/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2793176

It's gonna last alot longer than that

>>2793178

rofl - im not OP but I laugh heartily at you.

>>2793178
It won't, it can't operate with an automated workforce.

>>2793185
>automated workforce
>2030
Oh u

>>2793185

[citation needed]

>>2793188
>needs citations to reach logical conclusions

No workforce means no one with money to buy things.

>>2793191

Frictional unemployment.

next

>>2793195
Not relevant. Try again.

>absurd oil price
check
>high unemployment rate
check
>government literally bankrupted
check
>unnecessary war waged
check

capitalism will thrive I tell ya, Obama 2012!

>>2793200

Yes it is.

>>2793208
No it isn't.

Having an increasingly larger portion of population be not needed to work is not comparable having some people looking around for work.

To all the people in here, capitalism will most likely survive until 2039.

>>2793191
>I don't need evidence because I'm on /sci/

>he thinks that capitalism isn't eternal

itt: making it clear that you're not as intelligent as you think you are

baldness cure 2012
there better fucking be

>>2793191
>Automated workforce.
>No one needs to work.
>Before 2030.
So many fallacies. It hurts.

>>2793610
why will it only last until then? A good answer please not "lololol pleb"

>>2794180
lololol pleb

>>2793176

>Capitalism surviving past 2030
NOPE.jpg

Why is that? I'm not up to date on economics and that

>>2794180
Capitalism might survive in a manner of speaking for quite a long while. Not the part of capitalism that's all about private ownership and profit and money, mind.

But the part that's about free market forces.

For the past 200 odd years people have been talking about how automation was going to get rid of everyone's jobs. It turned out that while automation did get rid of a LOT of jobs, these jobs were at the same time immediately replaced with IT and office work, and overall there was actually job growth.

However, automation is now more advanced than ever, we're quickly automating things that only 5 years ago required a human being to be accomplished. Within 5-10 years we'll probably start seeing automated taxicabs and trucks and farming. We're already seeing warehouses switching over to 90% automated forms. Within 20 years advanced algorithms and artificial intelligence precursors similar to Watson, but more advanced, will be handling jobs like data entry, customer service, and information retrieval.

This has the net effect of increasing productivity while putting everyone out of a job.

The ones who will feel the pain first will be those at the bottom - your average unemployed folks, unable to work, unable to buy anything. The managers and executives at the top won't see any problems with this at first, because they, for the most part, are utterly unable to think ahead more than a fiscal quarter. Eventually they'll start seeing profits drop precipitously [who can buy your stuff when nobody has any money?]

And that will be the end of capitalism. Driven simply by normal market forces.

With the economy grinding to a halt because of the lack of circulating value, changes will *have* to take place, whether capitalists want them to or not.

>>2794260
spoiler:
>capitalism will still exist

>>2794260
That's not how it works...
To produce 10,000 metal products X, you need 1000 blacksmiths working for a year.
BAM, industrialization.
You need 1 factory worker for 10,000 products X. LOL YOU CANT SELL X, BECAUSE YOU'VE DECIMATED THE 999 OTHER WORKERS.
They started working in service industry, for some job that is not automated, got a work-time reduction (40-hours in stead of 60 to 70 hour weeks). Also, the factory started to produce a million products instead of 10,000; because of the drop in production cost, so they still have a lot of employees.

>>2793191
Which is precisely why we need to start embracing socialism now so we can have a smooth transition into the future utopian society
Also Law(to a certain extent), accounting, finance and engineering will be done by the vastly more powerful computers of the future

>>2794293
You just don't get it.

>You need 1 factory worker for 10,000 products X. LOL YOU CANT SELL X, BECAUSE YOU'VE DECIMATED THE 999 OTHER WORKERS.
>They started working in service industry, for some job that is not automated, got a work-time reduction (40-hours in stead of 60 to 70 hour weeks).

There is no service industry. It's been automated.

Phone tech support, and you get a clearly human voice on the phone speaking in your language fluently. Except its not a human, it's something like Watson. You say "My computer keeps getting these weird rainbow colored lines and boxes on the screen before turning off" and this algorithm/artificial intelligence looks at what best fits the issue, and provides an answer: "Your GPU/CPU may be overheating or faulty."

A year ago, I'd have thought this kind of thing was still a ways off. But what IBM's Watson does is almost exactly this. We may only be a decade from seeing this kind of commercial use. Maybe less than a decade.

Anyways getting past that, you are wrong about worker time being reduced. These companies have, with the gains in automation, proceeded to fire the workers they don't need, while those who remain continue to work the same hours. As opposed to your belief that the same number of workers are kept, but everyone's hours are reduced. [Did not, has not, will not happen]

>>2794344
>Also, the factory started to produce a million products instead of 10,000; because of the drop in production cost, so they still have a lot of employees.

They don't need the employees. More profit if you don't have to pay so many employees so you kick them to the curb. What actually happens is the corporation sees that they only need 1 worker to produce 1 million products, so they fire the other 1000 workers they had.

Now what does happen as a result of this you didn't touch on at all - with the greater production comes fantastically cheaper products. However, the issue at this point is who can actually buy these products when only 1/10th of the workforce is actually able to work? Ultimately things grind to a halt because value stops circulating through the economy. That 1/10th of the workforce isn't going to willingly buy the other 9/10ths all their food, goods, whatever, they likely won't be able to afford it anyhow - the corporations will only pay them enough for a decent standard of living for just themselves.

>>2794355
refer to
>>2794343

>Worlds first commercial space port
>this year

Actually I guess if some private group bought the space shuttles from nasa...

>>2794360
Well what we come to is a sort of empasse.

The vast majority of the population is out of work, they will be demanding the government give them money so that they don't starve to death.

But the government doesn't have that money. So it will have to raise taxes. But the people don't have the money either, so they cannot be taxed.

Which leaves the corporations.

So the government raises taxes on the corporations, and the corporations scoff and say "if you really do this, we'll just leave the country". And it will happen, the corporations will get taxed, they will leave the country, and swiftly find that this issue is happening all over the world and they have nowhere to run to. Globalization finally hits the fatcats at the top.

There will be no choice left for them. They pay the government taxes, and the government gives people money so that they can afford to buy the goods that the corporations make.

This is one possible scenario out of a thousand. But all of them [Well, the progressive ones] result in the collapse/reformation of our current economic system.

Alternatively we go the non-progressive route. We ban high technology and automation. We force corporations to hire people by outlawing automation. We stagnate and decay, and the economy fails anyways because someone somewhere will say "fuck this" and go the progressive route and they will either be tremendously successful, soaking up money from all the other countries because they are able to outproduce them to a massive degree, or they will be bombed to the stone age by the non-progressive countries, introducing even greater economic hardships and debt.

>>2794355
If no one wants a product its value decreases, if you produce 100 products but only two are bought those 98 left will eventually decrease in price.

Due to inertia in the system it is likely to collapse however, those 99 products unsold will count as a economic loss, and the next production run will be 5 products instead, for which you need less workers, so we have workers fired, a contraction of buyer capability and only one of those five products are sold, the producer realizes his business is not productive and quits. This may reduce raw material costs due to a lessened demand which might peak his competitors sales for a short while, but eventually the assymetry of the whole mess will crash the real value down to zero for everything.
But of course, when this happens, there's no producers of anything left anymore.

>>2794402
Given what I know of humanity and America, I think it's a safe bet that we'll go down the "bomb the progressive people to the stone age and saddle ourselves with debt" route.

Fuck me. The future's a great place, innit?

What are the chances of living indefinitely if you are currently under 50 like the site says?

When all work will be done by self-repairing sentient robots, then capitalism may be replaced by some utopia. It will basicaly mean that human race itself was replaced. Not a year sooner, I tell you.

>>2794429
Humans will just become robots and live in virtual reality where anything is possible.

>>2794426
Are you living in a first world country?
Incredibly likely.

>>2794409
Unlikely, you can get support to bomb a dictator, but bombing someone because they use automated factory will face public resistance like never before, because doing so would make you the tyrants you bombed in the past.


What I suspect will happen is that we'll see a startup movement that establishes closed-cycle economies where the products are reinvested in the system instead of pooled into some fat cats bank account where they stagnate, there would be no owner(s), there would just be a system geared towards self-improvement/expansion.

china will be the next capitalist superpower state.

>31 posts ommited
why?

>diverging path for humans and transhumans
NOPE.

Scarcity is already a dead concept, but there won't be any sort of "divide" between "transhumans" and "old humans." Because the augmentations will be as ubiquitous as cellphones are today.

>>2794461
You know, we could trounce them economically if we focused tooth and nail on automating everything and embraced a new economic system. This is what our government SHOULD be doing right now. Not perpetuating the status quo, not bailing out failing corporations.

We'd leave them in the dust and force them to play catch-up with technology they still don't have yet.

We'd produce more goods than they do, and do it cheaper than their human labor can compete with. Won't that be a twist. Cheap products coming OUT of America instead of INTO it.

We have all the tools to get started on this. We can STAY a first world superpower, we can hold onto the top spot, all we have to fucking do is invest in future automation technology and re-adjust our economy to work under/slowly adjust to full automation.

But I know we won't. The corporations have their claws into our politicians, and their shortsighted greed won't see us changing direction until after our Titanic's hit the iceberg.

>>2794516
>and their shortsighted greed won't see us changing direction until after our Titanic's hit the iceberg.

lol dude. It's 2011. We hit that iceberg a couple years ago and we're already sinking.

>>2794516
You. President. Right the fuck now.

>>2794529
America needs a dictator.

>>2794538
A benevolent dictator...

>>2794524
This.
I'm waiting for the inevitable shitstorm that's going to happen when people find out that goverment and the rich is the only guys who'll fit in the lifeboats.

>>2794498

You're telling me the vatican, the wbc-equivilants along with the sand niggers and the rest of the fundies on the planet won't be pushing massive 'transhumanism is eeeevil' campaigns?

Never underestimate the power of retards with money.

>>2794544
A tryrant of science and engineering.

>>2794570
First post of mine ITT: I have a friend which excels in programming and physics, but doesn't want to go transhuman until he really needs to due to some reason. (i.e. if he loses his legs, he will get himself artificial legs, but not before that)

>>2794575
*ahem*

ITT: naive kids

>>2794575
Who likes anime and plays vidya.

>>2794580
But he'll still go transhuman at some point.

>>2794588
>no one is agreeing with me, WAAAHHHHH, I hate all of you!
theres one of you for every thread.

>>2794589
and is a total bro

>>2794581
I'd rather go to Alaska or Wyoming

>>2794602
Your loss.

>>2794570
Theres been religion based opposition to every large advancement of technology.

But, the larger the advancement, the smaller the opposition.

>>2794606
No YOUR loss

>>2794570
According to the website religion will be pretty much ignored by then.

>>2794620
No, YOUR loss.

>>2794628

>>2794632

"Capitalism" just means the means of production are in private hands. It's literally inconceivable that it will not be around in 20 fucking years, even in a fully automated workforce (impossible: Who maintains the machines?) there will still be people who own the fucking factories.

And yes, I know I just got trolled.

>>2794679

Machines themselves can maintain the machines, and those machines can maintain each other.

>>2794716

I don't know if you're just a moron, or an unusually stupid troll

>>2794722

Oh I see, you're a troll yourself. If not, you should stop being a luddite and accept change.

>>2794679
>even in a fully automated workforce (impossible: Who maintains the machines?)
It doesn't take 200 million people to keep the machinery in working order bud.

Also, nice job reading a wikipedia summary to get a quick overview of what capitalism is.

>>2794757

There is a difference between being a Luddite and not giving credence to wild eyed utopianist fantasy.

>>2794796

That you imagine anyone would have to look up what capitalism means demonstrates that you are either staggeringly ignorant or seriously underage b&.

>>2794829
lol dude, your explanation of what capitalism is, is pretty much ripped straight from the summary on wikipedia.

You clearly didn't know and looked it up.

Nothing wrong with that, but you're acting like your some kind of hot shit knowitall when you ain't.

>cure for baldness

I....I have a reason to live now

>>2794843

What's your point? Wiki is pretty accurate, and the definition of capitalism is very simple.

>>2794859
Because you don't understand what you're talking about.

There's more to capitalism than "some guy owns production", and this thread's already stated multiple times that whatever economic system we move to, it'll still probably have some capitalist legacies, like invisible market forces, because that shit works.

You're going on a rant, without knowing what you're talking about, and then calling everyone who calls you out on it morons and trolls.

>>2794857
Haven't we had a cure for baldness for awhile?

Just that it requires constantly taking drugs?

>>2794880
>There's more to capitalism than "some guy owns production"

No there isn't. Capitalism is about who owns a societies productive forces, nothing more.

>>2794886
...You know, I'm not sure if you're trying to cover yourself up as a troll, or were really a troll the whole time.

There is a *lot* more to capitalism than simply the private ownership of production.

>>2794902

No there isn't. There are of course many related concepts, but capitalism was defined by Marx in a very precise and definite way.

Question: If we get everything automated.
And I mean every stage, from extraction of raw materials to production to marketing.
And let's say that costs are so close to zero that they're inconsequential. The automation is so good that the robots also extract the materials to repair and maintain themselves, and there's a system set up for maintenance by robots for robots to ensure that everything runs smoothly.

To the point where I could go to a McDonalds, type in my order or speak it, and get a free Big Mac or whatever.
Who owns the machines and the property? What's his incentive to own it? What's his incentive to keep everything free (even though nobody has money)?

>>2794910
Uh huh.

So I suppose this pretty much completely invalidates all your previous comments then. I'm glad that we've established you're simply a troll, and at least the discussion helped keep the thread bumped for other people interested in the topic.

>>2794914
Everybody own it.
(was going to say the state, but you americans seems to have a problem with your government(with reason, i guess))

>>2794914
And in comes the benevolent libertarian socialism.

>>2794914

Even in a post scarcity society, there will still be limited resources. Land, for instance: not everyone can live in Buckingham Palace, nor can everyone have a pyramid made of gold. And even if most products are freely available, there will still be prestige items, such as hand-crafted violins, that will be limited.

tl;dr- mans appetites will always exceed his means.

>>2794920

What are you babbling about? That was literally my one and only point ITT.

Is this edited regularly? If not it has some extremely general but good predictions. Worst one so far? Mercury mapped by '10 and mineral hordes found.

China still being in an economic boom by 2025?
For a strech I'll lean over and touch my NOPES.

>>2794914
Production simply becomes owned by the commons, rather than by individuals, and the people "in charge" of production really only function as managers to insure it is running smoothly.

>>2794923
State ownership would be more palatable to Americans than public ownership. Public ownership is Communism, and even suggesting for a moment that we switch to a communist economy will send Americans into a tizzy. They don't even have to know what it means, all they need to hear is the word.

>>2793191
Automation never reduces work, it just shifts jobs.

Computers removed alot of paper work, they added more collating and internal product studies that would have been too difficult just to work with paper.

Automated drill replaces 50 pickaxe miners. Use the miners for other jobs to mine more shit in different ways. More production, same number of workers.

You will never be free from toil, accept it.

>>2794987

>They don't even have to know what it means, all they need to hear is the word

That's real american brainwashing for you. Brought you by Uncle Sam.

>>2794920
Pray tell, how did it?

>>2794934
Sure, there'll always be scarcity, it's just how the universe works.

But we can make a lot of things so abundant that they may as well cost nothing. [And once money is gone, the only actual cost will be time and energy] That is what post-scarcity is about.

We've got plenty of resources within our solar system, we're not confined solely to this planet, and there is PLENTY of space on Earth, nevermind everywhere else.

>>2795014
>And once money is gone

Why would it be gone?

>>2795014

We've already done this. When was the last time you had to go barefoot because you couldn't afford shoes? When was the last time a citizen of a western democracy starved to death because he literally couldn't obtain enough food? Within my own lifetime, computers have gone from a rare and incredibly expensive luxury to a commonplace. And yet, have people's appetites for MORE decreased? If anything, people's expectations have grown faster than our ability to fulfill them. This trend will continue, with todays luxuries becoming tomorrows necessities, without end.

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Give a man a net, and tomorrow he will expect a boat."

>>2794999
We have already gone over this in the thread.

Automation has, for the past 200 years, only shifted jobs, there has always been a new industry to replace the jobs of the old industry.

But that is not going to happen now. We are progressing rapidly in automation technology, faster than we can come up with new industries to replace the lost jobs.

And the new industries? Pray tell, where are they? We're about to start automating white collar jobs and are already automating more blue collar jobs than ever before. The replacement jobs are *still* nowhere in sight, and unemployment continues to rise. At best we create an industry dedicated to repairing our automated factories and robots, but we won't need to employ as many people for that as we currently do - One mechanic could service an entire building, and the automation will only get more efficient and durable as the technology is further developed.

Not to mention that such a job will likely require a great degree of technical expertise, which a lot of the population lacks and may not even be able to attain.

The first stages of our advancement into a new economy will be extraordinarily high unemployment rates. In excess of 50% of the working population. We'll probably still have our current economic system at that point in time. [unless someone in charge is thinking ahead] With an unemployment rate this high and rising as automation becomes more and more advanced, the economy simply breaks.

The only thing that "saves" us from this economic collapse and subsequent new economy is the creation of a gigantic new industry that cannot be done by robots, but will employ everyone.

>>2795035
Maybe it wouldn't go, maybe we'll keep it?

Earlier in the thread they were talking about how the government would have to tax corporations to give money to people so that they could afford to buy the goods the corporations produce, because everyone was out of a job due to automation.

I think keeping some type of currency would work best - it allows some free market ideals to continue working even in the new economy. Which is very important, imo.

Theoretically, would the Venus Project (or at least something like it) work and finally be able to be put into place once the shit eventually hits the fan?

Or can we expect to be thrown into the dark ages?

>>2795193
>would the Venus Project (or at least something like it) work

>>2795089
>We are progressing rapidly in automation technology, faster than we can come up with new industries to replace the lost jobs.

Lets say you automate an entire factory. Now that you can produce a product so cheaply you have overhead to expand your operation. Which means you will need more machinist to maintain the equipment and managers to organize the men and machines due to their large numbers.

Likewise increases in production require increases in resource extraction. Since resource extraction like timber and mining are inherently unpredictable environments to work in you will always need a higher ratio of human supervision for the automation compared to a factory.

Also their are plenty of ways to get people into otherwise highly specialized jobs without them being required to be much smarter. Even an idiot can be trained in the basics of geology and go collect seismic data or measure stratigraphic sections. All of which are needed to find mineral resources. They then report back to the BS or MS Geologist.

Long and short expect alot more technical jobs and the rise the Associates degree in science. Essentially this will make technicians the new blue collar. In order to facilitate this they will likely have to streamline secondary education and drop the required liberal arts shit from college to make them more affordable.

Automation has more applications for making better products that can be sold for very high prices, sometimes more than the price of sever cheaper products with the same collective lifespan. Some people prefer a single product that is always available if they are going to use it a lot and don't want the inconvenience of replacing it. It it is a rarely used item, disposable or cheap products are generally more cost effective.
zero sum system. Because there will be more material in the natural environment to extract resources from for some time.

>>2795193
A Venus Project with a slightly more centralized government and far more automation than they initially suggested (hurr durr this can be done with todays technology durr) would work exceptionally well.

>>2795200

Don't bother, /x/tards cannot into the most elementary economics. One of the cretins ITT even considered the definition of capitalism to be so esoteric that it could only be known by consulting wiki.

>>2795193
venus project does not have a good transitioning plan, thanks to technology a lot of things can work if you get to start with a brainwashed public

>>2795200
Also more people to design shit. As automation gets better the runs of the product can get smaller because of interchange parts or CAD systems that can easily be programed to produce a variety of parts. The smaller runs can cater to specific consumers or even custom ordered parts. Which thanks to the internet and a shiton of service workers being freed up from the industrial production can be provided.

It might get to the point were you can make a profit by catering to 1,000 production runs that each only contain 100 consumers each at one time.

Also as long as resource extraction is required and someone wants compensation for their efforts in any field you are going to get trade. And if trade is standardized with a some monetary unit it's called capitalism.

This timeline assumes some sort of linear technologic advancement as compared to now. Thats idiotic.

Also, US secceding land to Mexico by 2140? Shave a century off and its realistic.

I can't belive what I'm seeing here...... Capitalism....dying? Socialism...prevailing? And I thought scientists had brains

>>2795283

People who predict the future invariably make fools of themselves.

http://www.zompist.com/predic.htm

I just read through the entire thing. up til the 10x10000000000 AD. :|

If nobody had jobs, there would be nobody to sell the things made automatically to. Duh.

>>Capitalism surviving past 2030
>NOPE.jpg

That's incredibly optimistic of you.

>Anit-mater power plants.
Lol nope.