< What happens to the Third World when the First World no longer needs it?

~ns

There's a techno-optimistic angle of this: the same technology that reduces the reliance on poorer countries can also be used to help the people in those poorer countries. After all, we're all human and with the same basic requirements. Call it trickle-down techonomics, but it has an effect nonetheless. The problem is getting poorer and developing countries access to these new technologies, but access is better problem to have than the technology not existing in the first place.

Historically, the question of "but what will the people do without jobs?" has always been asked when some new, revolutionary technology appears. So far, that question has always been answered by new jobs appearing elsewhere. If you were to tell someone living in the US from the early 1800s that technology would improve so much that over 90% of the population would be out of a job (>90% of the labor force was farmers, compared to 1.3% today) they'd be panicked. But of course, we know that it has instead opened the opportunity for people to work in other sectors that can dramatically improve our lives in other ways.

The real question is whether we can set aside greed enough to empower people to live good lives in a post-labor world. Universal basic income is practically a requirement, in that regard.

Write a reply

Replies

~tetris wrote:

I think a lot of people are optimistic that a horse -> car transition will take place in regards to AI. I'm not so sure, since I think AI is not just a tool, but a direct competition to the human condition.

AI can wield AI in a way that a car cannot wield another car (nor a horse wielding another horse).

I'm hoping it creates more markets than it closes, but how long will those markets last when they're just replaced by newer ones (e.g. an AI that writes music, followed by an AI that redefines music genres, followed by an AI that unites music, art, culture, and mathematics, etc.)

How can anyone specialize, plan, cooperate in something that will just change again not soon after. I see an end to the stock exchange (maybe a good thing) and any security that a government can promise its people.

I think we're all going to be put through a fine mesh, and come out the other side the same color (maybe a good thing). Hopefully UBI is seen as a necessity here and we find more meaningful ways to define the value of human life outside of economics

~inquiry wrote:

<~inquiry pushes all his chips to the "NO" region of the table>

<dealer waits a bit longer for additional bet placements.. pushes dice to shooter.. announces "The shooter has the dice!">

<~inquiry closes his eyes, resting uncomfortably in how much he likes his odds>