Support NeoGAF

[Croatoan]

I have been talking among some of my economist, and economy major, friends about the coming automation crisis. Most of them believe some sort of basic income will be offered to disadvantaged people in the future, particularly after unemployment gets to disaster levels as machines take over almost all blue collar jobs (and a sizable chunk of white collar ones).

One of them, who I will call Charles, had a very different outlook that I thought was gruesome, but interesting. He argued that we would never see a basic income because the human population would be low enough to not need it.

Now, I need to preface by saying this isn't a conspiratorial claim, he doesn't think anyone will "orchestrate a genocide of the Poor" or anything. What Charles does say is that Global Warming will be a "Happy Coincidence" for wealthy humans (those upper middle class and above) living in developed first world nations were automation would decimate the lower middle class and poor. They will never have to support these people because the rise in temperature will put a strain on food, relations and habitat to the point that having enough money becomes a barrier to human survival for everyone.

Social unrest will ensue as governments fall and billions die from famine, disease, and war. The upper crust of society will begin to consolidate around their new world, and the automated workforce that keeps them safe and comfortable. During this time technology will continue to progress at a rapid rate until the rich live in an idealized technological utopia and the remaining poor eek out impossible lives in near dark aged conditions.

Eventually the planet will recover, possibly faster than normal due to tech, and society will grow again. Only this time without the need for fossil fuels or other tech that hurts the environment.

TLDR: Friend "Charles", an economist, believes automation will save the wealthy as billions die from complications of global warming. The survivors will live comfortable lives and eventually restart global society.

Now, I have often been optimistic and said humanity will "science our way out of extinction via Global Warming". To me, Charles' nightmarish Noah's Ark scenario doesn't seem that far fetched, but I tend to think we can survive without 70% of the world being left to die.

Edit: Fucking dammit. Can a mod please move me over .

 

[Napalm_Frank]

I'm excited for Nier Automata too!

 

[Croatoan]

Thank you kind mod!

 

[Conkerkid11]

And automation allows for the rich to survive global warming, how?

 

[adamantypants]

The thing about economists is that they always seem to forget that market forces do not dictate the outcome of our future. In my experiences, they always forget about politics and moral influences. Things like bank insurance and rent control exist not because the market dictates it, but because society does.

Does he think the far left will just roll over and let the poor get steamrolled by the rich? That's not how society works. Economists are like mathematicians educated on bro-science.

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

I'm excited for Nier Automata too!

Wait, what? Did you read the OP or...

 

[panama chief]

How would the 1% repopulate the earth tho. Ain't enough money to stop their offspring from eventually becoming genetic monsters.....or is there?

 

[Croatoan]

And automation allows for the rich to survive global warming, how?

Global warming will not stop our ability to grow food crops and keep livestock. It will just lesson the amount of area we can viably do it. When there is less food only those that can afford it will get it. The human workforce will die off and be replaced by machines.

Thats the gist of it.

How would the 1% repopulate the earth tho. Ain't enough money to stop their offspring from eventually becoming genetic monsters.....or is there?

Uhh, you don't need that many people to restart the earth's population. He also never said 1%. His number was top 25-30%.

 

[Mimosa97]

I think they will be massive unrest and wars because of the scarcity of ressources in the near future. There are also too many third world countries that are demographic time bombs. Shit doesn't look good at all.

I don't see such a " technological " utopia for the rich panning anytime soon though.

 

[Croatoan]

I think they will be massive unrest and wars because of the scarcity of ressources in the near future. There are also too many third world countries that are demographic time bombs. Shit doesn't look good at all.

I don't see such a " technological " utopia for the rich panning anytime soon though.

Yeah, the word Utopia is too loaded. I could see I society like in hunger games only the poor wouldn't be needed because machines replace them.

 

[toadsworth]

If the oceans acidify to the point of not supporting life anymore I don't think any human will be able to live comfortably on the planet. It seems like we are approaching that mark faster and faster.

 

[Newline]

Yeah, the word Utopia is too loaded. I could see I society like in hunger games only the poor wouldn't be needed because machines replace them.

Perhaps some countries will let their society fall apart like that. Others though... I doubt they'd toss half their population away.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

The thing about economists is that they always seem to forget that market forces do not dictate the outcome of our future. In my experiences, they always forget about politics and moral influences. Things like bank insurance and rent control exist not because the market dictates it, but because society does.

Does he think the far left will just roll over and let the poor get steamrolled by the rich? That's not how society works. Economists are like mathematicians educated on bro-science.

Yeah lets leave these predictions to scientists.

 

[quackamole]

Future doesn't look good. Give the book Climate Wars a read, the future described in the book might come to pass. All I can hope for is that shit doesn't hit the fan in my life time and hopefully my children's life time.

 

[Neo C.]

I don't think the poors in the third world will die silently, his scenario can only happen with several wars and mass migration, so we'll be heavily involved too. Climate change won't be a fortunate incident even for the rich.

Climate change and automation are huge factors, it's very difficult to say how they'll play out when combined.

Now with automation itself, I can see two possible outcome: We either 1) can put the right policy to make it beneficiary for the whole society (basic income, more and free education as a mean to combat unemployment etc.) or 2) the rich gets most of benefits of it (less workers needed, lower production costs etc.).

The second outcome is kinda scary, because until now, the rich still needed the poor employees as workforce, house staff and security service. However, the end game of automation would be, that the rich people are going to be almost completely independent without the slightest need to care about the poor.

 

[AP90]

How would the 1% repopulate the earth tho. Ain't enough money to stop their offspring from eventually becoming genetic monsters.....or is there?

Duh.. Super advanced technology = gattica (movie) like genetically superior super babies, except you can fully grow them in pods after an incubation from test tubes..

Matrix.. Endless fields..

Spoiler

=P tried to go way out into left field there

 

[Lathentar]

How would the 1% repopulate the earth tho. Ain't enough money to stop their offspring from eventually becoming genetic monsters.....or is there?

Minimum Viable Population for humans taking into consideration inbreeding and genetic variability would likely be in just the thousands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population

 

[AP90]

I have always believed that a change would happen in some shape or form, but I had always thought it would be a result of a massive declining birth rate, where governments would most likely resort to incentivizing people to have more kids to stave off decline... Factor in a WW3 like event and then we are back to consuming only 1 earth worth of resources per year or less.

I believe many countries have a very low birth rate besides the few like the US who make up that number through immigration.

It will be interesting to see where the world stands after the baby boomers start passing away at an accelerating rate within the next few decades to see how it affects the world economy/weather/temps among other things..

 

[Rentahamster]

Charles has a bias towards doomsday fantasy and "rich people" shadow government romanticism. He also lauds science's ability to reach full on automation, but then disregards that same science's ability to deal with the negative affects of global warming.

He might be a fan of Malthus' work.

 

[GusBus]

There are huge swaths of the human population - a good portion of India, other neighboring countries in Southeast Asia, as well as a good chunk of the Middle East and South America - that will likely never achieve a standard of living comparable to modern Western countries. The gap will be exacerbated by climate change, there is no doubt in my mind, as heat and flooding decimate crop yields and air conditioning cannot (realistically) keep the population cool. Your friend's nightmare scenario does not sound wildly off base to me, barring miraculous technological (geoengineering) intervention schemes that are initiated unanimously across the globe.

 

[Sblargh]

UBI, mang.

Only answer to the post-work world. Also heavy government regulations to stop global warming.
The heavy taxation needed for an UBI and the heavy regulation will slow down the economy, but this is good, the economy can only grow so much before imploding the planet.

 

[Zackat]

Matt Damon will save us from such a fate.

 

[God Dayumm]

Population would decline regardless of global warming. A driving factor for population growth has always been the need of human labor. With automation and the fact that raising a child becomes more expensive, population will decrease. If anything, global warming may throw a wrench into what could have been a seamless societal transition.

 

[derder]

It's not the blue collar people who have to worry - white collar jobs will be the quickest to go.

It'll be quicker to find the ROI on roles @ $100k+ a year than $8/hour

 

[Septimus Prime]

How would the 1% repopulate the earth tho. Ain't enough money to stop their offspring from eventually becoming genetic monsters.....or is there?

1% of 7 billion is 70 million. That's plenty.

Hope they like jellyfish.

 

[Cyrano]

If the nightmare scenario "Charles" foresees comes to fruition, I can promise you the desperation will lead to either an atomic oblivion (nukes effectively making the entire world unlivable) or, more likely, the rich will be brought low as well, as has been the case in every historical situation where the poor become desperate, regardless of the globalism we have now or might in the future.

If automation of all things is the future, the only reality where humanity survives and doesn't create a world where we all die, it's basically going to be similar to Star Trek. I'm betting on oblivion though.

Alternatively, the pure expansionism of humanity will expand in the only way it can, into space, in the messiest way possible.

 

[PantherLotus]

Keep this with you always, OP:

“Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.”

― Lemony Snicket, on Occupy Wall Street

What your friend is suggesting, OP, ignores basically all of history. It's certainly possible, and I'd absolutely watch a film based on the novel that plays those themes out, but we don't get to this, from your description:

Social unrest will ensue as governments fall and billions die from famine, disease, and war. The upper crust of society will begin to consolidate around their new world, and the automated workforce that keeps them safe and comfortable.

without the public at large banding together and burning the whole place down. See: history. I tend to believe technology solves problems but only AFTER we're on the brink of global destruction. Technology will fix this thing, I'm sure. Lots of people will suffer. But to Snicket's point, the rich aren't getting out of this mess 'safe and comfortable.'

 

[Kthulhu]

The fact that we didn't nuke ourselves during the Cuban Missile Crisis means that most humans will survive any drastic climate change thanks to us getting our shit together when it counts. I do think everyday life will look very different compared to today (not in a Soylent Green kinda way).

 

[Az987]

How would the 1% repopulate the earth tho. Ain't enough money to stop their offspring from eventually becoming genetic monsters.....or is there?

That's still like 70,000,000 people. I'd imagine that's probably what the world population was around 1000 years ago.

 

[WolfeTone]

Automation is a fascinating topic. I feel that posters here often tend to understate the likely impact on jobs. It's not just blue collar jobs that'll be replaced. White collar jobs will be gone in the next 50 years at the latest. It's not something that re-training or providing free education will fix.

Basic income is a necessity but we're essentially facing a situation in which 90% of the population will not need to work. The willingness of that 10% to support the rest is crucial. But if we imagine that 10% of people having wealth that is reliant on the 90% buying stuff from them, then the 10% will have a vested interest in supporting massive wealth redistribution. Also the threat of civil unrest and violence.

Automation has the potentially to greatly increase the world's already serious inequality problem. I'm not even mentioning inequality between countries. Just limiting focus to the US, inequality has grown significantly in the past several decades. Replacing workers with machines will greatly accelerate this problem.

Hopefully we can drop this mindset where we expect everyone to have a job or to contribute to society. Automation can be a great thing for humanity if handled appropriately, it could change the very basis of our economy, but for some reason I don't see there being a smooth transition.

 

[Brakke]

The thing about economists is that they always seem to forget that market forces do not dictate the outcome of our future. In my experiences, they always forget about politics and moral influences. Things like bank insurance and rent control exist not because the market dictates it, but because society does.

Does he think the far left will just roll over and let the poor get steamrolled by the rich? That's not how society works. Economists are like mathematicians educated on bro-science.

Have you met two economists ever? There's an enormous body of work in economics that examines social institutions.

 

[WolfeTone]

Have you met two economists ever? There's an enormous body of work in economics that examines social institutions.

No man, you're crazy. Economists are all free-market libertarians who vote Republican. Minimum wages are inefficient. No tax for anyone. Let the market decide.

 

[Foffy]

I do believe we will see some heavy levels of suffering in parts of the world with the wombo combo of climate change + automation.

But it will be in that level of suffering that the human game will be tested: will we act within reason, or in futility? Will we make needed changes because our ways and projections onto the world are insoluble and must be changed, or will we only do so when our alternatives are collapse and chaos?

Moreover, I am an advocate for basic income because it deals with poverty today. I know this offends the bootstrappers, but anxiety from being in poverty actually damages the brain and closes off pathways. Not only can we look at this as pointers that poverty can be a mental disease, but it also limits human potential and harms many people for factors ascribed to them, not faults of their own personhood. The automation issue only makes that really significantly expand, making what's already a very big, harmful issue only expand to make others suffer through failed ideas about society and life. It causes us to stare at this issue right in the face, hopefully with no more hand waving and excuses.

It's going to be an interesting time, and despite people in the Obama administration wanting us to lead the world on this issue, I think we will fail much like we have with healthcare. We'll probably be the last major nation to do anything, and probably fuck it up somehow along the way as well with job guarentees or some other mastabatory bullshit.

 

[system11]

Far too many people on the planet already, some kind of 'crash' is inevitable. It would be better for it to happen before much more of the planets biodiversity is destroyed, but I rather think we're going to take as many other creatures kicking and screaming to the grave as we possibly can.

The idea that we'll somehow escape by taking to the stars is fantasy (sorry Mr Hawking, it's not happening), all the money and resources will be wasted trying to support the population long before that's a reality.

 

[DavidDesu]

When you see people like Trump gaining traction and nations becoming more insular with the right wings grip on media and power finally bringing results.. it does worry me. Will we see genocides in foreign lands so we can feed our own? When the shit truly hits the fan these are the stakes and potential outcome we might see.

 

[IrishNinja]

Charles has a bias towards doomsday fantasy and "rich people" shadow government romanticism. He also lauds science's ability to reach full on automation, but then disregards that same science's ability to deal with the negative affects of global warming.

He might be a fan of Malthus' work.

Keep this with you always, OP:

What your friend is suggesting, OP, ignores basically all of history. It's certainly possible, and I'd absolutely watch a film based on the novel that plays those themes out, but we don't get to this, from your description:

without the public at large banding together and burning the whole place down. See: history. I tend to believe technology solves problems but only AFTER we're on the brink of global destruction. Technology will fix this thing, I'm sure. Lots of people will suffer. But to Snicket's point, the rich aren't getting out of this mess 'safe and comfortable.'

im with these people

 

[DavidDesu]

Automation is a fascinating topic. I feel that posters here often tend to understate the likely impact on jobs. It's not just blue collar jobs that'll be replaced. White collar jobs will be gone in the next 50 years at the latest. It's not something that re-training or providing free education will fix.

Basic income is a necessity but we're essentially facing a situation in which 90% of the population will not need to work. The willingness of that 10% to support the rest is crucial. But if we imagine that 10% of people having wealth that is reliant on the 90% buying stuff from them, then the 10% will have a vested interest in supporting massive wealth redistribution. Also the threat of civil unrest and violence.

Automation has the potentially to greatly increase the world's already serious inequality problem. I'm not even mentioning inequality between countries. Just limiting focus to the US, inequality has grown significantly in the past several decades. Replacing workers with machines will greatly accelerate this problem.

Hopefully we can drop this mindset where we expect everyone to have a job or to contribute to society. Automation can be a great thing for humanity if handled appropriately, it could change the very basis of our economy, but for some reason I don't see there being a smooth transition.

The hope I see is an AI and robotic work force that basically runs our infrastructure and society by itself. I'd love to know what happens to the economy when you then have machines that don't need paid, don't need fed, can work 24/7 and never strike. Surely that benefits us, surely the idea of an economy as we know it is sort of defunct by that point. Money isn't a thing as robots can provide value unendingly, in myriad ways. They even create themselves and replicate effectively. They mine the resources, they build the factories, they man the factories... at no human cost. If you think about the chain reaction of a worker who doesnt need paid it becomes potentially utopian for us lowly humans. We just can't underestimate the rich, greedy and powerful who will no doubt see their grip of things under threat and find a way so they can do their madcap thing and pretend they have power over other people.

 

[Cyrano]

I guess another possibility is, if AI becomes a thing, the possibility of robotic life. Though if we give this same group full control over human infrastructure, that probably doesn't end well for humans.

 

[BajiBoxer]

If that significant a % of the population were to get wiped out due to global warming, seems like the rich survivors would mostly be on borrowed time anyway. Would global warming be stuck in a positive feedback loop by then?

 

[99hertz]

I'm used to slaughtering and butchering animals and I can work in conditions the average first-world person would find uncomfortable, let alone the rich. I also have friends who are hunters and own guns. The rich tend to live where other rich people live, they're very easy to find and their meat will be very tender and juicy.

 

[DouglasteR]

I'm used to slaughtering and butchering animals and I can work in conditions the average first-world person would find uncomfortable, let alone the rich. I also have friends who are hunters and own guns. The rich tend to live where other rich people live, they're very easy to find and their meat will be very tender and juicy.

So hardcore.

 

[Renekton]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-manufacturing-jobs-lost-20160811-snap-story.html

 

[thelongestj]

What do you call an economist that makes a prediction?

Spoiler

Wrong.

 

[Octavianus]

It's freezing and snowing in New York! We need Global Warming!

 

[Croatoan]

Automation is a fascinating topic. I feel that posters here often tend to understate the likely impact on jobs. It's not just blue collar jobs that'll be replaced. White collar jobs will be gone in the next 50 years at the latest. It's not something that re-training or providing free education will fix.

Basic income is a necessity but we're essentially facing a situation in which 90% of the population will not need to work. The willingness of that 10% to support the rest is crucial. But if we imagine that 10% of people having wealth that is reliant on the 90% buying stuff from them, then the 10% will have a vested interest in supporting massive wealth redistribution. Also the threat of civil unrest and violence.

Automation has the potentially to greatly increase the world's already serious inequality problem. I'm not even mentioning inequality between countries. Just limiting focus to the US, inequality has grown significantly in the past several decades. Replacing workers with machines will greatly accelerate this problem.

Hopefully we can drop this mindset where we expect everyone to have a job or to contribute to society. Automation can be a great thing for humanity if handled appropriately, it could change the very basis of our economy, but for some reason I don't see there being a smooth transition.

Wouldn't a large majority of the 90% be left to pursue the arts and sciences if even at a hobby level? Many people could work on Hologames and VR deck games P) or write books/paint. Machines wont be doing a lot of that as well as humans until they have sentience.

I think people will always try and make a little more money even with UBI.

An optimist might see automation as a trigger for a cultural renaissance even.

If that significant a % of the population were to get wiped out due to global warming, seems like the rich survivors would mostly be on borrowed time anyway. Would global warming be stuck in a positive feedback loop by then?

Runaway global warming wont kill the earth. We are not going to turn into Venus or anything. At most it will drown coastal areas shrinking land masses and make the landlocked areas closest to the equator uninhabitable. Crops will be pushed north in countries that are large enough and be decimated in smaller countries with one climate. The oceans will rise and further limit the land that can be used for crops.

The united states should be fine though drastically changed and depopulated. California will either be underwater or a dead desert(save for maybe northern areas). Texas will see Houston disappear along with most of its southern landmass. Depending on how much of the worlds ice melts College Station, Austin and even San Antonio could become new port cities in Texas(aka beach front property). Just north of them will be desert until you reach the panhandle (think middle east). The rest of the southern states will see similar decimation (Florida will be gone) as will the eastern seaboard. Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota will see increased population density as American's migrate north to escape inhospitable conditions and lack of water. Pretty sure the nations capitol will be moved to the middle of the country where it will preside over a declining population due to people choosing to not have children. Desalinization plants will spring up everywhere to save us from water shortage as Lab grown food becomes american's #1 way to get "meat". UBI will have already been instituted and machines will do much of the hard work in increasingly inhospitable working conditions.

Liberalism will begin to wane as American's start to see migrants as dangerous to their survival. Trump, though long dead, will finally get his wall complete with automated machine guns. The death toll at America's borders will be horrible but ignored for what American's believe is the greater good. Though the worlds population will drop by 50% or more the United States will only see decline via birthrate and shut down immigration.

Humanity, as a whole, will adapt to the changed world and move on, hopefully having learned a terrible lesson. Hundreds of years later humans will look back and see this as one of the worst millenniums in human existence.

 

[Shake Appeal]

"Charles" might want to check how the supply chain works and where most of our goods and materials come from.

 

[Keasar]

Your friend seem to have some sort of assumption that the really big chunk of now hungry people would just sit still outside whatever gated community his hypothetical "rich people" live in.

That is not how people work when they get really pissed.

Shit gets bloody.

 

[pr0cs]

It's freezing and snowing in New York! We need Global Warming!

That's why it's called 'climate change' now ...that way it catches every weather pattern and is an even better scapegoat

 

[Croatoan]

Your friend seem to have some sort of assumption that the really big chunk of now hungry people would just sit still outside whatever gated community his hypothetical "rich people" live in.

That is not how people work when they get really pissed.

Shit gets bloody.

I think his assumption was that the rich people would use the "robots" to kill anyone that got out of line. The poor would be out gunned and have no food. That is the main difference between his belief and what has happened historically.

Imagine a judge dredd scenario with walled cities. Only they are policed by giant armies of nearly impossible to kill robots.

 

[PowderedToast]

very scary, in a pessimist by nature unfortunately, and this has been keeping me up at night ever since I first read about it. what I hope is that we manage to pull off rapid mobilization on a global scale, ala WW2 - and the sociological predictions mentioned don't pan out. I know the climate doesn't work like that, it's a long term challenge that we have failed for decades - but it's clear our species does not deal well with problems of that nature. but we can achieve remarkable things when the spectre of our mortality is hanging over us. so thats what keeps me going.

solidarity to all, especially those with anxiety and catastrophising thought processes. I hope nobody is triggered/has their day affected by this thread or my post.