There's a few problems with that suggestion - how do we determine in advance whether an invention will decrease or increase the number of jobs? Over what timeframe? Computers and programming have probably gotten rid of plenty jobs, but currently also employ lots of folks. And net job gains/losses vary over time - a technology may lead to people loosing jobs a few decades later, or it could create jobs overnight. Or some combination thereof. Also, who will determine this? And how would it be enforced? I don't think it's a terribly tenable plan/idea you have there, frankly. There is no obvious path towards a) determining in advance that a technology will net a loss of jobs over a timeframe left unspecified and b) enforce any proscription you're asking for. Even if there were ways to resolve A & B, any country or organization which goes around such leverages a huge advantage - if I don't have to pay people to light candles and fires because I have HVAC and electric lighting, I can spend that money doing something actually relevant to my business/country/organization. So the incentive is to ignore anything like 'no disruptive technologies.' You need to read this. Also, you did read Eclipse Phase, correct? Did you notice how the New Economy clades of humanity feature a literal four-hour workweek (if I recall correctly)? Though it may be fiction at present, the idea is that we don't necessarily have to work the way we do now in the future. Not to say it won't be a bumpy ride - but the way we work will change, one way or another. And you're not going to be able to put the brakes on every technology until you've seen whether or not it'll cause some unemployment or employment. I think the best you can ask from a state is to make sure citizens have access to high-quality education, so they can ride the waves of technological disruption. And so that wiping out (losing a job, getting injured) is not the absolute end of employable life for people.

I agree with Rhyx. In a local economy, automation shifts jobs, but it rarely permanently destroys them. The current unemployment is due to a lack of liquid capital. I think that's pretty universally agreed upon. Automation has been rolling on since the plow, yet generally unemployment is somewhere between 5 and 14%. Automation has reduced the workweek though, and has increased our relative level of luxury, so that's nice. On a global scale it works a little differently. Automation changes the needs in base resources and types of manufacturing, which may force nations, like people, to 'retrain' or get left behind. Generally the nation that invents the automation doesn't suffer as much as those trailing behind.

My take on the Singularity and unemployment is that in traditional economies, you still need to justify the work you do with worth, and as such you will still have unemployment. In a new economy, there are no real "jobs" per say, and as a result you truly don't have unemployment at all (just those that are too lazy to contribute to the success of society and suffer because of it). As pointed out above, if a robot is designed to do someone's job, that doesn't mean there is one less job. It just means that the person's job has become more technical (there is now the jobs needed to maintain that robot). Modernization of the workforce means there are more higher skilled jobs created.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

"Retrain"A corpo-slang word for meaning people's lives are over. Most people are too old or too poor to "retrain" or compete with people already educated in the field and 23-24 years old. ... You are of course talking about specific country? Because I can't see it in my environment.

I'm getting the distinct impression you have a personal stake in this discussion...

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

Quote:

I'm getting the distinct impression you have a personal stake in this discussion...

I am not 57, in fact much younger, but I see simple sentences about how "people/nations will have to retrain" as particularly coldly ruthless.57-60 year old people won't be able to retrain to compete with already trained youngsters without families(I don't have a family for that matter)

With biological immortality, everyone is a youngster.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

I am not 57, in fact much younger,

I'm not saying you're 57. I'm saying in two separate threads when people say 'things may be a lot better! Tools and automation help people', you complain about 'not in my country'. Fortunately (I guess) most of us don't live in your country. I myself have lived in four countries on three continents, and I've as of yet to see one where technology caused anything more than a decade-long rise in unemployment, as industries shift. I've seen far more people be out of the job due to human stupidity (housing bubble, IT bubble, oligarchies under the name of "communism" and so on) then I have due to the introduction of a new technology, or even off-shoring. Yes, retraining happens and it sucks - but as an adult, we are responsible for planning for our own futures. If you're 57 and don't have a retirement account and didn't bother doing the work to maintain a broad and current background of skills, you're going to get raped if the niche you depend on shifts. But that isn't the fault of technology. Technology has shifted our population from 90% working in agriculture to 2%, from 80% working in manufacturing to 10%. If you count the number of jobs 'destroyed' from technology since 1900, it's well over 100% by now. Yet somehow unemployment has always stayed in that same window of about 5-14%, except when some dummy has to go break stuff by waging war or instituting destructive government policies, or wreaking havoc on the money supply. I can understand, from the standpoint of 'I work at my job and I see people unemployed', technology can seem like a Bad Thing. But from the wider perspective of 300 years of history, across the span of the globe, for the vast majority of people, it's a very good thing. I'm not trying to go off on you, and I apologize if it comes across like that.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

Quote:

if a robot is designed to do someone's job, that doesn't mean there is one less job. It just means that the person's job has become more technical (there is now the jobs needed to maintain that robot).

What if robots maintain robots ?

Quote:

Modernization of the workforce means there are more higher skilled jobs created.

Nope, it means that there is demand for high skilled labour. However number of that skilled labour will be less than the number of unskilled labour needed before. Hence-higher competition, more stress, more hardship for people. Thus-less technological inovations equal less stress for workforce, better living conditions.

I would like to point out that at least in Europe and North America, there are far more jobs (and more higher skilled jobs) there in all of recorded history. This is on top of the fact we have mostly automated manufacturing now. Further more the IT industry is currently suffering from a lack of skilled workers. In Canada alone, we are expecting that only 10% of the future IT jobs will be filled by individuals choosing a career in IT. As a result we are going to need to look to other countries like India and China to fill the gaps. The number of jobs is also increasing and there is no sight of this changing in the near future. I know Americans are getting hit hard right now, and unemployment is sky-rocketing, but if an individual can adapt to the changing job market and gain the appropriate skills quickly, they will always find work.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

Well, I will risk a guess that most of people on the board don't live in third world ;)

Four years in Venezuela and three in Moscow (the latter being Second World, but it certainly lent perspective). There was no shortage of poor people in both, but they weren't poor because of technology. They were poor because they were denied access to basic medical and educational facilities. They didn't lose jobs because the jobs moved elsewhere. They lost jobs because men with guns took what they had and gave them to someone else.

Quote:

A-many would argue that we elect governments to provide us with safe future

Governments aren't responsible for living your life for you. You are still responsible for your own future, your own career, your own work.

Quote:

B-how can I plan my future if villains like the ones mentioned in the opening post plot to destroy it?And they have resources far beyond my abilities...

You're saying Google is a villain plotting to destroy your future?

Quote:

I am sure the children cleaning XIX century industry chimneys were very happy that they no longer had to milk cows on green pastures ;) As are todays data entry clerks and corporate dron-workers that they don't live life as fishermen in Oceania.

Of the happiest nations in the world, all but 1 (Guatemala - surprise to me!) are high-tech, first world. All but 7 are Europe (the remainder being Australia, Canada and Guatemala). Ultimately though, happiness isn't given by technology, it's given by stability and self-determination. Technology is just tools. Your argument is, almost literally, 'a bad carpenter blames his tools'.

Quote:

By the way-which country are you writing about ? Because that numbers seem country specific?

The US is the easiest to track, but it's the same story across western Europe.

Quote:

Quote:

if an individual can adapt to the changing job market and gain the appropriate skills quickly, they will always find work.

There is nothing in this sentence that couldn't be described as anything else as "survive or die". Social Darwinism in its most ruthless, heartless form.

Funny, I read it as "take charge of your life, do your own work, don't get lazy". I guess I'm still a capitalist at heart.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

Quote:

You are still responsible for your own future, your own career, your own work.

That's a very weak argument. How can one be responsible for future if megacorporations plot to destroy your life with resources that are beyond any individual to resist?

Now you're not arguing against technology, you're arguing against megacorps - and I'd agree (to a degree). The issue isn't tech. It's people. You brought up Poland before. Poland is a terrible example, it's cherry-picking in both time and space. Poland is a large, flat land between angry neighbors. All of Eastern Europe has been, frankly, abused. I saw how the Soviet Union dealt with it's own people, and I've heard enough stories to know what it did to those people who aren't even Russian. The USSR fell not 20 years ago. Poland is wholly independent for the first time in how long? Frankly, Poland is owed reparations. They're going to be working off the damage suffered for generations. And even now, it's not like they aren't getting kicked. Russia doesn't play fair, when it's practically run by big names like GAZPROM. You can't beat that. It's big groups of people with guns who are making life tough.

Quote:

Which data did you use? I know several surveys. Most can't avoid the fact that low-tech countries are within the top happiest group.

Let's see, we have the Gallup Poll, in which has 7/10 in Europe (remaining being Costa Rica, New Zealand and Canada) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/03/worlds-happiest-countries_n_633... The other number was from the World Database of Happiness http://www.financialjesus.com/how-to-get-rich/top-10-happiest-countries/ (Both of these you can look up the final results directly, at the source, but it's messier.) The availability of technology, for the most part, seems pretty irrelevant, compared to other factors (indeed, including 'giant consortiums coming in and taking your stuff').

Quote:

So this confirms that progress for progress sake is not the answer.

For happiness? No. It serves other purposes for us as a species and as individuals, though.

Quote:

Quote:

The US is the easiest to track, but it's the same story across western Europe.

A minority in the world. And not even the whole Europe.

Your claim is that technology takes jobs. If we look at places where technology has been applied to eliminate specific jobs, the overall answer is no, in the end, it does not increase the number of people without jobs (which is what we actually care about). I don't know how you plan on proving or disproving that by focusing on nations where technology has not been used to eliminate jobs.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:

There is nothing in this sentence that couldn't be described as anything else as "survive or die". Social Darwinism in its most ruthless, heartless form.

It isn't Social Darwinism, it is fact. We live in an ever changing world where the average jobs are becoming more and more technical (even "labour" based jobs like electricians and plumbers). If you have the skill sets of a 1950's factory worker, and you never took the opportunity to upgrade your skill set over the last 60 years, you are doomed to become unemployed and not be able to find a job. If you constantly try to improve your education and keep up with the development of your industry then you will always find work, and that work will more then likely be more technical in nature. On a side note you pointed out countries that are suffering in this modern age (Poland and the Ukraine). This I believe (and your entitled to disagree with me) this is a result of Soviet upbringing in these countries. The Soviets forced hyper specialization in the work force and as a result, in our modern and ever changing world, these workers no longer have the skill set to find jobs. Those that can re-educate themselves will be better off, and will be able to find or create jobs. Here is a related presentation: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TEDTalks_video/~5/WzeD8o4CnNk/HannaRosin_... It isn't all doom and gloom. It is just going to be a rough ride for the next decade for the individuals that won't accept the waves of change that are upon us. Embrace change and grow with it, don't be swallowed up.

Quote:

Have you looked outside lately? Because yup, no unemployment problems lately in the world, none at all... Let's face-technological innovation reduces the number of jobs available

The current job crisis in the U.S. has far more to do with the current heads in Washington and nothing to do with robots replacing people. Obama and the dems tried to use even more goverment and spending to get us out of a burst bubble that was caused by too much government and spending (I know... ironic). Employment will pick up again, if market friendly policies are put emplace (less government, less regulation, less taxing of the producers while rewarding the non-producers). I do believe that someday we may reach a point where they're few if any jobs for people left. If one can make an improved "Robby the Robot" that can preform any physical, or mental task, that a human can, then there will be little demand for human labor. Of course "Robby" will probably be many different specialized units, the point is that human labor will be replaced someday. Follow the technology line, it gets steeper with time and shows no signs of leveling off. The only jobs that will be available in such a world will be the ones crafting novelty products that are made by "real human labor", much like handcrafted furnature fills a niche today. Musicians and artist will probably still have jobs as well - the rest of may end up on government cheese in a "socialist liberal utopia" (blech!!). This assumes "Robby" does not suffer an error and decides that humans are illogical, innefficient, and must be wiped out. Now here is a scarier thought, and more likely, what happens when a government no longer needs the people to produce for the nation? I can see many powerful governments using the power of the state (and the machines run by the state) to completely control the populace. This would include elimination of any opposition to that government, and even forced reductions in the population - for environmental reasons. A state that no longer needs the consent of the governed would be a very nasty thing.

emaughan wrote:

I do believe that someday we may reach a point where they're few if any jobs for people left. If one can make an improved "Robby the Robot" that can preform any physical, or mental task, that a human can, then there will be little demand for human labor. Of course "Robby" will probably be many different specialized units, the point is that human labor will be replaced someday. Follow the technology line, it gets steeper with time and shows no signs of leveling off. The only jobs that will be available in such a world will be the ones crafting novelty products that are made by "real human labor", much like handcrafted furnature fills a niche today. Musicians and artist will probably still have jobs as well - the rest of may end up on government cheese in a "socialist liberal utopia" (blech!!).

The thing about automation is that it requires people to monitor and maintain it. Hardware breaks down and needs to be fixed. Monitoring software is still pretty dodgy and requires someone to check on statistics periodically and make adjustments. Patches need to be tested and evaluated before they can be applied in production. Somebody still has to be there to check up on the UPS' sirens. Software still needs to be written (and not all of us software geeks are particularly good with hardware). We are nowhere near the point where people will have no work to do. Your statement also seems to assume that people will not find other things to do. I also do not see why taking on a job which involves the crafting of unique or novel products is such a bad thing...

Quote:

This assumes "Robby" does not suffer an error and decides that humans are illogical, innefficient, and must be wiped out.

Other people are quite sufficient to do just this.

Quote:

Now here is a scarier thought, and more likely, what happens when a government no longer needs the people to produce for the nation? I can see many powerful governments using the power of the state (and the machines run by the state) to completely control the populace. This would include elimination of any opposition to that government, and even forced reductions in the population - for environmental reasons. A state that no longer needs the consent of the governed would be a very nasty thing.

I do not have a good answer for this. I will need to do more reading on the sociopolitical side of things before I could comment intelligently.

Quote:

The thing about automation is that it requires people to monitor and maintain it. Hardware breaks down and needs to be fixed.

At this point in time - yes. I predict - no crystal ball needed - that eventually self improving software will be developed allowing the program to continue self improvement. This is the whole idea behind a singularity event. Once the machines are advanced enough to take care of their own upgrades and maintenance, the need for humans quickly fades. What kind of "economy" will exist when the consumers no longer produce and the producers no long consume (at least not significantly)? The big risk is that in such a society, the ones who control the machines will completely control the populace. It does not matter if it is flesh the controls the machines or machines that control the machines - the potential for loss of freedom is huge. The best case is that control over the machines is highly distributed so no one power base develops. Hope to live in a very libertarian society.

root@Singularity and unemployment [hr] I ran across the wikipedia article on anti-work, which is an ethic against working on the basis that work is inherently lacking in utility. More precisely, it speaks about reducing the amount of work that is required from each individual by finding labor-saving methods and better automation. This idea crashes face first into the evidence that increases in automation, optimization, and economic modeling have not only failed to reduce the amount of work expected of members of society, it has increased expectations though forced competition with the automated systems. Why that happens isn't very hard to understand, as it is the classic problem of capital vs labor. The work-saving devices are controlled by the capitalist, so the labor never sees any of the benefits of this efficiency. Other than personal ethics, there is no reason for anyone in control of the means of production to share them with the population as a whole. In fact, speaking in public about sharing the means of production with the masses is met with charges of socialism, wanting a welfare state, of being lazy, a leach off of society, etc, etc. Watch Fox News for five minutes if you are unsure as to what I mean. In Eclipse Phase, the autonomists control their own means of production, so are able to avoid this problem and live in communal happiness in deep space. I am curious about theories on how they managed to get a hold of these nanofacs in the first place. The details of how the autonomists got into space and gained possession of the resources needed to be self-sustaining, let alone compete against the hypercorps, are entirely ignored, which makes all of the outer-system utopias and collectives seem like an fantasy for the politically discontent. I see no viable way for those groups to have established themselves, and no way at all to get there from here.

Quote:

from kings to hobos, live at a higher level of luxury than they would otherwise.

Well put - most of us have little comprehension of just how rough life could be in the "good 'ol days". I think it's a bit funny how many will romantacize the middle ages when it really was nothing but incredible stench, disease, little to no freedoms, ignorance, and bad teeth (the English still carry on this tradition). Having lived in Peru for two years it is quite an eye opener into what real poverty means and just how much the American experiment has succeeded in helping even the poorest in this nation live at a level higher than 87% of the world. Cool web site http://www.globalrichlist.com/ It helps keep things in prospective.

All it takes is one cracked nanofabricator or Protean nanohive and you've basically got the seed from which the Anarchist Alliance grew. Exponential growth is funny like that.

root wrote:

root@Singularity and unemployment No doubt. But how does it get cracked in the first? Governments get touchy about people making devices that can cause an economic collapse.

There are a few allusions in the main book to the infeasibility of the inner system corps reinforcing their laws/policies in locations as remote as those in the outer system - quite how this is, given the infinite production capacities of nanofabbing, I don't know. But don't empires usually have trouble controlling their farthest colonies where their authority is maintained through simple bluff? I can imagine corporate scrimping and heavily centralised thinking being major factors in fomenting secession. And all it would really take is the defection of a single low-level manager and the leaking of an access code or two for the workers to crack a nanofabber. Provided they're willing to sever all ties with the inner system, their rebellion has worked and they've founded a new kingdom.

root wrote:

root@Singularity and unemployment How would these original space colonists get out their in the first place? They would have to be employees of the hypercorps and defect from there. That, I see problems with. You don't give your genie lamp to a bunch of anarchists located outside of your control.

Yes I too assumed the first outer system anarchists were originally hypercorp employees, and given the danger and remoteness of the posting, the lowliest employees at that (they had indentures pre-Fall, right?) Much like the colonists of the New World, they were sent far, far away in pursuit of promises that pinched out. Eventually they put their master's tools to a different purpose and seized his plantation for themselves. Only once this first generation had established itself through painful struggle could new habs be set up under their aegis and thus be anarchist from the get-go. So, while you may not necessarily want to send an army of malcontents off to the far rim of fuck-all nowhere with your shiniest genie lamp, you've got shareholders to please, and those kuiper rocks aren't going to mine themselves... Of such managerial mishaps are new societies born!

Yeah but loyalties on Earth and loyalties out at 55AU ain't necessarily the same thing. Surely the king of Spain had a similar policy of screening for potential conquistadors, and more than a few of them went nutso and disappeared into the bush in search of El Dorado. The outer system anarchists wouldn't even need to go looking for any such mythic riches. They just needed the balls to throw the bosses off their backs and forget about ever going home. In retrospect it can be seen as a bad idea to have sent them out in the first place, but corporations tend to act on bad ideas as a matter of course.

root wrote:

No doubt. But how does it get cracked in the first? Governments get touchy about people making devices that can cause an economic collapse.

Probably the same way that lots of very expensive software is cracked and made available using BitTorrent: somebody hacking around with it. In the case of cornucopia machines, I would think that a couple of hackers working late shift for a corporation that used them in manufacturing would have made copies of its documentation to take home and study. From that, it is not much of a jump for them to take one of the units offline "for extended maintenance" so that they could hack around with it and probably figure out how to get it to replicate. Alternatively, once nanofabrication gained a foothold, hackers everywhere would be falling all over themselves to see what they could do with it (how long did it take the Kinect to be made into a general purpose hobbyist's tool? Less than 48 hours?) Disruptive technologies are called that for a reason.

root wrote:

Again, I agree with you in every instance other than this special case. I've been using the allusion of the genie in a lamp, because that is exactly what this would be. Suppose you have Mad Scientist Kerimov, who is an exaggeration of the zero-sum game player, and he wants to be a science emperor. With the science emperor trope, you get extra points if you are both the cause of and salvation to a Singularity. One day while tinkering with his lab, M.S. Kerimov develops what he refers to as The Kudzu. This entity, this The Kudzu, will devour matter and make more of itself very prolifically. Luckily, it only devours what is fed to it, has a diet like a koala bear, and is delightfully loyal to humans. For some unexplainable reason having to do with the unobtanium in the agar, this delicious and nutritious tree grows happy, comfy clothing, and is also a recursively self-improving AGI. Currently, Mad Scientist Kerimov has control over this entity, and is showered with its blessings. He will share this wonderful new invention with the world, but not quite yet. First, he wants to get a sufficient head start, as the economy is about to shift to something else that strongly favors the first person to get there. This is your classic Throne At The Center Of The Universe trope that superheros and demigods are always fighting, so it shouldn't be unfamiliar. Kerimov wants to sit on the Throne first, but not, in his mind, because he intends to rule the world or any of that rot, but because he can't trust the next jerk over with sitting there first. For the sake of this argument, he and another person named KRAKEN EATER OF WORLDS both got their gripping digits on this device at the same time. Now the one that outmaneuvers the other get to sit on the Throne. No fucking way do I send a copy of this out into deep space with a bunch of people crazy enough to want to go into deep space. Therefore, I contend that the anarchists will not be able to crack one of these before it doesn't matter.

Sound points, though I suspect there may be some vital considerations to the running of a nanofabber that you might be overlooking. Primarily, that the magic genie lamp analogy isn't wholly accurate for the reason that (apologies if I'm totally mistaken here) a nanofabber doesn't really give you anything for free: it only transforms matter. This churns up issues of acquisition and logistical hassles at a geometric rate, because the bigger and crazier your Singularitarian dreams, the more raw material you need to find, extract, ship and feed into the fabber; and while much of this process may be automated, as discussed upthread, automation tends to always involve some degree of corruptible human (or AI?) oversight. And then there's the potentially even more troublesome informational requirements of a 'legit' fabber which, particularly in the copyright-bound culture by which the hypercorps both live and die, could mean staggering license costs per unit produced (tragedy of the anti-commons and all that). So, certainly from the long historical perspective a nanofabber seems like a dead-cert, instantaneous game-winner for whomever happens to obtain one first. But in the high res, day to day world of practicalities it's probably not such a fantastic blessing. It's more likely a massive fucking headache, just like every past invention that's suddenly overturned the status quo, and nobody in a position to exploit it ever properly grasps the full potential of the thing before some other fool has come along and stolen it right out from under him. And of all the possible errors likely to result in the theft of a nanofabber, I see none more suited to committing Every. Single. One than the hypercorps: venal, exploitative, backstabbing, myopic, instituionalised idiots with toddler-level impulse control when it comes to quick profit, and to hell with the long-term. This, I think, is how a gang of miscreants and malcontents at the ass end of the solar system could end up wielding the power of gods. Nanofab is too costly and complex a technology to be invented and deployed by anyone other than a vast, profit-centric, hegemonic, centralised powerbase, but the flip-side of that power -- inflexibility, conventionality, hubris -- is what dooms them to lose out in the revolutionary new order their technologies will create.

root@Singularity and unemployment [hr] I agree with you on the incentives that push businesses towards employing fewer and better people. I may not like the current economic situation, but I am not criticizing corporations and small business for the choices they make. They are machines designed for profit and efficiency, and they are very well suited to that task. Companies cannot be asked to be ethical in the same way that sharks cannot be asked to be vegetarian; it violates every reason for their existence. My point is that the incentives of a capitalist economy will continually push more workers out of their positions and into the labor pool as more efficient methods of business are discovered and their skills become redundant. The longer these workers are in the labor pool, the more that their "worth" decreases for businesses as their skills become obsolete or rusty. They have to retrain to stay competitive, which is inherently risky as there is no guarantee that the field they retrain into will still be there by the time their education is complete. Worse, if the worker has to retrain often, they will quickly become overqualified for any position, and won't be able to compete against younger, cheaper, less qualified applicants. As you pointed out, this leads to those who are employed working more, and there are institutional disadvantages to hiring more people to work fewer hours each. Benefits, as you pointed out, are the primary problem. The marginal cost of hiring another (hourly) employee is compared against the cost of adding overtime pay to someone already hired, and often the overtime is cheaper than the cost of benefits, recruitment, training, and team integration. Once again, there is nothing wrong with companies doing this; their only concern is efficiency. Now lets project this into the extremes of a Singularity. The marginal cost of hiring a new employee is going to be compared with the marginal cost of a new computing system and copying an expert system. Since the employee needs to learn the skills over time, and they work more slowly than a computer system, it is cheaper to get the new computer. As more and more of the skills that we think of as being too complicated for computer are solved (Logic Theorist improved on a theorem in the Principia Mathematica in 1956, MYCIN outperformed junior doctors in diagnosing blood infections in the early 1970's, stock traders are steadily being replaced by algorithmic traders now, and we'll find out soon if Jeopardy falls to an AI), even skilled jobs such as positions in engineering, science, and philosophy will start having the problems that less skilled labor currently faces. There is also no reason to suspect that artistic skills won't also be trumped by what a computer can do, so artists, poets, and authors are also in trouble. Pushed to an extreme, no one is employed, and the only people with any assets are the ones who owned the AI systems back when humans still worked. There is something wrong with this, and this leads me to believe that laissez-faire economics will eventually put everyone out of work and won't share any of the benefits of the Singularity. So I'm interested in coming up with systems that work to decrease the amount of work each person does, rather than the average work done per person. Since I believe that capitalism does a good job of distributing resources in scarcity economies (assuming no monopolies and rational agents), I am interested in how to transition from a capitalist economy to a fully socialist economy as the number of economies still ruled by scarcity approach zero. On a side note, the "nobility of work" is bullshit. There is dignity in work when you live in a culture that values work, but I do not believe there is any inherent value to breaking your back from dawn until dusk and never having enough free time to simply enjoy the fact that you are alive. I have found that the homeless and the idle wealthy have more in common with each other than either does with the working classes. They both have a great deal in common with those employed in intellectual fields, and they all contrast blackly with those who are forced to labor in unskilled or semi-skilled positions. Since there are more and more people in this labor pool, the economics push their pay down to as close to the edge of survival as is manageable. The stress of living like this leads to illness, violence, crime, and can be the environmental catalyst that triggers insanity in people at risk for such things. On a side side note, The Green Slime is right on the flaws with my reasoning about fab machines, and the same argument may apply to my reasoning here.

duplicat post - so sorry.