Comment by TaylorAlexander | Hacker News Reader

Comment by TaylorAlexander | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

TaylorAlexander

I talk to people about changing the world so work is optional, and people are really attached to the idea that everyone should work all the time. Our world is sufficiently productive (a trend I expect to continue rising) that we could offer a modest life to everyone regardless of how much they work. Or more conservatively, we could build a world where everyone has 8 weeks of vacation a year or could take 6 months off every few years.

I believe this is doable from a technical perspective and it’s the problem I’m trying to devote my life to. We ultimately need to build optional societies where people who choose to join can opt out of consumerism, a major driver of our need for endless work.

My vision is for systems of robotics that are totally open source (modifiable and royalty free) that can create the basic goods for survival. Then groups of people fund corporations with bylaws like a constitution that guarantee rights to shareholders. The machines provide for the people and excess goods are sold to a market to support growth of the community.

I think something like that in the future is one very useful aspect of a society where unnecessary work is over and regular people get to enjoy the benefits of modern productivity (instead of a small percentage of the population enjoying that while most people miss out).

But in general when I talk to people I find that the hardest idea for them to grasp is the idea that we could all work less and things wouldn’t collapse. We just need to alter the distribution of wealth so that everyone benefits.

> Our world is sufficiently productive (a trend I expect to continue rising) that we could offer a modest life to everyone regardless of how much they work.

i realize that the rest of your post details technological advancements that could create this condition (on an indefinite timeline), but you also seem to be saying that it is already possible today. i often see this sort of claim these days, and i always wonder why this is treated as self evident fact.

in 2015, the PPP adjusted GDP per capita over the entire planet was just under $16k [1]. this is only 125% of the US poverty line for a single person in the same year [2]. even if we could deliver this sum to every person in the world without losing production capacity and with no administrative cost, it hardly seems enough to provide what you mean by a "modest living" to everyone. much closer to mere subsistence in a developed nation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...

[2] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...

I imagine it would start in the wealthier countries. US GDP per capita is $57.5k. I think if we had previously been focused on building a non-consumerist society, we could already have what I talk about today. That is, the problem is not technological but political and cultural. These efforts have not in my opinion really begun in earnest, but my hope is that robotics can be leveraged to rapidly replace the old human centric infrastructure with an automated one. Then it all just comes down to who owns the machines.

I recognize that in many places in the world, the development isn’t there. However the US can also play a part by ending the imperialism that helps keep these countries down.

This would be such a massive change to the world economy that I'm not sure present day prices for anything are even relevant.

Measure productivity different from money made. The point is that based on current production levels, we could provide everyone with sufficient food, decent housing and basic amenities like water and electricity.

The reason this doesnt happen is that those who sell the food, or build the housing are better off getting paying customers. This makes sense as a market, sellers are self-interested. It also leads to a certain kind of optimum. But certainly, as a matter of production, it is feasible to give everyone a modest life without needing to change productivity. As a matter of social stability, it isn't feasible, but in some sense, that should be a denouncement of society.

GDP is an erroneous measure for what we're discussing and falls into the same recursive logic that is noted at the top of this comment chain a la broken window fallacy.

If you blow up a tank, and then build a new one, this is considered a net gain in GDP even though in reality there was a relative net loss of human labor.

> Our world is sufficiently productive (a trend I expect to continue rising) that we could offer a modest life to everyone regardless of how much they work.

I don't think this is true, because I think too large a fraction of the world's current productivity is supplied by people who would not produce if they didn't have to to earn a living.

> My vision is for systems of robotics that are totally open source (modifiable and royalty free) that can create the basic goods for survival.

This would fix the productivity problem, yes. But...

> Then groups of people fund corporations with bylaws like a constitution that guarantee rights to shareholders. The machines provide for the people and excess goods are sold to a market to support growth of the community.

This would throw away the whole thing. If there are open source machines that can create the basic goods for survival, the obvious thing to do is for every individual to just own one. There is no need for corporate ownership; in fact, corporate ownership undermines the whole thing, by giving some people an incentive to game the corporate system. If there is no such system, there's nothing to be gamed.

> the world's current productivity is supplied by people who would not produce if they didn't have to to earn a living.

Not according to the article.

> Not according to the article.

I don't see the article making any claim one way or the other about what I was saying.

You might be interested in Marcin Jakubowski's work ...

https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com