Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by johanneskanybal 3769 days ago
It's only ridiculous because you think in absolutes. To a large extent this has already happened.
2 comments

Exactly. As a demonstration, compare our current production situation to the production situation as of, I don't know, a thousand years ago. It used to be the case that 90% or more of the population was dedicated to food production. Right now, something like 2% of the population is dedicated to food production. By their standards, we've got machines producing everything we need.
>By their standards, we've got machines producing everything we need.

Except we don't live by their standards -- we live by our standards. And even if they had lived to see today, their standards would have immediately readjusted to want more. That's why it's ridiculous to assume we will ever have "everything we need".

You're conflating needs with wants.

Whilst I certainly want things that my iron-age ancestors wouldn't even have known they could want, my actual physical needs are not greatly different from theirs.

Part of the "challenge" a capitalist society faces is making sure there are jobs despite that only a tiny fraction of the population needs to work to provide everyone's basic biological needs, but that without work everyone else can't pay for those needs to be satisfied.

>And even if they had lived to see today, their standards would have immediately readjusted to want more.

This is not true of many tribal or "uncivilized" cultures. Conspicuous consumption, luxury, and economic advantage/inequality as moral value systems are taboo for close knit tribal communities.

>Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we didn't have any delinquents. Without a prison, there can't be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white man arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.

-Lame Deer

Not really. Machines don't care if you instruct them to build a Ferrari or a Toyota. There's no difference in robot labor. After that, all that's left is resources, and sending robots to mine outer space isn't a deal-beaker either.

AI + Space = everything we need

Machines have been labor saving entities since the invention of the wheel. Inevitably, one day they will perform all labor.

To think in absolutes would be to believe that human desires are finite. Even if I'm 100% materially comfortable in life (an unlikely occurrence given our ever increasing standards), I'm going to desire forms of consumption that can only come from human interaction.
If you're 100% materially comfortable in your life you would have increased freedom for human interaction. As it stands now we spend more time at work than we do with family or friends.