Corbin this is a great guest article. I've worked on economic evolution my entire adult life and I feel as though people are finally taking it seriously. I have already plugged in with Zack's New Consensus group and will reach out directly. Thanks so much for sharing their work. We have so much to talk about in our Substack Live tomorrow. Looking forward to it!
Speculating on the future does not work if you do not include energy, material shortfalls, and climate change. These are not in your article. You can't build the future in the way you propose if you run out of copper. You can't build the future without a consistent, reliable energy supply. You can't build the future if you have an unstable climate. You can't build a future if there is nothing to build with. Unless these issues are addressed, AI becomes irrelevant. You can't eat AI, so perhaps it already is in a way.
As a history teacher and a progressive I have studied and believed in utopian visions for most of my life. I'm very skeptical, but here are my thoughts if it is to be.
1. There is a book titled Bullshit Jobs. What's not a bullshit job? Your plumber, the trash collector, the nurse, the person cleaning the elderly and their bedpan in nursing homes. I don't think the real jobs will be taken over by robots, nor should they. Do you really want a robot caring for the dying? Do you want your child interacting just with a chatbot at school or a human being? The people working in nursing homes benefit our society so much more than the multi-millionaire athletes and celebs, but the people doing this caring work for the elderly get paid crap. AI is going to wipe out white collar first. I think there will be an oversupply of available labor despite declining populations in developed countries, but these white collar workers won't want to collect garbage or comfort the elderly in nursing homes.
2. AI needs to be taxed. It could be used for UBI, but before doing that, I think the funds should be used for expenses that we all worry about and could be provided by the government. These are: education, from daycare to graduate studies, free for all; healthcare, from birth to death; retirement and eldercare under a new system rather than the sterilized, soul crushing, fluorescent lighting of an institution. After these fundamental expenses, an AI tax could be used to build public competition as Corbin has been advocating, though I would create public banks to help fund this before tapping AI. If there is money left over, UBI.
3. Real jobs are going to need workers, and everyone is going to need to earn a little cash. The real jobs need to pay a lot better, and the average work week needs to be very short so everyone (who is willing to do the real work) has the opportunity to earn an income for their needs not covered above.
But, I can see how someone whose livelihood is perpetually online or virtual, as well as much of their leisure might miss the essentiality of that. (Sure, they know it’s there, but they deeply misunderstand its import.)
My work history was in manufacturing (owned both a furniture components and custom drilling machine companies) in food service (owed a couple food trucks) and as a residential general contractor building and remodeling homes. I hear you loud and clear. you gotta follow the links. there is a massive body of work that outlines those very elements. https://www.newconsensus.com/read
These are but a few of the bottlenecks related to human needs.
Of course, get rid of the humans and have (relatively few) robots attending the data centers, digital manufactories and energy generation facilities and these other supply programs all go away!
Maybe we should arrange to center human work and human values… but simply from the history of pre-digital corporate capitalism we can see we’re not inclined to do that.
First of all, a serious public discussion has to take place on the subject of what to fight for. And this discussion has to be as much concrete and specific and possible, without great slogans, etc. So far, we are offered a purely technocratic and voluntaristic solution developed by some great mind/intellects that is supposed to be implemented by a new noble elite, the transformers that should take over the government, in the interests of the majority of the population. Based on the analysis of the current economic, social, and political situation in this country this looks like a social utopia or unscientific fiction. At the same time, the threats and concerns mentioned in this article are very real, but, unfortunately, not socially realized for many reasons, including a very active propaganda, suppressing the facts and misrepresenting the real situation, especially ecological, and open lies of the existing government, popular press, various think tanks, etc. associated with, supported by, and owned, directly and indirectly, by the current, predominantly technocratic elite(s), e.g. The Magnificent Seven, which have their own vision of and strategy towards some futuristic inhumane AI-based society.
But it looks like we are presented with a wrong choice. Both alternatives imply unlimited economic growth with different goals. And both, since the Nature doesn't care about human intentions, can end up in a similar natural disaster or apocalyptic world. Following is a comment on another Corbin's article. This comment is very relevant to this article as well based on the program of the author.
Some serious, but thoughtful transformation of our economic and political system is absolutely required. What we cannot afford is to continue unsustainable economic development even if it's supposed to serve the 99%. Unlimited economic growth based on "green" energy is as disastrous for the ecology and the livelihoods of the 99% as the one based on the oil and gas, if not even more, unless we start mining necessary minerals on the Moon, asteroids, etc. In the words of a mining conflict expert Olivia Lazard: ‘We could actually lose the future of humanity trying to save it on behalf of the climate." The following articles contain many relevant facts and arguments.
Also, this fundamental disadvantage of the transition to the "renewable" energy (e.g., the Green New Deal) may give convincing and absolutely scientific arguments to the existing elites to continue business as usual either by using hydrocarbons as long as possible (economically or ecologically) or by transitioning to an equally profitable (with time) and disastrous use of "renewable" energy sources. Only when (if) we, the people, realize that continuous economic growth, which is a corner stone of our capitalist mode of production and consumerist society, is a direct and inevitable way to our social and biological global extinction, a really useful New Deal that will proclaim that the less is more may become possible. Of course, this idea is very difficult to sell to the public at the present time and may be politically suicidal, but it can and should be gradually and rationally introduced, accepted, and promoted by various progressive Left individuals and organizations. A famous TINA slogan of Margaret Thatcher can indeed be adopted in a different context.
Corbin this is a great guest article. I've worked on economic evolution my entire adult life and I feel as though people are finally taking it seriously. I have already plugged in with Zack's New Consensus group and will reach out directly. Thanks so much for sharing their work. We have so much to talk about in our Substack Live tomorrow. Looking forward to it!
Speculating on the future does not work if you do not include energy, material shortfalls, and climate change. These are not in your article. You can't build the future in the way you propose if you run out of copper. You can't build the future without a consistent, reliable energy supply. You can't build the future if you have an unstable climate. You can't build a future if there is nothing to build with. Unless these issues are addressed, AI becomes irrelevant. You can't eat AI, so perhaps it already is in a way.
you gotta follow the links. there is a massive body of work that outlines those very elements. https://www.newconsensus.com/read
As a history teacher and a progressive I have studied and believed in utopian visions for most of my life. I'm very skeptical, but here are my thoughts if it is to be.
1. There is a book titled Bullshit Jobs. What's not a bullshit job? Your plumber, the trash collector, the nurse, the person cleaning the elderly and their bedpan in nursing homes. I don't think the real jobs will be taken over by robots, nor should they. Do you really want a robot caring for the dying? Do you want your child interacting just with a chatbot at school or a human being? The people working in nursing homes benefit our society so much more than the multi-millionaire athletes and celebs, but the people doing this caring work for the elderly get paid crap. AI is going to wipe out white collar first. I think there will be an oversupply of available labor despite declining populations in developed countries, but these white collar workers won't want to collect garbage or comfort the elderly in nursing homes.
2. AI needs to be taxed. It could be used for UBI, but before doing that, I think the funds should be used for expenses that we all worry about and could be provided by the government. These are: education, from daycare to graduate studies, free for all; healthcare, from birth to death; retirement and eldercare under a new system rather than the sterilized, soul crushing, fluorescent lighting of an institution. After these fundamental expenses, an AI tax could be used to build public competition as Corbin has been advocating, though I would create public banks to help fund this before tapping AI. If there is money left over, UBI.
3. Real jobs are going to need workers, and everyone is going to need to earn a little cash. The real jobs need to pay a lot better, and the average work week needs to be very short so everyone (who is willing to do the real work) has the opportunity to earn an income for their needs not covered above.
That is a lot of the work that we are describing as needing to be done by humans. This outlines an approach that is superior to UBI in my estimation: https://www.saikat.us/assets/policy/ai-vision-statement.pdf
Thanks goodness it’s not actually a choice between Star Trek and Mad Max.
"Please comment and reply"...
I'd say that one SNAFU every 7 years is better than most people can do (including myself :-)
Your post is very important, and antidote for pessimism. Another thought I think you'd like by Jim Rigby on FB is "What does it mean to love in a time of hate" : https://www.facebook.com/jim.rigby.12/posts/pfbid02veArVkv7kWLBUg7xqcs7dCs9X9P56aj82HqyYfXG27GDJ2ncB1RuaGG56bD11bLGl
Here’s your bottleneck: food.
Here’s another: energy.
Here’s another: shelter.
But, I can see how someone whose livelihood is perpetually online or virtual, as well as much of their leisure might miss the essentiality of that. (Sure, they know it’s there, but they deeply misunderstand its import.)
My work history was in manufacturing (owned both a furniture components and custom drilling machine companies) in food service (owed a couple food trucks) and as a residential general contractor building and remodeling homes. I hear you loud and clear. you gotta follow the links. there is a massive body of work that outlines those very elements. https://www.newconsensus.com/read
These are but a few of the bottlenecks related to human needs.
Of course, get rid of the humans and have (relatively few) robots attending the data centers, digital manufactories and energy generation facilities and these other supply programs all go away!
Maybe we should arrange to center human work and human values… but simply from the history of pre-digital corporate capitalism we can see we’re not inclined to do that.
First of all, a serious public discussion has to take place on the subject of what to fight for. And this discussion has to be as much concrete and specific and possible, without great slogans, etc. So far, we are offered a purely technocratic and voluntaristic solution developed by some great mind/intellects that is supposed to be implemented by a new noble elite, the transformers that should take over the government, in the interests of the majority of the population. Based on the analysis of the current economic, social, and political situation in this country this looks like a social utopia or unscientific fiction. At the same time, the threats and concerns mentioned in this article are very real, but, unfortunately, not socially realized for many reasons, including a very active propaganda, suppressing the facts and misrepresenting the real situation, especially ecological, and open lies of the existing government, popular press, various think tanks, etc. associated with, supported by, and owned, directly and indirectly, by the current, predominantly technocratic elite(s), e.g. The Magnificent Seven, which have their own vision of and strategy towards some futuristic inhumane AI-based society.
But it looks like we are presented with a wrong choice. Both alternatives imply unlimited economic growth with different goals. And both, since the Nature doesn't care about human intentions, can end up in a similar natural disaster or apocalyptic world. Following is a comment on another Corbin's article. This comment is very relevant to this article as well based on the program of the author.
Some serious, but thoughtful transformation of our economic and political system is absolutely required. What we cannot afford is to continue unsustainable economic development even if it's supposed to serve the 99%. Unlimited economic growth based on "green" energy is as disastrous for the ecology and the livelihoods of the 99% as the one based on the oil and gas, if not even more, unless we start mining necessary minerals on the Moon, asteroids, etc. In the words of a mining conflict expert Olivia Lazard: ‘We could actually lose the future of humanity trying to save it on behalf of the climate." The following articles contain many relevant facts and arguments.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-green-growth-delusion/
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2023/04/07/Rising-Chorus-Renewable-Energy-Skeptics/
https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/solution-delusions/
Also, this fundamental disadvantage of the transition to the "renewable" energy (e.g., the Green New Deal) may give convincing and absolutely scientific arguments to the existing elites to continue business as usual either by using hydrocarbons as long as possible (economically or ecologically) or by transitioning to an equally profitable (with time) and disastrous use of "renewable" energy sources. Only when (if) we, the people, realize that continuous economic growth, which is a corner stone of our capitalist mode of production and consumerist society, is a direct and inevitable way to our social and biological global extinction, a really useful New Deal that will proclaim that the less is more may become possible. Of course, this idea is very difficult to sell to the public at the present time and may be politically suicidal, but it can and should be gradually and rationally introduced, accepted, and promoted by various progressive Left individuals and organizations. A famous TINA slogan of Margaret Thatcher can indeed be adopted in a different context.
This IS the key point. Yes.
Our fundamental economic assumptions are flatly wrong. And dangerous.
We no longer live in a time when endless growth makes a lick of sense… if it ever did.