Right now, the political forum is beset with the "Socialist vs Capitalist" arguments and I had an interesting thought...
I'm wondering if political science and political philosophy are properly taking into account technological advancement.
More and more of our manufacturing is being automated. More and more people are being put out of jobs by machines and computers. In fact, as more and more "narrow" AIs come into operation, jobs previously thought to be impossible by machines will become dominated by them. Take automated driving. Google is easily 3-4 years away from having automated vehicles in every city in the US and dominating Uber.
Taking a step back... For the sake of argument, lets say that machines can manufacture 90% of all human goods with "minimal" help from a person. Imagine an entire factory that cranks out televisions, microwaves, and other electronics by the thousands per hour and yet only requires 50 human beings to oversee everything.
What if the 90% didn't only apply to electronics but everything, that is 90% of all of our needs could be obtained via machines with minimal human oversight: Food, agriculture, power generation, utilities...
Now extend this to services as well, imagine being able to get a massage from a machine, or your hair cut, dentistry, tatoos....
So, what is my point?
Well, we've been taught to regard the above as an economic catastrophe. We can't help but think "What kind of job can people have?" with the above system.
It occurs to me that this is 18th, 19th, and 20th century thinking.
However, I don't want to poison the well with my thoughts.
I'd like to ask this forum the following questions:
What would be possible ramifications if machines could produce 90% of humanity's needs with minimal human oversight?
What adjustments would/could we make to our various economic systems to deal with the possible ramifications?
Is it all doom and gloom?
I'm wondering if political science and political philosophy are properly taking into account technological advancement.
More and more of our manufacturing is being automated. More and more people are being put out of jobs by machines and computers. In fact, as more and more "narrow" AIs come into operation, jobs previously thought to be impossible by machines will become dominated by them. Take automated driving. Google is easily 3-4 years away from having automated vehicles in every city in the US and dominating Uber.
Taking a step back... For the sake of argument, lets say that machines can manufacture 90% of all human goods with "minimal" help from a person. Imagine an entire factory that cranks out televisions, microwaves, and other electronics by the thousands per hour and yet only requires 50 human beings to oversee everything.
What if the 90% didn't only apply to electronics but everything, that is 90% of all of our needs could be obtained via machines with minimal human oversight: Food, agriculture, power generation, utilities...
Now extend this to services as well, imagine being able to get a massage from a machine, or your hair cut, dentistry, tatoos....
So, what is my point?
Well, we've been taught to regard the above as an economic catastrophe. We can't help but think "What kind of job can people have?" with the above system.
It occurs to me that this is 18th, 19th, and 20th century thinking.
However, I don't want to poison the well with my thoughts.
I'd like to ask this forum the following questions:
What would be possible ramifications if machines could produce 90% of humanity's needs with minimal human oversight?
What adjustments would/could we make to our various economic systems to deal with the possible ramifications?
Is it all doom and gloom?