The Utopia is a concept that is appearing more achievable every year. Modern technology is making the need for human participation in the economy less and less severe. Already, many jobs in blue collar industries have been replaced by automatons doing the same job more quickly, more efficiently, more precisely and less dangerously. However, there is no theoretical limit on the tasks that computers will be able to do. In recent times we have seen many different programming approaches to tasks previously thought impossible accomplished. They are already in use in some white collar situations, such as trip-optimization. We will see work robots used in a greater portion of blue collar work and becoming more heavily involved in white collar jobs. Finally, the cost of manufacturing is going down, while the strength of the automatons is increasing(Moore's Law). Given that automatons outperform humans in most work they are capable of, that they are capable of performing many jobs, that they are already less expensive in many situations and that all of these attributes are rapidly improving it seems inevitable that almost all human occupations will be replaced by automation at some point in the relatively near future. Even if these improvements do tail off unexpectedly in the near-future the increases in power and application of these automatons will mean that the majority of previously human-requiring jobs will be fully done by machinery. And this leaves us with interesting social consequences.
Let's take this to the hypothetical future where this has been achieved. If there are no people earning money, there can not be people spending money for very long. Capitalist economies are entirely dependent on the flow of money. If there are no people earning or spending money there is no cash flow, and therefore there is no capitalist economy. The material wealth will initially accrue to those who were able to develop or otherwise obtain their automatons first. This will allow them to get more machines, and therefore more material wealth in a cycle. However, these machines will be continually developed and will eventually spread down to those who were initially unable to attain some for themselves. Everyone will be able to use their machines for their own benefit, putting the means of production in the hands of the citizens - socialism. Assuming a high recycling rate and constant production creates a huge theoretical surplus in goods for every person. This removes any form of economic discrimination, and creates a classless, moneyless society - communism.
If there is no money there is no impetus to create surplus goods and this, coupled with a high recycling rate and no lack of energy will eliminate conflicts over money, food, water or other previous necessities. It will also eliminate the need for humans to give up what they enjoy in order to spend time doing what they need - there will be nothing they need. The only possible task still left for humans would be to continually improve their machines in order to ensure that the computers would be able to handle all of their tasks efficiently, and to prepare themselves for any future work needed. However, once a technical singularity is reached, which is expected to happen within 5 to 100 years, there would be no task required of humans left. All human time and energy would be devoted entirely to whatever they desire it to be.
This is a utopia.
Summary: Computers will replace humans in most jobs. The lack of employment for humans will lead to a breakdown in the global economy and finally allow communism to be possible through socialism. Initially the powerful will become more powerful off of the backs of their machines. A lack of necessity of resources will eventually greatly decrease conflict world-wide. Humans will then be entirely able to pursue only what they desire, leading to a state of near utilitarian perfection - a utopia.
This is assuming there is a suitable power source for all of these machines in the future, and that recycling improves tremendously. Neither of these seem outrageous assumptions - power sources from nuclear to geothermal are conceptually possible and very powerful. Recycling of machine parts in particular is very efficient.
I still don't see issues of resource allocation really being addressed until some kind of near-genuine post-scarcity society is technologically achievable.
Actually one of my pet interests, the rather interesting sci-fi territory stuff. Most of human history and power relationships are predicated by distribution of resources in some way, it would be interesting to see what kind of developments would occur if that was removed, even in a hypothetical environment. Humans do seem to like their power hierarchies, however much they may claim they don't, so I wonde on what basis they would be formed.
On April 17 2013 13:00 Wombat_NI wrote: I still don't see issues of resource allocation really being addressed until some kind of near-genuine post-scarcity society is technologically achievable.
Actually one of my pet interests, the rather interesting sci-fi territory stuff. Most of human history and power relationships are predicated by distribution of resources in some way, it would be interesting to see what kind of developments would occur if that was removed, even in a hypothetical environment. Humans do seem to like their power hierarchies, however much they may claim they don't, so I wonde on what basis they would be formed.
Wouldn't it be kind of similar to now? You will want some kind of local government to help solve discussions when conflicts arise.
Then you want some kind of more centralized government to "finance" larger projects such as colonisation or diplomacy with other planets/species.
Then you have the followers of the entertainers, those that produce the best music, text, dialogue, athletes etc. I doubt we would allow computers to replace them since we would have nothing left to do if we did that and creativity is fun for a lot of people.
I think it would be a flatter society than now with small groups mostly, but perhaps religion kicks in when people get bored and are searching for a purpose. In that case we might be back to the all powerful "churches".
Utopia is my favourite word, not just for what it represents but because its also just a really cool word. Eu-topia (good place) and utopia [ou] (no place) and it results in a really interesting concept.
That said, I'm quite certain as technology advances we'll certainly get past capitalism, but that's no reason to give up and wait for it to end. Not least because liberation, utopia, isn't the only potential outcome.
On April 17 2013 13:00 Wombat_NI wrote: I still don't see issues of resource allocation really being addressed until some kind of near-genuine post-scarcity society is technologically achievable.
Actually one of my pet interests, the rather interesting sci-fi territory stuff. Most of human history and power relationships are predicated by distribution of resources in some way, it would be interesting to see what kind of developments would occur if that was removed, even in a hypothetical environment. Humans do seem to like their power hierarchies, however much they may claim they don't, so I wonde on what basis they would be formed.
Exactly, this is extremely interesting subject matter to wonder about. My post above outlines what seems most likely but the dice can fall any way. As it is governments exist primarily to provide security in terms of a social safety net, social services and military defence, as well as offensive acquisition of resources. Post-scarcity, none of these reasons for government other than military defence would exist. However, because of it's post-scarcity the reasons for offensive acquisition is gone and therefore so is most of the need for military defence. The only reason defence would still be needed is to prevent people who desire power itself from taking over and to prevent conflict over issues such as religion. So, it seems like people would still band together for protection. However, because of the greatly decreased need for defence these organizations would be a lot looser and not very similar to current governments.
On April 17 2013 13:00 Wombat_NI wrote: I still don't see issues of resource allocation really being addressed until some kind of near-genuine post-scarcity society is technologically achievable.
Actually one of my pet interests, the rather interesting sci-fi territory stuff. Most of human history and power relationships are predicated by distribution of resources in some way, it would be interesting to see what kind of developments would occur if that was removed, even in a hypothetical environment. Humans do seem to like their power hierarchies, however much they may claim they don't, so I wonde on what basis they would be formed.
Wouldn't it be kind of similar to now? You will want some kind of local government to help solve discussions when conflicts arise.
Then you want some kind of more centralized government to "finance" larger projects such as colonisation or diplomacy with other planets/species.
Then you have the followers of the entertainers, those that produce the best music, text, dialogue, athletes etc. I doubt we would allow computers to replace them since we would have nothing left to do if we did that and creativity is fun for a lot of people.
I think it would be a flatter society than now with small groups mostly, but perhaps religion kicks in when people get bored and are searching for a purpose. In that case we might be back to the all powerful "churches".
The centralized government probably wouldn't emerge until we did make contact with another species in some manner. Up until then the barriers to creating such a large organization would probably outweigh the benefits gained from it. Also, given that it is supposed to be a society with near-unlimited production and energy colonization wouldn't be much of a project.
It is possible that computers would create all widespread forms of art and people would play/paint/draw/etc for their own enjoyment and the enjoyment of those near them.
I think exactly the same thing would happen as you do.
On April 17 2013 16:56 Iyerbeth wrote: Utopia is my favourite word, not just for what it represents but because its also just a really cool word. Eu-topia (good place) and utopia [ou] (no place) and it results in a really interesting concept.
That said, I'm quite certain as technology advances we'll certainly get past capitalism, but that's no reason to give up and wait for it to end. Not least because liberation, utopia, isn't the only potential outcome.
It is a very cool word. Puns are a big favourite of mine and the ones in this word are absolutely awesome.
Until we develop cryo-sleep or something similar we can't just wait for it to come around. We do have to keep living in the mean-time.
What are the other outcomes you are thinking of? Here are some:
The society outlined in the OP is reached peacefully. This seems most likely because the systems would remove almost any impetus for conflict.
Humans destroy each other. This is mildly likely. However, it would probably happen on the way to post-scarcity. Once it is reached there is little impetus for conflict.
Humans revert themselves back to a low technology level. This is very unlikely. If even one machine that is able to restore the population to its previous level survives the previous level will be reattained very quickly.
Those are the three main outcomes it seems to me. What else do you think?
This seems like a very narrowly materialistic view.
Humans destroy each other. This is mildly likely. However, it would probably happen on the way to post-scarcity. Once it is reached there is little impetus for conflict.
If people aren't fighting for resources, they will fight for ideas and because of emotion. They will still feel jealousy, boredom, and hatred. Your neighbor has a pretty wife you lust after? He made a joke at your expense in front of your friends and humiliated you? Reasons enough to fight and kill. People have done it over less.
A lack of necessity of resources will eventually greatly decrease conflict world-wide. Humans will then be entirely able to pursue only what they desire, leading to a state of near utilitarian perfection - a utopia.
Unless our technology manufactures clean air and water, fertile soil, and perhaps even plant and animal life itself, then we cannot say that there will be no lack of necessary resources. As for enabling people to pursue what they desire, what if they desire power over others? What if they desire owning more land than anyone else and having control over technology and resources? What if they desire their glorified vision of the past when people fought wars and were praised for concepts like heroism and bravery?
Humans destroy each other. This is mildly likely. However, it would probably happen on the way to post-scarcity. Once it is reached there is little impetus for conflict.
If people aren't fighting for resources, they will fight for ideas and because of emotion. They will still feel jealousy, boredom, and hatred. Your neighbor has a pretty wife you lust after? He made a joke at your expense in front of your friends and humiliated you? Reasons enough to fight and kill. People have done it over less.
A lack of necessity of resources will eventually greatly decrease conflict world-wide. Humans will then be entirely able to pursue only what they desire, leading to a state of near utilitarian perfection - a utopia.
Unless our technology manufactures clean air and water, fertile soil, and perhaps even plant and animal life itself, then we cannot say that there will be no lack of necessary resources. As for enabling people to pursue what they desire, what if they desire power over others? What if they desire owning more land than anyone else and having control over technology and resources? What if they desire their glorified vision of the past when people fought wars and were praised for concepts like heroism and bravery?
It is very materialistic. The social repercussions are far spread and complex, I have no training in psychology or sociology and this isn't a full write-up so it is only a shallow analysis of the social effects.
Fair enough. However, this will not destroy the human species.
There will be some population cap, probably reached before this post-scarcity society. Plant farming efficiency and magnitude can be increased greatly.
The thirst for power would be handled by the small governments talked about in the replies. Something like Virtual Reality would take most of the edge off of this desire. It is a good point, though.
EPT
