Hang on—before we were assuming that the Robots (ems) were consumers. Here we’re assuming the opposite, that humans and only humans consume. Therefore the consumption basket can’t go haywire.
What counts as “consumption” is a matter of definition, not fact. Even if you book the “consumption” by machines as capital investment or intermediate goods purchases, it’s still there, and if machines play an increasingly prominent role, it can significantly influence the prices of goods that humans consume. With machines that approach human levels of intelligence and take over increasingly intelligent and dexterous human jobs, this difference will become an increasingly fictional accounting convention.
Land rent is another huge issue. Observe the present situation: food and clothing are nowadays dirt cheap, and unlike in the past, starving or having to go around without a warm coat in the winter are no longer realistic dangers no matter how impoverished you get. Yet, living space is not much more affordable relative to income than in the past, and becoming homeless remains a very realistic threat. And if you look at the interest rates versus prices, you’ll find that the interest on a fairly modest amount would nowadays be enough to feed and clothe yourself adequately enough to survive—but not to afford an adequate living space. (Plus, the present situation isn’t that bad because you can loiter in public spaces, but in a future of soaring land rents, these will likely become much more scarce. Humans require an awful lot of space to subsist tolerably.)
So in order for things to be OK, economic disparity has to remain non-insanely-high.
When it comes to the earnings from rent and interest, the present economic disparity is already insanely high. What makes it non-insanely-high overall is the fact that labor can be sold for a high price—and we’re discussing the scenario where this changes.
I’ll certainly agree that poorer humans might run out of land that’s all owned by a few rich humans. If the value of labor dropped to zero, then land ownership would become critically important, as it is one of the few resources that are essentially not producable, and therefore the who-owns-the-land game is zero sum.
But is land really unproducable in this scenario? Remember, we’re assuming very high levels of technology. Maybe the poorer humans would all end up as seasteaders or desert dwellers?
What about the possibility of producing land underground?
What about producing land in space?
The bottom line seems to be that our society will have to change drastically in many ways, but that the demise of the need for human labor would be a good thing overall.
But is land really unproducable in this scenario? Remember, we’re assuming very high levels of technology. Maybe the poorer humans would all end up as seasteaders or desert dwellers?
What about the possibility of producing land underground?
What about producing land in space?
Given a well-organized and generous system of redistribution, the situation actually wouldn’t be that bad. Despite all the silly panicking about overpopulation, the Earth is a pretty big place. To get some perspective, at the population density of Singapore, ten billion people could fit into roughly 1% of the total world land surface area. This is approximately the size of the present-day Mongolia. With the population density of Malta—hardly a dystopian metropolis—they’d need about 5% of the Earth’s land, i.e. roughly the area of the continental U.S.
Therefore, assuming the powers-that-be would be willing to do so, in a super-high-tech regime several billion unproductive people could be supported in one or more tolerably dense enclaves at a relatively low opportunity cost. The real questions are whether the will to do so will exist, what troubles might ensue during the transition, and whether these unproductive billions will be able to form a tolerably functional society. (Of course, it is first necessary to dispel the delusion—widely taken as a fundamental article of faith among economists—that technological advances can never render great masses of people unemployable.)
Now, you write:
The bottom line seems to be that our society will have to change drastically in many ways, but that the demise of the need for human labor would be a good thing overall.
I’m not at all sure of that. I hate to sound elitist, but I suspect that among the common folk, a great many people would not benefit from the liberation from the need to work. Just look at how often lottery winners end up completely destroying their lives, or what happens in those social environments where living off handouts becomes the norm. It seems to me that many, if not most people need a clear schedule of productive work around which they can organize their lives, and lacking it become completely disoriented and self-destructive. The old folk wisdom that idle hands are the devil’s tools has at least some truth in it.
This is one reason why I’m skeptical of redistribution as the solution, even under the assumption that it will be organized successfully.
Re: “Therefore, assuming the powers-that-be would be willing to do so, in a super-high-tech regime several billion unproductive people could be supported in one or more tolerably dense enclaves at a relatively low opportunity cost. The real questions are whether the will to do so will exist, what troubles might ensue during the transition, and whether these unproductive billions will be able to form a tolerably functional society.”
Organic humans becoming functionally redundant is likely to be the beginning of the end for them. They may well be able to persist for a while as useless parasites on an engineered society—but any ultimate hope for becoming something other than entities of historical interest would appear to lie with integration into that society—and that would take a considerable amount of “adjustment”.
It seems to me that many, if not most people need a clear schedule of productive work around which they can organize their lives, and lacking it become completely disoriented and self-destructive.
I think that that would just be another service or product that people purchased. Be it in the form of cognitive enhancement, voluntary projects or hobbies, etc. In fact lottery winners simply suffer from not being numerous enough to support a lottery-winner rehabilitation industry.
I agree that such optimistic scenarios are possible; my gloomy comments aren’t meant to prophesy certain doom, but rather to shake what I perceive as an unwarrantably high level of optimism and lack of consideration for certain ugly but nevertheless real possibilities.
Still, one problem I think is particularly underestimated in discussions of this sort is how badly the law of unintended consequences can bite whenever it comes to the practical outcomes of large-scale social changes and interventions. This could be especially relevant in future scenarios where the consequences of the disappearing demand for human labor are remedied with handouts and redistribution. Even if we assume that such programs will be successfully embarked upon (which is by no means certain), it is a non-trivial question what other conditions will have to be satisfied for the results to be pretty, given the existing experiences with somewhat analogous situations.
Roko:
What counts as “consumption” is a matter of definition, not fact. Even if you book the “consumption” by machines as capital investment or intermediate goods purchases, it’s still there, and if machines play an increasingly prominent role, it can significantly influence the prices of goods that humans consume. With machines that approach human levels of intelligence and take over increasingly intelligent and dexterous human jobs, this difference will become an increasingly fictional accounting convention.
Land rent is another huge issue. Observe the present situation: food and clothing are nowadays dirt cheap, and unlike in the past, starving or having to go around without a warm coat in the winter are no longer realistic dangers no matter how impoverished you get. Yet, living space is not much more affordable relative to income than in the past, and becoming homeless remains a very realistic threat. And if you look at the interest rates versus prices, you’ll find that the interest on a fairly modest amount would nowadays be enough to feed and clothe yourself adequately enough to survive—but not to afford an adequate living space. (Plus, the present situation isn’t that bad because you can loiter in public spaces, but in a future of soaring land rents, these will likely become much more scarce. Humans require an awful lot of space to subsist tolerably.)
When it comes to the earnings from rent and interest, the present economic disparity is already insanely high. What makes it non-insanely-high overall is the fact that labor can be sold for a high price—and we’re discussing the scenario where this changes.
I’ll certainly agree that poorer humans might run out of land that’s all owned by a few rich humans. If the value of labor dropped to zero, then land ownership would become critically important, as it is one of the few resources that are essentially not producable, and therefore the who-owns-the-land game is zero sum.
But is land really unproducable in this scenario? Remember, we’re assuming very high levels of technology. Maybe the poorer humans would all end up as seasteaders or desert dwellers?
What about the possibility of producing land underground?
What about producing land in space?
The bottom line seems to be that our society will have to change drastically in many ways, but that the demise of the need for human labor would be a good thing overall.
Roko:
Given a well-organized and generous system of redistribution, the situation actually wouldn’t be that bad. Despite all the silly panicking about overpopulation, the Earth is a pretty big place. To get some perspective, at the population density of Singapore, ten billion people could fit into roughly 1% of the total world land surface area. This is approximately the size of the present-day Mongolia. With the population density of Malta—hardly a dystopian metropolis—they’d need about 5% of the Earth’s land, i.e. roughly the area of the continental U.S.
Therefore, assuming the powers-that-be would be willing to do so, in a super-high-tech regime several billion unproductive people could be supported in one or more tolerably dense enclaves at a relatively low opportunity cost. The real questions are whether the will to do so will exist, what troubles might ensue during the transition, and whether these unproductive billions will be able to form a tolerably functional society. (Of course, it is first necessary to dispel the delusion—widely taken as a fundamental article of faith among economists—that technological advances can never render great masses of people unemployable.)
Now, you write:
I’m not at all sure of that. I hate to sound elitist, but I suspect that among the common folk, a great many people would not benefit from the liberation from the need to work. Just look at how often lottery winners end up completely destroying their lives, or what happens in those social environments where living off handouts becomes the norm. It seems to me that many, if not most people need a clear schedule of productive work around which they can organize their lives, and lacking it become completely disoriented and self-destructive. The old folk wisdom that idle hands are the devil’s tools has at least some truth in it.
This is one reason why I’m skeptical of redistribution as the solution, even under the assumption that it will be organized successfully.
Re: “Therefore, assuming the powers-that-be would be willing to do so, in a super-high-tech regime several billion unproductive people could be supported in one or more tolerably dense enclaves at a relatively low opportunity cost. The real questions are whether the will to do so will exist, what troubles might ensue during the transition, and whether these unproductive billions will be able to form a tolerably functional society.”
Organic humans becoming functionally redundant is likely to be the beginning of the end for them. They may well be able to persist for a while as useless parasites on an engineered society—but any ultimate hope for becoming something other than entities of historical interest would appear to lie with integration into that society—and that would take a considerable amount of “adjustment”.
I think that that would just be another service or product that people purchased. Be it in the form of cognitive enhancement, voluntary projects or hobbies, etc. In fact lottery winners simply suffer from not being numerous enough to support a lottery-winner rehabilitation industry.
I agree that such optimistic scenarios are possible; my gloomy comments aren’t meant to prophesy certain doom, but rather to shake what I perceive as an unwarrantably high level of optimism and lack of consideration for certain ugly but nevertheless real possibilities.
Still, one problem I think is particularly underestimated in discussions of this sort is how badly the law of unintended consequences can bite whenever it comes to the practical outcomes of large-scale social changes and interventions. This could be especially relevant in future scenarios where the consequences of the disappearing demand for human labor are remedied with handouts and redistribution. Even if we assume that such programs will be successfully embarked upon (which is by no means certain), it is a non-trivial question what other conditions will have to be satisfied for the results to be pretty, given the existing experiences with somewhat analogous situations.