Are you optimistic about the future of mankind?

[dragonrider]

nitpicking, there is no such thing as "mankind". there are at least 3 major kinds of human animal and numerus sub-kinds. the thing is only 1 kind is close in behavior to what is popularly known as "kindness". the vast majority are those who conciously (or unconsciously, as mimicry is a HUGE HUGE HUGE, did i mention it's HUGE, thing among human animals) live by "homo homini lupus est".

so the very question "Are you optimistic about the future of mankind" is kinda meaningless, given the distributions of vastly different kinds of human animal. rather simplified, at least for the simple reason that many of those likely to answer "yes" (if we don't take complex cases of mimicry/misdirection into account) actually mean "yes, because there are increasingly more and more others to feed on". as if assuming that in a sheep's herd infiltrated by quite a few wolven in sheep's clothing, ignoring the fact of infiltartion makes any sense

I don't think you can that easily dismiss other people as human beings. (also, technically, there is a good test to see if a specimen belongs to a certain species: If it can generate offspring with another specimen of the species, that in it's turn can breed with any other fertile specimen of said species, then it simply belongs to that species).

But i suppose i should take your response as a 'no'.

 

[Godsmacker]

From the dark horizon of my future a sort of slow,
persistent breeze had been blowing toward me, all my life long, from the years that
were to come. And on its way that breeze had leveled out all the ideas that people
tried to foist on me in the equally unreal years I then was living through. What
difference could they make to me, the deaths of others, or a mother’s love, or his
God; or the way a man decides to live, the fate he thinks he chooses, since one and
the same fate was bound to “choose” not only me but thousands of millions of
privileged people who, like him, called themselves my brothers. Surely, surely he
must see that? Every man alive was privileged; there was only one class of men, the
privileged class. All alike would be condemned to die one day; his turn, too, would
come like the others’....

.... Then, just on the edge of daybreak, I heard a steamer’s siren. People were
starting on a voyage to a world which had ceased to concern me forever. Almost for
the first time in many months I thought of my mother. And now, it seemed to me, I
understood why at her life’s end she had taken on a “fiancé”; why she’d played at
making a fresh start. There, too, in that Home where lives were flickering out, the
dusk came as a mournful solace. With death so near, Mother must have felt like
someone on the brink of freedom, ready to start life all over again. No one, no one in
the world had any right to weep for her. And I, too, felt ready to start life all over
again. It was as if that great rush of anger had washed me clean, emptied me of hope, and, gazing up at the dark sky spangled with its signs and stars, for the first time, the
first,
I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe. To feel it so like
myself, indeed, so brotherly, made me realize that I’d been happy, and that I was
happy still.
For all to be accomplished, for me to feel less lonely, all that remained to
hope was that on the day of my execution there should be a huge crowd of spectators
and that they should greet me with howls of execration.

 

[Dogbark]

I think as soon as huge chunks of the current jobs are automated our current political system will collapse in on itself and make way for a fascist authoritarian regime. Democratic systems fail when the wealth of the nation isnt dependent on the citizens anymore. An automated economy can be run by a small elite of engineers even if the rest of the population is starving to death.

 

[Jagube]

I think as soon as huge chunks of the current jobs are automated our current political system will collapse in on itself and make way for a fascist authoritarian regime. Democratic systems fail when the wealth of the nation isnt dependent on the citizens anymore. An automated economy can be run by a small elite of engineers even if the rest of the population is starving to death.

But automation spreads wealth, as more people can buy the machines that make life easier and it lowers production costs. That doesn't mean the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has to shrink, it may well grow. That's not because the poorest get poorer, but rather because the richest get richer.

Why would the rest of the population starve to death?
The parts of the world with the most automation are the wealthiest and have the highest standard of living.

 

[PsyDuckmonkey]

But this optimistic view rests largely on the assumption that the structure of society will change, and that politicians are willing to change the fabric of the whole economic system....aka 'redistribution of wealth'. Wich is more or less considered to be sacrilige by the vast majority of politicians today.

Politicians are powerless in the grand scheme of things. What they are "willing to do" is about az relevant as where rocks in an avalanche are "willing" to roll.

Like the rocks, politicians are moved by immense forces far beyond their control, even though through this motion they can cause a lot of damage, so you might be tempted to overestimate their importance.

It's never a question "if" society will change under fundamentally changed material conditions, it's "how".

What i fear, is how unemployment will affect society as it's structured today. Again, if you look at the areas where people voted for trump or brexit, then you'll see that these are the areas most affected by automation and globalisation.

Trump and brexit are harbingers of fundamental change, even if the mass sentiment behind them was of nostalgia and a rejection of change. Wealth will be redistributed, it's only a question when, and whether through reform or war.

We've weathered worse, both as spirit beings and as humans. We're living in times interesting as fuck, when I learned about Hellenism in grade school history, I wished I could live in it. Well, my wish came true.

Let's enjoy the shit out of this. See you on the field of battle or in the third summer of love. Or one after the other.

 

[third-eye-open]

Thank you for begging the question and thank everyone who added their two cents. I for one am very optimistic about the future of ourselves.
All of my anxiety was relieved long ago by a beautiful being stirring a cosmic coldren, reassuring me that everything was on course.

 

[Dogbark]

I think as soon as huge chunks of the current jobs are automated our current political system will collapse in on itself and make way for a fascist authoritarian regime. Democratic systems fail when the wealth of the nation isnt dependent on the citizens anymore. An automated economy can be run by a small elite of engineers even if the rest of the population is starving to death.

But automation spreads wealth, as more people can buy the machines that make life easier and it lowers production costs. That doesn't mean the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has to shrink, it may well grow. That's not because the poorest get poorer, but rather because the richest get richer.

Why would the rest of the population starve to death?
The parts of the world with the most automation are the wealthiest and have the highest standard of living.

Previous waves of automation only affected specific jobs and created new ones in the proccess but this time its gonna automate almost all jobs and generate none. This means that a huge majority is gonna be unemployed and all wealth is gonna be generated by the machines owned by a few big companies. This means that the wealth of the nation isnt dependant on the citizens anymore and most of them are extremely poor. Its the perfect environment for a dictator to thrive.

 

[Jagube]

Previous waves of automation only affected specific jobs and created new ones in the proccess but this time its gonna automate almost all jobs and generate none. This means that a huge majority is gonna be unemployed and all wealth is gonna be generated by the machines owned by a few big companies. This means that the wealth of the nation isnt dependant on the citizens anymore and most of them are extremely poor.

The new wave of automation may generate jobs we can't even imagine, as the previous waves have done.

And it's not going to replace all existing jobs. People need the human factor. For example, (semi-)automated fast-food restaurants have been around for a while, but people still like to go to a traditional restaurant and be served by a human waiter and not a machine.

It's in no one's interest that people be 'extremely poor'. Companies make their products so they can sell them.

 

[dragonrider]

It's in no one's interest that people be 'extremely poor'. Companies make their products so they can sell them.

Prisonners dilemma: it's not in the general interest of criminals, that other criminals talk to the police. Yet it may be in THEIR individual interest to do so.

It's not in the interest of players, if other players cheat. Yet it IS in the interest of players, to cheat themselves.

Translated to the economy: it's not in the interest of companies if people are too poor to buy their products. So it's in the general interest of companies, that people get paid. Yet it is always much better for each individual company, if other companies pay their workers well, and they themselves don't.

So it is not in the interest of companies to hire people they don't need. To pay their workers more than they need to, etc.

The income gap in the united states and britain rises every year. To a worrying level, according even, to institutions not realy known for their scepticism towards the blessings of the free market, like the IMF.

Compared to the european 'nanny states', america is a country with extreme wealth, as well as extreme poverty.

So in othe words: the prisoners dilemma isn't just theory. America collectively chooses to allow extreme poverty to exist, even when it's not in the collective interest.