/sci/ - Science & Math

AI and automation?
Nobody would literally have to work unless they want to.
That is before skynet comes online of course.

>>14735740
Skynet will be online well and truly before that buddy

>>14735699
Even in Star Trek replicators require resources and have limited capabilites. Resources will never be unlimited.

>>14735699
Every time something gets scarce we develop technology to use alternatives. This will happen until we get to a thermodynamic death.

>>14735745
You know, this is one of those instance I hope /x/ fags are right.
AI going super intelligent but never achieving true sentience is a wet dream.

>>14735699
>wants are unlimited
>pizza, clothes, car and a house

>>14735699
Yes
>go to the store
>pull out a large burlap bag with a dollar sign painted on it
>loudly exclaim "GEE WHIZ that's a lot of cash!"
>smirk at the rest of the patrons
>get exactly $20 in items and take your things to the register
>tell the cashier "I believe these will do nicely" as you slide a "bill" from your bag across the counter
>she takes the bill
>it's a $20 BILL alright
>"immediately pay $20 to the bearer"
>she took it so now she has to pay you $20
>take your things and your $20, and leave
>post scarcity economics

>>14736182
Cars always struck me as off fitting in the hierarchy of normal human needs. A car is such a powerful machine, its normal for a car engine to produce up to 50 Kw of power. This is at least 20 times more power than anything else we use in a house, such as air conditioner.
Cars are a completely different level of civilization and its so casual. Its like "sure, give every man his own locomotive" type of wealth

>>14736217
cool trick

>>14736182
the goy knows
shut it down

>>14735699
There is no scarcity, it's created artificially by the jewish overlords to forcefully create a distinct line between "rich" and "poor" so they could be in power and abuse others, the only solution is to abolish all governments and forcefully kill all the psychopaths in government positions

>>14735699
yes that's typically when economies are best and capital is accumulated rapidly

>>14736597
The rich in the united states only consume around 10% of the wealth.

>>14736606
Ah yes, so the 800 billion that goes into military funding yearly just comes out of thin air, right?
All the money in circulation just runs back into their own pockets, your life has been turned into a commodity, life has been put behind a paywall just to keep you down while they fuck prostitutes and do coke in burj khalifa without lifting a finger, because they're not paying for all that shit, you are, you are slaving away your years so the rich wouldn't have to do shit besides pass more laws yearly to restrict more of your freedoms and tighten that leash around your neck, it's all just a game to them and you aren't even an npc in their books, just a piece of trash to be thrown away and replaced by another fool illusioned into thinking that all his hard work is worth something while 99% of the money he makes just lines the pockets of the rich

>>14735740
Then how would you get money?

>>14735740
Automation does not make a bad process immediately good and that there is a point after which more automation has no longer any benefit, thus diminishing returns.

>>14735699
No, We have an economy because scarcity exists - To Economise is to manage scarcity, not only tha but we have an uneven distribution of resources. There is no such thing as "post scarcity economy".

As for science, it has nothing to do with Economy, it is a method of deriving logical concluaions from observations, experimentation and empirical research. Technology can only reduce effort and increase scalability - but again, the effort now goes towards propping up the technology.

>>14735699
Give everyone their own universes where theyre god.

>>14735699
This picture makes me fucking angry because it conflates symptoms with the actual cause.

No, "wants" are not unlimited or else we wouldn't need advertising and the indoctrination of our children for a consumerist mindset.

The reason for scarcity is because capitalist industrialism necessarily means over-production. Producing more than people "need" then requires a constant supply of consumers who buy these products for the sole benefit of the manufacturer. Because the manufacturer wants to maximise their profit they will maximise their production, depleting the resources in the process.

Don't blame the people for wanting things, blame the owners of the means of production for trying to maximise their own profits to the detriment of everyone else.

>>14736737
So much this. If you go back in time to ancient greece and rome people didnt want anything.

>>14736670
>No, We have an economy because scarcity exists - To Economise is to manage scarcity, not only tha but we have an uneven distribution of resources. There is no such thing as "post scarcity economy".
Humans lived 99% of their evolutionary lifespan in an abundance of resources and the (albeit simple) economies reflected that. The claim that the purpose of economy is to manage scarcity only holds for the last 4000 years or so.

>>14736751
That's just stupid and not what I said or meant at all. I'm not sure if you're just misguided or trying to build a retarded straw-man.

>>14736757
You're stupid. Its a historical fact that people in ancient greece did not want to own chariots, houses, cloathing or food.

>>14736762
Ok, retard.

>>14736535
This

And I work for Mercedes

>>14736617
>just to keep you down while they fuck prostitutes and do coke in burj khalifa without lifting a finger,
Still 10% of all wealth. Theres not many rich so they can live in luxury with 10% of the total wealth.

>>14736968
>Still 10% of all wealth
10 quadrillion spread over 10 people is still more than 10 quadrillion spread over 10 quadrillion people, you retarded dog

>>14736752
lol

>>14737289
I dont know what these numbers mean. The rich in America take 2 trillion dollars for their lifestyle and consumption, they leave 18 trillions to the rest of society. A big part of these 18 trillions are still under the thumb of the rich but they are not consuming them. Assets under management like machinery or buildings where the plebs live

>>14736645
UBI
>>14736670
>and that there is a point after which more automation has no longer any benefit, thus diminishing returns
Cope. When a true AGI goes online you tell me which STEM field still have jobs.

>>14736182
it's interesting because much of what people really want isn't anything to do with scarcity, but about status. for example, even though many live lives far in excess of the most opulent medieval kings, we don't have their status relative to society. much of this relates to dating, because women usually avoid the low status males. if a man could give up his car, live a small house and never eat out, but in exchange he got say 5 girls of his choosing for a hareem, 99% of me would take it.
The other particularly relevant cost is healthcare, because if you're sick you can't do anything. and everyone gets old no matter how much they spend.
>>14736535
$100 of consumer electronics today is equivalent to millions in the nineties. but owning a supercomputer won't get you a girlfriend anymore.

>>14736182
it's interesting because much of what people really want isn't anything to do with scarcity, but about status. for example, even though many live lives far in excess of the most opulent medieval kings, we don't have their status relative to society. much of this relates to dating, because women usually avoid the low status males. if a man could give up his car, live a small house and never eat out, but in exchange he got say 5 girls of his choosing for a hareem, 99% of them would take it.
The other particularly relevant cost is healthcare, because if you're sick you can't do anything. and everyone gets old no matter how much they spend.
>>14736535
$100 of consumer electronics today is equivalent to millions in the nineties. but owning a supercomputer won't get you a girlfriend anymore

>>14735699
Desires are limited. Food above limit is obesity.

>>14735699
As the pic specifies, wants are unlimited. Needs, however, are not unlimited. Scientifically, then, a post-scarcity economy is one in which all needs can be met (mostly through automation, presumably), with a comfortable-but-not-unlimited buffer for wants.

In such a system, if all you want to do is live the NEET lifestyle, sitting at home in your little apartment playing vidya and eating takeout, that's fine; the robots will keep you supplied with everything you need to do that for as long as you like. But there are some things that there aren't an infinite amount of; for those, there's a luxury budget, which you can spend as you like. Maybe you want to go on vacations to distant places, or pursue particularly resource-intensive hobbies, or just fuck a prostitute; you automatically get a modest budget for this sort of thing, but for anything else, you'll need to do things for other people to get them to pay you part of their luxury budget.

If you want to go on the occasional vacation, that's fine; there's plenty of places to go... but only so many spots available at a given place and a given time, so you'll need to book ahead or pay extra. If your vacation is particularly extravagant, like a trip to Mars; that'll also cost extra. If you want anything that definitely requires the services of another human, you definitely have to pay for that, since otherwise they wouldn't just do it for you. There's no shortage of robot barbers or maids or fuckdolls, but if you want a human to do any kind of service work for you, that'll cost quite a bit.

So if your wants aren't being met by the abundant automated comforts, you'll need to find things to do that people will pay you for. Even so, and this is probably the defining line for scarcity vs post-scarcity: you don't have to. A post-scarcity society means it's possible to for anyone to live a comfortable life without ever doing anything productive. Luxuries remain scarce, but everything else is guaranteed.

Tens of thousands of years ago, humans devised ways to cultivate food through agriculture, leading to a great abundance.

This should have led to "post-scarcity", but of course it didn't. The population just exploded, and life became much more brutal for the majority.

In a post scarcity society, the only things that will have value are information (and information rights), social clout, and locations (ie real estate in famous cities).

>>14737921
Less scarcity is not the same thing at all as post-scarcity.
How much did you have to pay for the last lungful of air you breathed? Zero. That has no scarcity. How much did you pay for the last cup of water you drank? Probably some fraction of a penny. That still has scarcity, even if it's extremely small.
The two things are completely different in terms of economics.

A post scarcity society is theoretically possible if we have some sort of extreme AI superintelligence explosion or other massive technological breakthrough, like somebody inventing Star Trek replicators.
But anyway, my point is that comparing the concept of post-scarcity to agriculture or any other similar past technological breakthroughs is fundamentally misunderstanding the entire concept.

>abolish the concept of debt
>remove all restrictions on loans
Boom, there you go.
Infinite capital for investment and consumption, the deal drivers of an economy.
Unlike land money is an infinite resource, the Fed imposes artificial scarcity by keeping a monopoly over its issue.
Get rid of debt and loan limits and you can borrow as much as you need.

>>14735699

>wants are unlimited
me footy
me beer
simple as

>>14735699
Post-scarcity is a living nightmare, as, if you haven't noticed, a few billionaires seem to own everything.

99% of humans will be surplus in 50 years.

>>14738012
who would loan money if they know they aren't being paid back retard

>>14738038
Extreme wealth inequality has a way of sorting itself out.

>>14735748
>Resources will never be unlimited.
Guys it's true, it happened in Star Trek

>post scarcity
What does this nigger shit even mean? Ignore any faggot who talks about post-[x] politics

>>14738280
> comes into thread about x
> doesn't understand x
> ignores entire thread talking about x to ask what x is
> denounces x discussion as being for nigger faggots
/sci/ is clearly not the board for you, anon
go back to /pol/ where your small brain can fit in

>>14738280
so many robots and 3d printers that everything is costs 0.0000001$, and so everyone just says "fuck it its free"

>>14738295
Ironically enough you're the fag talking about politics on /sci/. Dumb fuck.

>>14738147
>French Revolution: rich bourgeoisie overthrew rich aristocrats
>Russian Revolution: rich bourgeoisie and aristocrats fled to US/UK and brought their wealth with them

>>14735699

Hi OP, your question reminded me of a symposium about a decade ago. It wasn't even about economics, the theme was evolutionary biology.

One presenter, a biology professor, created a computer program to model the growth of species, just how their populations increase, it was a mathematical model with some RNG elements.

His twist was it imitated online MMO games' auction houses. Species would bid for resources as investments in their own growth. A predator species would pay energy hunting for a prey species' meat, while their prey species would try to bid their energy running away while still spending some to forage for vegetables eat, etc. It was abstract, I don't remember the details, but it was this general idea.

To make the model work, he borrowed from economics, just a supply-demand concept. A predator would spend his resources for food until he ate enough to be full. There were caps to wants.

His problem was this model could simulate how species grew historically except for 1: humans.

It was his daughter, who played World of Warcraft that found a solution. In a MMO, you get hardcore players, the "whales" that spend all day all night playing. They'd dramatically bid up prices in the auction house, hoarding stuff, just skew the entire market, etc.

On a lark, this professor decided to simulate these MMO whales by taking a species and removing the cap to their demand. Whereas a predator would eat until full, a ever-hungry species would not stop "eating" or at least hoarding food as long as it could pay for them.

By removing this cap, making wants unlimited, the model finally produced data for a species similar to humanity's exponential growth.

TL;DR - a scientist did a computer model to simulate how species grow in number, could only replicate humans by making their wants unlimited.

OP, it's like this professor scientifically answered your question with "no," only because the defining trait of humans is unlimited wants.

>>14735740
>AI and automation?
>year 1500 ad
>99% population are farmers
>year 2022 ad
>98% of jobs from 1500 ad are automated
>everyone has to work even harder than before
>year 2122
>98% of jobs from 2022 are automated
>everyone has to work even harder than before

>>14738402
>what is exponential growth

>>14735699
If you restrict the things being considered in your economy, then you could have scarcity approaching zero someday. I.e. energy and materials and machine work becoming extremely cheap, same way information about vast numbers of things became cheap with the internet.
But people (NPCs) will always want and trade other things for social reasons and appearances. If there is nothing they will make up something, a la tulips/NFTs.
In that sense there will always be "scarcity"

>>14737604
>UBI
Corporations can't leech money off you with monthly subscriptions then

>>14735699
> wants are unlimited
> resources are limited
both of these truisms are false

>>14735748
>Resources will never be unlimited.
Polchinski duplication

>>14738996
> thinks it's corporations who leech money off you
what a good g.. obedient citizen!

>>14739021
Go on then, we're all listening

>>14739093
>we
get lost, npc

>>14739208
>bold statement
>"explain"
>meme response
as usual

>>14739213
Corporations don't want your money if you don't want anything from you. Is it something you had to be explianed?

>from you
from them (I think you'd understand)

>>14739222
>if you don't want anything from you
>explianed
I'm counting this as a meme response as well

>>14739231
how convenient! anything to object?

>>14739232
Yes, corporations use addiction to make you want their products. See: sugar, nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, etc

>>14738341
>Russian Revolution: rich bourgeoisie and aristocrats fled to US/UK and brought their wealth with them
Impossible when wealth is basically land

>>14739235
Oh wow! How dare they produce the shit you want! How dare they to charge for it!
I would produce the shit I want by myself, but guess who stops me from doing it, demanding that I consumed the shit you mentioned instead.

>>14739260
Wanting something to make you happy =/= wanting something because it entered your brain and you can't bear the symptoms of not consuming it again

>>14738341
>Russian Revolution: poor aristocrats overthrew rich bourgeoisie
ftfy

>>14739261
So do they have to supply you with the shit you got hooked on? What if I cannot live without Lamborghini I just saw and cannot live without having one?
Also you moved the goalpost like a motherfucker.

>>14739264
Lamborghini is not a substance that enters your body and causes addiction. Sugar is

>>14739264
how did he move goalposts

>>14739268
So they have to supply you with free heroin too? Don't worry, if the state fucks off, it's going to be dirt cheap, and your ubi will cover that need with excess.
>>14739276
only few corporations are in drugs and beverages business (and now what is his problem? it used to be that they want his money, now it's that they sell addictives)

>>14739280
>So they have to supply you
They *want* to supply me, mate you're really thick
>it used to be that they want his money, now it's that they sell addictives
Because you said "corporations merely provide goods, and it's you who decide to buy them", so I responded by saying that the decision isn't entirely made by the consumer. Addiction plays a big part.

Try to follow a conversation, holy shit

>>14739291
>Addiction plays a big part.
Addiction will be less of a problem once you learn to take personal responsibility for your decisions without looking for someone to blame.
The sugar part is especially hilarious: your cookies are so good that I got addicted, now how you dare charge people for what they cannot help by need! You're a manchild, and not in a good way.

>>14735699
No because your owners are in the business of creating artificial scarcity to rule over you. Scarcity has always been an artificial creation and a mind disease. Your distant ancestors lacked nothing.

>>14739646
The issue is all the chemical shit they add that makes them addictive. You're either underage, dishonest, or really low IQ to still not see this after this long of a conversation

>>14735699
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqeWrhPTXLs

>>14739669
>they
Why don't you stop being such a passive homosexual and start your own business of pure food with every production process monitored by customers online?

>>14739653
>your owners
Slave mentality, everyone!
>business of creating artificial scarcity
the opposite is true
>Your distant ancestors lacked nothing.
*FANTASY*

>>14739684
Sorry about your profound mental illness.

>>14739675
Without addictive bs I doubt it'll have much success

>>14739688
Fortunately, intelligence is not recognized as illness.

>>14739693
Then keep on pushing heroin to your comrades and stfu

>>14739695
You will not express a single thought in this entire thread that I couldn't find poster on Twitter 2000 times. You are as "intelligent" as a GPT. You and your likes are not truly human.

>>14739701
Because this is not a thread where I could share something unique. It's all common knowledge, but it's nothing to you because you never listen.
If I told you something out of this world (and I have plenty of such ideas) you would consider me a schizo, so it would be pearl to a swine. So eat your sugar-free bran and ponder on what I've already told you.

>>14739711
I don't know why you bothered to regurgitate another vacuous tweet. Both of my points still stand.

>>14739714
Do you consider your retarded points unique?

>>14739720
They're not "unique" but you can tell I'm at least capable of forming thoughts on my own, since you won't find my thoughts repeated hundreds of times in YT comment sections.

>>14739725
>I'm at least capable of forming thoughts on my own
Even children can do that. But what are you thoughts good for? What have they brought you so far?
> you won't find my thoughts repeated hundreds of times in YT comment sections.
Because your schizo babble would be trolled away even from yt, you special snowflake.

>>14739731
>Even children can do that.
And yet you can't.

>But what are you thoughts good for?
They're good for reminding those posterd who still have an inkling of humanity in them, that "scarcity" is mostly in your head, and so long as it's in your head, the social engineers will continue to manufacture it however and whenever they see fit.

>>14735699
So, we’ve established post scarcity is a mindset.
Life is temporary, just enjoy it.
Don’t be a slave but also don’t be a faggu

>>14739737
>we’ve established post scarcity is a mindset.
It's just the other side of the same retard coin and another buzzword they use to manipulate you.

>>14739747
Dunno man my needs our met, with minimal to no effort. Any other desires I have are of my own doing, so yeah it’s a mindset

>>14739734
>They're good for reminding those posterd
Living a dream! Keep on doing the god's work, champ.

>>14735699
>post scarcity
>infinite growth

Yeah no

>>14739754
Another mindless tweet, but my point still stands completely unchallenged. Now you are "thinking" about sharting out some tweet saying I didn't have a point, although it never even crossed your mind to find something demonstrably wrong with it, and now you are feeling cognitive dissonance because one bot impulse tells you to do what I said, the your other bot impulse tells you to try to save face. You are simply not human.

>>14739753
Well, you best be a good and obedient golem and defend the systems making this beautiful "post-scarcity" utopia possible lest we go back to scarcity!

>>14739761
This bot thinks he’s on Twitter!

>>14739761
>my point still stands completely unchallenged
Because you're a one subborn retard. Nothing's gonna change your world.

>>14739771
So I see the first but impulse won over the second one. Nice.

>>14739765
Dunno but if we went back to scarcity that would be fine. But I’m chillin till then.
To your point, yes, the dude abides

>>14739786
>hell yeah post scarcity, dudebro!! i will eat ze bogs and i vill be happy!
Ok.

>>14739776
> find something wrong with my great and totally unique point of things being sold only when they are addictive
Stay away from drugs, kiddo. They have distorted your world view.

>>14739798
I don't know what your psychotic rambling is about but my point stands completely unchallenged.

>>14739794
Never eaten a bug in my life, and don’t intend to. But go on, imagine the nightmares unfolding, live in fear. If your intention is to activate someone to do something, I pity you

>>14739809
>Never eaten a bug in my life
You're gonna eat them like a good bolem and ask for dessert.

>>14739811
Why would I do that?
I don’t think I like your tone, mister

>>14739824
>Why would I do that?
Because you're a good golem and you wouldn't want to lose your consoomption privileges.

>>14739805
>my point stands completely unchallenged.
Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see.
I think I know, I mean a... yes
But it's all wrong
That is, I think I disagree

>>14739831
Notice how you're forced to keep sharting out reponses so generic they could fit literally any context where someone is butthurt about something. You are a confirmed nonhuman.

>>14739828
Tell me, what’s the alternative to my state of being? You think your way is superior? It’s laughable. I can only imagine your struggles

>>14739841
>they could fit literally any context
with you? sure they would. because you're an npc who is proud of not being able to change his algorithms. I addressed your beliefs and look how you responded.

>>14739847
>what’s the alternative to my state of being?
Well, since your state of being is characterized by embracing retarded buzzwords seeded by the social engineering industry, and structuring your thoughts around them, the alternative state of being is one where you just don't do that. It's not that complicated.

>>14739852
>gets called out on sharting out generic replies that fit in any context
>sharts out a specific reply that doesn't fit the current context
The absolute state of GPT spammers.

>>14739854
I’m living what I consider to be an easy life. You get made and say I eat bugs. I say no I won’t. You say yes you will.
I ask what is the alternative to easy life and you puke up the most retarded thing I’ve read all day

>>14739868
>I’m living what I consider to be an easy life.
Then just call it that. Don't shit out some mindless tripe about how "post-scarcity is a state of mind". It is a state of mind -- the state of mind of a golem.

>>14739876
It’s obvious we live in abundance. Any additional want is your own creation. By that I mean a state of mind. You are caught up in buzzwords if you fail to understand the very simple point

>>14739860
okey, that's it, go fuck yourself

>>14739889
>It’s obvious we live in abundance
An abundance of garbage you don't actually need, that your owners can take away from you whenever they feel like it, and in fact will take away from you. And you are convinced that this garbage is actually integral to your """quality of life""".

>>14739902
No, wrong again. What is integral to quality of life is, besides the basics of which we live in abundance, is not desiring the garbage. You are obtuse and I can say confidently you live a sad existence.

>>14739914
Generic low IQ tripe.

>>14739697
that makes no sense

>>14735699
As the pic says, wants are unlimited. So no, we'll always have things people want whose resources to produce such things are limited.
However, it's possible to have a society where the resources to fulfil our most basic needs are abundant. That would be a natural result of infinite productivity growth.

>>14735699
As the pic says, wants are unlimited. So no, we'll always have things people want whose resources to produce such things are limited.
However, it's possible to have a society where the resources to fulfil our most basic needs are abundant. That would be a natural result of productivity growth.

>>14735699
There's no scarcity.
There are monopolies and mathematical improbabilities for 90% of the population succeed in the current economy (monopiles, stock and real estate ownership etc).
How do you move from the end of Monopoly game?
Not by printing fiat and giving some monopoly money to the players who lost.
No players who lost are going to play your game.
You restart the game. That's the only way.
They also hold of a lot of cheap energy from the people. Once people realize they have energy.....

The problem is Financial industry, which is the largest in US, needs unlimited growth , as they ran out of planet to loan money to. Banks and usury and interest is the real reason we have so call "scarcity" and artificial banker generated bubbles.

>>14736182
This. While number of mega millionaires and billionaires grows daily.

>>14739020
Free energy to free matter to reatomisation

The Tlingit more or less had a post-scarcity society where social status was gained by how much you could afford to give away.
Of course, they also had slaves and periodically raided other native americans for loot.

>>14739020
https://www.astronomytrek.com/5-bizarre-paradoxes-of-time-travel-explained/

>>14735699
Wants are unlimited? Please

>>14736597
>>14736737
>>14737667
>>14739016
>>14741453
The fact that broke the marxist mind

Post-scarcity is impossible because living space is limited. Only a small subset of people can buy a house in Venice or Paris. You can't erase this


>but MUH space colonies
that doesn't solve it at all

>>14735699
Not while Republicans have any influence

>>14739260
>I would produce the shit I want by myself, but guess who stops me from doing it
Zoning and other laws prevent you from doing shitloads of things. In some countries it is illegal to grow your own food in some backyard of yours

>>14735699
A few points about OP's image.
- There's a limit to how much food, clothing, furniture and cars someone can own or at least make use of.
- Water is for all intents and purposes unlimited.
- Oil can be manufactured indefinitely.
- Money isn't a resource.
Who would make this slide? Some sleazy neoliberal lecturer I guess.

>>14735740
>AI and automation
How does that solve scarcity of resources though? It won't even make labour supply infinite, because most likely automation will cost a lot of fuel.

>>14736752
>Humans lived 99% of their evolutionary lifespan in an abundance of resources

>holy gee I have so many resouc-ACK famine

>>14742675
His point stands completely undisputed. It's like you didn't even try.

>>14742703
Humans in Europe lacked resources every fucking Winter retard.

>>14742734
That doesn't dispute his point in any way.

>>14741670
Safe and reliable extradimensional architechture

>>14741670
>You can't erase this
Basic income

Does it equate mathematically and modelly sound beyond debt?

>>14737289
>>14736968
>>14736617
>>14736606
>>14741484
>>14736597
you faggots are so cuckbroken that you cant realize we live in a POST scarcity world already

>>14745492
>post-scarcity world
Brainwashed retard.

>>14745525
you don't understand bro, I accept that the world is like that, but I just don't care. I pollute and consume and hide away my money so that I avoid getting taxed or getting it stolen, being affected by inflation and so on. I buy food that will last me for decades. I am a sociopath. I don't expect normies and government psychos to want me to be happy and safe, so I always act against them

>>14745531
>you don't understand bro

>>14745534
no need to post a selfie, loser