[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 16 KB, 400x295, quit-smoking-burning-money.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3920535 No.3920535 [Reply] [Original]

What will replace money in future?

>> No.3920536

virtual money

>> No.3920539

Money is not paper.

>> No.3920551

Credit will replace money in the future. And when people don't behave, they will loose their credit.

>> No.3920548

creds

>> No.3920555
File: 7 KB, 316x283, 9pzup7wf6m83qb32i1lr.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3920555

1,000 credits per week for resource, power and time allocation of products and services provided by automated systems.

>> No.3920558

Any chance of us evolving out of this greedy system? Something in the likes of "free things for everyone"?

>> No.3920567

>>3920558
Typical socialist thinking. Look. Things can't be free. Someone has to work for them. The only reason he would have to share them with you is something is exchange. Money is the medium of exchange. That's all to it.

>> No.3920572

>>3920558
>>3920567
See:
>>3920555
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm

>> No.3920577

Other artificial currencies and credit. (not buttcoins)

>> No.3920580

>>3920572
Typical slaver mentality. Someone else must work for me so I can live without working. Also check what robot means.

>> No.3920586

>>3920580
>A robot is a mechanical or virtual intelligent agent which can perform tasks on its own, or with guidance. In practice a robot is usually an electro-mechanical machine which is guided by computer and electronic programming.
Your problem?

>> No.3920594

>>3920567
The way I see it is like this: energy isn't free. So if we ever figured out something like a self-contained system for providing energy, it would mean everyone would be free from work, at least if they chose so. Manufacture would more or less be an automated process, and the people would act as a community, creating innovations, maintaining them, and acting together towards a common goal. Nobody would work out of need for wealth any more, as wealth would be a shared resource as well. You know, like ants.

I'm talking far future here. Possible or impossible?

>> No.3920605

>>3920594
Depends. but I doubt it. Well.. I am a bit pessimistic about future anyway.

>> No.3920616

>>3920555

But what if someone needs more credits to start a megascale project that will benefit everyone? Or somebody is a goddamn lazy useless retard slob?

>> No.3920624

Reputation.

If you have done something cool, if you have made something cool, if you know the right people, and if you do the right favors, then people will feel like they owe you favors in return.

Resources, like energy and materials, will be too cheap to meter. Content and code will be trivial to crack and disseminate without the authors permission. So charging actual, transferable, solid currency for these things would be absurd.


Examples:

You want to watch media X. You download it and watch it. You like it. A few months later, the author is looking for a reservation at your restaurant. Because you liked his work so much, you bump him up the list.

You ask your friend for a favor. He does it for you. He asks you to return the favor. You refuse. Everybody knows, and you suddenly find that people aren't so eager to do anything for you.

You want to spend some time in a new city, but you don't know anyone there. But your friend is friends with someone who has a spare room, and you ask him to vouch for you.

>> No.3920626

>>3920616
then they'll just build their own automated capitol out of self replicating nanomachines and provide everything they need themselves like every other smart person in the scenario.

>> No.3920629

>>3920555
what economic incentive is there for people to make everything completely automated?

>> No.3920635

>>3920629

There is an incentive to keep this technology out of the public's hands. But it's not possible to do this without draconian societal restrictions. And this breeds unrest, so it's not stable in the long run.

The economics of entrenched capital would no longer apply once technology reaches that level.

>> No.3920637

>>3920629

Look what the futurist guy is talking about is NOT reality. Its a possible future. Don't try and apply the laws of unrestrained available resource to this day.

>> No.3920642

>>3920635
Well. Couldn't we already automate a shit ton of jobs ESPECIALLY manufacturing but we don't to maintain our current economic system?
Why would having more of it change that?

>> No.3920645

>>3920624
>Resources, like energy and materials, will be too cheap to meter.

Ha haa, you suck cocks. When has that ever been true? And with the Age of Oil collapsing, you're going to find out that HUMAN LABOR is the ultimate resource, and does THAT sound fucking cheap to you? Considering that everyone in the future will need to labor for their daily bread?

This petroleum aberration that drove down ag work in the West to 3% of the population will stop DEAD. Unemployment will become a thing of the past, since a slew of local food producers will need the labor and will need to eat in the first place.

>> No.3920650

>>3920624
So what makes you think the price of materials is going down and not up?

>> No.3920654

>>3920650
In fact, rare earth metals that we desperately need for technology are becoming rarer and way more expensive.

>> No.3920655

>>3920642

This is true. We're on the edge of it right now. Entrenched capital still has enough power to maintain this system. And it probably will be able to keep a lid on it for decades.

Right now, it only requires that they do not actively try to exploit these technologies to their limits. Soon, though, they will have to actively try to keep them from getting out to the public at all. When a man in a shack can use his home prototyper to build a machine shop to build a car factory and make his own car to exact specifications, and all he needs is time, energy and materials, it will be very difficult to keep that under the thumb.

>> No.3920659

>>3920645
>>3920650

Space, bro's. We just have to make sure we use our easy energy of petrochemicals to get us a functioning space infrastructure and we're golden. And even if we don't, it just means it will be somewhat harder to build a space infrastructure, though it will also be more pressing.

>> No.3920662

>>3920655
>energy and materials
I promise you that the average layman will not have access to that kind of materials.
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/8796/The-Battle-for-Rare-Earths
>>3920659
So you think flying to another planet, mining, and returning will be cheaper than just mining and shipping it on Earth?

>> No.3920663

>>3920535
easy, OP

When humans are replaced by cognitive machines they will be trading units of energy.

MEGAJOULES!!!!!!

It's inevitable

>> No.3920667

>>3920662

Past a certain point, yes. It will be abominably expensive to get space resource extraction up and running. But once it's functioning, it will be incredibly cheap per unit of power or material.

If you have the capacity to tap one asteroid, to deploy one solar collector, it is suddenly very simple to make dozens of these things. And if you can do dozens, you can do as many as you like.

>> No.3920698

>>3920667
This man has a point.

>> No.3920700

Collectivist socialism??

>> No.3920703

>>3920667
I still don't think that will drive it to a point where its "too cheap to meter".
Think about how easily accessed water is and its metered.

>> No.3920713
File: 97 KB, 290x304, 1297916469535.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3920713

>>3920703
Because it costs energy, manpower and relatively scarce materials/products to make it.

>> No.3920715

>>3920655
You're a fucking retard.

>> No.3920716

>>3920713
What relatively scarce materials go into water?

>> No.3920720

>>3920713
Actually I should say, to purify it and send it by pipeline to your residence.

>> No.3920722

>>3920703

I disagree. I mean, it will cost something. Someones effort, someones capital, will go into exploiting these resources. Ultimately, though, charging currency for it will be worth less to the people who exploit these resources than the reputation effects of giving them away. And since it will be relatively straightforward for anyone with the interest to go and extract their own, or form a cooperative to do the same, this kind of competition would drive the prices way, way down.

You see, we only have so much water, only so much clean water, and it requires an expensive and elaborate infrastructure to get it where it needs to be, to drain it away again, to keep it clean and safe, and human beings have to do each part of this process. If it were possible for me to work one day to ensure I have clean water for years and years, and I require no special training, no special equipment, but just the will to do it, then it would be absurd to charge anyone for water. Better to give it to them and have them feel indebted, rather than charge them and have them feel you owe them something.

>> No.3920731

>>3920713
What about the high overhead that goes into it that he previously mentioned? The fact is someones going to have to put that up, and they're not going to want to do it "lol just cause". They're going to want profit sharing.

>> No.3920741

>>3920731

The initial costs. They will be amortized out quickly, unless, of course, a deliberate attempt is made to produce an artificial scarcity. That's a possibility, but not inevitable.

>> No.3920743

>>3920722
Just because you "can" doesn't mean you "will". And someone will be there to trade the resources you won't want to mine. Nobody gives a fuck about reputation unless it's in measurable form, and then it's DOSH.

>> No.3920744

Whats with all this talk about socialism and "soclialist thinking"?

Learn how the world works. Here is actual socialist thinking: "Business as usual"
Modern western civilization west is absolutely built upon socialism. Or did you think that the money fairy built all the public works? And pays for the largest military industrial complex in human history? And pays out the subsidies that many industries recieve? And pays for the government contracts that are created specifically for slect companies? The broke dying guy in the ER?
Ect. Ect. Ect. There are thousands of examples, literally.

Well there IS no money fairy.

You ARE a socialist.
So am I.
We dont even have a say in the matter.
We cant fucking escape it without living in the woods and even then you might still be benefiting from socialist policies depending on who owns the woods, what is being done with it and what could be done with it.

>> No.3920746

>>3920741
So after they're paid off, you expect the owner will just relinquish rights to that equipment and give the materials out for free?

>> No.3920748

>>3920743

I think people give a fuck about reputation more than you think. What is money if not a measure of your promise to work X hours, to provide X stuff? It's already reputation, just divested of any kind of personal connection.

>> No.3920750

>>3920744
I don't think you understand what socialism means. Socialism is an EXPLICIT control of means of production through some social representative like the state, an elect, a non-elect (dictator?) etc.

>> No.3920752

Space? Don't make me laugh. We've been on a general retreat from manned spaceflight for some time. And the future's plans for manned spaceflight largely involves one-shots that don't produce manned infrastructure. Humanity doesn't want to go into space. It doesn't matter that a few percent of the population (i.e. the nerds) want it. What the nerds want is irrelevant.

>> No.3920754

>>3920752

I know, we just need to somehow convince the jocks and the plastics too.

>> No.3920755

>>3920746

Maybe. It could be that keeping a tight hold on the reins requires them to enact legislation that limits entry into the market for others. In that case, it would be okay to simply take it from them, since they are not really playing fair to begin with.

But no, the first generation of this stuff should make the investors very rich in the traditional sense. They deserve it. They don't deserve to keep this abundance to themselves in perpetuity, though.

>> No.3920757

>>3920748
And then it's measurable, and is money.
Simple.
Unmeasurable reputation? Not a single fuck given.

>> No.3920759

>>3920741
>a deliberate attempt is made to produce an artificial scarcity. That's a possibility, but not inevitable.
You mean kind of like what is happening right now?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb817dd6-f976-11e0-bf8f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1bAHHD1ZS

>> No.3920765

>>3920741
For the record though man, I'm not saying it's impossible. This could very well happen, but what I know about the nature of man makes me think its a bit idealistic.