I don’t want to appear snobbish, but if economic prospects are bad, then you need even more people. In economics scale makes everything better.
Basic food is, if we think about it, very cheap. Even the USSR managed to solve that problem. Everyone could find buckwheat\rice\some other grain\potatoes\vegetables to eat, salt sold for food was mandated to be iodized, for prevention of scurvy even on very basic diet, and some (bad, ugly, but edible) fish conserves were generally available everywhere, also “sea cabbage”.
Depending on area there’d also be (bad, thin, kinda soup-only, not the broilers you’re used to, though about USA I’ve read that food products quality is not nice generally) chicken, some fish, some meat. Some fruit, something else. The previous paragraph described the baseline that was always there.
So hunger is avoidable even if the economy sucks huge stinking donkey balls.
If hunger is avoidable, having more people is, of course, a disadvantage in terms of social conflicts, but they don’t have to fear that - the most angry and dumb part of the population is voting for them.
Notice that it doesn’t matter whether you think that AI can replace people, it only matters whether companies think that AI can replace people. Now, having children costs a lot of money, at least $100K, depending on where you live, and i understand people being reluctant about having children.
There’s a bit of tunnel vision here, I think. It costs that to have children in the USA, but in Mexico it’d be cheaper probably.
That’s because value is created by labor, if your labor isn’t needed and you don’t have a job, then you’d still produce value if you had one. And when you can’t afford something, that disadvantaged labor might produce it. OK, I’m a shitty explainer, what I mean is that, if there are no regulations directly preventing it, there’s a feedback of creating another bucket of demand and thus jobs to fulfill it. Not an economist.
I also advocate for UBI (universal basic income), but the way i see it today, there’s a high likelyhood that it will come, but will be too little to actually cover cost-of-living costs. I.e., it might be a “support”, providing $400/month no-strings-attached and it would definitely improve the living conditions of many people, especially in low-income households. But it would still not solve all problems.
It might create hyperinflation, first and foremost affecting those owning money and not assets. And your average person is more dependent on money as opposed to assets than a businessman or a company or a fund. I’m not an economist, that’s just how I see it.
I feel that you’re trying to be honest about this discussion, though realistically, many of your points have flaws in them.
One of the issues i see is that you’re acting as if society was one, coherent blob. In reality, you have a bunch of people more-or-less (often less) willing to cooperate with one another.
That’s because value is created by labor, if your labor isn’t needed and you don’t have a job, then you’d still produce value if you had one. And when you can’t afford something, that disadvantaged labor might produce it. OK, I’m a shitty explainer, what I mean is that, if there are no regulations directly preventing it, there’s a feedback of creating another bucket of demand and thus jobs to fulfill it. Not an economist.
I think somehow, herein lies the fallacy, though it’s completely non-obvious. In the last 200 years, we’ve lived in times where “bigger population” always implied more workers and thus more work getting done.
But that is not, in general, the natural way. Consider, as an example, the medieval ages. Most people were farmers, and basically all farmable land at that time was distributed among farmers. If you had more people back then, that did not mean that more work got done. You can only plow and harvest so-many hectares. Once that is done, you’re running out of work, and the additional people are mouths-to-feed, but they don’t really produce any extra. I’m worried that as automation advances, we’re nearing similar terms. More people would not mean more productive output, but rather, people sitting around with not much to do, aka. unemployment. And that creates a psychological toll where people get dissatisfied with their living conditions, as they’re looked down on as “useless eaters”, and that creates a negative situation. I think that the number of people should not hugely exceed the number of jobs that actually should get done, i.e. jobs that actually pay at least a living wage.
That’s why I specifically addressed food. “Mouths to feed” is a small problem.
If the results of automation allowing more output are somehow distributed to people without buying ability anymore, then it’s not yet a problem. If they are not, then other people, not as productive as said automation, have a market for their work. That’s what I meant.
Psychological toll … yeah, that’s where, again, something like Soviet ideology would be of some use. And some kind of more even distribution of work. As in - labor is virtuous, but it’s a good thing when you can do less labor for the same result.
BTW, all those people whining about oh holy Stalin, oh beautiful USSR, we were not good enough to have you, they ignore the obvious fact that what’s been done once can be done again, especially with technological means better fit for it. Maybe they were onto something, who knows. Not just Soviet ideologists, but a certain Norbert Wiener predicted a moment when the problems will have to be solved in ways different from now.
Bigger population means bigger cultural space. It is important. There are many things machines can’t do.
I don’t want to appear snobbish, but if economic prospects are bad, then you need even more people. In economics scale makes everything better.
Basic food is, if we think about it, very cheap. Even the USSR managed to solve that problem. Everyone could find buckwheat\rice\some other grain\potatoes\vegetables to eat, salt sold for food was mandated to be iodized, for prevention of scurvy even on very basic diet, and some (bad, ugly, but edible) fish conserves were generally available everywhere, also “sea cabbage”.
Depending on area there’d also be (bad, thin, kinda soup-only, not the broilers you’re used to, though about USA I’ve read that food products quality is not nice generally) chicken, some fish, some meat. Some fruit, something else. The previous paragraph described the baseline that was always there.
So hunger is avoidable even if the economy sucks huge stinking donkey balls.
If hunger is avoidable, having more people is, of course, a disadvantage in terms of social conflicts, but they don’t have to fear that - the most angry and dumb part of the population is voting for them.
There’s a bit of tunnel vision here, I think. It costs that to have children in the USA, but in Mexico it’d be cheaper probably.
That’s because value is created by labor, if your labor isn’t needed and you don’t have a job, then you’d still produce value if you had one. And when you can’t afford something, that disadvantaged labor might produce it. OK, I’m a shitty explainer, what I mean is that, if there are no regulations directly preventing it, there’s a feedback of creating another bucket of demand and thus jobs to fulfill it. Not an economist.
It might create hyperinflation, first and foremost affecting those owning money and not assets. And your average person is more dependent on money as opposed to assets than a businessman or a company or a fund. I’m not an economist, that’s just how I see it.
Thanks for your comment :)
I feel that you’re trying to be honest about this discussion, though realistically, many of your points have flaws in them.
One of the issues i see is that you’re acting as if society was one, coherent blob. In reality, you have a bunch of people more-or-less (often less) willing to cooperate with one another.
I think somehow, herein lies the fallacy, though it’s completely non-obvious. In the last 200 years, we’ve lived in times where “bigger population” always implied more workers and thus more work getting done.
But that is not, in general, the natural way. Consider, as an example, the medieval ages. Most people were farmers, and basically all farmable land at that time was distributed among farmers. If you had more people back then, that did not mean that more work got done. You can only plow and harvest so-many hectares. Once that is done, you’re running out of work, and the additional people are mouths-to-feed, but they don’t really produce any extra. I’m worried that as automation advances, we’re nearing similar terms. More people would not mean more productive output, but rather, people sitting around with not much to do, aka. unemployment. And that creates a psychological toll where people get dissatisfied with their living conditions, as they’re looked down on as “useless eaters”, and that creates a negative situation. I think that the number of people should not hugely exceed the number of jobs that actually should get done, i.e. jobs that actually pay at least a living wage.
That’s why I specifically addressed food. “Mouths to feed” is a small problem.
If the results of automation allowing more output are somehow distributed to people without buying ability anymore, then it’s not yet a problem. If they are not, then other people, not as productive as said automation, have a market for their work. That’s what I meant.
Psychological toll … yeah, that’s where, again, something like Soviet ideology would be of some use. And some kind of more even distribution of work. As in - labor is virtuous, but it’s a good thing when you can do less labor for the same result.
BTW, all those people whining about oh holy Stalin, oh beautiful USSR, we were not good enough to have you, they ignore the obvious fact that what’s been done once can be done again, especially with technological means better fit for it. Maybe they were onto something, who knows. Not just Soviet ideologists, but a certain Norbert Wiener predicted a moment when the problems will have to be solved in ways different from now.
Bigger population means bigger cultural space. It is important. There are many things machines can’t do.