Future Economy

[cesegor]

Hello,

My name is Carl Segor and I'd like to pose a question to the forum. First, I am pro-Objectivist, in that I maintain that reason and understanding reality are a requirement of Man (reference: http://orbits.00space.com & http://freedomsfyre.00books.com ). However, I am not an economist. Now to the question:

What happens to producers in an economy that becomes so efficient that a small percent of the population is all that is necessary to provide all goods and services?

Here I am thinking of an economy that has reached such a high state of automation and Man's control over matter has become so versatile, that machines are able to supply virtually every want or desire. In this environment, machines provide nearly all of the value and there is no longer an exchange required (assuming the machines are not sentient, they would be self-replicating and available to everyone - My Dad gave me my first "bot-seed"). In this type of economy, would money lose its significance as everyone becomes self-sufficient? If so, what would be the consequences to producers when no one wants to buy a human created widget, when an automated widget generator does it for nothing (i.e. human competitive intelligence)? What happens during the transition to such an economy?

Best Regards,

Carl

[Old Geezer]

Carl,

We already live in a society where very few people are required to provide essential goods and services. (Take food for Instance... less than 2% of the American Population actually farms... yet those three million people produce enough food to feed the world if they so desired)

If you look at what has happened in industrialized nations, as machinery took over essential trends, you will see several positive effects;

1. Who has been considered "people" (and therefore possible producers) have widened... (For instance, washing clothes before a washing machine was a day long task its time saving invention probably did more for women's rights than "the feminine mystique" ever did) in any case,

2. "producers" freed from producing essential goods/services can begin to develop culture. (for instance cave drawings probably did not occur until after man was able to ensure his survival in one environment throughout the year)

3. People begin to creat more goods and services... (i.e. the internet was not something which people relied on 10 years ago, many do now)

4. The goods and services which we do have become more efficient.

[y_feldblum]

What does necessary mean? Certainly not survival need, since we took care of that when we invented hunting spears and learned how to shape our hands into a cup. Certainly not want, since that is insatiable. Certainly not anything in between, since that is arbitrary.

What if everything were effortless?

What if lunch were free?

What if I had a unicorn?

There are no unicorns.

There is no free lunch.

Fill in the blank: ________________.

[cesegor]

Let's try some examples:

All food is synthesized (not grown in a field or slaughtered),

All waste is reclaimed for re-synthesis (including liquid, metals, organics etc),

Any item you want, you could download into the synthesizer (along with a sufficient quantity of raw material),

Many hobbyists would offer plans to download for free (like some very good software is today).

It seems to me that an economy that becomes automated to a sufficient degree, becomes a nation of hobbyists (and on the negative side "entertainment" seekers). Money is a useful tool to replace a barter system, but is there a "system" post-money?

[y_feldblum]

Let's try some other examples, set two hundred years ago.

What if something were invented that could cheaply, speedily, and efficiently till, sow, and harvest - replacing costly, slow, and wasteful human labor?

What if something were invented that could cheaply, speedily, and efficiently spin, sew, and otherwise create textiles - replacing costly, slow, and wasteful human labor?

What if something were invented that could cheeply, speedily, and efficiently acquire the precursors for and manufacture all kinds of petroleum - replacing costly, slow, and wasteful human labor?

With machines having replaced human producers in all these areas, you would think there is no more need for human producers, that the productivity of men would drop to zero.

Yet the opposite has occured. Why? The answer to this question is the answer to yours.

[cesegor]

I did not really say that the productivity of men would drop to zero, rather that it could be expressed differently (hobby, for instance).

I think your assertion assumes an exponential extrapolation, that is, Man will always desire more and diversify the labor force more because He always has. This may be the case, but perhaps a point is reached when automation and "human competitive intelligence" render human production to "costly". Can technology have this effect?

In most systems there is some property which can undergo a period of growth, but at some point a saturation level is reached where different phenomenon take over.

Carl

[Capitalism Forever]

I think your assertion assumes an exponential extrapolation, that is, Man will always desire more and diversify the labor force more because He always has.

Well, assuming it isn't so, and one day we'll have all we want--what's the problem?

[y_feldblum]

I (including all the capital I own) just invented and patented a device that can synthesize things faster than your synthesizer - and, it requires less energy to operate. Plus, I just introduced a completely new kind of product, something which no-one has ever specifically thought of wanting before.

There is no post-money system.

What is the answer to my question?

[RadCap]

What is the point of this exercise in absurdity?

[cesegor]

I thought the point of a forum was to discuss ideas. I do not consider discussion of my question "absurd", even though you may.

Remember, money is not an essential - it is only a tool.

[y_feldblum]

The point of this forum is not to discuss any flights of fancy one might dream up, such as your idea. From what I gather, it is to discuss ideas which (ultimately) have a bearing on how, as men, we ought to act.

[RadCap]

The point of THIS forum is to discuss RATIONAL ideas in a LOGICAL manner. Your QUESTION is absurd. As such, one cannot discuss it rationally. If one tries, one ONLY grants one's sanction TO that irrationality.

We don't do that here.

For instance, were you to ask "What would happen if science discovered a method of 'reading' brainwave patterns to the point one could understand the thoughts of another without that other having to speak? What would that do for society? Would it be an initiation of force to 'listen' to those thoughts without permission of the thinker? etc etc adnauseum.

While it is *possible* that sometime in the far future, man *may* understand enough about the processes of consciousness to perform such an action, there is no ration basis for discussion. Everything would NECESSARILY be determined arbitrarily. Each factor would NECESSARILY be based on one's whim - on one's fantasies - ie NOT on reality.

Here we do NOT recognize ARBITRARY assertions - no matter what form they may be couched.

So - IF the "problem" of ABUNDANCE ever grows to the point one does not need to engage in exchanges with one's fellow human beings to survive or acquire anything one desires, THEN I will consider your 'scenario'. Until such a time, it is simply and LITERALLY nonsense.

[cesegor]

Actually, it is a question that can be discussed rationally.

For any Objectivists who may still exist in this forum and are interested in discussing my question further, my contact information is available through the links I provided in the opening topic.

Objectivism is not a dogma, it is an active pursuit akin to Science, not religion.

[y_feldblum]

Carl,

I'd like to discuss the possibility of hot-pink elephants with you, specifically whether or not the role of non-pink elephants as circus attractions will diminish and whether or not the hot-pink ones will on average live as long.

I was planning to discuss it here, but moderator RadCap only wants the forum to be used for rational ideas and the discussion thereof in a logical manner. I'd hate to see him brand my very exciting, even fantastical, daydream as absurd nonsense.

Other people calling it a flight of fancy can do no good, so far as I see. Obviously, the idea is a very real possibility and I can see it on the horizon of today's science.

Tell me what you think.

[poohat]

The point of THIS forum is to discuss RATIONAL ideas in a LOGICAL manner.  Your QUESTION is absurd.  As such, one cannot discuss it rationally.  If one tries, one ONLY grants one's sanction TO that irrationality. 

We don't do that here.

For instance, were you to ask "What would happen if science discovered a method of 'reading' brainwave patterns to the point one could understand the thoughts of another without that other having to speak?  What would that do for society?  Would it be an initiation of force to 'listen' to those thoughts without permission of the thinker?  etc etc adnauseum.

While it is *possible* that sometime in the far future, man *may* understand enough about the processes of consciousness to perform such an action, there is no ration basis for discussion.  Everything would NECESSARILY be determined arbitrarily.  Each factor would NECESSARILY be based on one's whim - on one's fantasies - ie NOT on reality. 

Here we do NOT recognize ARBITRARY assertions - no matter what form they may be couched.

So - IF the "problem" of ABUNDANCE ever grows to the point one does not need to engage in exchanges with one's fellow human beings to survive or acquire anything one desires, THEN I will consider your 'scenario'.  Until such a time, it is simply and LITERALLY nonsense.

Hold on, are you suggesting that thought experiments are an invalid method of reasoning?

[y_feldblum]

A thought experiment more resembles ... I know Y to be the case. What necessarily follows?

edit ( from="though" , to="thought" , reason=spelling )

Edited April 4, 2004 by y_feldblum

[Nyder]

Why all the bickering? This is a very valid question and a viable hypothesis considering historical trends towards automation.

What happens to producers in an economy that becomes so efficient that a small percent of the population is all that is necessary to provide all goods and services?

Producers would lower their production costs quite drastically. Otherwise why automate? And if production costs are so low that raises barriers for other producers to enter industries. Competition would increase as starting a mass production business becomes more feasible even for a small company.

In this type of economy, would money lose its significance as everyone becomes self-sufficient?

No - the economy will just shift to demands for different kinds of goods and services. Money will still exist but probably not in paper/coin form.

If so, what would be the consequences to producers when no one wants to buy a human created widget, when an automated widget generator does it for nothing (i.e. human competitive intelligence)?

Producers would move to automation if it is more cost effective. Thus prices would also decrease (with competition).

If machines were intelligent and competed with humans - humans would have to augment their intelligence with machines.

What happens during the transition to such an economy?

The standard of living goes up immeasurably.

[Richard_Halley]

Money will still exist but probably not in paper/coin form.

Why not in paper/coin form?

[y_feldblum]

Presumably because ubiquitous iris-scanners are more convenient, and that with the restoration of sanity will come the restoration of the gold standard (or the standard of anything not fiat).

[Young]

Basic premise of topic: What if we didn't have to work anymore

Basic Answer: We wouldn't have to work anymore, just as when the animal was domesticated, you didn't have to continue carrying heavy loads. Human ideas would continue to proliferate, humans would still compete to create the better machine, so long as anyone cared and humans would still value their consciousness and efforts they made.

[y_feldblum]

Basic premise of topic: What if we didn't have to work anymore

Basic Answer: We wouldn't have to work anymore

Precise, Accurate, and Succint.

Welcome to the board, Young.

[Richard_Halley]

Presumably because ubiquitous iris-scanners are more convenient, and that with the restoration of sanity will come the restoration of the gold standard (or the standard of anything not fiat).

Certainly the gold standard would be preferable. And surely the government would not issue mint... but bank issued cash notes, checks, and other paper forms of money would remain useful. Their use might decline, as use of cash has in recent years, due to the convience of debit, but I see no reason why they would disappear from use altogether.

[Young]

As in voting I don't think its a good to put value into digital form, mainly because it is potentially much easier to unlawfully gain it, so why not just stick to the trusted paper, or perhaps some more plentiful representation of value which was most efficiently produced.

[Nyder]

As in voting I don't think its a good to put value into digital form, mainly because it is potentially much easier to unlawfully gain it, so why not just stick to the trusted paper, or perhaps some more plentiful representation of value which was most efficiently produced.

Actually online transactions are becoming more secure so it is a lot easier to counterfeit paper money then digital money.

AND all your arguments about pinning the currency to a gold standard ignores the fact that it would still be Government controlling the money supply. You do not need Government issued currency.

Currency as a store of value could be issued as any type of 'currency' that has an exchange rate with other currencies. For example if you worked for McDonalds you may earn McDonald's dollars - which could be exchanged for any other type of currency (Nike, Microsoft). This would make the economy way more competitive and open up speculation markets like never before.

[DavidV]

As in voting I don't think its a good to put value into digital form, mainly because it is potentially much easier to unlawfully gain it, so why not just stick to the trusted paper, or perhaps some more plentiful representation of value which was most efficiently produced.

FYI: according to my calculations, only 7.46% of money is currently in the form of currency. The vast majority is in the form of financial accounts of various sorts.

(Data from EconStats)