Tuesday, November 30, 2004
The Future of the USA, part 2
I have to confess that this post was inspired in part by a short book written by Marshall Brain, called Manna. It’s available in its entirety by clicking on that link. After thinking about it for a few days, I think he’s pretty well off on a number of issues, but it still was an interesting read, if for no other reason than it is an optimistic view of the future, when all my cynical self can see is death and destruction. So now I come to technology.
And technology is what the future is always about, right? People believe we live in better times, because we can communicate with people more freely because of TV and the internet, because air travel bridges the gap between cultures, and because medical science will continue to improve the quality and length of our lives. This is what we want to believe. And to some degree it is true. Technology has always helped to ease our lives, allowed us to move from hunting and gathering, to agrarian society, to industrial society. What some people believe is that the next step from industrial society is the move to an intellectual society, one where the US outsources much of its industrial labor and lets its citizens focus on tasks which cannot be automated yet-- design, creation, and art. Do we have this to look forward to? It’s impossible to say.
The invention and adoption of robots would be a key factor in this move. While it would be possible for the US to truly outsource its industry to other nations, robots would make this move almost guaranteed for any nation. It would also necessarily create a lot of unemployment. Now why would it create unemployment? The industrial revolution created jobs, not destroyed them. Why would the robotic/intellectual revolution be different? Well, what would be left for everyone to do? Build the robots? No, that would be done by robots. Design the robots? No, there would be a slight increase in the demand for them, but not enough to employ the entire manual labor force of the US. No, the US (or any country) would be left with a large supply of unemployable people. There’s just not enough demand for purely creative endeavors.
And here’s where part 1 comes in. I expressed the view that the move to socialism will be important in the future. Brain’s views clearly embody many of the ideals of communism, and the end society he describes in Manna is that of a communist society. It’s also clear that he indicts American capitalism as being harmful and the reason for its downfall.
I can see where he is coming from: If this large mass of unemployable people were created today, it would create an enormous rift. They would have no way to make money, but they would need jobs the most. In a ruthless capitalist society, they’d be fucked. In a socialist society, they’d be better off, having a bit of money in their pockets, and being able to buy food and goods that are cheaply produced by the robotic labor.
But I give America credit here. Like I said previously, our humanity and compassion also increases with our technology. Usually technology has outpaced our ethics, but in this case I think our humanity is ahead of the curve. The US has countless welfare programs, unemployment, food stamps, graduated tax brackets, and special health care for the elderly and poor. We’re actually doing ok. We could be doing a lot better, but we’re not robbing the poor and giving to the rich, either. And robotic labor is quite a ways off. Artificial intelligence has a long way to go before it can catch up with a human laborer.
So by the time robotic labor is mass produced, people will be able to get money for doing nothing, and perhaps we will be able to move to a more communist society, one where we could focus our time on purely creative endeavors, and not have to worry about working. But this would only work if people got money regardless of employment, and it would only work if these robots made things cheaply enough for the ‘poor’ to buy them. Hence the communist view and Brain’s idea that people only spend 60-70 credits of the 1000 allotted to them.
One minor snag I’d like to point out is that Brain seems to be ignoring the energy part of the equation. Energy would be the one thing that would be in short supply. Is it really true that the population would only use about 6-7% of the total energy production? There would need to be limitations on energy usage. Brain seems to think that you could get a nice car, new clothes every day, food, and spend time playing video games and watching TV, and the robots will do all the work. Well, I think we’d need some sort of new energy source. But that’s a small quibble.
Philosophically, the move from capitalism to socialism is the move away from economic issues and towards humanitarian issues. That’s why socialism would work better in a society where much of the population was unemployed. But don’t get carried away, Brain. America may be capitalist, but it’s not pure laissez-faire cutthroat. Though it sometimes seems that big business holds all the cards, the people still hold at least a measure of power.
And technology is what the future is always about, right? People believe we live in better times, because we can communicate with people more freely because of TV and the internet, because air travel bridges the gap between cultures, and because medical science will continue to improve the quality and length of our lives. This is what we want to believe. And to some degree it is true. Technology has always helped to ease our lives, allowed us to move from hunting and gathering, to agrarian society, to industrial society. What some people believe is that the next step from industrial society is the move to an intellectual society, one where the US outsources much of its industrial labor and lets its citizens focus on tasks which cannot be automated yet-- design, creation, and art. Do we have this to look forward to? It’s impossible to say.
The invention and adoption of robots would be a key factor in this move. While it would be possible for the US to truly outsource its industry to other nations, robots would make this move almost guaranteed for any nation. It would also necessarily create a lot of unemployment. Now why would it create unemployment? The industrial revolution created jobs, not destroyed them. Why would the robotic/intellectual revolution be different? Well, what would be left for everyone to do? Build the robots? No, that would be done by robots. Design the robots? No, there would be a slight increase in the demand for them, but not enough to employ the entire manual labor force of the US. No, the US (or any country) would be left with a large supply of unemployable people. There’s just not enough demand for purely creative endeavors.
And here’s where part 1 comes in. I expressed the view that the move to socialism will be important in the future. Brain’s views clearly embody many of the ideals of communism, and the end society he describes in Manna is that of a communist society. It’s also clear that he indicts American capitalism as being harmful and the reason for its downfall.
I can see where he is coming from: If this large mass of unemployable people were created today, it would create an enormous rift. They would have no way to make money, but they would need jobs the most. In a ruthless capitalist society, they’d be fucked. In a socialist society, they’d be better off, having a bit of money in their pockets, and being able to buy food and goods that are cheaply produced by the robotic labor.
But I give America credit here. Like I said previously, our humanity and compassion also increases with our technology. Usually technology has outpaced our ethics, but in this case I think our humanity is ahead of the curve. The US has countless welfare programs, unemployment, food stamps, graduated tax brackets, and special health care for the elderly and poor. We’re actually doing ok. We could be doing a lot better, but we’re not robbing the poor and giving to the rich, either. And robotic labor is quite a ways off. Artificial intelligence has a long way to go before it can catch up with a human laborer.
So by the time robotic labor is mass produced, people will be able to get money for doing nothing, and perhaps we will be able to move to a more communist society, one where we could focus our time on purely creative endeavors, and not have to worry about working. But this would only work if people got money regardless of employment, and it would only work if these robots made things cheaply enough for the ‘poor’ to buy them. Hence the communist view and Brain’s idea that people only spend 60-70 credits of the 1000 allotted to them.
One minor snag I’d like to point out is that Brain seems to be ignoring the energy part of the equation. Energy would be the one thing that would be in short supply. Is it really true that the population would only use about 6-7% of the total energy production? There would need to be limitations on energy usage. Brain seems to think that you could get a nice car, new clothes every day, food, and spend time playing video games and watching TV, and the robots will do all the work. Well, I think we’d need some sort of new energy source. But that’s a small quibble.
Philosophically, the move from capitalism to socialism is the move away from economic issues and towards humanitarian issues. That’s why socialism would work better in a society where much of the population was unemployed. But don’t get carried away, Brain. America may be capitalist, but it’s not pure laissez-faire cutthroat. Though it sometimes seems that big business holds all the cards, the people still hold at least a measure of power.
# posted by Stuart @ 6:21 PM 
