Expiration date on the economy as we know it

[Jarvis323]

More and more it keeps ocuring to me that the modern economies and styles of government that we have now may have a fast approaching expiration date. For example, with AI and autonomous robotics, we could soon have exponentially fast growing industrial complexes in space. And the amount of precious resources available in asteroids dwarf those that we have access to on Earth, not to mention mining them doesn't harm our environment. So who dominates in space and robtics+AI will control the planet? Will there soon be a time when making a living wage through time-value transactions will be obsolete? So what will we do if that is the case? Should this be a hot button political issue?

 

[phinds]

More and more it keeps ocuring to me that the modern economies and styles of government that we have now may have a fast approaching expiration date. For example, with AI and autonomous robotics, we could soon have exponentially fast growing industrial complexes in space.

You are getting ahead of things by decades, I think, and you don't seem to get how onerous it is to bring things down to Earth even if they are mined/created in space. As long as we depend on chemical rockets that problem isn't going away.

 

[Jarvis323]

Isn't decades a very small amount of time? Preparing now for something major coming in a matter of decades seems a little late IMO.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Do you think the 2019 economy was predictable from 1949? 1969? 1989? Even 2016? (The inevitable post-Trump stock market crash)

Bohr summed it up well: "It is difficult to predict, especially the future"

 

[Jarvis323]

Do you think the 2019 economy was predictable from 1949? 1969? 1989? Even 2016? (The inevitable post-Trump stock market crash)

Bohr summed it up well: "It is difficult to predict, especially the future"

I'm not so sure. Not everything is difficult to predict. Some things are obvious, practically inevitable overall. Predicting a stock market crash, vs a new way of life is a different thing too right? This is a microscopic event compared to the macroscopic. Basically, we've had a system where people exchange their time/work for things of value for at least 5,000 years. So going from that to something entirely different in a matter of decades is a big deal. And one could argue that decades is optimistic, since it is in theory an accelerating phenomena which has already begun.

 

[phinds]

I'm not so sure. Not everything is difficult to predict. Some things are obvious, practically inevitable overall. Predicting a stock market crash, vs a new way of life is a different thing too right? This is a microscopic event compared to the macroscopic. Basically, we've had a system where people exchange their time/work for things of value for at least 5,000 years. So going from that to something entirely different in a matter of decades is a big deal. And one could argue that decades is optimistic, since it is in theory an accelerating phenomena which has already begun.

You are ignoring at least the one problem I pointed out. Sounds to me like you have an agenda here.

 

[Jarvis323]

You are ignoring at least the one problem I pointed out. Sounds to me like you have an agenda here.

Why I'm the one with an agenda? You're the one trying to make it a divisive topic and getting persona/emotional about it. I'm just asking what people think. I have a limited understanding just like everyone else. You made a good point about the issue with chemical rockets, the dependence on external resources and ability to freely scale up industrial processes to enormous proportions in space is just one part of the topic. Aside, you didn't give any substance in your argument, so I don't know what response you expect, and I don't know why you expect me to challenge everything you say as if you an I are in some kind of 1 v 1 debate. Besides space, there is the issue of an onset of an increasing lack of practical things to pay people to do. If you don't think these things will happen in a near enough time frame to care about now, that's fine. An open analysis of the topic in general is what I expected, not a two sided black and white issue that people fight each other about.

 

[Bystander]

So going from that to something entirely different in a matter of decades is a big deal.

From "what" to "what something entirely different?"

 

[Rive]

So who dominates in space and robtics+AI will control the planet?

You are taking that wrong. The ones in control will issue the licenses for space & robotics stuff.

 

[Vanadium 50]

. Basically, we've had a system where people exchange their time/work for things of value for at least 5,000 years. So going from that to something entirely different in a matter of decades is a big deal.

You've given no evidence that this will be the case, have avoided addressing a rather substantial objection, and waved away our rather bad historical track record at such predictions.

 

[256bits]

More and more it keeps ocuring to me that the modern economies and styles of government that we have now may have a fast approaching expiration date

What style of government are you referring to?
Monarchist, dictatorship, communist, democracy are some examples of government, not to mention the different economic approaches that are expressed within countries.
Which one(s) are fast approaching expiration?

 

[MikeeMiracle]

The worries about "making a living" are a little premature and from what I see are similar to previous concerns at the start of the various industrial revolutions. In practice the removal of jobs from one sector just opens up opportunity in another sector and a chance to diversify your economy.

For example when we developed machines to make clothes / starting using robots to build cars / the computing revolution. In the early days of these people were worried about the potential job losses but those people still found work elseware and the same will happen again.

 

[pinball1970]

Coal mining, steel work, shipbuilding, car manufacturing were huge in the UK after the war and were very, much reduced if not disappeared 50 years later.

Communities struggled and some never recovered.

The Luddites had a similar problem in the 19th Century.

New technology comes in with new opportunities and the old one goes out and takes people and communities with it if they are not able to adapt.

There will always be jobs to do surely? Whether its building mining rockets, flying them or extracting valuable ores and precious metals from asteroids.

 

[MikeeMiracle]

This is not a personal attack but perhaps others do not foresee the outcome and it's potential consequences as you believe they will cause, and that has dictated their responses?

I believe I gave a generic answer to the work issue you raised.

In terms of actions we should be taking, arguably the greatest threat to us at the moment is climate change. And yet, we do not see governments taking this issue seriously either and there is only so much the general public can do themselves.

I am not sure what kind of response you were expecting...but as I stated people predicting doom and the end of our system when a new technology / ability becomes avaiable to humanity is nothing new and yet we still seem to carry on just fine.

 

[Jarvis323]

I'm not predicting doom. An explosion of human productivity and available resources in theory could solve a great deal of human suffering, end poverty, end famine, end environmental degradation, and elevate the standard of living for everyone to very a high level. The sheer practicality is hard to deny. Is there any example in history where humans have discovered an extremely useful technology but chose not to use it? We can certainly try to block it, delay it, limit it, try and keep things the way they are, maybe indefinitely suppress it? I don't know?

 

[MikeeMiracle]

To quote you Jarvis

...could solve a great deal of human suffering, end poverty, end famine, end environmental degradation, and elevate the standard of living for everyone to very a high level...

You have highlighted some very serious and worthwhile issues here, unfortunately I do not beieve for one second they will get resolved due to a resource injection. These issues are all resolvable right now if the global political will was there. For example, I believe these are all solvable with just our military budgets alone if humanity chose to do so.

More likely just as with our current system, the rich corporations and governments will just use them to further their own interests.

Until humanity can come together as one for the sake of humanity as a whole, nothing will change in that respect. I think only the discovery of other intelligent life would be a significant incentive to do so though.

 

[nuuskur]

For example, with AI and autonomous robotics, we could soon have exponentially fast growing industrial complexes in space.

You what now? That's a lot of fancy words, I'll admit. What is AI to you? Do we live in a Hollywood movie where robots have become sentient? I'd be content with slower than exponential growth.

the amount of precious resources available in asteroids dwarf those that we have access to on Earth, not to mention mining them doesn't harm our environment

Well, yes, but how do you plan on getting the power to reach them? Once in space, that's perhaps a non-issue, but you still need the device to escape Earth.

So who dominates in space and robtics+AI will control the planet?

Radiation dominates, I predict. Robots are of great assistance, but they don't reason at the same level as humans can. Perhaps, you're getting too far ahead of yourself.

Will there soon be a time when making a living wage through time-value transactions will be obsolete?

Will there be a time when 'going to work' is obsolete? During a war, perhaps.

So what will we do if that is the case?

If you're concerned with survival, then you would need to become self-sufficient. Robots or "AI" will be the least of your worries.

Should this be a hot button political issue?

Is this a statement or a question? I sense it's a rhetorical one.

 

[Michael Price]

...with AI and autonomous robotics, we could soon have exponentially fast growing industrial complexes... who dominates in space and robtics+AI will control the planet? Will there soon be a time when making a living wage through time-value transactions will be obsolete? So what will we do if that is the case?

The economy will probably continue just fine. Economies already expand exponentially - the question is, at what rate? The effect of automation and robotics is to replace human labour, and we are seeing this going on already. The lower skilled jobs are being automated. One effect this is having is that automated manufacturing (but not jobs!) is returning production to the west from Asia. Land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship are the four traditional factors of production. Labour, and eventually entrepreneurship, are being replaced by capital. By removing two of the four constraints on growth we'd expect economic growth to speed up. (The US is in its longest expansionary phase ever, I hear.) Asia is investing heavily in AI, so we have a lot of healthy competition going on.
As demand for human labour decreases calls for a basic income will rise - people will become pensioners, living off investment income (doesn't sound so bad to me). Without the need for human labour then the arid desert regions on Earth will become productive. (Africa, N.America and Australia, along with Mongolia and the Gobi region) may be big winners here.) And all without going into space.
Of course, with true AI, and then super-human AI, space will be colonised. Robots, not needing air nor water, have a natural competitors advantage over human in space. But I think the Earth will be transformed first.
But "we" don't have to do anything to prepare for this - market forces are already driving the transformation. Sit back and enjoy the ride!

 

[Jarvis323]

To quote you Jarvis

...could solve a great deal of human suffering, end poverty, end famine, end environmental degradation, and elevate the standard of living for everyone to very a high level...

You have highlighted some very serious and worthwhile issues here, unfortunately I do not believe for one second they will get resolved due to a resource injection. These issues are all resolvable right now if the global political will was there. For example, I believe these are all solvable with just our military budgets alone if humanity chose to do so.

More likely just as with our current system, the rich corporations and governments will just use them to further their own interests.

Until humanity can come together as one for the sake of humanity as a whole, nothing will change in that respect. I think only the discovery of other intelligent life would be a significant incentive to do so though.

In any case, it seems that this kind of power is now achievable, at least in theory. It's hard to imagine it not being seized, especially since there are so many competing groups in the world. If one country or corporation decides to try and hold back in order to maintain normalcy, that won't necessarily stop others, e.g. China. Would the US for example want to watch them scale up their productivity exponentially, but not do the same?

In my view, the non-central nature of the worlds power and competition are more likely to force us to realize these capabilities as fast as possible. In a way, it seems like it might be a catch 22. We can't not do it for the reasons above, but if we do, then we (I think) have to make some drastic changes to how our economy works and how society functions. A lot of people seem to think this would cause some sort of massive cataclysm or something. I'm not sure I agree with that, but have no doubt that a lot of things could go wrong for a lot of people in this scenario if the situation is mishandled.

So anyway, supposing we now have all of this capacity, what do we do with it? One country can keep the regular old people with no jobs in poverty, but meanwhile they have to watch another country utilize it effectively and become a massive Utopia with ultra high standards of living. Maybe people are oppressed everywhere? I doubt it. Naturally, seeing what's possible, and being denied that possibility would likely be a huge drive for people to force change, and become modernized rather than become the futuristic equivalent of a third world country.

Maybe I'm making too many assumptions, or maybe I'm trying to think too far ahead? How can you know without thinking about it in the first place though.

 

[Jarvis323]

You what now? That's a lot of fancy words, I'll admit. What is AI to you? Do we live in a Hollywood movie where robots have become sentient? I'd be content with slower than exponential growth.Well, yes, but how do you plan on getting the power to reach them? Once in space, that's perhaps a non-issue, but you still need the device to escape Earth.

Radiation dominates, I predict. Robots are of great assistance, but they don't reason at the same level as humans can. Perhaps, you're getting too far ahead of yourself.

Will there be a time when 'going to work' is obsolete? During a war, perhaps.

If you're concerned with survival, then you would need to become self-sufficient. Robots or "AI" will be the least of your worries.

Is this a statement or a question? I sense it's a rhetorical one.

AI in this context just matters in the sense that input from human beings is not a limiting factor. In space, the limitation is energy and natural resources, which are quite vast. It really doesn't take much more than the technology we already have (only a little bit more sophistication) to begin exploiting it. If you need an analogy, you can think of population dynamics e.g. the logistic function, in an environment with practically limitless carrying capacity, and an extremely high growth-rate. I'm not saying this is some kind of threat that AI is going to take over. I'm saying AI can be used to produce a heck of a lot of stuff for us, and make us all live like royalty without having to do much of anything at all.

Since you asked for it, here is the futuristic, perhaps exaggerated, case. In the future, someone like me could say send a small device up into space on a balloon or something, that then zips off, begins harvesting resources, producing other devices that also harvest resources, building infrastructure, and so forth, growing at an exponential rate. And within 20 years it could grow me a trillion pounds of food, mine me a billion pounds of gold and turn it all into ornate jewelry, make me a zillion i-pads, and a trillion mansions.

It all sounds bizarre, and I was trying to be a little comical. But the core of what I am saying isn't science fiction any more than laser beams or televisions are.

 

[phinds]

In the future, someone like me could say send a small device up into space on a balloon or something

Seriously? Balloons do not get to space.

Also, getting food back from space would be insanely expensive compared to just growing it here.

I really think you are overlooking the logistical problems with the scenarios that you envision. You are just waving your hands about them.

 

[Jarvis323]

Seriously? Balloons do not get to space.

Also, getting food back from space would be insanely expensive compared to just growing it here.

I really think you are overlooking the logistical problems with the scenarios that you envision. You are just waving your hands about them.

You cut out the end of the sentence that says, then zips off. I was trying to imply it starts off in a balloon, then has some propulsion method after that. This is my comical example, don't take it so seriously.

Getting things back from space, there is a logistical problem. Not in being able to do it, or in the cost, just whether the kind of traffic would disrupt our atmosphere too much, and the specifics depend on the way it's done.

 

[phinds]

You cut out the end of the sentence that says, then zips off. I was trying to imply it starts off in a balloon, then has some propulsion method after that.

You are correct. My bad

Getting things back from space, there is a logistical problem. Not in being able to do it, or in the cost, just whether the kind of traffic would disrupt our atmosphere too much, and the specifics depend on the way it's done.

You mention the cost only in passing. I still think you haven't thought this through.

 

[Jarvis323]

The cost is free, because all of the fuel or energy you would ever need to collect is available in space. And assuming you have the right technology, collecting any of it costs essentially the same to you as collecting massive quantities of it. Quite literally, the one thing that you need to do all of this, could be mass produced itself.

 

[phinds]

The cost is free, because all of the fuel or energy you would ever need to collect is available in space. And assuming you have the right technology, collecting any of it costs essentially the same to you as collecting massive quantities of it. Quite literally, the one thing that you need to do all of this, could be mass produced itself.

OK. Good point. My thinking tends to be too Earth-bound.

 

[Michael Price]

The cost is free, because all of the fuel or energy you would ever need to collect is available in space. And assuming you have the right technology, collecting any of it costs essentially the same to you as collecting massive quantities of it. Quite literally, the one thing that you need to do all of this, could be mass produced itself.

The cost is not free. There is nothing in automation and robotics that breaks the laws of economics. Everything has a cost, if only an opportunity cost. (The same wild claims were made about nanotech 30 years ago. Didn't happen.)

 

[phinds]

The cost is not free. There is nothing in automation and robotics that breaks the laws of economics. Everything has a cost, if only an opportunity cost. (The same wild claims were made about nanotech 30 years ago. Didn't happen.)

Well, now I have to switch gears and agree w/ jarvis. I agree w/ you that nothing is totoally free, but if we have (and I think we will have) intelligent robots in space that maintain themselves and/or each other, and that are capable of building and using mining machinery and building and using return rockets (this is a bit far off in the future but doable) then the cost to us on Earth becomes more about where we PUT all the hardware that is returned along w/ the stuff we value, not what it costs to get it here.

 

[Jarvis323]

The cost is not free. There is nothing in automation and robotics that breaks the laws of economics. Everything has a cost, if only an opportunity cost. (The same wild claims were made about nanotech 30 years ago. Didn't happen.)

The cost is purely research and development. In the exaggerated case I was making, it is assumed the technology is already there. After that, the cost is energy and resources, but these are so vast, we don't even need to consider them. At that stage, there is no human cost. E.g. my mass produced pocket device that presumably I was given as a birthday gift, can make me a trillion houses (in space).

 

[phinds]

The cost is purely research and development. In the exaggerated case I was making, it is assumed the technology is already there. After that, the cost is energy and resources, but these are so vast, we don't even need to consider them. At that stage, there is no human cost. E.g. my mass produced pocket device that presumably I was given as a birthday gift, can make me a trillion houses (in space).

What good do a trillion houses in space do you? For that matter, what good does ONE do you? You'd have to build the parts and ship them down to Earth for assembly.

 

[Jarvis323]

What good do a trillion houses in space do you? For that matter, what good does ONE do you? You'd have to build the parts and ship them down to Earth for assembly.

It's a good point. What good does a trillion houses do me in general. My one house could probably be parachuted down in a few pieces, with a little help from some kind of ion thrusters, and then little drones that place and assemble everything. Of course, I want my house in this case to be made of solid gold though.

 

[Michael Price]

Well, now I have to switch gears and agree w/ jarvis. I agree w/ you that nothing is totoally free, but if we have (and I think we will have) intelligent robots in space that maintain themselves and/or each other, and that are capable of building and using mining machinery and building and using return rockets (this is a bit far off in the future but doable) then the cost to us on Earth becomes more about where we PUT all the hardware that is returned along w/ the stuff we value, not what it costs to get it here.

Look, I'm all for getting the robots to build me a palace on Pluto, but is still going to cost. You would do better to argue that the robo-economy will be so rich that we can afford it.

 

[phinds]

Look, I'm all for getting the robots to build me a palace on Pluto, but is still going to cost. You would do better to argue that the robo-economy will be so rich that we can afford it.

I get that GETTING you to the house on Pluto would have a considerable cost, but I don't see where the cost of BUILDING the house comes from.

 

[Jarvis323]

Look, I'm all for getting the robots to build me a palace on Pluto, but is still going to cost. You would do better to argue that the robo-economy will be so rich that we can afford it.

Fair point. I mean, I've gotten my fair share of free pens, before. Technically they aren't free, but I still call them that.

 

[MikeeMiracle]

Don't know why i can't quote normally but again Jarvis you write:

In any case, it seems that this kind of power is now achievable, at least in theory. It's hard to imagine it not being seized, especially since there are so many competing groups in the world. If one country or corporation decides to try and hold back in order to maintain normalcy, that won't necessarily stop others, e.g. China. Would the US for example want to watch them scale up their productivity exponentially, but not do the same?

In my view, the non-central nature of the worlds power and competition are more likely to force us to realize these capabilities as fast as possible. In a way, it seems like it might be a catch 22. We can't not do it for the reasons above, but if we do, then we (I think) have to make some drastic changes to how our economy works and how society functions.

You are now going into the realm of geopolitics, the dominant power of which is the US. They would not allow China to "overtake" them without a fight...

 

[phinds]

It's a good point. What good does a trillion houses do me in general. My one house could probably be parachuted down in a few pieces, with a little help from some kind of ion thrusters, and then little drones that place and assemble everything. Of course, I want my house in this case to be made of solid gold though.

Ion thrusters would be useless in such a scenario. Again, you do not understand the logistics of your proposals.

 

[Jarvis323]

Ion thrusters would be useless in such a scenario. Again, you do not understand the logistics of your proposals.

That may be so, but I never claimed that I did. This is physics forums. So how do we get our 10 billion solid gold mansions down to Earth most effectively?

 

[phinds]

That may be so, but I never claimed that I did. This is physics forums. So how do we get our 10 billion solid gold mansions down to Earth most effectively?

No, it's your proposal so it's up to you to figure that out. If you are interested in such topics I'd suggest a new thread but I can tell you that using today's technology, you just don't. It's cheaper to mine gold here. Future goals are much better but they are just goals, not yet reality.

 

[russ_watters]

AI in this context just matters in the sense that input from human beings is not a limiting factor. In space, the limitation is energy and natural resources, which are quite vast. It really doesn't take much more than the technology we already have (only a little bit more sophistication) to begin exploiting it...

It all sounds bizarre, and I was trying to be a little comical. But the core of what I am saying isn't science fiction any more than laser beams or televisions are.

To me, you are making several very large leaps that cross the boundary between reasonable speculation and sci-f/fantasy. I don't think any of your three premises are anywhere close to accurate/realistic.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, now I have to switch gears and agree w/ jarvis. I agree w/ you that nothing is totoally free, but if we have (and I think we will have) intelligent robots in space that maintain themselves and/or each other, and that are capable of building and using mining machinery and building and using return rockets (this is a bit far off in the future but doable) then the cost to us on Earth becomes more about where we PUT all the hardware that is returned along w/ the stuff we value, not what it costs to get it here.

Why wouldn't we use such robots on Earth first?

 

[phinds]

Why wouldn't we use such robots on Earth first?

Oh, I wouldn't disagree w/ that, I'm just trying to stay within the OP's context.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, I wouldn't disagree w/ that, I'm just trying to stay within the OP's context.

I think missing context is precisely the problem withe the thread...

 

[russ_watters]

Ok...

What such questions tend to lack in their fanciful speculation is perspective (context). So I'll take a few steps back and try to provide some.

Part 1: What Do Humans Want from Technology?
Fundamentally, what separates humans from animals is our nearly unlimited ability to use tools, thanks to our big brains and opposable thumbs. The entire history of human development is based on using tools to reduce our workload and increase productivity -- as well as accomplish tasks we are not capable of doing naked.

[stops in middle of writing post to make a sandwich]

The qualitative improvements may be hard to quantify (by definition), but the quantitative ones are not:

I could probably travel 30 miles in a day, with a small pack, on foot. On a horse, maybe 100 miles, with a larger pack (never tried either of those things, so I don't know - I'm just making it up). Later this month, I'll be driving 450 miles in about 9 hours including stops, carrying probaby only a couple hundred pounds of gear but could do thousands if I wanted. An orderds of magnitude improvement. Even planning the trip; no more spending an half an hour with a map, planning and measuring the route and then hand-calculating the time; google maps does it faster than I can type in the request.

We build buildings 100 floors high with cranes capable of lifting dozens of tons. If I want a bathroom floormat, I don't weave one myself in 3 days, I drive to Kohls where one that came off a machine in China at a rate of 10 per minute is sitting there waiting for me.

If I want to communicate with my sister in Boston I don't write a letter and then hire a Pony Express rider to run it up there in a few days, I just Skype her.

The point is, all of our tools make us better and faster at things we want to do and enable things we otherwise wouldn't even be capable of without them. And that progress - while uneven - has produced exponential improvement.

But what hasn't change much at all is the human's workload. Over the past century, most people have worked between 35 and 60 hours a week, always.

Why?

Because despite some people's protestations to the contrary - they are fooling themselves - we all want "stuff", because "stuff" is just awesome. I could choose to work fewer hours at an easier job, but then I wouldn't be able to afford air conditioning, Netflix, a good car, a telescope permanently mounted on my deck, etc. Any one of those "things" I own would make a medeval king drool, and the combination of them is just fantastic.

The point of all of this is that automation reduces our workload allowing us to do more, better. The net result is a near constant workload for humans, for a long time in the past, which will almost certainly continue for a long time in the future.

But what about robots/AI? Can't they make human labor obsolete?

 

[Michael Price]

But what about robots/AI? Can't they make human labor obsolete?

Super-AI is different from labour augmentation, because we are talking about the complete replacement of humans in the productive economy. (You don't see chimps doing assembly line jobs, do we?) More jobs will be created, but not for humans. Who, or what, would employ a human when a robot is cheaper, more reliable and more capable. Humans have to live on investment income, from the robo-economy, as pensioners.

 

[russ_watters]

Part 2: AI/Robots

I'll just say it: I think AI is a myth. It's bigfoot. It doesn't and won't ever exist, except that it already does.

[finishes sandwich, puts plate in diswasher]

Bigfoot is probably a bear. AI is just my refrigerator ordering milk for me when I run out (I don't own one, it's just an example).

"But", you say, "isn't AI 'human replacement intelligence'"? I reply: I've been running spreadsheets on a PC for 25 years -- they are much, much better at math than I am.

"But", you say, "isn't AI also technology successfully masquerading as psople?" I reply: who cares? No, seriously. Why do I care if I can't tell if the voice on the other end of the line is a human or computer? Neither have ever provided me good customer service.

Then, robots; We have them. They're awesome. They recently built me a car.

"But", you say, "they don't look/talk/walk like people!" I reply: Why would I want that? The human body is a terribly designed machine. That's nothing more than an unnecessary aesthetic preference. I don't need a robot that looks like an English butler in a 3-piece suit and a bowler hat to make me a sandwich. Honestly, once the novelty wears off, I'll just find him creepy. I'll be perfectly happy when I get my sandwich robot from Kohls/Amazon in a few years. It'll be about the size of a microwave oven and cost $59.95. Once a week, I'll load in a loaf of bread, jar of mayo and slabs of turkey and cheese. Then, at the press of a button (or on a timer), it'll spit out a perfectly made turkey sandwich for me. Awesome.

A turkey sandwich robot is an incremental improvement only, but that's my point. That's how technology has worked for the past few millenia, and it will likely continue for the forseeable future. Humans will not suddenly find themselves obsolete, we'll just have technology do more and more for us while we do the same amount.

 

[phinds]

Humans have to live on investment income, from the robo-economy, as pensioners.

Where do they get the investment income if they have never worked?

 

[russ_watters]

Part 3: But what if We Could?

Ok, I'll bite. But what else is missing here is a hand-waving over what are major - perhaps insurmountable - technological challenges requiring multiple technological revolutions to achieve:

1. Spacecraft Propulsion.
You can't handwave this away. It's expensive/inefficient. It may always be. The idea that technology can multiply itself to overcome this is a non-starter because it needs a start. Human-replacement robots can't do everything on their own. They need infrastructure and tools. You can't send a single robot into space and have him build a civilization. You need to start with a small city of them, with factories and power plants and other infrastructure. Even with fully-autonomous robots, getting all of that into space would cost - pun kind of intended - an astronomical amount of money.

2. Human-Replacement Robots
Human-replacement robots are a bad idea, but assuming we want them, I'm not so sure we can build them. We're way, way off in terms of energy and automation machinery. Humans are complicated and poorly designed, and making a quality bad robot is no easy thing. So even though we have robots rolling around on wheels or tracks exploring Mars and vacuuming my floor, people are struggling to build a robot that can walk over 2x4 like a human without tripping. It's stupid, but whatever. I think we are many decades away from making robots who can play basketball in the NBA.

But let's say human-replacement robots become possible. Now what?

3. Everything Else
Everything else still needs to be invented. I suppose we could send an army of human-looking robots to an asteroid with pickaxes and wheelbarrows, but it would be a lot better if we invented purpose-built robotic mining equipment. I suspect we've made some progress on that front already for earthbound equipment, but we'd need to invent some to operate on an asteroid/the moon. That's just one example. We're talking about re-inventing *everything* in an industrial city and then launching it into space.

So a more direct answer to the OP's question: when a human-replacement robot gets invented, then we can start conversation of what to do about it. We're many decades from that point, and society will look very different then anyway, so having that conversation is skipping over the more immediate conversation of what we should be doing for the next several decades.

"But", you ask, "won't it be too late by then?" No. This isn't "iRobot", where a company builds an entire army of millions of them in secret and then one day flips a switch and they are all online and PO'd. Decades before we have true human-replacement robots, we'll have almost human replacement robots and not quite human replacement robots. They will be fabulously expensive, have limited lifespans, and limited but ever-increasing capabilities. In fact, with such qualifiers in place, we already do have them. And we'll have decades to figure out what to do with them.

Just like every other tool we've developed over the past few millennia.

 

[Michael Price]

Where do they get the investment income if they have never worked?

Basic minimum income - it has to happen. Human-run governments will chase unemployed human votes by guaranteeing handouts funded from corporate tax (on the robo-economy). It can become self-funding (c.f. Norway's Sovereign Fund), if managed with restraint.

 

[phinds]

Basic minimum income - it has to happen.

Nothing HAS to happen.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Fifty years ago we sent 12 people to the moon. We haven't been back since. Yet we are expected to believe that in "a few decades" one will have a pocket device that can fabricate a trillion houses in space and "few", the number of decades, is so small we need to worry about it night now.

 

[Jarvis323]

Fifty years ago we sent 12 people to the moon. We haven't been back since. Yet we are expected to believe that in "a few decades" one will have a pocket device that can fabricate a trillion houses in space and "few", the number of decades, is so small we need to worry about it night now.

No t much more than 50 years before we went to the Moon, we made the first working plane. Once it is known that something extraordinary is now possible, people race to be the first to do it.