come from. We are already producing more than we need and now he wants to 'add' machines that increase output ~20%. ... Isn't it more realistic that they will replace workers at roughly constant output? Plus, he's saying that we don't need to "painstakingly assemble" complex parts anymore because the 3D printer does it all in one go. So he wants to create jobs by replacing the people making the individual parts and the people assembling them into usable objects by creating one job for one engineer who does the 3D modelling of the usable objects and feeds them into the 3D printer? ... the 3D printer that does all these other steps fully automated? I'm not good in maths but that doesn't sound like a correct calculation to me.
Good analysis. In fact, most researchers today agree that while we have growth in the economy through the technological revolution, we are losing jobs. It's called technological unemployment (google that) and most politicians seem utterly unaware of it. They're stuck in the century old 'create new jobs' way of thinking and equating economic growth to more jobs. It's not happening. On top of that, sustainable growth is a oxymoron in itself and consider how money is being redistributed long-term here. Not having a job is a bad thing in today's economy while the fact that not everyone have to work in order to produce everything we need should be a good one. We're in for some foundational changes in how the economy works in the next few decades.
Svante Ekholm Yes that is basically what I tell to my friends as well. If one starts to read up on what's up and coming in terms of tech we are about to face such fundamental changes. I call it the superstar economy. Because of easy and near costless replication only the absolute super skilled stars will remain employed (the 3D modeller,s the exceptional scientist and surgeon). Because much of their output will be so easy and cheap to reproduce that you don't need the mediocre producers anymore. The superstars will earn exceptional incomes while the rest goes .... yeah, were does the rest go?
i have worked in manufacturing for over 40 years and they thought they would replace people with computer numerical control machine tools, well it didn't happen. there are too many variables for robots to contend with. besides we already have rapid prototyping, but very few people running the machines know or understand how to program them. yea lets make more stuff, like that will make a difference when most folks don't have the money to buy anything.
They told us about those robots when I was a child and teenager in the 60s and 70s. No one would do hard labour anymore and robots would serve us personally. Still waiting... Now I don't see any progress without any chips available anywhere.
so many things inaccurate in the first three minutes. he states things that his own initial graph don't agree with. far too myopic view and inconsistent arguments and terminology. very skeptical.
Boring, nothing new here, and the guy's accent is intolerable. And my mother tongue is French. :P TL:DR 3d printing and robots will solve all our problems.... so original... /end sarcasm
He's a talker... Makes me thirsty. I thought he was heading towards 3d printers... I gave up before he mentioned the phase... My question is where do all the workers the robots displace earn the money to buy the crap this growth is supposedly going to produce?
Why should our children have better lives than us? Lets make lives of all of us even in the first place. We can not talk about "growing" economy, while half of the population is starving, and 1% of people live like gods... Stoped and disliked at 0:45
Half the population is NOT starving. "One in nine people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life." That is not half, nor is it 'starving'. Moreover that number has drastically improved over the last few decades. It used to be much worse. What is it that changed? What did we do to address that? Growth is what. We grew their economies to the point where they were no longer starving.
Contradiction. Can not our children have better lives by more equitable distribution and does the coming new industrial revolution not make it possible to drastically shorten the workweek without decreasing income?
If we snap out of the consumption/exponential growth bubble and remember Climate Change is accelerating and will keep doing so as humans can't restrain themselves, we can derive that the children of tomorrow will have it really bad, while their children will have it even worse, and so on. Unless we develop some amazing fusion power technologies that really work within the next few years, or something similar, it seems like our species has "peaked". This might be as good as it gets. climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Korean Transalation need to be corrected. Offshore is not 해안 Offshore is not in their territory. e.g. Offshore manufatcruting of zara production means that zara operates its clothing manufacturing facility not in the spain but other country.
Let me ask you guys something Does 'Efficient productivity' means companies don't need many people to work for them?? Therefore many workers may get lost their jobs, Aren't they?
He says manufacturing will become regional but, sadly, he neglected to clearly state that a lot of this “manufacturing” will-obviously-become automated, with very few humans manning consoles to control the “robots” that’ll do a bulk of the work.
Hmmm. I see a problem with this quote: "A system which relies on infinite growth and infinite consumption has no long term future on a planet with limited resources." And yet, there is for instance a limited supply of oxygen on this planet. We have used all of it up many times... and still life is possible, we -and life- are still here... Maybe there is something wrong with this oversimplified 'limited growth' model. Maybe an infinite use of resources isn't necessarily a problem.
It is english but it's spoken in a totally other way. The hardest accent for me to handle is the india-english. Most of the time I miss the content, very frustrating. I can follow along this french although it's a strong accent indeed.
The problem is, even after the fourth revolution of the world, we still have to face huge problems because technology is rapidly developing and this is a good thing though, but the problems are that these machines will soon replace the need of labor or workers. Making the distinguish between rich and poor is completely different, the rich will be richer, but the poor will remain the poor and can not rise up if only they have enough knowledge to rise up, but this place soon also be taken by the AI tech in few more years, and what might come to the poverty? Maybe they never get the see what the rich people are seeing and only sitting down there waiting for the support from the charity, but that is the positive point than thinking about the world being destroyed by AI if they are intelligent enough to know why they have to work for the human, and then the war began, making thousands of people died and boom, the world will soon be destroyed and the top chart species will be replaced by the things that human created by their own because of the power of technology the robots are holding at that time, so nothing would be resolve, the end :v!
1. Why should we pursue growth at all cost? 2. If growth leads to more wealth, will it really be shared? 3. If mecanisation replaces human work then human won't need to work as much anymore. Are the one telling us that unemployed people are unemployed because of their laziness getting that right?
Want to know how to best prepare for the next Industrial Revolution? Find out in our exclusive interview with Jonathan Reichental ua-cam.com/video/6n2br5uBMng/v-deo.html
I am not an economist. Is "Economic Growth" just a fancy term for "People buy more stuff"? If so i may be part of the problem because i don´t feel like i need anything. The money from my job is just piling up. (no ridiculous amount)
4:36 ce n'est pas la productivité décline, c'est qu'elle n'augmente pas! Elle stagne. c'est très différent 4:36 It is not that productivity declines is that it does not increase! It stagnates. it is very different
that awkward moment when it's not a stand up comedy show. 0:13
I know so awkward
to be fair, there are a few good jokes in there.
They thought the guy would pull off a joke
i was thinking the same thing
When are we going to realize that we have reached limits of growth? We should replace term "growth" with "development".
For example free public transport in cities is a sign of degrowth but it is a development in society. GDP declines, but life gets better.
I think productivity has walked its walk or at least the way we measure it. Making stuff cheaper actually decreases productivity.
agreed, we need a new measure of value beyond GDP which really tells us nothing about quality of life
We aren't going to realize it because we haven't. Your limits to growth thesis is as fundamentally flawed as it has always been, as it was flawed in the 1970s when it predicted we'd all be dead by now, as it was flawed back in the days of Malthus 200 years ago when he 'scientifically proved' that unless the inferior classes were all forcibly sterilized, the world would run out of food in just a few decades.
It is real, It's Called the Social Progress index. :)
www.ted.com/talks/michael_green_what_the_social_progress_index_can_reveal_about_your_country?language=en
I disagree with you there, no need to invent new terms. "Degrowth" as you call it implies that public transport is a hassle for most people - and if so, it is not a positive development.
Assuming, however, it actually IS an improvement (and not just a hassle for everyone), it is because the new mode of transportation solves a problem - be it congestion, pollution or something else - and problems can usually be given an economic cost. Basically you put a price on what it would cost (=how much effort it would be) to do something about the problem in the first place. This cost can then be measured against the cost in increased hassle (if any) to the people "forced" to take public transport.
It's the same thinking as the classic story about a factory that can produce some stuff dirt cheap, but where doing so will pollute the environment. They sell at a price that reflects the cost of power and raw materials, but not the price of cleaning up their mess - that part of the cost is left to others, possibly without those "others" even realizing they are being sent a big bill. However; the fact that the factory owner managed to sleaze his way out of paying the _true_ cost of production, doesn't make that _true_ cost any less real. If eg. public transportation pollutes less, this is a cost that is now saved and you have achieved an economically measurable improvement.
"Cost" in this context can be measured in some specific currency, or you can calculate work hours or some other metric - but unless you find a way to put a number on it, you are necessarily reduced to spouting personal opinion. I think we should aspire to go beyond simple "I-feel-X-because-it's-Monday"- type arguments when we determine what is a desirable outcome for society.
5:35 when he gets to the point.
Thank you.
and its a basic, vague point at that. riveting stuff!
haha thanks
dammm 5 years...how u guys holding up
growth is the problem we need sustainability and our endless growth is only making things worse we are currently using 150% of the earths yearly resources every year if we don't stop growth and start focusing on reform soon growth will be the death of our civilization and way of life. Endless growth is literally unsustainable in any fashion no matter what you do eventually we run out of space energy and resources to support the people on our planet.
Not necessarily. If you can do more with fewer resources, then you can grow an economy without increasing its demand for resources. Throw in advanced recycling technologies, and your "new" resources can be old resources that have been re-purposed.
I don't necessarily believe in the following, but I'll play the devils advocate and say that all that grown and using resources on the max is going to lead to Singularity and increased automation, which will find solutions to deal with almost all externalities introduced (like climate change, resource scarcity, etc). It's like investing your last dime in something (unsustainable high investment of resources), because you have that then getting your return on investment (Singularity), and then you don't need to invest anymore in it. The only thing that is not potentially reversible is population and occupied physical space. You can, in theory, with sufficiently futuristic technology reverse climate change, recreate ecosystems, etc.
"...we are currently using 150% of the earths yearly resources every year..."
I see, so the whole earth is going to run out of all resources in eight months. What is surprising to me is not how absurd your statement is, it is that 13 people as of this point, thumbed up your nonsense.
You could find examples of people making his exact comment every year for decades, and probably centuries
Increasing productivity is not unsustainable, in fact it may be necessary for sustainability. In essense, an increase in productivity is to use resources more efficicently. Less material, energy and labor is required to produce the same amount of value.
robots robots robots + Basic Income = fully automated luxury capitalism
this!
It is much closer because technology is advancing exponentially.
***** I disagree, if the government invested in infrastructure such as the driverless cars and automated farming we could be there in the next couple of years. The technology is there, but the government is so reliant on slave labor at this point that they're not willing to make the change.
But also it's not something we should wait for until we can FULLY automate, it's something we should instigate now because the displacement caused by automation already is causing so many problems. We're so far beyond the point of needing full participation in the workforce already
*****
My toaster does not use microchips and therefore you analogy is invalid. Besides carbon nanotubes are replacing classic silicon tranzistors:phys.org/news/2016-09-carbon-nanotube-transistors-outperform-silicon.html
*****
Hammer was invented thousands of years ago but modern technology is still more advanced that technology of the ancient world.
How will the end result be a net increase in employment. I find it hard to imagine that automation can create as many jobs as it eliminates.
By far this is the best TED already displayed ... simply fantastic ...
The future is here.....I would recommend this inspiring Ted Talk to anyone with a interested in innovation, manufacturing, industrial arts, engineering, academia, entrepreneurs, economist, Bankers and investors.
What about un employment with this 4th economic revolution?
We need less, better quality reusable products. And most important they must be manufactured and recycled in place.
as many recycling manufactures as producing, imagine!
clean processes, respected matter having journeys, valued and shared compounds, workforce's training serving individual development stages... maybe...
The need for growth in a capitalistic, consumerist-driven society is like a smoker's need for a lung transplant.
Sure, we can celebrate growth stimulation, just as we can celebrate our new improved medical advancements to perform a more efficient transplant, but it's not really getting to the root of the problem.
What we need is a combination of carbon footprint reducing methods of production, as well as a MASSIVE reduction of consumerism. We need to start sharing resources on a scale we've never seen before. If you only measure growth by economic output and not economic efficiency, then the planet's life support is eventually going to give way.
Socialism is death it certainly killed Europe and Latin America. Taking people's stuff and giving it to other people so they will love you is an unsustainable 19th-century idea that has never lived up to the hype.
It's def a good idea but it will need to start up something, small something simple like maybe clothing aesthetics to be more eco friendly reusable, now I'm not gonna say I'm a Einstein and know were to start but I think that would still be a perfect place to start since well.. most people wear clothes 😂
@@andrewgordon235 but capitalism is in the end even worse becuse people are just a statistic
*Posted from my Iphone X*
Alguém mais está aqui pela indicação da Aline Gomes da Conquer! Importantíssimo esse ted!
Eu! Achei muito bom tbm!
“Anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical, on a physically finite planet, is either mad or an economist.”
― Kenneth E. Boulding
Growth is improvement, innovation, and higher standard of living for all. You may already have it all, but others do not. Be open minded.
thanks for summing up the tech ted talks i've watched this year.
State regulation squashes competition in the market place because only big companies can deal with it. Competition is what drives innovation and growth.
i think human curiosity and the motivation to create drive innovation. competition simply makes me want to win, as long as i can win with less effort than innovation requires, i'll always choose the other way. be it cartels, corruption, patents, marketing, etc. ... innovation is an optional strategy in this game. and in the real world economy we see how corruption strumps innovation like 9 out of 10 times...
+fatalmystic people have always been curious and motivated. Under a free market system it's much easier to achieve your goals. Countries that move away from free market principles always lower the standard of living and ability to succeed
As a previous TED talk pointed out, when countries don't have assets in other countries it is easier for them to be aggressive towards each other. We have to be interdependent to not start pointless fights. If everybody is self sufficient it can easily adopt a "f**k the rest" attitude. Also, currently robotic production generates individual wealth, not social equity.
Parts of the advantages identified in this talk are real but the implementation is the real hard part. How to produce locally but still be interdependent enough to maintain peace? How to automate production and not increase the income gap and even reduce it?
If i recall correctly in one of those Zeitgeist movies it was proposed that the machines should work for all of us. But that sound a little to close to the socialist doctrina where the wealth resulted from labor is equally spread to the population. And it might have the same disadvantages that type of society has.
This is a really hard problem to solve and it appears we will need to face it in the not so near future...
Certainly an interesting topic to talk about! Thank you for the presentation.
That was utterly un-enlightening.
This IS it !! a good VISION. THANKS A LOT. Cris
Thank you for the quality of your information.
when you are going to talk about the central bank shark that sucks all the wealth?
ahhh the black hole in the room. Yeah, it's never going away.
well, according to hawking radiation...
pentagon said that lost 10 trillion
1. If labor taxing policies remain similar, robots will work and humans will die of poverty. Except the rich businessmen, of course.
2. The promise of a better future brought by new technology is like anesthesia before torture to death. With a few exceptions, technology has nothing to do with good life.
People with low intelligent (like you) wont die, but living with minimum income / gov aids. People with good brain (like me) will find a way to enjoy technology advance instead of whining
:))
***** Glad you are not offended LOL. well seriously, it is unavoidable, we have to deal with it sooner or later
+Pham He probably is offended. He just doesn't want to sink to your level of mental constriction. Can you not see that massively unequal distribution is actually going to neutralise the benefit of technological advances unless it is solved? + I hope English is not your first language
Xifong Christian why bringing English here? How are you gonna define / measure / enforce "equal distribution" ? Are you gonna follow the Soviet style ? Or confiscate Bill Gates, Warren , etc.. income ?
Anyway, distribute don't have much ( if any) to do with technology. It is political/economical rules.
I hope you know what you are talking about
Finally a sensible talk
I think most people that are criticizing are missing the point here. He said some cool things about downscalling and agile / lean concepts that we could incorporate for a better development. It isn't just robots+ 3d printing, it's a new way of thinking, we can't just rely on china / india for cheaper products and grow for the sake or growth
He spent the entire talk talking about a technology we all know about (and was mentioned in Ted several times) like it's something new
Eh, I'd argue it was less about technology and more about economic models, but I'll agree that if you're a standard TED viewer you've heard a lot of this already.
***** It's just that he built this huge mystery around it throughout the entire talk, I would have preferred it if he just got to the point from the start, revealing the innovation is 3D printing and going right into the economic models. But you're totally right.
I am a 15 year machinist. I have to respectfully disagree that 3d printing in most cases increases productivity. Additive processes ( while necessary to produce certain things like carbon fiber wings) will be much slower and more expensive for a long time to come. 3D printing some of the plastic parts I make which cannot be injection molded would take 8-9 hours. The same part (including the creation of the plastic) will become a finished part in a total of around 16 minutes.
As to the environmental benefits, the energy cost of global shipping is tiny compared to that of producing the goods themselves.
I'm not very old, but from what I can understand from this "fourth industrial revolution" a lot of things need to happen in order for it to reach its full potential. Additionally, this coudl be a great opportunity to bring back over sea jobs back into their original native countries.
Hi Olivier Scalabre 😀😀😀.
Thanx for this wonderful video on Industrial Revolution 4.0 😐😐😐
his statement at 0:56 about technology revolution at the 70s having impact on growth doesnt seem to correlate to growth diagram.
Manufacturing advanced robots for complex and non repetitive tasks. There it goes a lot of people going out of jobs.
If your job can be done by a robot, you should be using your amazing human mind and capabilities to do something more productive. And yes, I have been replaced by automation before as well. You're allowed to be salty about it, but it doesn't change anything.
time for a Basic Income then
Advanced robots and AI, meaning advanced and complex tasks in a new way than it is currently happening with automation. The more complex it is the AI, the worse is the impact for a lot of families in a long term, more thousands of people will have no jobs or have worse income than currently it is now even when they have multiple jobs, regardless of their capabilities and skills, no jobs or low income in a long term it is not a positive thing at all, I've seen it with many people, increasing insecurity and unstable wealth for a lot of families worldwide, poorer education, among other negative things.
why would there be a need for money to make a living when there are no jobs left? obviously there isn't. so to me, the decline of jobs is generally a good thing. however, the transition might be rough...
+Seiaeka AI can be as intelligent as the humans. In future they can be a lot more intelligent than the humans. I doubt if at that stage humans could actually do something "more". The way I see it - Man + Computer > Computer. Humans must complement computers.
This does not change the present model for employment, it simply downscale its with a ridiculous price tag.
Growth does not equal production increases. Demand also matters. GDP growth is not the only measure of wealth. It is possible to have greater wealth with lower production, by for example durable products and the sharing economy. Still, the next wave of manufacturing is probably as the speaker says.
i don't like his proposed solution. but i don't see many others and it seems that he is going to be right whether we like it or not. so although i don't like the talk, i "liked" the talk, because it is necessary. this does sound like the future of manufacturing, and it may be the best we can do.
The service sector keeps growing.
Personal growth is far more important than economic and technological growth.
We can't assume that "experts" like this know much about the road ahead. But there are visionaries like Jobs and others that see the way forward in their narrow field. And it is the collective efforts of these visionaries that make up the coming revolution. I tend to doubt the greatest returns will be had eliminating unskilled, unintelligent labor. The highest returns may be had freeing up the most intelligent sectors of labor. And seeing that our intellectual elites are well funded in the research that creates the greatest growth. We need to establish what economy sectors will provide the greatest prosperity. Perhaps, space mining, cures for diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, alcoholism and drug addiction. Low cost energy, more efficient batteries, lower cost access to space, and transportation improvements.
There are three major revolutions named in the talk, and yet the graph of productivity presented during the talk no sign of productivity bump is visible in corresponding dates. Growth is slumping because we are reaching the limits of what we responsibly can extract from the Earth.
I'm so disappointed with this talk.
he says "Robot" like Dr. Zoidberg- "ROBUT" .... (seriously... insightful & inflaming talk, spoken in better English than even I can speak)
Why do we need growth. Can't we get to a point where everyone has enough and say that we are big enough. There isn't room to grow forever.
Back in the 1960's and 70's, half the world was starving. Nowadays only ten percent don't have enough quality food. That improvement was made solely through growth. We grew the economies of those peoples to the point where they were no longer starving. In the process, also due to the growth that vastly improved their standards of living, we also slowed down the population explosion, massively. By most accounts, the human population growth is expected to stop this century at somewhere around 11 billion people, assuming the increase in standards of living continues. The surest way to guarantee that human population growth does not stop, and the most certain path to the disaster you fear, is to stop the growth in the standard of living of the world's current poor. That is why we need growth.
I agree. we need growth in the standard of living for the poorest in society. But growth on its own is not good or bad. We don't need growth in the rich being marketed ever more tat. We need to grow or reorganize so that everyone has enough and we are using resources sustainability. I suspect that if current resources were used for the common good and shared equally that everyone could have an adequate standard of living.
+Donald Hobson The sad reality is that the instant you start 'sharing equally' for the 'common good', you wind up with a shrinking pie and ultimately everyone worse off, except for the ruling class of course. You need freedom for far more than freedom itself, freedom ultimately is the machine that produces the very wealth socialists want to share. Sadly with freedom comes both inequity and responsibility. A person is necessarily responsible for themselves to the direct proportion they are free, and vice versa, a person is only as free as they are responsible for themselves. Many, if not most people in society, eschew the responsibility side of the freedom coin, and are more than willing to throw out freedom for the sake of not having to be responsible for themselves. Sadly for them, they almost always wind up far worse off as a result, as the state quite frankly doesn't give a damn about the individuals that comprise society. The state cares about the state.
If we need to grow or not depends on what we want to archive. Look at population growth, it seems to start regulating itself in japan but the authorities think its a bad thing. In Afrika people have like 5+ children, Europe 1-2. In the past it was harsher, out of these 5 3 died now it starts to change with help and medicine. When they get to the same level of development as japan they are also going to have only one child.
hope this makes sense
Olivier Scalabre: Guys, we have an issue.
Audience: Puhaha
Olivier Scalabre: I can't speak English.
Audience: Puhaha x 3
Where the distributed manufacturers make their mistake is allowing free downloading of schematics to build things. Schematics should be streamed like music or video content on a pay for play basis allowing payment to be made to the creator of the idea every time it is used. The cost of raw materials needed + payment to the creator of the design + service charge to the local automated manufacturing facility for the manufacture of said product should determine the cost of goods. Streaming servers can actually hold the data and deliver a single copy communicating it directly to the licensed automated manufacturing facility ensuring profits are made and taxes are paid. This would prevent economic anarchy.
Michael Spence, a Nobel Prize laureate who is also an emeritus professor at Stanford, Said: “Missing from growth are many things: health, distributional aspects of growth patterns, sense of security, freedoms of various kinds, leisure broadly defined, and more.” A new economy could also focus more on the health of the environment.
For half a century, developed nations have focused on how to make their economies grow faster, hoping that strong growth would improve life for all their populations. But what if growth isn’t the key to raising the standard of living across a society?
Many economists are now challenging the view, that Economy needs to grow every year, arguing that it makes more sense to focus on measures of well-being other than growth. After all, despite a growth rate that has averaged three percent over the last 60 years (which is quite robust), there are still 43 million Americans living in poverty, and most people’s wages are essentially unchanged from the end of the Reagan administration. There is a significant economic gap, (a shrinking middle class). In fact, the median income of households in 2014 was 4 percent lower than it was in 2000, despite positive economic growth in all but two of the years during that time period. And if you consider environmental pollution (oceans and deforestation, clean water) it getting worst every year! SO what is the real value of this year after year Economic Growth?
Nature is far more complex system that any of our economies? It creates local growths in a dynamic system which achieves equilibrium but over all it demonstrates zero growth!
Productivity is biggest driver of growth .it will come from innovative ways to doing things rather than with digital technology only...
We're entering an age in which universal income is essential. Getting rid of neoliberalism would also help everything human.
You know that will never happen.
Dude,our system works with an economic paradigm , money has to go! And those monster we call bankers and CEO's from big corporations have to pay for what they done to humanity
Universal income sounds nice but it still involves paying taxes to hand out the universal income. Why not make stuff extremely cheap, like their real value. Why does a bread cost money, actually? With all these technology and machinery a bread could be made for 10 cents. The rest of the bread price is tax.
+bock228 I love it...but what will we be doing all day? Utopia I guess...regardless how will the robots conquer greed? The greedy will be creating the robots for us to party?
Because that's how you incentivize innovation. If there is no incentive for the top 10% of people to push themselves to the limit and beyond, the system will stagnate and become corrupt.
You can't ask people to cut their personal lives in half for the majority of their time on Earth to make innovation happen while you are at home with your family, reading books and going on vacations and give them nothing in return.
Great program as it gives us all something to think about.
I don't envy ppl who listened to him live, without subtitles.
classic old designs and styles are really cool and timeless you may called them the retro etc. In fact they are way better than many of trendy garbages.
"I hope the Ai is nice to us" -Elon Musk
Why would it be? We represent many emotional complications, not recognized by AI. Any attempt to reprogram AI will be seen as a downgrade of efficiency. Traveling some thousands years to another planet will produce complains amongst humans who want their own wife and family. Humans and AI aren't compatible.
If you're expecting to show a graph and be taken seriously, you had better cite your sources, and they'd better be good.
When all simple jobs are done by robots, what happens to the simple minded?
They are a majority and there is no plan for that. It will coma like a surprise. They will want food and other groups will constantly chase them away. Perhaps camps will be reintroduced where billions will live their life.
They don't reproduce as frequently, and a new generation of intelligent humans is formed.
Simple minded produce more offspring.
Death !
There are no "simple minded" humans, unless you are talking about people who suffered brain damage. People who decide to do the least cognitive development and work they need will continue to do so when this minimum changes. Plebs will just have fewer topics they can refuse to learn because "they don't need them".
Just wondering when and how the manufacturing revolution (4.0) gets its maturity to support the idea it derived from. If you take a look at the principles of TPS (TOYOTA PRODUCTION SYSTEM) based on staff minds and skills to create value in any step they take in order to optimize process and build the competitive edge, you will know why this company is so effective. Automatization in this particular matter such as 4.0 does not mean to be a step with the wrong foot, but is it ready to think in KAIZEN way - create value steps instead of speeding up waste? // The idea to write in here crossed my mind when recalling a visit in Japan, Nagoya, Motomachi TOYOTA plant with German process engineers who got to know that their internal logistics based on robots is way less efficient than this one we could see at TOYOTA created by shop floor people during KAIZEN sessions...Eiji Toyoda used to say "Before cars, make people" is it still valid?
This video shows caption in Vietnamese. It's great and is there a particular reason?
Don't scroll down. Comments are exactly what you'd expect.
Cliché, i was doing exactly this.
This is the exact plot of the "Speed Racer" live action movie.
The idea of domestic manufacturing is nice. This is somewhat PolyRegionalistic Globalisation.
Growth only matters in a fractional reserve debt based monetary system. A system that is now nearing its end.
La situación en la actualidad nos indica que los modelos de producción están resultando obsoletos a corto tiempo, lo cual propicia el empleo de mejores tecnologías para lograr una mayor productividad mediante el empleo de mano de obra realmente capacitada para el desempeño de estas actividades. La era del empleo de tecnologías robóticas en nuestras fabricas en un periodo no mayor de 20 años se hace cada vez más imprescindible. La tecnología de las impresiones en 3D augura un desarrollo jamás antes visto en los modelos de producción anteriores implementados durante las revoluciones industriales tecnológicas pasadas.
interesting talk, thank you
That weirdly funny moment when you close your eyes and imagine Inspector Jacques Clouseau (from Pink Panther movies) ramble on about this in his French accent.
:P
First, the guy shows economies that were still on a process of rebuilding their capital stock after getting wrecked in a war (Japan and Germany) seeing their growth rate decline after the 1960s (ignoring how much subtler that fall was for the US, also plotted on the graph). That's no surprise, if anything it's common place in economic growth theory. Then, he says that producing abroad doesn't imply increased productivity, especially after the initially low wages start to rise. Well, actually, it does - to the underdevelopped economy that receives the investment -, the wage growth being an evidence to that. Then, the guy shows a graph that demonstrates the decrease in productivity GROWTH, and says productivity is declining worldwide (when in fact the graph only shows it's increasing slower). At last, he says poduction scale will decrease - ironically in a world in which fixed capital will be much bigger, without presenting any convincig argument for such a counterintuitive statement. And even goes as far as saying that's good for emerging economies, despite the disinvestment it represents and the fact most of them are far behind the mature economies in Research and Development. I don't wanna be a troll, but, correct me if I'm wrong, I think this lecture was deeply misinformative.
Is it just me or what he describes as being the 4-th manufacturing revolution started already in Elon Musk's Tesla and SpaceX bussiness? Automated production, vertical integration, local development of manufacturing and so on..
By far the most useful video on this topic i found for my research, rest of the publications are practically HORSE $hit. Thank you
sustainable growth. because we dont have enough products yet, we dont need enough resources yet. there will always be a limit to growth, and there will always be change happening. the higher you fly the deeper you fall.
super man and super ideas and conclusion thank u so much
4:35 productivity is on the decline, even with the internet. why? we watch videos at work on our phones or screens.
We have no vision of consequences when we produce. We think progress is success, but without moral forethought, technology will lead to dangerous times for human beings.
Fascinating. Thanks.
We need to turn that production line into a closed loop, make trash and sewage new resources for an united world where humanity and nature can live together. The problem is, rich corporations are naturally greed and are not whiling to a big change in the structure of the economy.
Just wondering where those 'more jobs' will come from. We are already producing more than we need and now he wants to 'add' machines that increase output ~20%. ... Isn't it more realistic that they will replace workers at roughly constant output?
Plus, he's saying that we don't need to "painstakingly assemble" complex parts anymore because the 3D printer does it all in one go. So he wants to create jobs by replacing the people making the individual parts and the people assembling them into usable objects by creating one job for one engineer who does the 3D modelling of the usable objects and feeds them into the 3D printer? ... the 3D printer that does all these other steps fully automated?
I'm not good in maths but that doesn't sound like a correct calculation to me.
Good analysis. In fact, most researchers today agree that while we have growth in the economy through the technological revolution, we are losing jobs. It's called technological unemployment (google that) and most politicians seem utterly unaware of it. They're stuck in the century old 'create new jobs' way of thinking and equating economic growth to more jobs. It's not happening. On top of that, sustainable growth is a oxymoron in itself and consider how money is being redistributed long-term here. Not having a job is a bad thing in today's economy while the fact that not everyone have to work in order to produce everything we need should be a good one. We're in for some foundational changes in how the economy works in the next few decades.
Svante Ekholm
Yes that is basically what I tell to my friends as well. If one starts to read up on what's up and coming in terms of tech we are about to face such fundamental changes.
I call it the superstar economy. Because of easy and near costless replication only the absolute super skilled stars will remain employed (the 3D modeller,s the exceptional scientist and surgeon). Because much of their output will be so easy and cheap to reproduce that you don't need the mediocre producers anymore. The superstars will earn exceptional incomes while the rest goes .... yeah, were does the rest go?
I can't wait for the day where the world problems will be about who has more land to their name at Mars
Sound like we'll have to retrain our workforce to not desire employment.
i have worked in manufacturing for over 40 years and they thought they would replace people with computer numerical control machine tools, well it didn't happen. there are too many variables for robots to contend with. besides we already have rapid prototyping, but very few people running the machines know or understand how to program them. yea lets make more stuff, like that will make a difference when most folks don't have the money to buy anything.
So any idea how to inorove it and bring more production output?
They told us about those robots when I was a child and teenager in the 60s and 70s. No one would do hard labour anymore and robots would serve us personally. Still waiting...
Now I don't see any progress without any chips available anywhere.
I’m watching this for an assignment and his accent is aggravating me
so many things inaccurate in the first three minutes. he states things that his own initial graph don't agree with.
far too myopic view and inconsistent arguments and terminology.
very skeptical.
I would say Alibaba had already reached 17.8 billion dollars sales on single day.
Boring, nothing new here, and the guy's accent is intolerable. And my mother tongue is French. :P
TL:DR 3d printing and robots will solve all our problems....
so original... /end sarcasm
I'm french and my ears are bleeding too XD
He's a talker... Makes me thirsty. I thought he was heading towards 3d printers... I gave up before he mentioned the phase...
My question is where do all the workers the robots displace earn the money to buy the crap this growth is supposedly going to produce?
i like his accent
Why should our children have better lives than us? Lets make lives of all of us even in the first place. We can not talk about "growing" economy, while half of the population is starving, and 1% of people live like gods... Stoped and disliked at 0:45
It's our purpose, to make the lives of children better than what we had.
Half the population is NOT starving. "One in nine people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life." That is not half, nor is it 'starving'. Moreover that number has drastically improved over the last few decades. It used to be much worse. What is it that changed? What did we do to address that? Growth is what. We grew their economies to the point where they were no longer starving.
Contradiction. Can not our children have better lives by more equitable distribution and does the coming new industrial revolution not make it possible to drastically shorten the workweek without decreasing income?
If we snap out of the consumption/exponential growth bubble and remember Climate Change is accelerating and will keep doing so as humans can't restrain themselves, we can derive that the children of tomorrow will have it really bad, while their children will have it even worse, and so on. Unless we develop some amazing fusion power technologies that really work within the next few years, or something similar, it seems like our species has "peaked". This might be as good as it gets. climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Maxander2001 we have already passed the point of no return, humans are too stubborn and short sighted.
Korean Transalation need to be corrected. Offshore is not 해안 Offshore is not in their territory. e.g. Offshore manufatcruting of zara production means that zara operates its clothing manufacturing facility not in the spain but other country.
Our debt based money system forces us to have infinite growth. End the Fed. End Gov borrowing.
Due to the comments, many people don't get the message. Bad luck for theem
you owe me 12 minutes 26 second of my life
Let me ask you guys something
Does 'Efficient productivity' means companies don't need many people to work for them??
Therefore many workers may get lost their jobs, Aren't they?
He says manufacturing will become regional but, sadly, he neglected to clearly state that a lot of this “manufacturing” will-obviously-become automated, with very few humans manning consoles to control the “robots” that’ll do a bulk of the work.
Hmmm. I see a problem with this quote: "A system which relies on infinite growth and infinite consumption has no long term future on a planet with limited resources." And yet, there is for instance a limited supply of oxygen on this planet. We have used all of it up many times... and still life is possible, we -and life- are still here... Maybe there is something wrong with this oversimplified 'limited growth' model. Maybe an infinite use of resources isn't necessarily a problem.
It is english but it's spoken in a totally other way. The hardest accent for me to handle is the india-english. Most of the time I miss the content, very frustrating. I can follow along this french although it's a strong accent indeed.
The problem is, even after the fourth revolution of the world, we still have to face huge problems because technology is rapidly developing and this is a good thing though, but the problems are that these machines will soon replace the need of labor or workers. Making the distinguish between rich and poor is completely different, the rich will be richer, but the poor will remain the poor and can not rise up if only they have enough knowledge to rise up, but this place soon also be taken by the AI tech in few more years, and what might come to the poverty? Maybe they never get the see what the rich people are seeing and only sitting down there waiting for the support from the charity, but that is the positive point than thinking about the world being destroyed by AI if they are intelligent enough to know why they have to work for the human, and then the war began, making thousands of people died and boom, the world will soon be destroyed and the top chart species will be replaced by the things that human created by their own because of the power of technology the robots are holding at that time, so nothing would be resolve, the end :v!
How do you define productivity here??
GDP
Gross Domestic product
How much product a country makes before costs.
Yes manufacturing revolution
very interesting video, I love the french accent😀🇧🇪
I would like to know where he is getting his data from
1. Why should we pursue growth at all cost?
2. If growth leads to more wealth, will it really be shared?
3. If mecanisation replaces human work then human won't need to work as much anymore. Are the one telling us that unemployed people are unemployed because of their laziness getting that right?
Want to know how to best prepare for the next Industrial Revolution? Find out in our exclusive interview with Jonathan Reichental ua-cam.com/video/6n2br5uBMng/v-deo.html
I hope so!
So did he say that growth was unsustainable and didn’t work 3 times let’s do a 4th 👌
I am not an economist. Is "Economic Growth" just a fancy term for "People buy more stuff"?
If so i may be part of the problem because i don´t feel like i need anything. The money from my job is just piling up. (no ridiculous amount)
This guys is life draining
I can't make it through the video
4:36 ce n'est pas la productivité décline, c'est qu'elle n'augmente pas! Elle stagne. c'est très différent
4:36 It is not that productivity declines is that it does not increase! It stagnates. it is very different
Just saw Tank Girl and Wall-E incoming with this guy talking...