Is technological advancement ultimately compatible with capitalism?

[Ozbenno]

To divert the discussion back to the OP

Interesting article in The Guardian today addressing this issue.

I actually work in the automation sphere. There is a balance between traditional jobs being made obsolete and new jobs being created (although usually less of the later). I'm not sure we'd ever get to the stage that all jobs are able to be done by AI but you never know. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

 

[Mark1031]

Podcast https://samharris.org/podcasts/130-universal-basic-income/ with Andrew Yang author of "War on Normal People" on why its different this time and jobs won't be replaced fast enough in the robotics/AI era.

 

[Hygro]

Almost half of you voted no but none of you have justified that answer.

 

[Lexicus]

Almost half of you voted no but none of you have justified that answer.

Do I really need to say it? Increasing productivity = more capital in society = rule of capitalists turns into a fetter on further development = end of capitalism

 

[Traitorfish]

Almost half of you voted no but none of you have justified that answer.

Technological progress has allowed me to spent eight hours a day doing a job with negative social utility, but which greases the wheels of rent-extraction. I've earned my theoretically-undersupported pessimism.

 

[Takhisis]

Theoretically undersupported but empirically oversupported, at least?

 

[innonimatu]

To divert the discussion back to the OP

Interesting article in The Guardian today addressing this issue.

I actually work in the automation sphere. There is a balance between traditional jobs being made obsolete and new jobs being created (although usually less of the later). I'm not sure we'd ever get to the stage that all jobs are able to be done by AI but you never know. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

Automation has been around since the 18th century. It's greatest period of acceleration were the post-WW2 decades years, as measured by both capital investment and increases in productivity. Since the late 1980s it has noticeably slumped. Sure we have the internet and computers everywhere, but we don't seem to be doing as much with them as we did with the assembly line and the earlier mechanized agriculture to increase productivity by worker. The automation social revolution (recall Keynes's prediction about work hours...) failed to materialize. Probably explainable also by what @Traitorfish mentioned above.

I do not take any more seriously the predictions made now. In fact I suspect that the low-hanging fruit has all been picked and technological progress is going through an enduring slowdown.

 

[Hygro]

Do I really need to say it? Increasing productivity = more capital in society = rule of capitalists turns into a fetter on further development = end of capitalism

So your disagreement comes from the hypothesis that capitalism concludes itself ergo its ultimate point is behind the ultimate of technology ergo the word ultimate drives your vote.

Technological progress has allowed me to spent eight hours a day doing a job with negative social utility, but which greases the wheels of rent-extraction. I've earned my theoretically-undersupported pessimism.

Sounds technologically advanced to me. Do you feel you are answering the question rather than voting nay on capitalism?

 

[Berzerker]

I wouldn't want to be caught foraging food from the local hunter gatherers' land

 

[Lexicus]

So your disagreement comes from the hypothesis that capitalism concludes itself ergo its ultimate point is behind the ultimate of technology ergo the word ultimate drives your vote.

"No human being, no system, no age is impervious to this law; everything beneath the stars will perish; the hardest rock will be worn away. Nothing endures but words."

 

[Hygro]

I just read it differently, the question:
"Is technological advancement ultimately compatible with capitalism?"

To me, a no vote is stating that you believe that you think capitalism veers us away from technological advancement on the whole, whereas a yes vote is stating you believe that technological advancement goes with capitalism and its nature. I think the former is undefended and the latter is true with both the evidence and theory.

Voting no because there's heat death and anything before it makes the no vote meaningless. Also, words don't endure.

 

[Lexicus]

To me, a no vote is stating that you believe that you think capitalism veers us away from technological advancement on the whole, whereas a yes vote is stating you believe that technological advancement goes with capitalism and its nature. I think the former is undefended and the latter is true with both the evidence and theory.

This is a false dichotomy though. I think both of these things at once.

 

[Hygro]

The disagreement hinges on the intent of the word "ultimately". If you take it to mean the end point in time of technology, well then this system should but one part of the relay race. But I would argue we're asking if this part of the relay race is ultimately compatible with the baton getting through the race at all or not. Is this leg the one that crosses the finish line? Probably not, so it isn't the ultimate leg. But this leg definitely moves up the baton, further, faster. straighter, and with fewer setbacks than any before it, and will pass it one way or another.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't know if technology is best thought of as a line segment. More like some kind of weird spiral shell that repeatedly pulls itself out of its own butt.

 

[Hygro]

Everything fractals.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well, it could.

But more like, would it matter?

If all your basic needs are fulfilled, that you could just work to get the other stuff in life. It would just come without the threat of starvation, and that's not a bad thing. You could take that time to pick stuff you actually want to do.

 

[El_Machinae]

It would matter, because all of the crop land is owned.

Where's the mechanism by which you'd get food? You have nothing the crop owners want.

Historically, charity tends to be about 2% of income. Maybe there will become a time when 2% of the income will be able to support the lifestyles of 11 billion charity cases, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[timtofly]

I just read it differently, the question:
"Is technological advancement ultimately compatible with capitalism?"

To me, a no vote is stating that you believe that you think capitalism veers us away from technological advancement on the whole, whereas a yes vote is stating you believe that technological advancement goes with capitalism and its nature. I think the former is undefended and the latter is true with both the evidence and theory.

Voting no because there's heat death and anything before it makes the no vote meaningless. Also, words don't endure.

Is it not that technology is assumed to make economy obsolete? It does not matter the system of economics. If a person thinks capitalism will never work or has never worked, having technology or not is a mute point. Unless revolution is the machines themselves taking over, would humans ever out smart and keep machines in tow?

Economy has always been about the fair distribution of goods. But economy does not make perfect humans. Neither would the lack of economy, if technology solved all our needs. Technology is not going make things fair either, if there are still humans around to mess things up.