This idea can also be good from an environmental perspective, as people would not be required to create products that deplete our resources and fill up the land fills, just to earn a living. Right now, marketers are required to brainwash consumers into buying products that they neither need nor want.
+IntheInternet Wetrust PEOPLE..... someone has to do the work. Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for this.... OR were you just planning on letting all the third world labor do the work and you just get all the free wages and food that the government says you can have? HOW DOES THAT WORK????
+Melvinnn11 Maybe you forgot the point of video? The discussion has to do with Technological Unemployment, meaning 'machines' will be doing most of the work, that is most of the physical labor, and with the near advent of A.I., even much of the service industry, including Customer Service, Paralegals, Accountants, Truck Drivers, some Medical Services, and WAY too many other things to even list here. I once read something that suggested that even the Mining industry was expecting to be able to be fully automated within the next 35 years or so. Machines don't need payment beyond initial cost and routine (or occasional emergency) maintenance. They can work all day, every day, with no need for vacation, retirement, health benefits, bonus incentives, personal time, etc. This has been happening very slowly over the past few hundred years, but has more recently begun to pick up steam, by a considerable margin, thanks to technological advancements. Even jobs no one thought could ever be replaced, ARE being replaced, or soon will be. So then what? What do people do? Even farms will end up automated. Do we just go, "oh well" and let the masses die off leaving a privileged few behind? Yeah right. Survival instinct will kick into overdrive and chaos will ensue. Short of having a truly nasty conflict that could make all the wars of the last century combined look like a snooze fest, a more civil solution would need to be found. The idea of the Universal Basic Income may be the solution needed. In trials already done, it has already been shown to reduce poverty, starvation, crime, and even encourage creativity and ingenuity. People will still 'work', it will just be in creative and scientific pursuits. People will invest their time in their families, communities, and personal interests. Musicians would be freed up to pursue their passion, even if it were only local performances, as could other artists. Creative arts would skyrocket, the scientific and technologically inclined could pursue new paths of R & D, all without the stress of worrying about the welfare of their families and themselves. So yeah, an apocalyptic world war, or a Universal Basic Income system? Hard choice...
OK.... I guess my reaction was a bit off topic... You are right in that automation in the workplace will free people up in general to pursue what interests them... in theory. In this situation I can see how a universal basic income could work. But you are really missing a key understanding of what is really at play here. SO first you really need to define Universal. Is it a global universal or just in developed countries? Who decides who receives and how much? Who stays poor? Who gets the income? Society is always evolving in ways we can't control... I get that. But, letting some A.I. system dictate what I can or can't have (control over resources - including humans as a resource) is the basis for the Technocratic system which is the basis for the Zeitgeist... and this system is what I fundamentally disagree with and challenge people to resist. We can't give up so much control over basic functions of our lives this way. You can't let a computer tell you how you can live your life... Now it seems you are worried about wars... and rightfully so. But what needs to be taken down is the Political and Financial Elites who control what happens on this planet. Resourced Based Economy is THEIR idea. They are the cause of all wars for the last century and a half (even farther back in history but I'll keep it relevant for this conversation). They are the one's who control the resources around the planet. Their agendas are very long term spanning many generations. Technocracy is perhaps their most powerful tool in controlling all aspects of society...a concept which was conceived in the early 20th century by Francis Bacon... only technology at the time had no way of collecting the data needed to support the concept so it only remained a concept. Fast forward to today...Goggle, Facebook, smart meters on houses, smart phones with cameras and mic's, surveillance cameras on every corner etc. etc. etc.... today the technology is all around us. Placed their quietly with our support... with absolutely no understanding of what is really going on. I'm not a tinfoil hat wearer and I'm not paranoid about the government coming to take my guns... but I am very aware of what's going on around me and the agendas of control at play here... and please don't be naive in thinking it's not control which is the main agenda at play. Go do some research on what Technocracy really is and maybe you will understand why it's not a good idea. Have a nice day, Kevin.
+Melvinnn11 Way too many points to respond to individually, especially since I can't see the previous post to which I'm replying. That rather sucks, but I'll just wing it from memory. Here goes... I actually agree with several of your points, and I really don't have all the answers. However things go down, I have a feeling there will at least be some conflict and chaos. I just hope it can be minimalized as much as possible. I certainly agree that the Elitists have a ridiculous amount of resources and influence at their disposal, and that it needs to change. The Earth and Solar System are the heritage of all mankind, not just a few power mongers and their immediate family. When you get down to it, our civilization and its systems are a fallacy that we all participate in and pretend that is just how things are supposed to be. In reality many of the things we take for granted are artificial constructs, and don't have to exist beyond our deciding that they should. Of course most people don't bother to think about things like that, as they're usually too busy eeking out a living, or scrambling to get to the top of the socioeconomic ladder. Or they're shallow morons who are only interested in their own immediate world. Regardless, they're busy with other thoughts that are generally self oriented and ultimately myopic (short sighted). Sadly, even those of us who do consider these things, are usually overwhelmed with the magnitude and end up shuffled back into a corner of near apathy, or more correctly hopelessness. To be fair, it really is a gargantuan problem, and it will take more than a handful of people to truly deal with it. I have heard a bit about the idea of Francis Bacon and Technocracy, but I'm not intimately familiar with the details. So I won't address it beyond this point, because I'd just be blowing smoke. As for Zeitgeist, that Joseph guy who was largely behind it, basically hijacked the RBE (Resource Based Economy) idea from Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project. Supposedly, HE got the idea from staying among some South Pacific islanders (Tahiti?), and wondered why their tribal method couldn't be applied on a national and ultimately planetary scale. Long story short, coming to the idea that technology and efficient computerized resource management would allow everyone to have everything they need, and much of what they want. Honestly, there ARE enough resources to do that as long as they aren't being hogged by a selfish few. I'm not aware of any particular connection between Fresco and the world power Elites. I find myself skeptical that they would endorse RBE as Fresco has presented it. Fresco distanced himself from Zeitgeist because he felt they were just using his work, without seriously presenting his vision appropriately. Fresco himself said his idea was no utopia, as he didn't believe in them, but that it was much better than the current system. In any case, RBE and UBI aren't exactly the same thing. For one thing, UBI still exists as a monetary system, whereas RBE does not. In RBE, everything is free, period. However, ideally culture would be changed so that materialism is frowned upon. So, no 70 pairs of shoes ladies. Many seldom used luxury items (like cars, boats, yachts, etc.) would be basically time shared, much like books in a library. Unless you happen to use one of those things all the time, then of course it is more useful to keep it privately. The goal would be to try to give everyone what they need and want, while keeping resource mismanagement to a minimum. Things like phones would be modularized to reduce waste every time a new upgrade comes out. You'd keep your old phone, and just plug in the new upgrade module. There might be a handful of customizable phone models specific for functional needs, but dozens of models for virtually the same function would be a thing of the past. UBI works more closely with the current economic system, with everyone (in the applicable area of event) would receive a basic income that would provide for all their basic needs, but little else. So food, housing, medical, utilities; check. Luxury items? Get a job! Basically. Money is still used, but primarily only for luxury. Toys, Restaurants, etc. Some ideas on how to pay for it have been to possibly emulate Alaska somewhat, where the state pays the people from the profits made from companies using natural resources, that belongs to the public. This idea has also been stretched to include the coming advent of asteroid mining and space commercialization, as one estimate of asteroid resource worth has been as high as 100 Billion dollars per person on the entire planet Earth. That might work. Even with this, I'm not entirely sure the ruling Elites would really care for this plan. So yeah, not exactly the same.
Automated cars will be programmed to comply with all transit laws, so no ticketing at all. Also, police robots. And no car ownership because not enough money to buy any.
+Pipe2DevNull The Universal Basic Income would be a pittance, a survival income at best and due to bureaucracy would be unlikely to keep up with increases in living costs. Plus a guaranteed income does not mean someone could not over extend themselves. It would be more like, the check arrived so I can pay the minimum payment of my credit card rather than consider a luxury back scratcher. Besides, it wouldn't be ivory, there's a palm tree seed that when dried looks, feels and carves like ivory and it's rapidly becoming the alternative to ivory so long as you only need a piece of vegetable ivory less than 3.5 inches long.
Prismic Kyubey No. Imagine AI being so far, it can devolope AI. Now imagine this more intelligent AI, is able to develope even better AI. This can go in any direction in development. A true Mind Fuck, but this will be reality one day. Only a matter of time.
@Everyone! Define a Job? To me it's a task we must accomplish in order to get paid, that type of thinking worked for awhile, but with the advancement of A.I., Super computers, robots, drones, 3D printers, Nanotechnology and many other inventions, that's effecting the work we do. People shouldn't be forced to work for money, but be given a certain amount of money to live off of, and maybe even progress their current lifestyles to live a more happier enjoyable existence. So a Job is not what people need, it's more freedom & time to do the things you may love to do.
I'd say we tax robots so that companies who want to replace there employees with robots will have to pay a tax and companies who want to avoid the extra taxes will keep there employees
Basic income will likely be given to all, regardless of income, just so the rich don't have a reason to complain. The pittance of money they get from it would be almost useless to them. With everything dropping to near zero marginal cost, people will stop having things to spend money on. You could have a billion dollars and nothing to buy with it. That is what is inevitable. Change your identity away from what you do for a living. Because it won't be your job for long.
+Frank Sang When was technological unemployment ever implied? All the OP talked about was the concept of making a living and getting science to benefit everyone.
+Batou not everyone who is unemployed is sitting on their hands waiting for a handout. Some are tradesmen who have worked for 35+ years only to be retrenched with no one wanting to employ them now they are over 50. Some are nurses and other service workers who have spent so many years on their feet bending and lifting the sick, or cleaning, lifting and carrying for others that their own bodies have crumbled to the extent that they are unable to walk anymore much less work at the job they are qualified for. Some have a mental illness, not of their own choosing. they can't be sure if the people they are speaking to are even real much less be a reliable employee.
Indy Indie Well he DID say that some people made an effort to take advantage of the opportunity. Who said that those people who wish for opportunity don't include those who cannot work?
Goodguy001 you fail to realize that challenge and labor are what has allowed the human mind to grow, and expand. What happens when we don't have any challenges? I'll tell you: we won't be able to maintain our intellect. Imagine a school where, instead of students learning, robots learn for them. Do the students learn, and grow as students? No. The robots do. Apply that to the workforce, and you'll understand why this will fail.
If only 5% of the money was used to feed, house, and educate the public instead of military projects, we would have a far more free, healthier, secure and safe world.
Bigsteelguy4 Which would then attract unemployable economic migrants that will put a strain on your system causing it to entropy faster than it normally would. Leading to a situation like that of the EU. We'd be insane to try the same thing and expect a different result.
When technology is able to meet everyone's basic needs, it will only be a question of whether that will be used for greed and profit as it has up until now, or if we can actually grow up as a species and just guarantee a minimum living standard for all humans. I think the problem is much more about human behavior than it is about lack of technology
Resource Based Economy, The Zeitgeist Movement, and The Venus Project is the best answer so far, though I also hope that it's the best if UBI can solve the most daunting problems in our times.
+時代精神運動 TheZeitgeist Movement/維納斯計畫The Venus Project ZEITGEIST is a cult. Are you prepared for centralized planning authority. SOMEONE has to be in charge. WHO is that 'someone'? WHO says THEY are in charge? WHO put them in charge? WHO says they are right?
Again.... do some research on a technocracy. I can not support people that think science can make them god. You really think technology is going to make everything equal... fair... distributed perfectly? Science doesn't have all the answers. We are humans... no a.i. system will save us.
Technology only makes fairness possible, whether or not its used properly and driven by the majority is up too the financial elite atm considering that not many people are standing up to our masters.. Also whos trying to be a god? Lol. Ai again is just a tool, it depends on how its used, and right now you basically have no choice but to submit to an ai, as automation will march on and take all the jobs. Its inevitable, money will kill itself eventually.
Herp of Derpopol Lay down then, the people who are smart and going into the AI industry will be at the forefront of a new age in discovery. Everyone who was shaking their fist at the machine will have only themselves to blame.
The things a lot of people miss is that MOST of the money for a UBI is already there. UBI gets rid of the need for FoodStamps, Social Security, Disability income. So on and so on. All of that would add up to about 70% of the UBI.
We can get the money by cutting the money put into other government programs. Also the people we hire to take care of those programs. Effectively the dozens of support systems out there get all put into one. At least that's the simplified explanation that I imagine might work.
Government work would be extremely easy to automate. All the money going towards the salaries of government employees could partly pay for this. As well as taxing the rich, as others have said.
We are working on a feature length documentary on the subject: www.kickstarter.com/projects/2118258292/the-end-of-employment As one of our interviewees pointed out, Basic Income will be accepted by our policy makers not because they will be particularly fond of the idea - or funding it will be such a no-brainer - but because the alternative will be so much bleaker. You don't talk about the costs of something as much, if the alternative means potential destruction of the very foundation of the economy (aka consumer power). As governor of California Jerry Brown put it: "Jobs for every American is doomed to failure because of modern automation and production. We ought to recognize it and create an income-maintenance system so every single American has the dignity and the wherewithal for shelter, basic food, and medical care. I'm talking about welfare for all. Without it, you're going to have warfare for all."
watcherjohnny Leo tolstoy- "The sole meaning of life is to serve humanity" We should be charitable in all aspects of life. Certainly in allowing our fellow man to live a decent life.
I see one of the first steps to a more sustainable economy as described is to eliminate the concept of "If someone's job position is not needed anymore, they get fired." If someone has been working for a company and the main reason their being told to leave is because their job isn't needed anymore then instead the company should first look to see if there is another position they could full. After all since they have been working for the company, the company knows very well how hard they work and how skilled they are in that which is much more informative than an interview where you have to take an educated guess. This could also have the added benefit of increased moral and work ethic as employees will know that if they do their work well the company won't just abandon them if the company doesn't need them to do that exact job anymore.
A guaranteed income seems like a good stepping stone that will lead to a society where money completely phased out. I personally believe that this is a good thing and if people look at it from a logical standpoint they will see it as a good thing as well
An economy based on "Basic needs income" is actually a good idea. If people would like to buy luxury stuff like jewellery, expensive clothes, go on holiday abroad, expensive cars, video games, luxury food and other things that are not necessary for "surviving while living a comfortable life" then people will have to work or start a business to afford those luxury products.
Capitalism doesn't work in a fully automated world because money isn't just currency, it's the measurement of value. More valuable work means more money. Selling something more valuable means more money. When everything is automated the only thig left is our own humanistic creativity which cannot be measured in value because spontanious creativity is highly subjective which means it doesn't share a common value. So when our communities achieve full automation we all have only our basic values which means we are free to do whatever we want. You can eat whatever there is, you can drink whatever there is (that isn't harmful to you, sorry alcohol), you can go to another country if you want, you can learn to play violin and all that is free, because evetrything is automated and will work on themselves.
I'd go with the "Make life a video game" method. Keep track of things done and award points that can be redeemed for goods and services later. Give bonuses for hitting benchmarks and allow for posting these on social media. Mixed in with Vloggers and UA-camrs, doing things like feeding the homeless and helping lift up humanity would become less work and more fun.
This makes a lot of sense. The main source of, let's call it "welfare rage" stems from a sense of jealously or personal burden. If everybody got a basic income, that would be gone, as would the incentive to remain idle.
+Equals Four REALLY?! This would absolutely create the incentive to remain idle. What ever happened to ambition? So what if some people get jealous... whanhhh... he has more than me. I'm not going to work harder... you should just go over there and take it from him for me... but bring it back to me ...ok?
Melvinnn11 We're talking about a world where the global required labor pool is virtually nonexistent, due to automation. The question then becomes: In a reality where simply owning shit is the last legitimate profession, what's the operational distinction between a government entitlement and a dividend?
People dont need money anyways, its crap incentive and holds us all back, and you realise that the wealth has been stolen right? And that theres plenty of incentive to steal anyways? Thats what money does. 1% owning 40% is not healthy, and letting a few greedy humans decide the direction of the world is completely indefensible.
Its just derpy, if everyone had an extra income its just inflation... having more money with no more production to back it up would only make the money worth less, but in the end its just the same... governments try to do that magic all the time but its moronic to think it would work... the idea of the video are more aligned with tech innovation which actually make more production like robots to make a factory not need people working, it makes the product cheaper and so makes more actual money, but money for itself is worthless paper... or data. But even with everything costing actually nothing with every production being made by robots and IAs making new and better things we could have problems just because humans love to have masters, we could have politicians enslaving people even when its pointless. But anyway wellfare is doomed in its roots because its impossible to make something from nothing but technological advancements could make everything cost nothing... when its not needed it would work.
how about rent a robot system? Where you save up enough money to purchase a robot, and the company/corporation will pay you your salary based on the robot you own. You would be responsible for maintenance, repairs, as well as checking up on it, and updating it to the Meta design for the time, charging it. Basically a system where the robot takes your place at work, but you receive it's salary because you own it, and the company/ corporations rents the robot from you. You would also be able to purchase a specific robot for another job. To sum it up you could make multiple salaries based on how many robots you own.
I read an article against UBI, it said it will be far more expensive than the most generous welfare system in existence. Hyperinflation would run amok.
Natural Law Resource Based Economy is the most rational choice I see for our development. Google it. It is based on the intelligent and humane application of the scientific method to solve social, economical and environmental problems. I can't think of a better tool to shape the future.
+Jasiek tHEjESTER But but but but Communism and other things that are bad. Therefore no a NLNBE isn't possible. (Please get my humour, i know im not very funny.)
+Jasiek tHEjESTER Look up TECHNOCRACY.... You don't get a choice. You can't think of a better way because you are not using your imagination and you think lowly of yourself and you expect someone else to figure it out for you.
+Melvinnn11 why do you bring up Technocracy when it has next to nothing to do with the Resource Based Economy? Technocracy is about an elite group of experts from various fields whereas RBE is about decentralised form of governance focused on using the scientific method (not some group's or individual's opinon) to solve problems of any nature. I advice you to update your knowledge on what RBE is. And why do you resort to personal insults and remarks instead of giving any valuable alternatives or at least counter-arguments?
Creation of new and improved robots will still be needed so there will still be jobs for humans. Actually there will be a lot of jobs for people. Jobs for people will probably in the field of robotics, computer science, medicine, research in different scientific fields, astronomy, physics, government/management, arts, health/ physical fitness, fashion and other related fields that require innovation, research, artistic skill, management, etc. The jobs that will go away are those manual labour and low end jobs like fast food job, mining, farming, fishing, factory production line jobs, driving jobs, waitressing, etc.
What if you had 2 different currencies for different uses? One could be specifically for food, shelter, clothing, and emergency uses, while the other could be used for everything else.
This is 100% unfounded. Most black people plan their whole life just waiting for the income tax refunds and coupons given to single mothers (who actually have their men is just they never marry) the whole country of Puerto Rico went bankrupt because this whole generation of young men and women were living on coupons and subsidies. 90% of middle eastern in UK and Europe are living from subsidies from the middle class the same way than in USA. the % is lower in other latin americans but still. You give a man a fish he will sit in front of your door waiting every day for more fish and when you refuse to give it he will steal. if you raise the help for people who refuse to work or to educate themselves they will just take it and spend it on drugs and alcohol. Welcome to the real world.
Guaranteed basic income is a concept that would work very well in a very different world. Overpopulation, limited energy resources and infrastructure are some major issues that need to progress a lot before we can reach a point where a guaranteed basic income would be feasible for most countries. Basically it could be a vital part of a unified, efficient, sustainable, peaceful civilization, but can we as a species reach an almost utopian level? I don't know. The way things are going at the moment, it's really hard to tell whether we'll succumb to decline like so many species before us, or whether through our ingenuity we can overcome the odds. Is the world of the future going to be a post-apocalyptic wasteland or a utopian marvel? My guess is a bit of both.
For Generation our technological advancements have been reducing how long and hard we need to work, it only seems natural that at some point these advancements eventually replace us all together. A basic guaranteed income would perhaps make job sharing a thing or make viable a 20 hour work week. I personally would take the time and go back to school or maybe open a small business.
Question: So, if UBI is designed to provide you money that covers "basic necessities" which we can assume are food, shelter, healthcare (education?), what will that do to the cost of education and real estate? Real Estate - If this falls under basic necessities, will real estate prices drop? I can't imagine people purchasing expensive homes to be covered under UBI. Education - We have a major student loan crisis going on now, with people owing tens of thousands of dollars-if not more. Would education costs be covered or significantly lowered, or would they fall under "basic necessities"? If not, I can only assume that the additional money folks would acquire would be to cover things like this.
I know for sure people living inside Amazon rainforest that meets the opposite conclusion of MIT and Havard study, the cause is they already get their own food and money is kind useless in their enviroment, most people living in small comunities of Amazon work just enough for food and thats all for them, maybe a new study including these subjects might give better answers...
People don't realise that the REAL terminators come in the harmless-looking form of automated checkout machines, voice recognition booking programs, etc. Each one of these machines has terminated a human job, and actually represents a further step in a gradual process of machines DISPLACING humans. They don't need to go around with plasma rifles. And: I just bet that there are corporate types looking into ways of giving machines spending power, (to stop the economy, increasingly short on human consumers able to afford stuff, from collapsing). This is not a joke.
exactly you have the right idea as we continue to automate we make those Services free until we eliminate the need for money all together there's a very well-thought-out concept called the resource-based economy that addresses this very issue in detail
MaLcH10R first off how old are you because you sound like a Luddite this whole topic is based on automation using technology to do the work I think we would start out first with a basic income but instead of focusing on outdated Concepts that are destroying our planet we focus on Concepts that will lead to sustainability and a free system if you don't understand that you lack the knowledge to make a comment on this subject
Gosh I hate our time . Primitive human emotions are the reason we have wars. You don't need emotions to be ambitious or creative . I hate stupid humans
+Batou well if the objective is give everyone the basic needs. Then you don't need a monetary system to provided those needs . especially in keeping with the context of the video you have slave labor I.e robots doing everything for you .
+Jamal Luchembe The basic income is the step needed to ween people off money and allow automation to grow without having everyone bitch about losing their jobs.
A little bit shortsighted to say that people could or should be looking for work when given a basic income as there will not be any work (not counting prostitution). The only sane way to go would be to let the automation continue and increase the basic income (living standard) for all without any requirement as there really won't be anything (besides prostitution and passion projects) to work with. As time goes on, the only thing holding back how far we can raise the living standard will be how much needed materials our robots (or not yet invented stuff) can collect for us.
There will still most likely be research jobs. Granted, not enough so everyone can work, but there will still be jobs. I don't think this is such a terrible idea, but there are always people who will take advantage of the system. I think the world might just be better off if we can get rid of the mandatory labor jobs ,that machines can usually do a much better job with anyway, so people can spend their work time discovering new things about the universe we live in. Be that biology, chemistry, astronomy, archeology, etc.
N Yodeler I agree, people with a passion for research will do it regardless if it's mandatory or not. I think that's more humane than forcing people who has no interest in research to work within the field, they'll probably be better off sunbathing or something else entirely.
+Super Duper Hyper Ultra Mega Double Extra Triple Extreme Infinity In the video, I specifically point out that I'm looking at the time between our present and a future in which money is no longer necessary (assuming we ever get to such a point). It's the transition between the two when we'll still have to answer the practical question of "How do I make a living" because we're not just going to flip a switch one day and say "Okay, no more money." At the same time, we're not going to have a single day where all jobs are invalidated through automation -- some may never be fully automated.
Jonathan Strickland I generally agree with your original post. And yes, I was talking about after the transition. During that transition, there will be a lot of strife. Yeah, atm, I can't think it of any way around that.
First we need to let go of the Victorian/puritanical idea that everyone MUST work. If we have no need of people doing certain jobs then why make people work at them? People will always work at something because it is human nature. It simply may not be what we currently think of as work. Women for example would have the freedom to choose whether they follow a career or stay home to care for their family, men too for that matter (that's work). Older people who find that their bones are stiff and sore would have the freedom to stop working, leaving a vacancy for a younger person who wants to have a job. These older people would then have time to enjoy their grand children, passing on knowledge and skills from a previous era (that's work). Those who are creative would have the freedom to create instead of having to try and fit their creative time between work and family schedules (that's work). How do we fund it? That is a tricky one given the state of world economics at the moment. I read one article 'that suggested that we simply print more money, enough to cover the cost. At first that sounded like a dangerous, very simplistic solution but the more I think about it the more I am excited by the boldness of it. Kind of like parachuting, where you need to simply take the jump, follow a few simple safety rules and trust that you will land safely. Although for many the idea would be more like jumping out of a plane with no parachute and hoping you will land in one piece. I am not an economist, so I can't predict what would actually happen in such a circumstance. There is a possibility that the price of things would skyrocket but scarcity is the greatest driver of inflationary prices, so eliminate scarcity first. There is also the possibility that the price of things will plummet (not sure why but it is the opposite of inflation so it must be a possibility).
+LibertarianTV Define a Job? To me it's a task we must accomplish in order to get paid, that type of thinking worked for awhile, but with the advancement of A.I., Super computers, robots, drones, 3D printers, Nanotechnology and many other inventions, that's effecting the work we do. People shouldn't be forced to work for money, but be given a certain amount of money to live off of, and maybe even progress their current lifestyles to live a more happier enjoying existence. So a Job is not what people need, it's more freedom to do the things you may love to do.
Bigsteelguy4 It would be a wonderful time to be alive, wouldn't it? Although I'd personally miss getting the chance to be affluent if everyone was paid the same. I suppose scarcity will be a thing of the past, so it probably wouldn't make any difference. Let's just remember to keep working for a living for the time being.
Maybe we could set in a system where you could buy a machine or some kind of asset to make you money. How would you buy one? Perhaps the government "loans" you one and the way you pay back that loan is the government simply takes taxes from it. It could possibly be something everyone is entitled to, eliminating poverty. However the bigger picture would be that you could use your purchasing power to buy more, giving people the opportunity to pursue wealth.
I have a bunch... Ready... this will cost trillions up front. First Huge like million acre's of solar, geothermal and wind farms government owned. Create a buy or trade system for all gas running cars, give 10,000 more than it's worth for every trade in towards the purchase of a all or 75% electric car. Create greenhouse skyscrapers in all major cities. Put aquaponic systems in them. create solar arrays around the city that saturate the plants with more sunlight by bouncing it off other buildings. Also build greenhouses in very very poor areas. Give all the food away. Create electric public transportation systems from buses to ski lift style in enclosed capsules. That way you free up more ground space. Create underground hyper speed train systems from all major cities with stops in low income areas and in the middle of deserts and non essential areas for forests. Create huge plants for producing proteins for printing meat. Create tissue grown in labs as well. To reduce animal husbandry to low levels to increase water and lower pollution rates. Create limits to how close cities can be. That any group of 100,000 people must be at least 10 miles from any other group. As to reduce the impact of people on environment, however link them with public transports. Lastly get into space. Create lunar mines and mine astroids for super important resources, lithium, aluminum, platinum, etc ect. Create over abundances of these. Use space elevator that is already in the works then build 5 more. Done.. Humans can survive forever and have unlimited "free" lives. The cost would be high but it's technically money we created. We just need to keep people alive long enough to build it all paying for it in the end. You can write it off and burn the money. It won't be needed anymore. Unlimited amounts of food, essentially free power, robotics harvesting 90% of the food and resources, as well as building TVs, cars, super trains, kids toys, ect, other robots designed for repairing everything from your plumbing to each other to human bodies, and we can stop mining the earth let the forest grow between the cities and over the pasture land for cattle. That should slow down global warming.
Another less nice idea... is you create sterilization genes put them in mosquitos create a population of people who can reproduce the rest stop. So in 50 years you cut the poplutaltion in half 25 years half again 25 more half again.
Two big things... we are not Apex predators... we can eat a variety of things. A Apex Predator needs to survive of the eating of many other living things. We can essentially grow our food needs exponentially given that we have ample supplies of water/sun/and organic matter. We are more like herd animals. Billions is nothing... the fact we could all. All 7 billion of us live in Texas. Means were not over populated. Were just inefficient. Highly inefficient. No Species can keep growing when they waste 40% of there food sources and 70% of there fresh water. The fact that we flush 2 to 8 gallons of fresh water with every toilet flush means that the avg person pees in 16 gallons of drinkable water a day. 16 gallons.. that's insane... not to mention showers, car washes, brushing our teeth etc etc ect.
To address poverty: 1. Water, food, shelter, transport, education are the basics. The only one of them that is too expensive is Shelter, as it has become a Stock-Market system of storing wealth VS a Home. Right now property is the ONLY consumer item where artificially scarcity is deliberately created, & now esp. Baby Boomers depend on that for their retirement (the system created that competition). So new laws that encourage an abundance (rather than the current hoarding of limited resources & scarcity) of apartment or land supply for everyone could come in after Baby Boomers die out. Everyone would know that after 2045, there is no use in investing in non-luxury homes. WEALTHY INVESTORS WERE NEVER NECESSARY FOR SUPPLY of homes , because there is always a market for enough homes, if people need somewhere to live.
+Matthew Theobald The pilot program in Canada would be to give at minimum income to everyone of age and get ride of Unemployement/ Social Security/ Retirement incomes.
+Matthew Theobald The money would come from either a redistribution scheme or from a printing press. These "minimum income" schemes are nothing more than repackaged Socialism.
+watcherjohnny and socialism is nothing more then a repackaged communism. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and this idea of "basic minimum income" goes aginst this very basic understanding of economics.
Finally a lot of people starting to see sense with this, as it is clearly the only way forward. I hope Switzerland set an example to the rest of the world and vote yes!
To address poverty: 1. Water, food, shelter, transport, education are the basics. The only one of them that is too expensive is Shelter, as it has become a Stock-Market system of storing wealth VS a Home. Right now property is the ONLY consumer item where artificially scarcity is deliberately created, & now esp. Baby Boomers depend on that for their retirement (the system created that competition). So new laws that encourage an abundance (rather than the current hoarding of limited resources & scarcity) of apartment or land supply for everyone could come in after Baby Boomers die out. Everyone would know that after 2045, there is no use in investing in non-luxury homes. WEALTHY INVESTORS WERE NEVER NECESSARY FOR SUPPLY of homes , because there is always a market for enough homes, if people need somewhere to live.i
Due to artificial intelligence and automation, a lot of people are saying we won't need workers. However, no one seems to realize that there is something that will be even more useless than human workers in businesses - and that is human _owners_ of businesses. We will have absolutely no reason to put up with a few rich people owning and controlling everything. It will make much more sense for everything to be owned equally by everyone. Everyone will receive credits reflecting their share of how much our collectively owned factories have produced. They then can use those credits to claim whatever it is that they desire from the total amounts of goods our systems have produced. People will be able to choose how to use their time. I suspect popular activities will include leisure, creation of art, scientific research, and perhaps engaging in shaping public policy through direct democracy, (no need for representatives anymore).
Activism, local defense planning and human-machines relations might still be functions that we humans will have to consider as well as active involvement in the survivor of our specie.
Jobs that are contracted by the government can be controlled by AI and posted on an app. Most people don't know what jobs are available. Needs to be met can be posted so that anyone can apply to to AI. After describing your understanding and resources to the AI, a contract can be agreed upon and payment arranged. Machines will hopefully eliminate government waste. Therefore allowing for real work to be done.
Use kw as a currency. Most tech is heading towards running off electricity from transportation to food production so it makes sense to have a method of renumeration that is useful, obtainable by all & in a global format.
Sorry, but that's only utopian. Nobody would work hard and need only enough if the rest decide to work less and need more. That's a big reason of failure of communism.
I think that if we had robots doing our basic jobs for us, say farming and construction, then we would have no need for an income, as we would get all of our needs taken care of. All you would need to do to recieve this complimentary service is not sit on your couch doing nothing, instead doing something whatever it might be, even if you were to write a book or make songs, you could get it, as everyone wouldn't be doing the basic foundational work like construction and could focus on things that robots can't do like innovations on science and philosophy or moviemaking and entertainment. anyway, that's my two cents
People think poverty is a money problem, but it's actually a logistics problem. if farmers actually delivered all of their produce instead of throwing away and c and d grade food with blemishes and flaws they would have way more food to give away much less throw away. Actually, if every store and restaurant stored and then gave away their waste food to let's say meals on wheels, it would be cheaper for the state to throw it away in landfills.
what if all the governments of the world comes together to figure out or develop an unlimited source of energy. and then powering automated machines and robots to produce, supply and maintain all of our basic needs as the whole world as one(individually and also collectively). that's how we can all focus and pursue our dreams, desires and whatever else there is without worrying about getting broke and suffering the consequences that comes along with it !
We will go for a walk in the forest, coat, by the rivers, read books, hang out with friends, cook for the family, play with the children, talk with the elderly, educate ourselves, plant our own flowers and vegetables ... We will enjoy life 🤷♀️.
+ellias herrera equal distribution of resources... too many problems, I don't want to bring everyone down to the same level, just keep people out of poverty, we can have all the income inequality we want (given proper government institutions and laws balancing power based on money) as long as every person is assured the basic necessities for living the the current level of tech and resources can provide. I still want my stuff to be mine, but I'll give up being able to buy an expensive car if someone else gets to have a roof and food.
In Switzerland we will vote next month to have the basic income added to the constitution. I think it's a good idea, sadly it's unlikely to get accepted as most people in the government judge it "dangerous" and that it "will destroy our economy". Yes it would raise questions, and yes it would create some problems, but overall nothing that can't be adressed. At least it's a nice initiative to raise the debate about what is the purpose of work and does income always have to be related to it. Nice video!
to deal with poverty, my best guess would be a economic councilor, payed by the state, to educate people in ways to handle money. if someone is getting a base income above the poverty line then the only reason for poverty would be mishandling of money or disasters, which the disasters could be covered by a relief fund
Also.... to FW: Thinking..... "an increasingly automated world" does not necessarily increase or decrease the level of poverty in society. "Basic Income" is just a method of controlling people. I agree... poverty is a serious problem. But can't you agree that it is much more closely tied to who controls energy and food production.... which in turn happens to be who controls who gets the basic income.
I have been thinking about the same idea for a few years. I hope that one day someone (THE ONE) can give the answer. How to build a system that works with basic income.
Start small. Introduce an automation tax ontop of federal taxes that scales with order of automated jobs in your company, to a point ofcourse. That tax is then redistributed as a small UBI to begin with, but grows as the automation tax income grows.
Basic Income is well worth trying, and could stabilize society far better than other so called "safety net" programs. But it may not just be transitionary: it may be as close as we ever get to post scarcity society. And the reason isn't technological, but political. I'd love to be wrong about this, but I'm not terribly hopeful. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice if we ever got all the way to a society where people do things or make things only because they genuinely love to do so and barter their specialty trades without neurotically trying to "get the best deal" because at the end of the day, robots already provided you with everything you *must* have. But as I see it presently: only corporations can afford to bring those robots into fruition. Since the principal motive of corporations is profit, I suspect we'll spend a lot of time trying to "fix" capitalism instead of simply accepting that capitalism isn't the long term goal. This is perhaps the biggest reason why some jobs may never get automated: Not because it is technically impossible, but because the people in the best position to make it happen also have a vested interest in seeing that it doesn't. Trying to get the wealthy elite to implement a system that would effectively make money meaningless is like trying to get Congress to pass a law placing term limits on Congress.
Sell robots to citizens. Example, the automotive factory has robotic arms etc. Invest and own one of those bots. Have insurance plans that come with replacing malfunctioning robots. Whatever your bits make, you take that money home. Quite similar idea to stocks or even, mutual funds. Invest in multiple robots across various companies. Medical robots marked higher price with higher risk compared to .. idk Anyways, my though train has lost its GPS signal
I haven't picked a specialization but I'm going into computer science and eventually engineering as a first year so I think I'm one of the people most excited to see this happening around me. I can't wait to make the people of my country lives easier and safer...hopefully that's how it comes around anyways.
Hah! The naivety. What *exactly* have you learned about humanity during your short stay on this planet that leads you to believe that this will be ANYTHING but a CATASTROPHE for humanity? Can't you see that this will just be used as another shackle to enslave everyone? Yeah, sure. First there will be universal basic income. OK, so none of us can get jobs anymore but that's fine! We have all have enough money to live comfortably. Oh wait... Inflation? Oh well, that can't be helped. I guess we just have to spend a little less on food and luxuries. At least I have my VR anime waifu to help me feel better 10 times a day! Oh... food prices have gone up. Damn! I guess it's mickey d's for me tonight. Wait, what? McDonalds releasing a new MCBUGBURGER... Bugs?... Kinda weird, but... I'm so hungry... It's the only affordable item on the menu... You see. And don't think you will be safe because you have a "computer science" or "engineering" degree, well trained neural network AI and robots have already made you obsolete. The only reason any of us are currently allowed to have jobs is so that we don't freak out... Yet. The path we are headed down is a dark one at the moment but all we can see is the carrot in our face and we choose to ignore the stick being jammed where the sun doesn't shine.
2017: A genuinely Universal Basic Income for a large entire country is not going to work until we become much more efficient/productive *in the aggregate.* We simply cannot afford it at the time being. Even the US gov. with its income, if all changed to UBI, would only give people about a 1/3 of what they would need for a genuine UBI, and that's under taxing circumstances in which much of the population feels the economic pinch. Hence, with the same population numbers, it seems the USA would need to be at least 3 times as productive/efficient. But by the time we can afford UBI, we might have a much higher population, necessitating maybe even 5 to 7 times the aggregate productivity/efficiency that we have in 2017.
I Will tried to explain in my personal point of view how the future will look like when robots perform 99% 0f the work in the planet. A central computer system will manage all the resources, some astatates will be 100% dedicated to farming 99.99 Automated, The people will be dispersed in the most beautiful areas in the globe were the foot print will be negligent, A family will occupy 10 acres of land, all the energy will be self produce. The housing, transportation and food, will be very ship to a $1 dollar a year. How is that possible?, because money will be eliminated. People will donate their time of one hour a month in any activity they like. In the future people will tried to find transcendence not money.
I have a question Some robots already took place i know i seen people losing jobs from technology Are Robots going to be taxed like we are ?? If not why are we taxed?? They do a job so do we?? Anyone has an answer? Robot dont spend money dont buy houses dont give nothing to society and the system of life will crash i think maybe i am wrong If we make robots work for us and live for free is it possible For now only rich people are getting richer
The future is not likely to be so bleak or socialist. Many jobs will have people working in cooperation with automation. The key concept to remember is opportunity cost. Low wage jobs like cooks, waiters, sales floor reps, and freight associates are unlikely to be replaced with robotics, but rather be supplemented with automated technology, so fewer workers can do more. Production line jobs, clerks, supervisors and managers are occupations that will die to automation. For decades, this is not likely to change, because hiring a low wage worker is simply cheaper than purchasing, operating, maintaining, and replacing robotic units, unless government interferes with the market. Managers, supervisors, clerks, professional drivers, and similar jobs can be easily automated. One robotic unit is simply cheaper for management operations than half a dozen managers at 30k+ salaries each. Janitorial jobs involve simple tasks that a specialized unit can easily replace. Automated vehicles are already on the roads. Clerks will be replaced by software, eventually. Other jobs that are likely to be replaced are computer related, such as accountants, mathematicians, engineers, IT, surgeons, nurses, administrators, receptionists, etc. The future is not so bleak for the service industry, but all the middle collar careers are likely to be automated. Millennials and younger may figure out that they need to turn their bachelors into a masters, if they hope to be employed in a career field and not a dead-end, low wage job. In several decades, many difficult bachelors will be less advantageous than an arts degree unless the student pursues graduate education or higher education adapts. Yeah right! Trade school is likely a safe set of careers into the next century. Any fields related to troubleshooting technology will probably not be replaced by robotics for quite some time. Electricians, plumbers, mechanics, technical engineers, handymen, and designers will likely not get fully automated this century. Coincidentally, all these jobs are male dominated. I suspect that the automation revolution will disproportionately affect females. Sorry if you were born the less advantageous sex. :P
first we need to establish Coalition with those countries who intend on providing a guaranteed income then we have to work out some sort of agreement that allows us to share resources freely for the sole purpose of creating an infrastructure to support automated technology most people tend to forget if we phase out money all of those factors that have to do with money such as Banks Wall Street excetera they disappear because they become irrelevant so we can focus solely on resource allocation to support a new technological system
Thinking far into the future to a time when so many jobs have been automated that a base income is well above the poverty line: While I like the idea of a basic income, and I get that people will have more room to learn and to do those things that they are passionate about, how would you suggest we find out what it is that we are passionate about if 90% of basic jobs are done by machines? What would we be innovating if we are not faced with struggles from our jobs? I'm not trying to say that everyone will become lazy, but in order to continue to innovate, we need to first look at what it is that drives innovation. What made Henry Ford invent the moving assembly line? What made Google pursue an autonomous car? The greatest minds in history were problem solvers. What happens when we take many of the problems away? It seems like a double edged sword to me. On one side you are freeing up people to spend their time doing things that are not mundane, and on the other you are taking away the struggles that get their minds going. Not to mention the first generation that grows up in this future. What will drive their innovation? I still think it is a good idea, and I can see very much how we are headed in that direction, but I think that these are conversations that need to happen before we can take those steps even if we don't have the answers. I'm curious to hear what you think Jonathan, Lauren, and Joe. Btw, I really enjoyed the podcast on this.
+Bobby Dvorscak Humans innovate not just through need but through curiosity. Poverty and working long hours at boring jobs is mind numbing and leads to hopelessness not necessarily innovation. If you relieve the need to work at mind numbing jobs, if you remove the poverty that leads to hopelessness you free up minds to become curious and creative.
No matter how automated the world becomes, the world will keep using human resources for various works. Automation will remain for simple tasks or too-definitive works. But ultimately people will want people to take the ultimate control. Because - 1. Machines will never be perfect. Why? Human body is the greatest machine so far, and it is far from perfect. With more features, comes more probabilities of bugs. 2. When there's bugs, there will be hackers. With people being kicked out of jobs, more hackers will be there to take control. Maybe machines will keep advancing till they're adaptive, but again, humans have been more adaptive with time with need. 3. Thanks to our modern day companies, real talents are not specially recognized and thus not specially valued. Projects are being completed both with or without skilled resources, esp. in software markets. So, apps are not perfect. So, apps keeps coming back for advancements. Engineers will remain this way. 4. Even in business, ultimately how you communicate is what matters the most. You may prefer buying from online shopping sites. But ultimately you do your best shopping in shops around public crowds, where everything is displayed around. What feels real, makes us feel real and we'll be attracted more to that. No matter how high resolution the photo is, ultimately people will prefer things that they have in hand. Sells people will remain this way. 5. Medical check-ups are not just doing some diagnostics and having medication. Instead it is only 50%. The other 50% is the mental support that a patient gets from the doctors. So, doctors will remain this way. 6. Farming maybe done more & more with the help of machines. But corps are not grown the exact same way. Also, weather is not always the same. Farmers take many of their decisions using their guts/instincts/feelings. Even if greenhouse farming is their, but naturally produced foods are way better than artificially grown foods. So, active human interactions in farming will never be taken over by machines. 7. Arts, Music and such items are creativity, that machines can never produce. If they actually start doing "creativity" that will no more be a creativity anymore. They will be fixed algorithms. And definitive Arts are not attracting. Artists will never fade for this reason. 8. Lion part of all the business and jobs are vastly based upon emotions and less upon actual needs. So even if there will be a lot of people loosing their jobs because of automation taking their place. Humans will always at the top of technology. If it is attempted, the infra will break down before it's fully built. Because humans won't build apps for long that will ultimately take away their jobs, esp. when jobs are about to go extinct. Also, how much companies can keep their employees even during crisis is also a thing, that helps them gain more money from their clients. So, human jobs will never be extinct for sure.
Dear FW: Thinking Answer to 2:23: If anyone is asking "How do you pay for it", & you already live in a country that creates & destroys it's own dollar, then I suggest reading up on Prof. Stephanie Kelton or Prof. Warren Mosler of Modern Monetary Theory would be very helpful. The latter has a good free ebook. Hint: A fiat currency is already created & injected OR taken out/destroyed(by tax) by the Central Treasury. It has value, because you must pay your taxes in it & it then becomes socially accepted too.
First step to this is that the field of Economics is changed from an Ideology-based approach to an Evidence & Experiment based approach. This can be first done by official enquires to determine the facts of how modern money work. I am pretty sure MMT would turn out to be correct, for a Sovereign Fiat currency. Many Economists still assume Macroeconomics runs like it did on the Gold-Backed currency in the past, because they never made the change in paradigm.
With artificial intelligence you need to make sure about some things. Artificial intelligence needs to be sentient so it can have/adopt human ethics and morals. It also needs to have personality traits and desires to give it enough variation that would effect on that robot's ability in work environments. There would need to be a moderate amount of regelation on artificial intelligence development to ensure that robots share all these traits with humans to safeguard economic harmony between humans and artificial intelligence. This plan is not pefect and it does not account for automations, but it is better than nothing and should prevent total insercurity. All we need to do is make sure that robots are like humans in many mental?psychological respects that they are treated as equals.
Oh I've thought about this. I've categorized any work position into 5 tiers depending on how hard it will be for robots to take that position over. Tier 1, very repetitive positions that do not require movement that robot arms can take over. Tier 2, very repetitive but have a few different tasks they need to move between and do what is needed most at the time. Tier 3, work that encompass some human interactions, management work, customer service, sales etc. Tier 4, work that at the moment seems almost impossible for robots to take over, like programming(my plan), slightly creative works or heavy human interaction like shrinks, student councillor etc. Tier 5, things that will never be replaced, completely creative works like artists, designers, writers etc. Athletes and other things we do for fun. Tier 1 is almost completely robotic in modern countries right now and some T2. T3 is almost untouched, except for like automatic phone menus before customer service. I for one aim to sit in the middle of tier 4 and 5. With game programmer there are still some creative work, but in a big company I will probably drop down to T4.
Carlos Soriano Afaik this is quite limited though. Cause we are talking self learning robots right? Have not seen an fw like that though. But a program that is able to make games are VERY limited right now. It is basically already a game and the user of the program can swap out components to make a similar game. And if they get good enough at it I just got to program those robots. And if they don't need programmers, we are scary close to an apocalypse are we not? Cause then we have a program that can make a better version of itself. But I think a speaking AI that can handle answering all the questions in customer support are on equal level of self programming at least, justifying T4 status. But yes, maybe T4 is not as far away as I project it to be.
+Everday! Making games is more of an art to me but strictly programming robots program each other right now and although as of now you're right, it is limited but not for very long but like you said robots can't make art just yet so a full game with landscapes and all is far fetched for robo kind
Carlos Soriano Ye, but the programming part in a large company leaves (afaik) this to the game designers. In a 15 man team we all had a voice in game design, and programmers especially concerning mechanics. I like to think programming itself is quite creative as well though, in what techniques you use to solve problems and logical bugs. There might be an optimal way each time though if you consider all the variables.
+Everday! Didn't see that comment there . But are we talking about programming in general or specifically programming in game design because I might have a loose idea about programming a game but I think that simulating human reactions and the environment might be more than a little hard for a robot to do but programming certain presiders that another machine will follow might be more accomplishable than say getting an npc to react to human behavior I guess you have a point in that respect
Provide food and basic shelter for free. If robots will create those things for us automatically, then we need not pay them to make it. Therefore there will be little to no cost to providing these things. Sure the robots will still need repairing, and other things will need doing, so that will provide some sort of income for people, but at a lot lower one to the current salary. So those people could buy more if they wished. The rest of the world will live in relative comfort.
This idea can also be good from an environmental perspective, as people would not be required to create products that deplete our resources and fill up the land fills, just to earn a living. Right now, marketers are required to brainwash consumers into buying products that they neither need nor want.
+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky Amen brother.
+IntheInternet Wetrust PEOPLE..... someone has to do the work. Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for this.... OR were you just planning on letting all the third world labor do the work and you just get all the free wages and food that the government says you can have? HOW DOES THAT WORK????
+Melvinnn11
Maybe you forgot the point of video? The discussion has to do with Technological Unemployment, meaning 'machines' will be doing most of the work, that is most of the physical labor, and with the near advent of A.I., even much of the service industry, including Customer Service, Paralegals, Accountants, Truck Drivers, some Medical Services, and WAY too many other things to even list here. I once read something that suggested that even the Mining industry was expecting to be able to be fully automated within the next 35 years or so.
Machines don't need payment beyond initial cost and routine (or occasional emergency) maintenance. They can work all day, every day, with no need for vacation, retirement, health benefits, bonus incentives, personal time, etc. This has been happening very slowly over the past few hundred years, but has more recently begun to pick up steam, by a considerable margin, thanks to technological advancements.
Even jobs no one thought could ever be replaced, ARE being replaced, or soon will be. So then what? What do people do? Even farms will end up automated. Do we just go, "oh well" and let the masses die off leaving a privileged few behind? Yeah right. Survival instinct will kick into overdrive and chaos will ensue. Short of having a truly nasty conflict that could make all the wars of the last century combined look like a snooze fest, a more civil solution would need to be found. The idea of the Universal Basic Income may be the solution needed. In trials already done, it has already been shown to reduce poverty, starvation, crime, and even encourage creativity and ingenuity.
People will still 'work', it will just be in creative and scientific pursuits. People will invest their time in their families, communities, and personal interests. Musicians would be freed up to pursue their passion, even if it were only local performances, as could other artists. Creative arts would skyrocket, the scientific and technologically inclined could pursue new paths of R & D, all without the stress of worrying about the welfare of their families and themselves.
So yeah, an apocalyptic world war, or a Universal Basic Income system? Hard choice...
OK.... I guess my reaction was a bit off topic... You are right in that automation in the workplace will free people up in general to pursue what interests them... in theory. In this situation I can see how a universal basic income could work. But you are really missing a key understanding of what is really at play here.
SO first you really need to define Universal. Is it a global universal or just in developed countries? Who decides who receives and how much? Who stays poor? Who gets the income? Society is always evolving in ways we can't control... I get that. But, letting some A.I. system dictate what I can or can't have (control over resources - including humans as a resource) is the basis for the Technocratic system which is the basis for the Zeitgeist... and this system is what I fundamentally disagree with and challenge people to resist. We can't give up so much control over basic functions of our lives this way. You can't let a computer tell you how you can live your life...
Now it seems you are worried about wars... and rightfully so. But what needs to be taken down is the Political and Financial Elites who control what happens on this planet. Resourced Based Economy is THEIR idea. They are the cause of all wars for the last century and a half (even farther back in history but I'll keep it relevant for this conversation). They are the one's who control the resources around the planet. Their agendas are very long term spanning many generations. Technocracy is perhaps their most powerful tool in controlling all aspects of society...a concept which was conceived in the early 20th century by Francis Bacon... only technology at the time had no way of collecting the data needed to support the concept so it only remained a concept. Fast forward to today...Goggle, Facebook, smart meters on houses, smart phones with cameras and mic's, surveillance cameras on every corner etc. etc. etc.... today the technology is all around us. Placed their quietly with our support... with absolutely no understanding of what is really going on. I'm not a tinfoil hat wearer and I'm not paranoid about the government coming to take my guns... but I am very aware of what's going on around me and the agendas of control at play here... and please don't be naive in thinking it's not control which is the main agenda at play. Go do some research on what Technocracy really is and maybe you will understand why it's not a good idea.
Have a nice day, Kevin.
+Melvinnn11
Way too many points to respond to individually, especially since I can't see the previous post to which I'm replying. That rather sucks, but I'll just wing it from memory. Here goes...
I actually agree with several of your points, and I really don't have all the answers. However things go down, I have a feeling there will at least be some conflict and chaos. I just hope it can be minimalized as much as possible.
I certainly agree that the Elitists have a ridiculous amount of resources and influence at their disposal, and that it needs to change. The Earth and Solar System are the heritage of all mankind, not just a few power mongers and their immediate family. When you get down to it, our civilization and its systems are a fallacy that we all participate in and pretend that is just how things are supposed to be. In reality many of the things we take for granted are artificial constructs, and don't have to exist beyond our deciding that they should.
Of course most people don't bother to think about things like that, as they're usually too busy eeking out a living, or scrambling to get to the top of the socioeconomic ladder. Or they're shallow morons who are only interested in their own immediate world. Regardless, they're busy with other thoughts that are generally self oriented and ultimately myopic (short sighted). Sadly, even those of us who do consider these things, are usually overwhelmed with the magnitude and end up shuffled back into a corner of near apathy, or more correctly hopelessness. To be fair, it really is a gargantuan problem, and it will take more than a handful of people to truly deal with it.
I have heard a bit about the idea of Francis Bacon and Technocracy, but I'm not intimately familiar with the details. So I won't address it beyond this point, because I'd just be blowing smoke. As for Zeitgeist, that Joseph guy who was largely behind it, basically hijacked the RBE (Resource Based Economy) idea from Jacque Fresco of the Venus Project. Supposedly, HE got the idea from staying among some South Pacific islanders (Tahiti?), and wondered why their tribal method couldn't be applied on a national and ultimately planetary scale. Long story short, coming to the idea that technology and efficient computerized resource management would allow everyone to have everything they need, and much of what they want. Honestly, there ARE enough resources to do that as long as they aren't being hogged by a selfish few. I'm not aware of any particular connection between Fresco and the world power Elites. I find myself skeptical that they would endorse RBE as Fresco has presented it. Fresco distanced himself from Zeitgeist because he felt they were just using his work, without seriously presenting his vision appropriately.
Fresco himself said his idea was no utopia, as he didn't believe in them, but that it was much better than the current system. In any case, RBE and UBI aren't exactly the same thing. For one thing, UBI still exists as a monetary system, whereas RBE does not. In RBE, everything is free, period. However, ideally culture would be changed so that materialism is frowned upon. So, no 70 pairs of shoes ladies. Many seldom used luxury items (like cars, boats, yachts, etc.) would be basically time shared, much like books in a library. Unless you happen to use one of those things all the time, then of course it is more useful to keep it privately. The goal would be to try to give everyone what they need and want, while keeping resource mismanagement to a minimum. Things like phones would be modularized to reduce waste every time a new upgrade comes out. You'd keep your old phone, and just plug in the new upgrade module. There might be a handful of customizable phone models specific for functional needs, but dozens of models for virtually the same function would be a thing of the past.
UBI works more closely with the current economic system, with everyone (in the applicable area of event) would receive a basic income that would provide for all their basic needs, but little else. So food, housing, medical, utilities; check. Luxury items? Get a job! Basically. Money is still used, but primarily only for luxury. Toys, Restaurants, etc. Some ideas on how to pay for it have been to possibly emulate Alaska somewhat, where the state pays the people from the profits made from companies using natural resources, that belongs to the public. This idea has also been stretched to include the coming advent of asteroid mining and space commercialization, as one estimate of asteroid resource worth has been as high as 100 Billion dollars per person on the entire planet Earth. That might work. Even with this, I'm not entirely sure the ruling Elites would really care for this plan.
So yeah, not exactly the same.
What will police do when all cars are automated? That's a good 60% of revenue lost from speeding tickets.
they will have the cop installed in your car, you go over 60 in a not permitted zone, your own car gives you the ticket. "here is your ticket , boss"
+Computer Simulated Atomic Coded Reality But your car will be automated meaning it will not get a ticket
Automated cars will be programmed to comply with all transit laws, so no ticketing at all.
Also, police robots. And no car ownership because not enough money to buy any.
Oh good Smithers, my universal basic income check has arrived. Now I can buy that ivory back scratcher.
+Brad Evans Gold plated or Diamond plated sir?
+Pipe2DevNull The Universal Basic Income would be a pittance, a survival income at best and due to bureaucracy would be unlikely to keep up with increases in living costs. Plus a guaranteed income does not mean someone could not over extend themselves. It would be more like, the check arrived so I can pay the minimum payment of my credit card rather than consider a luxury back scratcher. Besides, it wouldn't be ivory, there's a palm tree seed that when dried looks, feels and carves like ivory and it's rapidly becoming the alternative to ivory so long as you only need a piece of vegetable ivory less than 3.5 inches long.
In the near future, we can make money without working. ua-cam.com/video/swB7Ivct8d8/v-deo.html
Humans should all work in innovation, arts, science, service. Leave the factory jobs to robots.
Toby Li precisely.
Innovation, arts, science, and service are the exact jobs that the robots are getting ready to take over.
Daniel Kivari Noice, then try becoming the person that programs the robots. Problem solved.
Daniel Kivari service. yes. innovation art and science? no.
Prismic Kyubey No. Imagine AI being so far, it can devolope AI. Now imagine this more intelligent AI, is able to develope even better AI. This can go in any direction in development. A true Mind Fuck, but this will be reality one day. Only a matter of time.
We Need almost everything automated then it would force a individuals to create, innovate, start new businesses, and make the world better.
in the near future, the work of innovation , starting businesses and make the world better will be made by machines, so what would you do then?
...which would in-turn, be delegated to yet, more robots. Nothing gained there ;(
@Everyone! Define a Job? To me it's a task we must accomplish in order to get paid, that type of thinking worked for awhile, but with the advancement of A.I., Super computers, robots, drones, 3D printers, Nanotechnology and many other inventions, that's effecting the work we do. People shouldn't be forced to work for money, but be given a certain amount of money to live off of, and maybe even progress their current lifestyles to live a more happier enjoyable existence. So a Job is not what people need, it's more freedom & time to do the things you may love to do.
Yeah, that's right I agree you.
food replicators for all!
As if the elite would even leave us something to eat in exchange of no work...
Fuck yeah!
I'd say we tax robots so that companies who want to replace there employees with robots will have to pay a tax and companies who want to avoid the extra taxes will keep there employees
Yep yep. If we can tax human labor to pay for everything from bridges to rockets, we can tax robot labor to pay for this.
Yellow Jackets yes we tax each robot the wage of a Teen not adult. We will give them 2-4 slack off per a robot
Wouldn't companies simply stop hiring new employees and allow the old ones gradually resign and retire out?
@yellowjackets1483 this is actually an excellent idea. Worth talking about it more.
Basic income will likely be given to all, regardless of income, just so the rich don't have a reason to complain. The pittance of money they get from it would be almost useless to them. With everything dropping to near zero marginal cost, people will stop having things to spend money on. You could have a billion dollars and nothing to buy with it. That is what is inevitable. Change your identity away from what you do for a living. Because it won't be your job for long.
In the near future, we can make money without working. ua-cam.com/video/swB7Ivct8d8/v-deo.html
But what if one is a tenured professor?
We should outgrow the anachronistic idea of "making a living" and make science and technology work for the benefit of all humanity.
+Batou Waiting for a handout? You are fundamentally misunderstanding technological unemployment.
+Frank Sang When was technological unemployment ever implied? All the OP talked about was the concept of making a living and getting science to benefit everyone.
+Batou not everyone who is unemployed is sitting on their hands waiting for a handout. Some are tradesmen who have worked for 35+ years only to be retrenched with no one wanting to employ them now they are over 50. Some are nurses and other service workers who have spent so many years on their feet bending and lifting the sick, or cleaning, lifting and carrying for others that their own bodies have crumbled to the extent that they are unable to walk anymore much less work at the job they are qualified for. Some have a mental illness, not of their own choosing. they can't be sure if the people they are speaking to are even real much less be a reliable employee.
Indy Indie
Well he DID say that some people made an effort to take advantage of the opportunity. Who said that those people who wish for opportunity don't include those who cannot work?
Goodguy001 you fail to realize that challenge and labor are what has allowed the human mind to grow, and expand. What happens when we don't have any challenges? I'll tell you: we won't be able to maintain our intellect.
Imagine a school where, instead of students learning, robots learn for them. Do the students learn, and grow as students? No. The robots do. Apply that to the workforce, and you'll understand why this will fail.
If only 5% of the money was used to feed, house, and educate the public instead of military projects, we would have a far more free, healthier, secure and safe world.
Bigsteelguy4 Which would then attract unemployable economic migrants that will put a strain on your system causing it to entropy faster than it normally would. Leading to a situation like that of the EU. We'd be insane to try the same thing and expect a different result.
"We shouldn't improve the standard of living because foreigners are too dumb to do manual labor"
In the US we already pay more for such things than we do for the military.
There should be a universal basic income if the world is run by robots and AI.
Toby Li yup
There should be a heavy tax on wealth created by robots, to subsidize the income lost by jobs that they are replacing.
When technology is able to meet everyone's basic needs, it will only be a question of whether that will be used for greed and profit as it has up until now, or if we can actually grow up as a species and just guarantee a minimum living standard for all humans. I think the problem is much more about human behavior than it is about lack of technology
Resource Based Economy, The Zeitgeist Movement, and The Venus Project is the best answer so far, though I also hope that it's the best if UBI can solve the most daunting problems in our times.
+時代精神運動 TheZeitgeist Movement/維納斯計畫The Venus Project ZEITGEIST is a cult. Are you prepared for centralized planning authority. SOMEONE has to be in charge. WHO is that 'someone'? WHO says THEY are in charge? WHO put them in charge? WHO says they are right?
Again.... do some research on a technocracy. I can not support people that think science can make them god. You really think technology is going to make everything equal... fair... distributed perfectly? Science doesn't have all the answers. We are humans... no a.i. system will save us.
Technology only makes fairness possible, whether or not its used properly and driven by the majority is up too the financial elite atm considering that not many people are standing up to our masters.. Also whos trying to be a god? Lol. Ai again is just a tool, it depends on how its used, and right now you basically have no choice but to submit to an ai, as automation will march on and take all the jobs. Its inevitable, money will kill itself eventually.
Isn't The Venus Project another way of saying ecological communism?
Tmk there is no market in this system.
Herp of Derpopol Lay down then, the people who are smart and going into the AI industry will be at the forefront of a new age in discovery. Everyone who was shaking their fist at the machine will have only themselves to blame.
we could have personal robots that perform tasks and earn us money/currency/food&water
The things a lot of people miss is that MOST of the money for a UBI is already there. UBI gets rid of the need for FoodStamps, Social Security, Disability income. So on and so on. All of that would add up to about 70% of the UBI.
We can get the money by cutting the money put into other government programs. Also the people we hire to take care of those programs. Effectively the dozens of support systems out there get all put into one. At least that's the simplified explanation that I imagine might work.
Apemanwithcalculator Was about to say, we do tax the rich they just dodge it..
+Apemanwithcalculator NO amount of taxes can support this kind of system.
You underestimate how much increasing the tax rate on the top 0.01% by 1% would bring in.
Government work would be extremely easy to automate. All the money going towards the salaries of government employees could partly pay for this. As well as taxing the rich, as others have said.
We are working on a feature length documentary on the subject: www.kickstarter.com/projects/2118258292/the-end-of-employment
As one of our interviewees pointed out, Basic Income will be accepted by our policy makers not because they will be particularly fond of the idea - or funding it will be such a no-brainer - but because the alternative will be so much bleaker. You don't talk about the costs of something as much, if the alternative means potential destruction of the very foundation of the economy (aka consumer power).
As governor of California Jerry Brown put it: "Jobs for every American is doomed to failure because of modern automation and production. We ought to recognize it and create an income-maintenance system so every single American has the dignity and the wherewithal for shelter, basic food, and medical care. I'm talking about welfare for all. Without it, you're going to have warfare for all."
You're talking about taking my income and giving it to other people.
+jat1668 You'll change your mind when automation takes away your income
I am willing to help out my fellow man by paying a few more taxes. The golden principle- Do unto others as you want them to do unto you.
+Frank Sang You might want to do some reading on the concept of "Charity".
watcherjohnny Leo tolstoy- "The sole meaning of life is to serve humanity" We should be charitable in all aspects of life. Certainly in allowing our fellow man to live a decent life.
+Katorone Well i'm not for letting them go hungry whether they abide by the golden principle or not.
I see one of the first steps to a more sustainable economy as described is to eliminate the concept of "If someone's job position is not needed anymore, they get fired."
If someone has been working for a company and the main reason their being told to leave is because their job isn't needed anymore then instead the company should first look to see if there is another position they could full. After all since they have been working for the company, the company knows very well how hard they work and how skilled they are in that which is much more informative than an interview where you have to take an educated guess.
This could also have the added benefit of increased moral and work ethic as employees will know that if they do their work well the company won't just abandon them if the company doesn't need them to do that exact job anymore.
A guaranteed income seems like a good stepping stone that will lead to a society where money completely phased out. I personally believe that this is a good thing and if people look at it from a logical standpoint they will see it as a good thing as well
An economy based on "Basic needs income" is actually a good idea. If people would like to buy luxury stuff like jewellery, expensive clothes, go on holiday abroad, expensive cars, video games, luxury food and other things that are not necessary for "surviving while living a comfortable life" then people will have to work or start a business to afford those luxury products.
Capitalism doesn't work in a fully automated world because money isn't just currency, it's the measurement of value. More valuable work means more money. Selling something more valuable means more money. When everything is automated the only thig left is our own humanistic creativity which cannot be measured in value because spontanious creativity is highly subjective which means it doesn't share a common value.
So when our communities achieve full automation we all have only our basic values which means we are free to do whatever we want. You can eat whatever there is, you can drink whatever there is (that isn't harmful to you, sorry alcohol), you can go to another country if you want, you can learn to play violin and all that is free, because evetrything is automated and will work on themselves.
Jonseredi get machine learning based appraisers.
I'd go with the "Make life a video game" method. Keep track of things done and award points that can be redeemed for goods and services later. Give bonuses for hitting benchmarks and allow for posting these on social media. Mixed in with Vloggers and UA-camrs, doing things like feeding the homeless and helping lift up humanity would become less work and more fun.
This makes a lot of sense. The main source of, let's call it "welfare rage" stems from a sense of jealously or personal burden. If everybody got a basic income, that would be gone, as would the incentive to remain idle.
+Equals Four REALLY?! This would absolutely create the incentive to remain idle. What ever happened to ambition? So what if some people get jealous... whanhhh... he has more than me. I'm not going to work harder... you should just go over there and take it from him for me... but bring it back to me ...ok?
Melvinnn11 We're talking about a world where the global required labor pool is virtually nonexistent, due to automation.
The question then becomes: In a reality where simply owning shit is the last legitimate profession, what's the operational distinction between a government entitlement and a dividend?
People dont need money anyways, its crap incentive and holds us all back, and you realise that the wealth has been stolen right? And that theres plenty of incentive to steal anyways? Thats what money does. 1% owning 40% is not healthy, and letting a few greedy humans decide the direction of the world is completely indefensible.
Herp of Derpopol Yes. I've read Marx. And I agree with him.
Its just derpy, if everyone had an extra income its just inflation... having more money with no more production to back it up would only make the money worth less, but in the end its just the same... governments try to do that magic all the time but its moronic to think it would work... the idea of the video are more aligned with tech innovation which actually make more production like robots to make a factory not need people working, it makes the product cheaper and so makes more actual money, but money for itself is worthless paper... or data. But even with everything costing actually nothing with every production being made by robots and IAs making new and better things we could have problems just because humans love to have masters, we could have politicians enslaving people even when its pointless. But anyway wellfare is doomed in its roots because its impossible to make something from nothing but technological advancements could make everything cost nothing... when its not needed it would work.
how about rent a robot system? Where you save up enough money to purchase a robot, and the company/corporation will pay you your salary based on the robot you own. You would be responsible for maintenance, repairs, as well as checking up on it, and updating it to the Meta design for the time, charging it. Basically a system where the robot takes your place at work, but you receive it's salary because you own it, and the company/ corporations rents the robot from you. You would also be able to purchase a specific robot for another job. To sum it up you could make multiple salaries based on how many robots you own.
Finally! I've been suggesting to do this video for months ahah
And here's a question, for those against the idea of UBI. What's the cost, if it isn't implemented?
I read an article against UBI, it said it will be far more expensive than the most generous welfare system in existence. Hyperinflation would run amok.
Natural Law Resource Based Economy is the most rational choice I see for our development. Google it.
It is based on the intelligent and humane application of the scientific method to solve social, economical and environmental problems. I can't think of a better tool to shape the future.
+Jasiek tHEjESTER
But but but but Communism and other things that are bad. Therefore no a NLNBE isn't possible.
(Please get my humour, i know im not very funny.)
+Jasiek tHEjESTER Look up TECHNOCRACY.... You don't get a choice. You can't think of a better way because you are not using your imagination and you think lowly of yourself and you expect someone else to figure it out for you.
+Jasiek tHEjESTER Look up for the "Economic Calculation Problem" and see for yourself why it would be impossible.
NEXT!!
Silk That theory is based in a Socialist Commonwealth.
That doesn't apply here.
NEXT!!
+Melvinnn11 why do you bring up Technocracy when it has next to nothing to do with the Resource Based Economy? Technocracy is about an elite group of experts from various fields whereas RBE is about decentralised form of governance focused on using the scientific method (not some group's or individual's opinon) to solve problems of any nature. I advice you to update your knowledge on what RBE is.
And why do you resort to personal insults and remarks instead of giving any valuable alternatives or at least counter-arguments?
Creation of new and improved robots will still be needed so there will still be jobs for humans. Actually there will be a lot of jobs for people. Jobs for people will probably in the field of robotics, computer science, medicine, research in different scientific fields, astronomy, physics, government/management, arts, health/ physical fitness, fashion and other related fields that require innovation, research, artistic skill, management, etc. The jobs that will go away are those manual labour and low end jobs like fast food job, mining, farming, fishing, factory production line jobs, driving jobs, waitressing, etc.
No I like farming.
People need to learn to be connected with the land. Self Sustainable living
basic income will take over
What if you had 2 different currencies for different uses? One could be specifically for food, shelter, clothing, and emergency uses, while the other could be used for everything else.
This is 100% unfounded. Most black people plan their whole life just waiting for the income tax refunds and coupons given to single mothers (who actually have their men is just they never marry) the whole country of Puerto Rico went bankrupt because this whole generation of young men and women were living on coupons and subsidies. 90% of middle eastern in UK and Europe are living from subsidies from the middle class the same way than in USA. the % is lower in other latin americans but still.
You give a man a fish he will sit in front of your door waiting every day for more fish and when you refuse to give it he will steal.
if you raise the help for people who refuse to work or to educate themselves they will just take it and spend it on drugs and alcohol. Welcome to the real world.
Thx for that oh-so-valuable contribution.....Not
Oh do fuck off.
Starlyn Tejada absolutely .
more convenient racist lies
Guaranteed basic income is a concept that would work very well in a very different world. Overpopulation, limited energy resources and infrastructure are some major issues that need to progress a lot before we can reach a point where a guaranteed basic income would be feasible for most countries. Basically it could be a vital part of a unified, efficient, sustainable, peaceful civilization, but can we as a species reach an almost utopian level? I don't know. The way things are going at the moment, it's really hard to tell whether we'll succumb to decline like so many species before us, or whether through our ingenuity we can overcome the odds. Is the world of the future going to be a post-apocalyptic wasteland or a utopian marvel? My guess is a bit of both.
For Generation our technological advancements have been reducing how long and hard we need to work, it only seems natural that at some point these advancements eventually replace us all together. A basic guaranteed income would perhaps make job sharing a thing or make viable a 20 hour work week. I personally would take the time and go back to school or maybe open a small business.
Question: So, if UBI is designed to provide you money that covers "basic necessities" which we can assume are food, shelter, healthcare (education?), what will that do to the cost of education and real estate?
Real Estate - If this falls under basic necessities, will real estate prices drop? I can't imagine people purchasing expensive homes to be covered under UBI.
Education - We have a major student loan crisis going on now, with people owing tens of thousands of dollars-if not more. Would education costs be covered or significantly lowered, or would they fall under "basic necessities"? If not, I can only assume that the additional money folks would acquire would be to cover things like this.
THEY TUK ER JERBS!
Why should you be angry, you get free money!
Bilbo_Gamers DERKADER!
nosirrbro SOUTH PARK REFERENCE
I know for sure people living inside Amazon rainforest that meets the opposite conclusion of MIT and Havard study, the cause is they already get their own food and money is kind useless in their enviroment, most people living in small comunities of Amazon work just enough for food and thats all for them, maybe a new study including these subjects might give better answers...
I love your videos. They keep our eyes open and looking forward.
JSephH76 yup
People don't realise that the REAL terminators come in the harmless-looking form of automated checkout machines, voice recognition booking programs, etc.
Each one of these machines has terminated a human job, and actually represents a further step in a gradual process of machines DISPLACING humans.
They don't need to go around with plasma rifles.
And: I just bet that there are corporate types looking into ways of giving machines spending power, (to stop the economy, increasingly short on human consumers able to afford stuff, from collapsing). This is not a joke.
free public utilities and housing. Stop charging for stuff that should be freely available
exactly you have the right idea as we continue to automate we make those Services free until we eliminate the need for money all together there's a very well-thought-out concept called the resource-based economy that addresses this very issue in detail
Yes, other people should break their backs for free.
MaLcH10R first off how old are you because you sound like a Luddite this whole topic is based on automation using technology to do the work I think we would start out first with a basic income but instead of focusing on outdated Concepts that are destroying our planet we focus on Concepts that will lead to sustainability and a free system if you don't understand that you lack the knowledge to make a comment on this subject
KamidakeRed A free system? What like Venezuela?
Matthew Nelson robots will make food and work for us
Gosh I hate our time . Primitive human emotions are the reason we have wars. You don't need emotions to be ambitious or creative . I hate stupid humans
Hmmmm how about doing away with the need for money.
+Batou well if the objective is give everyone the basic needs. Then you don't need a monetary system to provided those needs . especially in keeping with the context of the video you have slave labor I.e robots doing everything for you .
+Jamal Luchembe The basic income is the step needed to ween people off money and allow automation to grow without having everyone bitch about losing their jobs.
+Batou True it isn't happening now I am just thinking forward 😆😆😆
This exactly what i came here to comment. We'll be better off without money at that point anyway and won't need it.
+IntheInternet Wetrust I agree with you 100%
A little bit shortsighted to say that people could or should be looking for work when given a basic income as there will not be any work (not counting prostitution).
The only sane way to go would be to let the automation continue and increase the basic income (living standard) for all without any requirement as there really won't be anything (besides prostitution and passion projects) to work with. As time goes on, the only thing holding back how far we can raise the living standard will be how much needed materials our robots (or not yet invented stuff) can collect for us.
There will still most likely be research jobs. Granted, not enough so everyone can work, but there will still be jobs. I don't think this is such a terrible idea, but there are always people who will take advantage of the system. I think the world might just be better off if we can get rid of the mandatory labor jobs ,that machines can usually do a much better job with anyway, so people can spend their work time discovering new things about the universe we live in. Be that biology, chemistry, astronomy, archeology, etc.
N Yodeler
I agree, people with a passion for research will do it regardless if it's mandatory or not. I think that's more humane than forcing people who has no interest in research to work within the field, they'll probably be better off sunbathing or something else entirely.
+Super Duper Hyper Ultra Mega Double Extra Triple Extreme Infinity In the video, I specifically point out that I'm looking at the time between our present and a future in which money is no longer necessary (assuming we ever get to such a point). It's the transition between the two when we'll still have to answer the practical question of "How do I make a living" because we're not just going to flip a switch one day and say "Okay, no more money." At the same time, we're not going to have a single day where all jobs are invalidated through automation -- some may never be fully automated.
Jonathan Strickland I generally agree with your original post. And yes, I was talking about after the transition. During that transition, there will be a lot of strife. Yeah, atm, I can't think it of any way around that.
First we need to let go of the Victorian/puritanical idea that everyone MUST work. If we have no need of people doing certain jobs then why make people work at them? People will always work at something because it is human nature. It simply may not be what we currently think of as work. Women for example would have the freedom to choose whether they follow a career or stay home to care for their family, men too for that matter (that's work). Older people who find that their bones are stiff and sore would have the freedom to stop working, leaving a vacancy for a younger person who wants to have a job. These older people would then have time to enjoy their grand children, passing on knowledge and skills from a previous era (that's work). Those who are creative would have the freedom to create instead of having to try and fit their creative time between work and family schedules (that's work). How do we fund it? That is a tricky one given the state of world economics at the moment. I read one article 'that suggested that we simply print more money, enough to cover the cost. At first that sounded like a dangerous, very simplistic solution but the more I think about it the more I am excited by the boldness of it. Kind of like parachuting, where you need to simply take the jump, follow a few simple safety rules and trust that you will land safely. Although for many the idea would be more like jumping out of a plane with no parachute and hoping you will land in one piece. I am not an economist, so I can't predict what would actually happen in such a circumstance. There is a possibility that the price of things would skyrocket but scarcity is the greatest driver of inflationary prices, so eliminate scarcity first. There is also the possibility that the price of things will plummet (not sure why but it is the opposite of inflation so it must be a possibility).
and you are wrong, innovation doesn't destroy jobs, it just change the nature of jobs
+LibertarianTV Fair point. The nature of jobs is changing in that the entities that possess them are shifting from men to machines, after all.
+LibertarianTV It destroys jobs but opens up new ones but this change is different cause its not a new task it is a new worker.
+LibertarianTV Just like cars brought different jobs for horses... oh wait
+LibertarianTV Define a Job? To me it's a task we must accomplish in order to get paid, that type of thinking worked for awhile, but with the advancement of A.I., Super computers, robots, drones, 3D printers, Nanotechnology and many other inventions, that's effecting the work we do. People shouldn't be forced to work for money, but be given a certain amount of money to live off of, and maybe even progress their current lifestyles to live a more happier enjoying existence. So a Job is not what people need, it's more freedom to do the things you may love to do.
Bigsteelguy4
It would be a wonderful time to be alive, wouldn't it? Although I'd personally miss getting the chance to be affluent if everyone was paid the same. I suppose scarcity will be a thing of the past, so it probably wouldn't make any difference.
Let's just remember to keep working for a living for the time being.
Maybe we could set in a system where you could buy a machine or some kind of asset to make you money. How would you buy one? Perhaps the government "loans" you one and the way you pay back that loan is the government simply takes taxes from it. It could possibly be something everyone is entitled to, eliminating poverty.
However the bigger picture would be that you could use your purchasing power to buy more, giving people the opportunity to pursue wealth.
I have a bunch... Ready... this will cost trillions up front.
First Huge like million acre's of solar, geothermal and wind farms government owned.
Create a buy or trade system for all gas running cars, give 10,000 more than it's worth for every trade in towards the purchase of a all or 75% electric car.
Create greenhouse skyscrapers in all major cities. Put aquaponic systems in them. create solar arrays around the city that saturate the plants with more sunlight by bouncing it off other buildings. Also build greenhouses in very very poor areas. Give all the food away.
Create electric public transportation systems from buses to ski lift style in enclosed capsules. That way you free up more ground space. Create underground hyper speed train systems from all major cities with stops in low income areas and in the middle of deserts and non essential areas for forests.
Create huge plants for producing proteins for printing meat. Create tissue grown in labs as well. To reduce animal husbandry to low levels to increase water and lower pollution rates.
Create limits to how close cities can be. That any group of 100,000 people must be at least 10 miles from any other group. As to reduce the impact of people on environment, however link them with public transports.
Lastly get into space. Create lunar mines and mine astroids for super important resources, lithium, aluminum, platinum, etc ect. Create over abundances of these. Use space elevator that is already in the works then build 5 more.
Done.. Humans can survive forever and have unlimited "free" lives. The cost would be high but it's technically money we created. We just need to keep people alive long enough to build it all paying for it in the end. You can write it off and burn the money. It won't be needed anymore. Unlimited amounts of food, essentially free power, robotics harvesting 90% of the food and resources, as well as building TVs, cars, super trains, kids toys, ect, other robots designed for repairing everything from your plumbing to each other to human bodies, and we can stop mining the earth let the forest grow between the cities and over the pasture land for cattle. That should slow down global warming.
Another less nice idea... is you create sterilization genes put them in mosquitos create a population of people who can reproduce the rest stop. So in 50 years you cut the poplutaltion in half 25 years half again 25 more half again.
+Nathan smith That's the worst idea dude
Freedom ForAll It's not, there's way to many people on earth. There is not meant to be 7 billion apex predators.
Two big things... we are not Apex predators... we can eat a variety of things. A Apex Predator needs to survive of the eating of many other living things. We can essentially grow our food needs exponentially given that we have ample supplies of water/sun/and organic matter.
We are more like herd animals. Billions is nothing... the fact we could all. All 7 billion of us live in Texas. Means were not over populated. Were just inefficient. Highly inefficient. No Species can keep growing when they waste 40% of there food sources and 70% of there fresh water. The fact that we flush 2 to 8 gallons of fresh water with every toilet flush means that the avg person pees in 16 gallons of drinkable water a day. 16 gallons.. that's insane... not to mention showers, car washes, brushing our teeth etc etc ect.
We count as Apex predators because we are on the very top of the food chain. A man with a gun can kill any animal on earth.
To address poverty:
1. Water, food, shelter, transport, education are the basics.
The only one of them that is too expensive is Shelter, as it has become a Stock-Market system of storing wealth VS a Home.
Right now property is the ONLY consumer item where artificially scarcity is deliberately created, & now esp. Baby Boomers depend on that for their retirement (the system created that competition).
So new laws that encourage an abundance (rather than the current hoarding of limited resources & scarcity) of apartment or land supply for everyone could come in after Baby Boomers die out.
Everyone would know that after 2045, there is no use in investing in non-luxury homes.
WEALTHY INVESTORS WERE NEVER NECESSARY FOR SUPPLY of homes , because there is always a market for enough homes, if people need somewhere to live.
Dey tuk ur jubbbsssss
Does it make sense for a fully automatic company to be owned by someone?
This is a terrible idea, and would never work on the such a large country like the united states. Where would this money even come from?
+Matthew Theobald The pilot program in Canada would be to give at minimum income to everyone of age and get ride of Unemployement/ Social Security/ Retirement incomes.
+Matthew Theobald Money is only a means for the end product. If the end product is created by automation then money is not needed in the first place.
+Matthew Theobald The money would come from either a redistribution scheme or from a printing press. These "minimum income" schemes are nothing more than repackaged Socialism.
+watcherjohnny Social programs are bad? That is news to me.
+watcherjohnny and socialism is nothing more then a repackaged communism. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and this idea of "basic minimum income" goes aginst this very basic understanding of economics.
Can we get a link to the studies mentioned in this video added to the description?
Finally a lot of people starting to see sense with this, as it is clearly the only way forward. I hope Switzerland set an example to the rest of the world and vote yes!
When you say eligible, who exactly are we talking about? And who gets to say who is eligible?
Please tell my where I can found the soundtrack?
So are we going to see a new "Universal basic income tax" on our W-2?
We will gonna loose our purpose in life if our passion will be taken by Robots
To address poverty:
1. Water, food, shelter, transport, education are the basics.
The only one of them that is too expensive is Shelter, as it has become a Stock-Market system of storing wealth VS a Home.
Right now property is the ONLY consumer item where artificially scarcity is deliberately created, & now esp. Baby Boomers depend on that for their retirement (the system created that competition).
So new laws that encourage an abundance (rather than the current hoarding of limited resources & scarcity) of apartment or land supply for everyone could come in after Baby Boomers die out.
Everyone would know that after 2045, there is no use in investing in non-luxury homes.
WEALTHY INVESTORS WERE NEVER NECESSARY FOR SUPPLY of homes , because there is always a market for enough homes, if people need somewhere to live.i
Due to artificial intelligence and automation, a lot of people are saying we won't need workers. However, no one seems to realize that there is something that will be even more useless than human workers in businesses - and that is human _owners_ of businesses. We will have absolutely no reason to put up with a few rich people owning and controlling everything. It will make much more sense for everything to be owned equally by everyone. Everyone will receive credits reflecting their share of how much our collectively owned factories have produced. They then can use those credits to claim whatever it is that they desire from the total amounts of goods our systems have produced. People will be able to choose how to use their time. I suspect popular activities will include leisure, creation of art, scientific research, and perhaps engaging in shaping public policy through direct democracy, (no need for representatives anymore).
Activism, local defense planning and human-machines relations might still be functions that we humans will have to consider as well as active involvement in the survivor of our specie.
Hey! Are there any updates on this topic?
Jobs that are contracted by the government can be controlled by AI and posted on an app. Most people don't know what jobs are available. Needs to be met can be posted so that anyone can apply to to AI. After describing your understanding and resources to the AI, a contract can be agreed upon and payment arranged. Machines will hopefully eliminate government waste. Therefore allowing for real work to be done.
Use kw as a currency. Most tech is heading towards running off electricity from transportation to food production so it makes sense to have a method of renumeration that is useful, obtainable by all & in a global format.
Great! I propose a slogan for this brand-new system: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Sorry, but that's only utopian. Nobody would work hard and need only enough if the rest decide to work less and need more. That's a big reason of failure of communism.
I think that if we had robots doing our basic jobs for us, say farming and construction, then we would have no need for an income, as we would get all of our needs taken care of. All you would need to do to recieve this complimentary service is not sit on your couch doing nothing, instead doing something whatever it might be, even if you were to write a book or make songs, you could get it, as everyone wouldn't be doing the basic foundational work like construction and could focus on things that robots can't do like innovations on science and philosophy or moviemaking and entertainment. anyway, that's my two cents
People think poverty is a money problem, but it's actually a logistics problem. if farmers actually delivered all of their produce instead of throwing away and c and d grade food with blemishes and flaws they would have way more food to give away much less throw away. Actually, if every store and restaurant stored and then gave away their waste food to let's say meals on wheels, it would be cheaper for the state to throw it away in landfills.
what if all the governments of the world comes together to figure out or develop an unlimited source of energy. and then powering automated machines and robots to produce, supply and maintain all of our basic needs as the whole world as one(individually and also collectively). that's how we can all focus and pursue our dreams, desires and whatever else there is without worrying about getting broke and suffering the consequences that comes along with it !
We will go for a walk in the forest, coat, by the rivers, read books, hang out with friends, cook for the family, play with the children, talk with the elderly, educate ourselves, plant our own flowers and vegetables ... We will enjoy life 🤷♀️.
why don't you do a video on alternative economy's like one based on the equal distribution of resources
+ellias herrera equal distribution of resources... too many problems, I don't want to bring everyone down to the same level, just keep people out of poverty, we can have all the income inequality we want (given proper government institutions and laws balancing power based on money) as long as every person is assured the basic necessities for living the the current level of tech and resources can provide. I still want my stuff to be mine, but I'll give up being able to buy an expensive car if someone else gets to have a roof and food.
what was the connection with the robots?
In Switzerland we will vote next month to have the basic income added to the constitution. I think it's a good idea, sadly it's unlikely to get accepted as most people in the government judge it "dangerous" and that it "will destroy our economy".
Yes it would raise questions, and yes it would create some problems, but overall nothing that can't be adressed. At least it's a nice initiative to raise the debate about what is the purpose of work and does income always have to be related to it.
Nice video!
more then just be automated out of a job is the concern of increasing contract work. A universal basic income takes some of the sting out of that.
to deal with poverty, my best guess would be a economic councilor, payed by the state, to educate people in ways to handle money. if someone is getting a base income above the poverty line then the only reason for poverty would be mishandling of money or disasters, which the disasters could be covered by a relief fund
uhm the netherlands already have this, this minimum income to survive and provide shelter.
Also.... to FW: Thinking..... "an increasingly automated world" does not necessarily increase or decrease the level of poverty in society. "Basic Income" is just a method of controlling people. I agree... poverty is a serious problem. But can't you agree that it is much more closely tied to who controls energy and food production.... which in turn happens to be who controls who gets the basic income.
What 'rules' will make you eligible for said income? Will they be imposed or agreed upon? My inclination says there will be a catch.
I have been thinking about the same idea for a few years. I hope that one day someone (THE ONE) can give the answer.
How to build a system that works with basic income.
Start small. Introduce an automation tax ontop of federal taxes that scales with order of automated jobs in your company, to a point ofcourse. That tax is then redistributed as a small UBI to begin with, but grows as the automation tax income grows.
There are people currently with a basic income and basic services - but look at the cities where they live - cities like Detroit or East St Louis.
You mean the places that receive the least amount of money in the whole of America?
Basic Income is well worth trying, and could stabilize society far better than other so called "safety net" programs. But it may not just be transitionary: it may be as close as we ever get to post scarcity society. And the reason isn't technological, but political. I'd love to be wrong about this, but I'm not terribly hopeful.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice if we ever got all the way to a society where people do things or make things only because they genuinely love to do so and barter their specialty trades without neurotically trying to "get the best deal" because at the end of the day, robots already provided you with everything you *must* have.
But as I see it presently: only corporations can afford to bring those robots into fruition. Since the principal motive of corporations is profit, I suspect we'll spend a lot of time trying to "fix" capitalism instead of simply accepting that capitalism isn't the long term goal. This is perhaps the biggest reason why some jobs may never get automated: Not because it is technically impossible, but because the people in the best position to make it happen also have a vested interest in seeing that it doesn't. Trying to get the wealthy elite to implement a system that would effectively make money meaningless is like trying to get Congress to pass a law placing term limits on Congress.
Woah dude. Calm down. Nobody's condoning violence here. That would be the exact opposite result the aim here is.
Sell robots to citizens. Example, the automotive factory has robotic arms etc. Invest and own one of those bots. Have insurance plans that come with replacing malfunctioning robots. Whatever your bits make, you take that money home.
Quite similar idea to stocks or even, mutual funds. Invest in multiple robots across various companies. Medical robots marked higher price with higher risk compared to .. idk
Anyways, my though train has lost its GPS signal
I haven't picked a specialization but I'm going into computer science and eventually engineering as a first year so I think I'm one of the people most excited to see this happening around me. I can't wait to make the people of my country lives easier and safer...hopefully that's how it comes around anyways.
Hah! The naivety. What *exactly* have you learned about humanity during your short stay on this planet that leads you to believe that this will be ANYTHING but a CATASTROPHE for humanity? Can't you see that this will just be used as another shackle to enslave everyone? Yeah, sure. First there will be universal basic income. OK, so none of us can get jobs anymore but that's fine! We have all have enough money to live comfortably.
Oh wait... Inflation? Oh well, that can't be helped. I guess we just have to spend a little less on food and luxuries. At least I have my VR anime waifu to help me feel better 10 times a day!
Oh... food prices have gone up. Damn! I guess it's mickey d's for me tonight.
Wait, what? McDonalds releasing a new MCBUGBURGER...
Bugs?... Kinda weird, but... I'm so hungry... It's the only affordable item on the menu...
You see.
And don't think you will be safe because you have a "computer science" or "engineering" degree, well trained neural network AI and robots have already made you obsolete. The only reason any of us are currently allowed to have jobs is so that we don't freak out... Yet.
The path we are headed down is a dark one at the moment but all we can see is the carrot in our face and we choose to ignore the stick being jammed where the sun doesn't shine.
2017: A genuinely Universal Basic Income for a large entire country is not going to work until we become much more efficient/productive *in the aggregate.* We simply cannot afford it at the time being.
Even the US gov. with its income, if all changed to UBI, would only give people about a 1/3 of what they would need for a genuine UBI, and that's under taxing circumstances in which much of the population feels the economic pinch. Hence, with the same population numbers, it seems the USA would need to be at least 3 times as productive/efficient. But by the time we can afford UBI, we might have a much higher population, necessitating maybe even 5 to 7 times the aggregate productivity/efficiency that we have in 2017.
I Will tried to explain in my personal point of view how the future will look like when robots perform 99% 0f the work in the planet.
A central computer system will manage all the resources, some astatates will be 100% dedicated to farming 99.99 Automated, The people will be dispersed in the most beautiful areas in the globe were the foot print will be negligent, A family will occupy 10 acres of land, all the energy will be self produce. The housing, transportation and food, will be very ship to a $1 dollar a year. How is that possible?, because money will be eliminated. People will donate their time of one hour a month in any activity they like. In the future people will tried to find transcendence not money.
I have a question
Some robots already took place i know i seen people losing jobs from technology
Are Robots going to be taxed like we are ??
If not why are we taxed??
They do a job so do we??
Anyone has an answer?
Robot dont spend money dont buy houses dont give nothing to society and the system of life will crash i think maybe i am wrong
If we make robots work for us and live for free is it possible
For now only rich people are getting richer
how do I get a elastic body like mr fantastic
The future is not likely to be so bleak or socialist. Many jobs will have people working in cooperation with automation. The key concept to remember is opportunity cost. Low wage jobs like cooks, waiters, sales floor reps, and freight associates are unlikely to be replaced with robotics, but rather be supplemented with automated technology, so fewer workers can do more. Production line jobs, clerks, supervisors and managers are occupations that will die to automation.
For decades, this is not likely to change, because hiring a low wage worker is simply cheaper than purchasing, operating, maintaining, and replacing robotic units, unless government interferes with the market. Managers, supervisors, clerks, professional drivers, and similar jobs can be easily automated. One robotic unit is simply cheaper for management operations than half a dozen managers at 30k+ salaries each. Janitorial jobs involve simple tasks that a specialized unit can easily replace. Automated vehicles are already on the roads. Clerks will be replaced by software, eventually.
Other jobs that are likely to be replaced are computer related, such as accountants, mathematicians, engineers, IT, surgeons, nurses, administrators, receptionists, etc. The future is not so bleak for the service industry, but all the middle collar careers are likely to be automated. Millennials and younger may figure out that they need to turn their bachelors into a masters, if they hope to be employed in a career field and not a dead-end, low wage job. In several decades, many difficult bachelors will be less advantageous than an arts degree unless the student pursues graduate education or higher education adapts. Yeah right!
Trade school is likely a safe set of careers into the next century. Any fields related to troubleshooting technology will probably not be replaced by robotics for quite some time. Electricians, plumbers, mechanics, technical engineers, handymen, and designers will likely not get fully automated this century. Coincidentally, all these jobs are male dominated. I suspect that the automation revolution will disproportionately affect females. Sorry if you were born the less advantageous sex. :P
first we need to establish Coalition with those countries who intend on providing a guaranteed income then we have to work out some sort of agreement that allows us to share resources freely for the sole purpose of creating an infrastructure to support automated technology most people tend to forget if we phase out money all of those factors that have to do with money such as Banks Wall Street excetera they disappear because they become irrelevant so we can focus solely on resource allocation to support a new technological system
I know about 10% or so have down voted this.
it took me a while to get turned around on the idea, but ultimately I think it's the best idea.
Thinking far into the future to a time when so many jobs have been automated that a base income is well above the poverty line:
While I like the idea of a basic income, and I get that people will have more room to learn and to do those things that they are passionate about, how would you suggest we find out what it is that we are passionate about if 90% of basic jobs are done by machines? What would we be innovating if we are not faced with struggles from our jobs? I'm not trying to say that everyone will become lazy, but in order to continue to innovate, we need to first look at what it is that drives innovation.
What made Henry Ford invent the moving assembly line? What made Google pursue an autonomous car? The greatest minds in history were problem solvers. What happens when we take many of the problems away? It seems like a double edged sword to me. On one side you are freeing up people to spend their time doing things that are not mundane, and on the other you are taking away the struggles that get their minds going. Not to mention the first generation that grows up in this future. What will drive their innovation?
I still think it is a good idea, and I can see very much how we are headed in that direction, but I think that these are conversations that need to happen before we can take those steps even if we don't have the answers.
I'm curious to hear what you think Jonathan, Lauren, and Joe. Btw, I really enjoyed the podcast on this.
+Bobby Dvorscak Humans innovate not just through need but through curiosity. Poverty and working long hours at boring jobs is mind numbing and leads to hopelessness not necessarily innovation. If you relieve the need to work at mind numbing jobs, if you remove the poverty that leads to hopelessness you free up minds to become curious and creative.
No matter how automated the world becomes, the world will keep using human resources for various works.
Automation will remain for simple tasks or too-definitive works. But ultimately people will want people to take the ultimate control. Because -
1. Machines will never be perfect. Why? Human body is the greatest machine so far, and it is far from perfect. With more features, comes more probabilities of bugs.
2. When there's bugs, there will be hackers. With people being kicked out of jobs, more hackers will be there to take control. Maybe machines will keep advancing till they're adaptive, but again, humans have been more adaptive with time with need.
3. Thanks to our modern day companies, real talents are not specially recognized and thus not specially valued. Projects are being completed both with or without skilled resources, esp. in software markets. So, apps are not perfect. So, apps keeps coming back for advancements. Engineers will remain this way.
4. Even in business, ultimately how you communicate is what matters the most. You may prefer buying from online shopping sites. But ultimately you do your best shopping in shops around public crowds, where everything is displayed around. What feels real, makes us feel real and we'll be attracted more to that. No matter how high resolution the photo is, ultimately people will prefer things that they have in hand. Sells people will remain this way.
5. Medical check-ups are not just doing some diagnostics and having medication. Instead it is only 50%. The other 50% is the mental support that a patient gets from the doctors. So, doctors will remain this way.
6. Farming maybe done more & more with the help of machines. But corps are not grown the exact same way. Also, weather is not always the same. Farmers take many of their decisions using their guts/instincts/feelings. Even if greenhouse farming is their, but naturally produced foods are way better than artificially grown foods. So, active human interactions in farming will never be taken over by machines.
7. Arts, Music and such items are creativity, that machines can never produce. If they actually start doing "creativity" that will no more be a creativity anymore. They will be fixed algorithms. And definitive Arts are not attracting. Artists will never fade for this reason.
8. Lion part of all the business and jobs are vastly based upon emotions and less upon actual needs. So even if there will be a lot of people loosing their jobs because of automation taking their place. Humans will always at the top of technology. If it is attempted, the infra will break down before it's fully built. Because humans won't build apps for long that will ultimately take away their jobs, esp. when jobs are about to go extinct. Also, how much companies can keep their employees even during crisis is also a thing, that helps them gain more money from their clients. So, human jobs will never be extinct for sure.
Free food, free utilities, free housing, free internet. Solar cells on every roof. Desalination tank in every house. No tax on housing.
Did that plane at the beginning get shot down by a harpoon? O:
This system have been working prefectly in Ireland for decades so whats new about.
Finally a valuable reality check, people need it badly these days... Being PC is poison to the lexicon.
Dear FW: Thinking
Answer to 2:23:
If anyone is asking "How do you pay for it", & you already live in a country that creates & destroys it's own dollar, then I suggest reading up on Prof. Stephanie Kelton or Prof. Warren Mosler of Modern Monetary Theory would be very helpful. The latter has a good free ebook.
Hint: A fiat currency is already created & injected OR taken out/destroyed(by tax) by the Central Treasury.
It has value, because you must pay your taxes in it & it then becomes socially accepted too.
First step to this is that the field of Economics is changed from an Ideology-based approach to an Evidence & Experiment based approach.
This can be first done by official enquires to determine the facts of how modern money work.
I am pretty sure MMT would turn out to be correct, for a Sovereign Fiat currency. Many Economists still assume Macroeconomics runs like it did on the Gold-Backed currency in the past, because they never made the change in paradigm.
With artificial intelligence you need to make sure about some things. Artificial intelligence needs to be sentient so it can have/adopt human ethics and morals. It also needs to have personality traits and desires to give it enough variation that would effect on that robot's ability in work environments. There would need to be a moderate amount of regelation on artificial intelligence development to ensure that robots share all these traits with humans to safeguard economic harmony between humans and artificial intelligence. This plan is not pefect and it does not account for automations, but it is better than nothing and should prevent total insercurity. All we need to do is make sure that robots are like humans in many mental?psychological respects that they are treated as equals.
Oh I've thought about this. I've categorized any work position into 5 tiers depending on how hard it will be for robots to take that position over.
Tier 1, very repetitive positions that do not require movement that robot arms can take over.
Tier 2, very repetitive but have a few different tasks they need to move between and do what is needed most at the time.
Tier 3, work that encompass some human interactions, management work, customer service, sales etc.
Tier 4, work that at the moment seems almost impossible for robots to take over, like programming(my plan), slightly creative works or heavy human interaction like shrinks, student councillor etc.
Tier 5, things that will never be replaced, completely creative works like artists, designers, writers etc. Athletes and other things we do for fun.
Tier 1 is almost completely robotic in modern countries right now and some T2. T3 is almost untouched, except for like automatic phone menus before customer service.
I for one aim to sit in the middle of tier 4 and 5. With game programmer there are still some creative work, but in a big company I will probably drop down to T4.
But robot program robots all the time as of right now hell fw thinking has a video on that also but as an aspiring artist I'm glad my job will be safe
Carlos Soriano Afaik this is quite limited though. Cause we are talking self learning robots right? Have not seen an fw like that though. But a program that is able to make games are VERY limited right now. It is basically already a game and the user of the program can swap out components to make a similar game.
And if they get good enough at it I just got to program those robots. And if they don't need programmers, we are scary close to an apocalypse are we not? Cause then we have a program that can make a better version of itself. But I think a speaking AI that can handle answering all the questions in customer support are on equal level of self programming at least, justifying T4 status. But yes, maybe T4 is not as far away as I project it to be.
+Everday! Making games is more of an art to me but strictly programming robots program each other right now and although as of now you're right, it is limited but not for very long but like you said robots can't make art just yet so a full game with landscapes and all is far fetched for robo kind
Carlos Soriano Ye, but the programming part in a large company leaves (afaik) this to the game designers. In a 15 man team we all had a voice in game design, and programmers especially concerning mechanics.
I like to think programming itself is quite creative as well though, in what techniques you use to solve problems and logical bugs. There might be an optimal way each time though if you consider all the variables.
+Everday! Didn't see that comment there . But are we talking about programming in general or specifically programming in game design because I might have a loose idea about programming a game but I think that simulating human reactions and the environment might be more than a little hard for a robot to do but programming certain presiders that another machine will follow might be more accomplishable than say getting an npc to react to human behavior I guess you have a point in that respect
How would a "basic income" be funded if so many people are "displaced from the job market" and not paying taxes?
Tax the robots. We pay for things now by taxing human labor. So, tax robot labor instead.
The robots won't mind.
Provide food and basic shelter for free. If robots will create those things for us automatically, then we need not pay them to make it. Therefore there will be little to no cost to providing these things. Sure the robots will still need repairing, and other things will need doing, so that will provide some sort of income for people, but at a lot lower one to the current salary. So those people could buy more if they wished. The rest of the world will live in relative comfort.