[fredkbloggs]

Let's suppose for a moment that we accept the thesis that due to automation, there won't be much work for humans in the future.

Instead of taking wealth from the smaller number of humans who are creating that wealth and giving it to those who are not, why don't we just accept that we don't need so many of us any more? Let the extras die off naturally (note to angry skimmers: I SAID NATURALLY) and migrate to a new lower-population equilibrium. There have been a lot of explanations offered for why the world's more advanced economies have been seeing lower birth rates for decades, but one rarely reads the most obvious one: people are having fewer children because fewer humans are needed. This isn't a problem to be solved, it's a boon to future generations.

While some resources are created through economic activity driven by humans, others (most notably land, in the form of space between neighbors who desire it, frontiers, the economic viability of wilderness conservation, and of course land for economic purposes) are fixed. If fewer humans can create just as much of the variable stuff while leaving more of the fixed stuff for each one, how is that not better for all? The vast majority of humans, if not literally every last one, will be much wealthier. And that's even before we consider the fundamental unfairness of redistribution, or the waste associated with the political and bureaucratic machines it entails.

Instead of thinking about how to redistribute the dividends from automation, we should be making sure we won't have to. In a given environment, every species has an optimal population. If we alter our environment such that fewer humans can produce the same amount of wealth as more humans, that optimal population has decreased. We need to accept that and adjust to it, not fight it with gimmickry and theft. If (and it's a big if) automation is really going to put billions of people out of productive work, then the only sustainable answer to that is fewer people. Embrace it.

[dragonwriter]

> Instead of taking wealth from the smaller number of humans who are creating that wealth and giving it to those who are not, why don't we just accept that we don't need so many of us any more? Let the extras die off naturally (note to angry skimmers: I SAID NATURALLY) and migrate to a new lower-population equilibrium.

Because in practice that doesn't work: natural population growth is inversely correlated with the strength of social safety nets; if you want to negative natural population growth to move toward a lower population, you need more, not less, redistributive policies by which those who profit the most from the structure of society support those who don't to get there.

If you want to get to a "lower population equilibrium" and avoid taxing those at the top more to achieve it "naturally", you aren't going to be able to be that passive about it.

[jal278]

You're making an assumption that the purpose of humanity is to work to create wealth. That's a very narrow view of our potential. Many would view human flourishing more through the lens of creativity, relationships, and meaningful work (which may not be economically productive).

While I do believe that smaller populations may be more desirable, the logical conclusion of your line of thinking would be that once we automate everything, then humans should naturally bow out to their technological creations.

[fredkbloggs]

That assumes it's possible to automate everything that creates wealth (I'm using "wealth" in the author's extremely broad sense; it does not mean "money"). It sounds like you're saying it isn't, and I agree. That is, the optimal human population will never be zero.

[eli_gottlieb]

"Optimal human population of zero" seems like a contradiction-in-terms. For whom is it optimal to have a human population of zero? Surely not for the humans, and since we're the ones who exist, we draw up the criteria.

[fredkbloggs]

> "Optimal human population of zero" seems like a contradiction-in-terms.

Well, I also noted that it wouldn't occur, so... ok?

> For whom is it optimal to have a human population of zero?

While this is moot given the above, the sad reality is "probably most species other than humans". But that really wasn't the point here at all. Even if an ecosystem is a zero-sum game and the success (or anything less than total extinction) of humans means the failure of something else, that's not a reason to voluntarily go extinct. Nor did I say otherwise. The point isn't there should be zero humans but rather that there's probably a need for far fewer than 8 billion, and that not only would every individual human be better off if there were fewer, humanity as a whole would likely be better off, too. The fact that most other species would have a much better chance of survival in a world with a few million humans than with tens of billions is a great bonus, and one that also adds value to those humans' lives, but was not really the main point.

[fastandfurryous]

This is a product of valuing production and efficiency over human lives.

[eli_gottlieb]

>Instead of taking wealth from the smaller number of humans who are creating that wealth and giving it to those who are not, why don't we just accept that we don't need so many of us any more? Let the extras die off naturally (note to angry skimmers: I SAID NATURALLY) and migrate to a new lower-population equilibrium.

Because we value people's lives and happiness, so "You're unemployed now, please die quietly" is actually only slightly less unacceptable than "You're unemployed now, we'll take you out behind the chemical sheds and shoot you." It's the misery and death we take chief issue with, and only a little the violence.

> And that's even before we consider the fundamental unfairness of redistribution

You mean the fundamental unfairness of forcibly giving over the vast majority of the Earth's spoils to a tiny minority who don't care about anyone but themselves? Because if you don't, we disagree on the definition of "unfairness".

> If (and it's a big if) automation is really going to put billions of people out of productive work, then the only sustainable answer to that is fewer people. Embrace it.

We can stabilize the population for ecological purposes just fine while keeping the non-parents happy and healthy for their entire natural lives (or even well beyond that).

[fredkbloggs]

If your idea of happiness and health is a bipolar world in which everyone is either:

(a) A producer, whose entire production is taken from him or her by force of arms and given to others, or

(b) A consumer, who does nothing and contributes nothing but lives off the work of others, and

in either case one lives in a horribly crowded, polluted, sweltering world, then we will have to agree to disagree. I'm not even sure which of (a) or (b) would be worse, but I know I'd choose suicide if those were the other options.

[dragonwriter]

That's cute, but I don't see anyone upthread suggesting anything like the strawman dichotomy that you react to.

[tangent128]

Even if you embrace a lower population target, you still have to deal with the billions of people already here.

Enough people want to leave a biological legacy, so halving population each generation seems optimistic. (yes, many people don't want children at all, but many that do also want their child to benefit from having a sibling. I will assume these numbers cancel out.)

So it will take centuries to get down to the "low millions" range, even longer if lifespan extension pans out.

Automation, meanwhile, is already happening, and the current wave is more likely to be felt in a span of decades rather than centuries. Unless you count "starving in the streets" as a "natural die off", redistribution is going to be needed regardless.

[ForHackernews]

Maybe we could provide a robust social safety net and expanded access to birth control, instead of leaving people to starve (NATURALLY!).

[fastandfurryous]

Why is redistribution unfair? There have been hundreds of years of theft, violence and political misgivings against labor to get to the point where, as a class, labor is neutered against having a chance to have a piece of the pie they built for industrialists and owners.

So why is it suddenly unfair to suggest redistribution?

Why are the deaths of billions of people somehow more just than a redistribution of wealth accumulated through centuries of ruthlessness?

> The vast majority of humans, if not literally every last one, will be much wealthier.

What makes you think that there would be any wealth made available for those who are not owners of wealth producing businesses? This is a serious question, because it is the same problem your solution is trying to fix.

> We need to accept that and adjust to it, not fight it with gimmickry and theft

Or we can recognize that the current state of affairs was brought upon by years of gimmickry and theft by a slim margin of people against the whole. If you rely on trading your time for money, you are not part of that slim margin.

Honest question: where do you think you'd be in this situation? On the side of vast wealth holders who will welcome you with open arms into their enclaves where a multibillion dollar net worth is required? Or rotting with the rest of us who rely on programming a computer to pay the bills?

This reads like an earnest Modest Proposal and efficiency porn mashup.

[nsajko]

How do you redistribute?

[fastandfurryous]

We could let workers unionize and work out an agreeable private contract between their union and employer when it comes to compensation for jobs eliminated by machines. That option has left the table because of the violence, deaths and laws passed against workers and unions in the past.

Or we could do what's worked reasonably well at keeping people from dying in the streets and enact social programs through taxes.

Wealth accumulation to the extreme that it is today wouldn't be possible if not for the centuries of intentional enclosure of land, subsequent displacement of people, violence against workers looking for just compensation/treatment and political/legal/economic disenfranchisement of organized labor. This still happens today in the form of Right To Work legislation and in less luxurious industries and places.

Yet anything that can be couched as "redistribution" is deemed wrong and unfair.