I remember an old toy block system almost identical, dimensions were the same, to Lego blocks but they were notably softer plastic. They were still plenty tough but quite a few blocks had my teeth marks left in them.
I liked those blocks more, even as a kid, because they didn't hurt your foot as much when stood on.
Resources have no innate price of their own. It is the labour costs that give them any tangible price.
Supply-and-demand pricing behaviours are a side effect of putting a price on it in the first place.
Machines have no need for money to solve for availability. Long term, it's a case of recycling. Nature has this down to a fine art already. We'll do better in the future.
To clarify that a little more: An economy is a human construct. And those in power make the rules of that economy. Back then, the rules permitted/enforced for some people in the society not to also be included in the economy.
I was thinking more along the lines of having an open deck meal in front of Niagara falls, or having the privileged to chose the looks or location of the next terraforming mission.
The slaves themselves were not in that economy. They were excluded to the limit of survival for labour.
When adding in the fact that no labour force is needed once the machines are making everything, it won't be acceptable to go back to excluding people. The economy served it purpose.
The alternative is revolt and massacres on the largest scale.
Ant workers are effectively slaves, in human terms. Slaves are not part of an economy.
Just the same as the minerals mined are not part of the economy. It's only the paid workers doing the mining, and mining equipment built by human labour, that assigns any economic price.
Lol, ant colonies ain't no economy. For sure, you can say there is feedback loops and all sorts of functional behaviour. Many engineering and natural systems have feedback. It's a wave action, not an economy.
Assigning money to robot ownership for the purpose of faking an economy is pointless.
I replied to this: "We are a solved specie. In the future even the majority of developer jobs will be automated. Systems will be fully automated with a fully non-human supply chain, economy, and customers."
It's a quote from what would have been converted from Metric by the editor at Quartz magazine.
Here's another humdinger from the same article: "Instead, it will orbit the Sun, at a distance 1.5 million kilometers from Earth, three times farther from us than Hubble."
I suspect they're out by a factor of 1000 on Hubble's orbit there.
Slashdot Mirror
He'll be apologising after each email now.
Great for driving trends and influencing thinking.
Recommendations in App stores is another case for this.
Lol, I'm waiting for 6+ months per charge. It's useless if it can't be used as an actual watch.
I remember an old toy block system almost identical, dimensions were the same, to Lego blocks but they were notably softer plastic. They were still plenty tough but quite a few blocks had my teeth marks left in them.
I liked those blocks more, even as a kid, because they didn't hurt your foot as much when stood on.
Well said!
Especially when everyone thinks they should "get ahead".
There's nothing innate about that. That would just be a means of exclusion.
When there is zero cost, which is what automation provides, excluding people (like slavery) for no reason won't be accepted.
Resources have no innate price of their own. It is the labour costs that give them any tangible price.
Supply-and-demand pricing behaviours are a side effect of putting a price on it in the first place.
Machines have no need for money to solve for availability. Long term, it's a case of recycling. Nature has this down to a fine art already. We'll do better in the future.
To clarify that a little more: An economy is a human construct. And those in power make the rules of that economy. Back then, the rules permitted/enforced for some people in the society not to also be included in the economy.
I was thinking more along the lines of having an open deck meal in front of Niagara falls, or having the privileged to chose the looks or location of the next terraforming mission.
The slaves themselves were not in that economy. They were excluded to the limit of survival for labour.
When adding in the fact that no labour force is needed once the machines are making everything, it won't be acceptable to go back to excluding people. The economy served it purpose.
The alternative is revolt and massacres on the largest scale.
It costs zero at that point. Money has no purpose then. Everyone gets to have mass produced items.
For non mass produced items, we wait in line. Same as now.
Money does encourage that thinking.
Crap, my reply above was meant for mark-t
This branch of the thread is about further in the future when machines are doing it all.
Without paid humans, there is no costs. Which also means no need for money or an economy.
Any attempt to maintain a financial system would be fully broken.
Those are all human labour costs.
That's back to slavery. I don't see that working when production becomes free cost.
Ant workers are effectively slaves, in human terms. Slaves are not part of an economy.
Just the same as the minerals mined are not part of the economy. It's only the paid workers doing the mining, and mining equipment built by human labour, that assigns any economic price.
Lol, ant colonies ain't no economy. For sure, you can say there is feedback loops and all sorts of functional behaviour. Many engineering and natural systems have feedback. It's a wave action, not an economy.
Assigning money to robot ownership for the purpose of faking an economy is pointless.
I replied to this: "We are a solved specie. In the future even the majority of developer jobs will be automated. Systems will be fully automated with a fully non-human supply chain, economy, and customers."
Products don't have to have a price. If machines can make everything without human labour then the cost price is zero.
without people to pay.
Money's purpose is to manage a human workforce.
It's a quote from what would have been converted from Metric by the editor at Quartz magazine.
Here's another humdinger from the same article: "Instead, it will orbit the Sun, at a distance 1.5 million kilometers from Earth, three times farther from us than Hubble."
I suspect they're out by a factor of 1000 on Hubble's orbit there.
need to be banned for sure. That's always been a good idea.
men go goo-goo eyed at extravagant bling.