people really really want it

That's what makes something valueable?

If nobody wants something it doesn't have value.

I can't sell anyone a handful of lint.

look at the most "valuable" works of art. Most of it is just a place holder for money.

that is not to say there will be no objects of value within the society but a society that can suport its survival without ever needing to put effert toward that is a zero scarcity

a rich person said "i like this", paid money for it, then said its worth x.

Have you ever taken an economics course?

but it gives enjoyment. its beauty

and it just keeps getting traded around rich people for that much money

btw.. .since at the course of this debate: https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/1013918293600555009

Everyone would LOVE to have an army of servants

It's what gives labor value.

If we're being honest, it's what gave slaves their value.

there are plenty of expensive version of things that nearly identical or even worse quality than a much cheaper version.

Black slaves were property, always to be enslaved. That made them rather valuable.

why do brand names matter so much if the quality is the same in two versions of a product?

Irish slaves, however, were indentured servants. Indebted. The prospect of release made them less valuable

Which lead to Irish slaves being cheaper, more misused, and often bred with black slaves, since the mixed children would be considered black, and not Irish.

Moral of this tangent, Slavery was fucked up.

Excess "wealth" really only comes from a group of people, teaming up to all meet their basic needs, by each doing what they are good at. By specializing like this they stand a chance of producing more than they needed in some areas in the same amount of time as if they all did each area of work themselves.

im not sure what were talking about anymore

personally i dont trust automation, it beleive it at best disparages the working class if not outright destroys it.

worse case scanario this means that corporations are only witholden to consumers

idk, i think it would just change the nature of the working class. less working in fields and more lifting heavy pieces of robots to replace them

It seems like a backdoor to class warfare.

less farming and more mechanics

that would constrain the working class to at most 10% of its current compacity

the debate becomes if automation allows for a high enough increase in new jobs to make up for the jobs it displaced.

theres a secret they dont tell you in school because its an old school political correctness thing, way older than our current envirnment of PC. what they dont tell you is that not everyone can be middle class

as it becomes cheaper to run a place, it means they have more capital to expand to have more places or space to make more stuff.

not everyone will be upper class

they cant actually expand beyond demand

true, but they are now cheaper, which, in theory, can increase sales up to a point

the value of labor has only increases since the dawn of mankind but the need of demand has only increased with population growth and new industrys to provide more complex products

automation only deals with overhead

if you half the price of computer monitors and the parts that allow computes to have 2 monitors, do you think people with 1 monitor wouldn't upgrade?

and if everything is cheaper, then the cost of living is cheaper, meaning you don't have to work as much

fuck it, say you live in a society where no one technicly has to work

what then?

good question. what then. I assume you mean all human basic needs to live as long as possible are met, since no one has to work, correct?

sure

this skips the pitfalls of getting to automation of that level where were putting faith in corproations

lets just talk about how the human condition functions in a society where no one needs to do anything in order to survive

you assume corporations are the only one able to make such a thing, not a government or some philanthropist , humanitarian group, etc but yes, lets assume somehow we get to this point. so what then?

(also, we are all making an assumption we don't nuke ourselves before we get there too. i'm telling you, answer to all our human problems.)

so a society with all of its survival needs met to a point of potentally being able to live as long as humanly posible without needing to do anything from cradle to the grave

End human suffering: End humanity.

ill buy that for a dollar

I might actually put that on a sign and picket it.

well, what remains as threats? Humans, Nature, the universe.

also forgot: boredom

What do we want? PEACE ON EARTH! How do we do it? NUKES!

catchy aint it?

if you have a society of zero need i think the best example of the resulting population can be derived by observing how people who right now do nothing for their own survival yet live with their needs provided for them

adult children

they create a threat, hence why humans are still a threat

so there is still something people need to labor towards to stay alive

protection from other humans, nature, the universe, and boredom.

so people need labor in order to prevent becoming adult children which threatens human survival?

think about it, we are still animals. We'd still be living in the same area, and the one thing this workless world would not have in infinity is space

unless you go into space

what do people who dont have the capability of providing any meaningful assistance toward protection from other humans, nature, the universe, and boredom do in the society without a working class?

which is kind of needed to mitigate the universe as a threat to humanity although its still a threat until we create god status, if we can.

well, they either get killed by one of those things, or some other human protects them from those things

as they don't need to work for food, housing, clothing, or medical help

basicly those who cannot do, do nothing?

although anyone short of a vegetable should be able to help with one of those things

because you may not realize a society which has no need for a workingclass actually adds a new group to the "disabled" of society

because the workingclass provides a role in society to provide protection against other humans, nature, the universe, and bordem yet can not rise up to the middle class for various reason, the most common reason being lack of capability

if you create automation to the extent that all basic needs are met for your society theres very little positions for the roles of those who are literally incapable of doing any more

the goal of automation is to make all of the human race the "disabled" class

that doesent particulerly interest me

you can't stop it outside a 1 world government, and even then, a 1 world government would probably have every incentive to make such a world

frankly its not dignified but more so if you look at the way people who never have to provide for themselves well into their 30's. it creates worse humanity

humanity has pretty much defined its existence on outsourcing our labor to machines, only to make new machines to outsource the new task we set that freed up labor to

the only other defining characteristic of humanity is fighting each other

it may very well be right that humans are killed off by machines, but not because the machines went haywire but because that is the exact thing we program them to do

just another exampling of outsourcing our labor to a machine.

yes i agree that it is humanitys basic function to create ways that a single farmer can increase the ammount of production they can yeild to the ultimate goal that only a single farmer is nessicary to create any degree of production, a farmer named ceo

perhaps is something we should at some point fight against, for a balance, to spare our more basic animal characteristics

in order to fight automation, you would need every human everywhere to agree not to pursue automation.

and the very automation we seek to avoid would be one very very useful for exploring space i would imagine

its not nesicary to explore space, it simply cuts down as it does for all things, the number of people you need thus the space you need to provide

proper automation could give you ships that can provide for a person without that person ever needing contact with another person

very small ships

actually i was thinking more when settling new worlds, where such tech could be sent in advance to create a settlement for people before they touch down, decreasing risks of settling new worlds

you wouldent need everyone on earth to avoid pursuing automation to prevent automation from supplanting labor in every world society, you simply need most people to want it to not supplant labor in every society, the tech can be known without being used but in a capitalism its guarenteed to take over

there is too much incentive for automation, too much usefulness, for you to effectively stop it.

because ultimately capitalism doesent care about anything more than production

you'd literally have to tell people that you could eliminate the fear of going hungry if you no longer have work but you are afraid of what happens when people don't work

try selling that to people "hey, you could be lazy but we don't want you to be"

make work great again

try not to sound like a tyrant

if religion was still populer you could try that

yeah, make work great again "oh, but if you become a "disabled person".... well you have to worry about hunger again

all a society needs in order to prevent themselves from being lazy is to see labor as something it wants to do

its too hard a sell. you can't stop automation. there is too much potential good.

people will figure something to do with their labor

they always do and always will