Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

alstry (34.92)

Understand This....And You Will Understand Why The Economy MUST Mathematically Collapse

Recs

11

August 23, 2011 – Comments (5)

You can't stop human progress.....even in war, technology advances.

The problem is that JOBS are the PRIMARY driver/support structure of our INDUSTRIAL economy.....and technological intelligence and functionality IS replacing biological intelligence/functionality AT FASTER AND FASTER RATES...

At some point, as jobs continue to evaporate to advancing technology, the industrial system must MATHMATICALLY collapse....in the same logical equivilent that a bridge must collapse if its support structure weakens sufficiently....the irony is those driving over the bridge would never see it coming in the same way those staring at the bailed algo driven stock market would never see the collapse either.

I created Alstrynomics and Udder World because no one was/is focusing on the human consequences to Technological Singularity....and most don't even know why it was called singularity.....

it is not the traditional physics use of the word....but rather applied because it takes a view toward history and with the benefit of hindsight history is ALWAYS singular....but the future, especially if you factor a revolutionary technology, is random but only singular when looking backwards.  The distinction from a human perspective is often blurred because most think historically and project to the future from past events....which may or may not be relevant.

Many get frustrated with the consistency and style of Alstry's blogs.....but it is put forth this way for a purpose.....

HINDSIGHT IS ALWAYS 20/20...but Alstry has been singular in perspective prospectively since the day he started blogging....singular in the perspective that technology is replacing human functioning at ever increasing rates and the industrial age is collapsing......yet so few care about the human consequences even though the evidence is everywhere....and we know the lies are only getting bigger to maintain the illusion of a functioning industrial economy (ie government running a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit that is impossible to pay back, enough to pay 50,000,000 Americans over $30K per year)....until it may be too late.

Are you ready for the Udder World?  It is coming whether you like it or not....humanity must advance...but what will happen to the people in a world where we don't need as many people to work?

5 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 23, 2011 at 4:09 PM, TMFCrocoStimpy (95.68) wrote:

I'm still kind of hazy on one explanation, Alstry - admittedly I don't always play along at home - and that is why I can't copy this entire argument wholesale, turn back the clock 100 years, and replace INDUSTRIAL with AGRICULTURAL.  Seems as though we went through that entire transformation, and disruptive though it was, it didn't result in the collapse of the system.

The only reason anything is MATHEMATICALLY NECESSARY is because someone models it to be :)

Report this comment
#2) On August 23, 2011 at 5:12 PM, alstry (34.92) wrote:

Not really...mathematically our system depends on jobs to function....and when we went from Agricultural to Industrial...we(America) actually created more Industrial Jobs than the agricultural jobs that were lost.....

so in a system that was jobs dependent, America's economic system actually grew.

Now technology is replacing jobs with a net reduction in total jobs....despite a growing population.  THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE (although analogies could be made to the great depression).

We are keeping the current system functioning by a massive deficit creating tens of millions of jobs...

As such...as long as we have a system dependent on jobs to function.....the system must mathematically fail when the jobs evaporate or we cut the deficit.

Report this comment
#3) On August 23, 2011 at 5:29 PM, TMFCrocoStimpy (95.68) wrote:

Now technology is replacing jobs with a net reduction in total jobs....despite a growing population.  THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE (although analogies could be made to the great depression).

This is where I would disagree - there was a net reduction in jobs for a period of time during the transition from agricultural to industrial, and if you had been observing during that time period, it would have simply looked like a net loss of jobs (just as you might see things today).  Ceding the contraction in the industrial job/person ratio, what is to prevent and expansion of jobs in an as yet unclear area?  This is what I meant by things are only mathematically necessary if you model them that way.  If your assumptions are that the industrial jobs cannot be replaced by anything else, then of course you have a failing system if you are making more efficient use of your technology.  But that is a huge assumption that we will not construct another venue of our labor that has value in the future.  I'm just not that pessimistic.

Report this comment
#4) On August 23, 2011 at 5:49 PM, alstry (34.92) wrote:

First, people were much more self sufficient during the transition from Agricultural to Industrial...vs. today everybody depends on others for food, clothing, and shelter....and tens of millions depend on the government today versus almost no one back then.

Second, our population was much smaller.

Combine the above two alone, plus factoring speed at which technology is advancing, and you make for a very convulsive recipie.

Going forward, we will accomdate people....we could do it with war or other means......how will do it will be determined relatively shortly....who knows, maybe people will not need to work anymore to live a decent lifestyle.....

Report this comment
#5) On August 23, 2011 at 7:40 PM, TMFBiggles (33.95) wrote:

I feel like I'm stumbling into the middle of an epic disaster movie.

 I'm going to have to go back and read some of your old blogs, but in the meantime I'd like to comment here.

The technological is already firmly at work at replacing the industrial and has already begun to work at replacing the services as well. There are already examples of computers taking on professional services such as law and accounting and removing redundant or low-tier professionals from those service sectors, just as there are plenty of such examples in industry.

We got through the Industrial Revolution because there turned out to be so many more applications for industry than there had been for agriculture, and the level of automation was so low that heavy labor inputs were required. The rising tide of automation pushed people into the knowledge-and-process-based service sector, which turned out to have just as many (or more) applications than the industrial sector. Now the service industry is becoming increasingly automated, and with good reason - after a certain point it just costs less to have robots and computers working for you.

Kurzweil himself proposed that most of the jobs created on the approach to the Singularity would be in creative applications and design. We don't really need any more lawyers, or accountants, or even certain sorts of doctors.Technical aptitude can more easily be computerized than creative aptitude because it's a lot easier to program in ways that conform to technical operations.

Agriculture > Industry > Service > ?

What's the next step, and are we preparing for the next step? If the next step is an economy built on creativity and design rather than systems and processes, can we train for creativity and design the way we're currently training the next generations for industry and processes?

The big difference between the industrial revolution and the technological is that the industrial couldn't operate without human inputs. After a certain point, the hypothesis is that the technological will be able to operate with no human input.

Like Alstry says (in the third person, apparently), maybe people won't need to work any more to live a decent lifestyle. After a certain point you can't really predict anything, but after a certain point it's also supposed to be impossible to tell a human being from machine intelligence, and after that happens, wouldn't the machine intelligence simply be better suited for every job? And if machine intelligence can do any job humans can, then why should humans work at all?

Just my take, anyway.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement