Hello Ludwik, No, communism was old already when introduced in Russia (even older in Poland). However, if we stay with that side of the communism that deals with distribution of basic needs it has it points. The problem is that it decides that one group has too little and that that has to be justified with all and any means. This is a different situation today and the argument has very little traction. I believe that one need to have a way to distribute basic needs not only within a country but globally. Otherwise there is no way of dealing with the future robot society. You cannot have people in a third world country working 70 / 80 hours per week and just get the basics if people three hours away can work 8 hours a week for the same reward. As the world has better communications the differences will decrease. I do not think that such borders will survive. I think Eric is righ;t robots will only be able/allowed to handle so much. There will be a need for change of attitudes and valued will be based differently. I know that people (in general), of working class 125 to 150 years ago had no ambitions to develop their personality or travel for educational reasons. They had their day cut out trying to survive. During this period since then we have already made great progress to offer everyone the basic needs in the west. This development is under way at a much higher speed in all other countries today. I predict one can live with similar security and promise of basic needs almost anywhere in the world within 25 years. It is possible that the direct connection between producing and reward will to some extent survive this period. However, if the requirement for being productive is very low, like 8 hours per week, then this direct relation will have to change. I hope to the better. Once again I agree with Eric that there is a big risk that the transition will be difficult. LENR would certainly help that transition. Disturbing to me is that even here in the west, we cannot focus on adopting the new technologies. We are still worried over that jobs are moving to China and India. That is instead of building new infrastructure that utilize the new possibilities. We still think that GM and similar giant organizations will be in the lead. We even save them when they fail because they have outlived there usefulness. We are afraid of the change! China and India will not stay long as the low cost labor resource. Robots and even less fortunate areas in the world will become the future cheap labor resource. Don't you think a Chinese will ask for the same privileges as a US or a German citizen? Of course they will. I could add something about, smaller and more flexible organizations all over the field, but . . . :)
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > About education -- in a future in which the economic difficulties being > discussed are worked out to some extent, there will be a lot of free time. > Furthering one's education seems like a good way to spend some of this > time. I suspect that education will change significantly in the next 200 > years, which is not to suggest that it will be unrecognizable. But if there > is less pressure to get a job in order to survive and prosper, there may be > less pressure to obtain a bachelor's degree, in contrast to getting > specific certifications, which could potentially undercut the current > tuition inflation. > > About the replacement of jobs by robots -- this is obviously happening and > will increasingly happen. But I think the argument only goes so far. Not > all creative jobs carried out by people will be replaced by robotic labor > (I don't think anyone is arguing the extreme version of this). I doubt > there will ever be a time when robotic art, or music, or essays, political > analyses or high-end mandolins will ever rival the best work of humans. > This is not to say that many jobs that are currently somewhat creative will > not be replaced. > > To elaborate, consider that for the last 50-60 years people have been > infatuated with fast food, which has a consistent taste and presentation > wherever you buy it. There has been a similar uniformity in homes, > suburban neighborhoods, furniture and fruit and vegetables. But in recent > years there has been a general reassessment of these kinds of preferences, > and people have become more willing to pay more for the hand-made and > idiosyncratic stuff. I see this trend increasing over time. In addition, > there are areas that people may naturally gravitate towards, such as > gardening, which, although the work could be capably carried out by a > sufficiently intelligent set of robots, people might want to do > themselves. The main point, then, is that in an economy in which scarcity > is not a motivating factor, people will not be forced to do undignified > work. > > All of that is very bright and rosy. I am pessimistic that the transition > to such a future will be a smooth and pleasant one. > > Eric > >
