I would like to show you this video sent to me as a case against a free market society. Which, I think, perhaps can in turn be debunked through Henry Hazlitt’s article on robotics in Economics in One Lesson, however, something strikes quite differently.
Apparently, as his statement goes, it “requires almost no labor or materials”. Obviously the argument may be familiar for some of you, as you know the end result. No labor, no materials, no justifiable reason for capitalism, unemployment, must be regulated to stop it blah blah blah.
I suppose my question is - is that even possible? Is there more articles, information, etc. disproving it other than Hazlitt’s article?
Sweet, bring it on. Not sure I understand how this is a case against markets? Sure maybe very little human labor would be needed in a society flooded with these things but that is because very little labor would be needed to produce the goods we consume and those goods would be next to free. What’s the problem with that?
Zwick, you make it sound like I am not libertarian. I am, I am! However this was brought to my attention and I simply wondered if there is anyway this could harm human labor in any, shape, or form. It felt a lot different than simply industrial revolution machinery that needed workers, just less workers - with technology like this, surely there is further need to not have workers at all for many things. The problem is just that - and I wondered if there was any explanation missing for something like this.
The case simply feels a lot more so than the Industrial Revolution machinery. Now things can be developed without any effort at all. D= What more refutations against the technophobic individual is there that I am perhaps overlooking?
Dondoolee, The Residents are awesome. Oh, and I see your point. Supply and demand. Damn it.
No I was essentially addressing your critic, the one who sent you the clip, in my statements.
“I simply wondered if there is anyway this could harm human labor in any, shape, or form.”
Well what do you mean by “harm”?
It certainly reduces the need for human labor and some misguided people would see that as harm. But do you believe that? I suspect not.
Let us take it to its most extreme and say no human labor is required any longer. In that case the problem of scarcity is only a problem insomuch as the world and our ingenuity can provide and therefore indeed the capitalist system is no longer particularly valid or needed. I for one don’t argue that the capitalist system is the be all end all of societal evolution. However, as long as scarcity remains I believe it to be the best one. Going a step short of that and assuming some, but not much, labor is still required I think the points outlined above in my and others post cover the situation sufficiently. I suspect there will always be a place for some labor and if the produce of that labor leaves 90% unemployed, I will gladly voluntarily donate a part of my income to buy them a cheap handy dandy nano machine so we can all enjoy the same things. I just don’t see how getting more for less is a problem in any way. To argue otherwise is to advocate people working for no reason like digging holes and filling them back in just to be doing something. That theoretical machine would basically make all arguments about economics null and void as it would practically eliminate scarcity. That’s OK with me.
(Warning of posting under the influence so hopefully somewhat coherent)
Even if some rich greedy capitalist created nanobots that could produce anything for no labor, its not like that would be an attack on anyone else. The farmers could still farm etc.
Also if everything is now free, even the tiniest amount of human charity would take care of everything.
Lemme start by saying this: We produce so that we may consume, and not vice-versa. Labor is a cost. The less labor needed to have the same amount of wealth is thus always a good thing. If a nanofactory allows the management and labor of a single person to, say, provide the entire world with the same standard of living as the Oil Kings, how much wealth could we have if you multiplied that by 7 billion? This catapults our example well past the scope of my imagination. But! The “transhumanists” say. How can people possibly afford to feed themselves if they can’t find a job? The labor market will fill up with machines and there will be no work left for humans. Allow me to remind you desires are unlimited; No matter how much you obtain and accomplish, you will always want more. This is a fundamental feature of human action and cannot be changed without destroying civilization, no matter how much the “altruists” want to artificially modify human behavior to end it. So long as human ingenuity is capable of finding new uses for things, those things will continue to have uses.
Oh, and I see your point. Supply and demand. Damn it.