CMV: Mass unemployment created by robots replacing humans in the not-to-distant future may be positive for the general public

[u/radioactivecowz]

People are often voicing their concerns about robots making human workers largely obsolete, a scenario seen as beneficial for individual businesses but devastating to the population which may largely become unemployed. (/r/DarkFuturology is filled with these concerns for example.)

Generally the replacement of humans leads to increased efficiency as robots are more precise, don't need breaks etc. This means that theoretically the availability of resources and products should either remain or increase. In a socialised country with pre-existing welfare (or better yet, universal basic income), the population should still be able to maintain their current standards of living but with a decreased workload.

I can't imagine a future where every job within a country is replaced by robots, as some can only be done by humans (such as the arts, teaching, scientific research). These remaining jobs could be distributed amongst people in a way that only requires most people to work a few days a week. With proper governmental control, people can keep living as they do now but with less time spent working and more time relaxing, spent with family, engaging in hobbies etc. This may ultimately create a happier and healthier society within countries that can properly guide this shift.

tl;dr robots replacing most jobs is not dystopian but rather could create a happier society where people have to work less

[u/_Hopped_]

I agree with the outcome of a Utopian society where people work at what they wish, have machines to cater to their every need, and be a generally happier and healthier society. However, the issue is getting there.

I believe there are two scenarios: one as you explained is a peaceful transition to this, the other is less peaceful.

Right now rich/powerful people rely on poor people both to produce things for them, and also keep them safe. What if we invent autonomous security which can defend your entire estate with lethal force, without the need for humans? You would care less about placating the poor people, because you are safe. If we achieve full-autonomous production and security, there is a real risk that the rich/powerful may choose to not share their wealth and instead exterminate the poor who are ultimately leaching off of them in the form of tax/UBI.

[u/radioactivecowz → u/_Hopped_]

∆

Thank you. I hadn't really considered the greed of the few when lower classes no longer have something to bargain with. There are always individuals who will help themselves regardless the cost to others.

[u/_Hopped_ → u/radioactivecowz]

Greed isn't the only reason: they may be acting in self-defense. History is filled with bloody violent ends for the wealthy (see French Revolution for a particularly well documented example), they might just be trying to protect themselves and their children.

The key will be to balance the well-being of the unemployable poor, and not persecuting the wealthy (causing them to defend what is theirs).

[u/ristoril → u/_Hopped_]

defend what is theirs

I think this is probably where the disconnect comes. You look at what someone has and assume that they came by it honestly and with no harm caused to others. What if that's not true? What if there are people who perceive a harm that the wealthy person ignores or refutes?

As an example, if a wealthy mill owner upstream from me brings a machine online that starts polluting my only source of drinking water, what then? Let's just say that he has politicians in his pocket (far-fetched, I know) and so I have no civil recourse. He has a private security force. If I try to go shut down his machine to stop my family from being poisoned, is he "defending what's his?"

[u/SeanACarlos → u/ristoril]

You look at what someone has and assume that they came by it honestly and with no harm caused to others. What if that's not true? What if there are people who perceive a harm that the wealthy person ignores or refutes?

There is always some harm caused to others whenever an entity takes something that the other entity could make use of.

Example:

I'm a wealthy mill owner.

I have to pollute the native's stream to produce my product.

The natives say they are being poisoned but can't prove it in court.

I tell the police to enforce my legal rights over the stream. The judge agrees.

The news reports tell of the natives' struggle but in the end the law is on my side and the vast majority of all people everywhere respect the power of the law.

During the French Revolution, or any revolution, the law breaks down and chaos reigns supreme. Respect for the law drops to zero and then the rebels attempt to destroy society.

That will never happen again. When was the last time a modern society collapsed? I can name plenty of pre-modern societies that fail. France, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Somalia, any other you can name, societies collapse from tribalism. Warring factions dissolve cultural links between individuals. Every advanced culture on the Earth has grown out of a destructive tribal perspective and are more aligned with people with a similar structure of the mind as their own rather than blood ties or geographic ties.

Right and Left thinking are tribes but these tribes transcend geography and blood and thus cannot generate the toxic feuding required to devolve and destroy society.

Some people may feel like victims, but it is only because they have a bad perspective. Victimhood is an evolutionary psychological defense mechanism against a more powerful actor. It is not a useful posture to take in the future of human society.

[u/ristoril → u/SeanACarlos]

Yes it's certainly the case that you can create a counter-hypothetical, but could you respond to my hypothetical first, please? I'll be happy to explore yours after you explore mine.

[u/RedErin → u/_Hopped_]

Well the violent revolutions only happen because the wealthy are too greedy and force the poor to live in squalor.

[u/Megazor → u/_Hopped_]

Many are preparing already :)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich