How Nbsp rules over civilization via his singularity definitely isn't the topic of this thread.
Maybe not, but the idea of super rich people in a post-automation future using their money to create entirely new nations as they see fit is something that isn't discussed enough in these kinds of threads.
Super rich people redistributing their own wealth to other people as they see fit for whatever purpose without any direction from a government is the ultimate disruption to modern governments, and in a delicate society as the one we're discussing that would require "basic income" for people to even stay alive this could threaten the authority of most nations.
What makes you think that would ever be a good thing? Look at the banana republics and company towns that existed in the past. I wouldn't count a single one as a long-term success. Our government can certainly be shit, but at least there's a potential for change. In your automated monarchy, you are the law and cannot be deposed, so god forbid you get dementia or the power goes to your head (which it would).
How long before you cease caring about other human lives? How long before you become paranoid?
0
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
Not really. If the rich apply military force, then they're just the new government, with everything that entails.
They don't need to apply force.
They could buy a bunch of land, create a corporation, employ a bunch of people, and give them money for doing pretty much nothing except living their life. They can use every tax loophole they can get in this fucking world and basically pay as little in taxes as possible until one day they decide they aren't paying shit anymore, and then it's too late because they now have automated means of protecting their wealth.
Not really. If the rich apply military force, then they're just the new government, with everything that entails.
They don't need to apply force.
They could buy a bunch of land, create a corporation, employ a bunch of people, and give them money for doing pretty much nothing except living their life. They can use every tax loophole they can get in this fucking world and basically pay as little in taxes as possible until one day they decide they aren't paying shit anymore, and then it's too late because they now have automated means of protecting their wealth.
What now?
Then someone invades and take everything from you. Because you don't have a military.
If you pay no taxes to some government with a military, you don't have a military to protect you anymore unless someone else is paying for it, at which point you're a mooch.
If you're still inside some sovereign nation, then you're subject to that nation's laws and taxes, and they'll have a military to enforce them.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
+3
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
Not really. If the rich apply military force, then they're just the new government, with everything that entails.
They don't need to apply force.
They could buy a bunch of land, create a corporation, employ a bunch of people, and give them money for doing pretty much nothing except living their life. They can use every tax loophole they can get in this fucking world and basically pay as little in taxes as possible until one day they decide they aren't paying shit anymore, and then it's too late because they now have automated means of protecting their wealth.
What now?
Then someone invades and take everything from you. Because you don't have a military.
Drones. Drones that never get tired, don't care if they die, can be easily replaced, and never miss their targets.
Not really. If the rich apply military force, then they're just the new government, with everything that entails.
They don't need to apply force.
They could buy a bunch of land, create a corporation, employ a bunch of people, and give them money for doing pretty much nothing except living their life. They can use every tax loophole they can get in this fucking world and basically pay as little in taxes as possible until one day they decide they aren't paying shit anymore, and then it's too late because they now have automated means of protecting their wealth.
What now?
Then someone invades and take everything from you. Because you don't have a military.
Drones. Drones that never get tired, don't care if they die, can be easily replaced, and never miss their targets.
Then you do have a military force. You are a government.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
+2
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
How Nbsp rules over civilization via his singularity definitely isn't the topic of this thread.
Maybe not, but the idea of super rich people in a post-automation future using their money to create entirely new nations as they see fit is something that isn't discussed enough in these kinds of threads.
Super rich people redistributing their own wealth to other people as they see fit for whatever purpose without any direction from a government is the ultimate disruption to modern governments, and in a delicate society as the one we're discussing that would require "basic income" for people to even stay alive this could threaten the authority of most nations.
What makes you think that would ever be a good thing? Look at the banana republics and company towns that existed in the past. I wouldn't count a single one as a long-term success. Our government can certainly be shit, but at least there's a potential for change. In your automated monarchy, you are the law and cannot be deposed, so god forbid you get dementia or the power goes to your head (which it would).
How long before you cease caring about other human lives? How long before you become paranoid?
Those banana republics and company towns were not built on the foundation of automated systems.
Machines managing things for me will ensure that should I no longer be fit for being a ruler, the government will still run itself, as it always had been. Machines might even be able to lie to me and tell me things that aren't true just so I shut the fuck up. Who knows. I would be so proud of having built such a robust system.
How Nbsp rules over civilization via his singularity definitely isn't the topic of this thread.
Maybe not, but the idea of super rich people in a post-automation future using their money to create entirely new nations as they see fit is something that isn't discussed enough in these kinds of threads.
Super rich people redistributing their own wealth to other people as they see fit for whatever purpose without any direction from a government is the ultimate disruption to modern governments, and in a delicate society as the one we're discussing that would require "basic income" for people to even stay alive this could threaten the authority of most nations.
What makes you think that would ever be a good thing? Look at the banana republics and company towns that existed in the past. I wouldn't count a single one as a long-term success. Our government can certainly be shit, but at least there's a potential for change. In your automated monarchy, you are the law and cannot be deposed, so god forbid you get dementia or the power goes to your head (which it would).
How long before you cease caring about other human lives? How long before you become paranoid?
Those banana republics and company towns were not built on the foundation of automated systems.
Machines managing things for me will ensure that should I no longer be fit for being a ruler, the government will still run itself, as it always had been. Machines might even be able to lie to me and tell me things that aren't true just so I shut the fuck up. Who knows. I would be so proud of having built such a robust system.
That begs the question: How did you build the singularity?
Its fun to talk about how perfect it will be, but getting there is the hard part.
Edit: Yeah I'm going to have to agree with Quid, the details of the singularity should be off-topic.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Rich people setting up their own sovereign corporate city-states is like Cyberpunk Bad Guys 101. Creating a post-scarcity society in which your private robo-army cares for a small handful of your personal pet humans, at the expense of the rest of society and the human race, doesn't strike me as an especially noble or pride-worthy endeavor.
Edit: I have just noticed the irony of my Steam sig showing Fallout: New Vegas, a game in which I stole a private robo-army to protect my own kingdom at the expense of the rest of society and the human race.
I think there is another possibility. A classic solution to having too much population is migration. With commercial interest in space taking off, could we see a push for space colonization of some kind? The biggest question would be to what extent people are even useful in space compared to robots.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I think there is another possibility. A classic solution to having too much population is migration. With commercial interest in space taking off, could we see a push for space colonization of some kind? The biggest question would be to what extent people are even useful in space compared to robots.
Space colonization comes down to the "What's in it for me" problem.
Once you reach a certain distance, people are too far away to be a meaningful part of a given nation or company, and nobody has any reason to help them... or allow them.
I think there is another possibility. A classic solution to having too much population is migration. With commercial interest in space taking off, could we see a push for space colonization of some kind? The biggest question would be to what extent people are even useful in space compared to robots.
Space colonization comes down to the "What's in it for me" problem.
Once you reach a certain distance, people are too far away to be a meaningful part of a given nation or company, and nobody has any reason to help them... or allow them.
Distances within the solar system are not outside what trade could take in the ancient world or the age of sail. The economics of mining on Mars just don't work currently. Now, if there was oil on Mars...
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Yeah, space colonization won't take off until there's a way to monteize it. If it happens, it'll follow the same pattern of mining towns, etc. Find something valuable, then pay to build a town for the pople you hire to get it for you.
Yeah, space colonization won't take off until there's a way to monteize it. If it happens, it'll follow the same pattern of mining towns, etc. Find something valuable, then pay to build a town for the pople you hire to get it for you.
We could get an Australia situation. Constant population pressure drives organizations to build the space program. Spread lies that people are being sent to a utopia when in fact they're being dumped in a mildly habitable area with minimal supplies. Target society dregs to avoid condemnation and threat credible news sources to avoid scrutiny. Pay a few people to act as spokespersons for the missions thus driving more people to sign up. Never allow anyone to return. Population crises solved.
I think there is another possibility. A classic solution to having too much population is migration. With commercial interest in space taking off, could we see a push for space colonization of some kind? The biggest question would be to what extent people are even useful in space compared to robots.
Space migration is not a meaningful way of reducing populations. It is just too expensive to keep people alive there, and even if we could afford it, why would someone foot the bill? Surely it's cheaper to mine asteroids with robots that don't require oxygen or living space.
Account not recoverable. So long.
+7
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
edited July 2015
You guys got it all wrong, the clouds of Venus are a much better colonization target than Mars.
Venus is closer, has 90% earth gravity (this is key), is closer to the sun so it can make better use of solar power, and is rich in carbon dioxide that can feed plants being grown in a floating city. The surface could also be trawled for raw materials.
If a floating city is built with awesome amenities (by construction robots even), it wouldn't be a bad place to live.
I think there is another possibility. A classic solution to having too much population is migration. With commercial interest in space taking off, could we see a push for space colonization of some kind? The biggest question would be to what extent people are even useful in space compared to robots.
Space migration is not a meaningful way of reducing populations. It is just too expensive to keep people alive there, and even if we could afford it, why would someone foot the bill? Surely it's cheaper to mine asteroids with robots that don't require oxygen or living space.
If the primary goal is reducing population on Earth, you don't need to try very hard to keep the colonists alive.
Well this thread took a nosedive. It was very interesting until the person who said a cook making 15 dollars a hour was disgusting convinced himself he would be a benevolent dictator.
More about the topic at hand. What is the tipping point? Obviously more jobs will be marginalized with tech. 20% unemployment was during the great depression. Unfortunately I think another depression will be necessary for our government policies to change drastically in regards to social welfare.
psn: PhasenWeeple
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
You guys got it all wrong, the clouds of Venus are a much better colonization target than Mars.
Venus is closer, has 90% earth gravity (this is key), is closer to the sun so it can make better use of solar power, and is rich in carbon dioxide that can feed plants being grown in a floating city. The surface could also be trawled for raw materials.
If a floating city is built with awesome amenities (by construction robots even), it wouldn't be a bad place to live.
The fact the surface is about 800 degrees at all times, the atmospheric pressure would pop a human (and most of our machines) within seconds of entering it, has weather made up of mostly sulfuric acid, and the fact light cannot get through the cloud canopy typically is why we are more concerned with Mars, which we can reach the surface on and not immediately lose our machines to erosion or our pilots to insta-death.
On shrinking populations: in general, economists believe that growing populations are good for the economy and good for people at all levels. Moreover, it's a key method for keeping capital from concentrating. Picketty famously says that if the rate of growth in the economy is greater than the rate of return on investment, capital disperses, and one sure way to grow the economy is to increase the number of people.
On the one hand, this sounds plausible. On the other, it can't be true. A shrinking population reduces the value of capital. When a city is shrinking, the value of houses and the cost of rent both fall and the rentiers lose, even if their "return on investment" remains constant. This seems like a subset of a bigger problem in Picketty's analysis. He initially defines capital as physical stuff - factories, land, minerals - but then appears to treat capital as the monetary value of that stuff, and so talks about the Great Depression "wiping out" capital stocks, even though all the physical capital remained unchanged after Black Tuesday. If you stick to a monetary definition, it's clear that a shrinking economy depreciates capital, and you have to account for that when talking about distribution (or advocating things like a universal wealth tax, which will immediately reduce the amount of capital in the world). If you stick to a physical definition, then return on investment is not meaningfully defined. Curious to hear from people who've read his book.
zakkiel on
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
You guys got it all wrong, the clouds of Venus are a much better colonization target than Mars.
Venus is closer, has 90% earth gravity (this is key), is closer to the sun so it can make better use of solar power, and is rich in carbon dioxide that can feed plants being grown in a floating city. The surface could also be trawled for raw materials.
If a floating city is built with awesome amenities (by construction robots even), it wouldn't be a bad place to live.
The fact the surface is about 800 degrees at all times, the atmospheric pressure would pop a human (and most of our machines) within seconds of entering it, has weather made up of mostly sulfuric acid, and the fact light cannot get through the cloud canopy typically is why we are more concerned with Mars, which we can reach the surface on and not immediately lose our machines to erosion or our pilots to insta-death.
Yes, but Nbsp was talking about a floating city in the clouds. We could be building massive dirigible balloon cities that float around in the carboniferous upper layers where the air pressure is about what it is on earth. You'd just need to take 02 with you if you leave the enclosure instead of a full pressure suit. Venus' atmosphere is so dense that such a thing could be possible with currently known materials.
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited July 2015
Possible, but substantially more risky. In addition to pretty much the same requirements you would need on mars to ensure human habitation you would also be needing to adapt to wind currents, mega storms, and the fact you still have a colossal amount of sulfuric acid at upper-cloud levels eating away and eroding at your containment and lift envelopes.
While Mars has issues with radiation (which would need to be solved to reliably get people there anyway), the atmosphere issues are essentially the same with fewer variables as the surface is more stable and has (potentially) viable water and physical natural resources to work with. With Venus everything but probably fuel would need to be bused in (at which point why not just stay orbital).
Anyway, the interesting thing I was considering is that rather then automation causing some sort of basic-income-type social service, I think it may go the other way.
Any sort of universal government support would likely cause the price of low-skill labour to rise and it may well cause it to rise high enough that automation becomes more cost effective, which leads to more research and development put into the subject, more economies of scale in purchasing taking hold and thus driving the adoption of automation in many fields.
Anyway, the interesting thing I was considering is that rather then automation causing some sort of basic-income-type social service, I think it may go the other way.
Any sort of universal government support would likely cause the price of low-skill labour to rise and it may well cause it to rise high enough that automation becomes more cost effective, which leads to more research and development put into the subject, more economies of scale in purchasing taking hold and thus driving the adoption of automation in many fields.
You can see this exact phenomenon going on in China right now, simply because people want and expect a better lifestyle. Wages in China are going up, so businesses operating in China are turning to automation, and outsourcing to even cheaper labor markets. China is repeating what we just did a decade or two ago.
Which is a great thing. More and more work gets done with less and less people working. The social upheaval is going to be real though, if the benefits of increasing production aren't spread around equitably, so we get to watch history be made.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
You guys got it all wrong, the clouds of Venus are a much better colonization target than Mars.
Venus is closer, has 90% earth gravity (this is key), is closer to the sun so it can make better use of solar power, and is rich in carbon dioxide that can feed plants being grown in a floating city. The surface could also be trawled for raw materials.
If a floating city is built with awesome amenities (by construction robots even), it wouldn't be a bad place to live.
The fact the surface is about 800 degrees at all times, the atmospheric pressure would pop a human (and most of our machines) within seconds of entering it, has weather made up of mostly sulfuric acid, and the fact light cannot get through the cloud canopy typically is why we are more concerned with Mars, which we can reach the surface on and not immediately lose our machines to erosion or our pilots to insta-death.
That is why he is talking about the clouds in theory it would be doable to make floating areosats that basically float in the upper layer of the clouds. I am pretty sure you could even use O2 as your lift gas there due to the density of the atmosphere so no crazy or explosive gases needed for lift. The trick would be finding a way to navigate such a thing to avoid more nasty storms but overall it is probably one of the more human habitable places with minimal protective gear if you could make the areosats.
The population problem will solve itself with universal basic income anyway. Hell, non-shit living standards solves the population problem, though there's a bit of time delay and different cultural norms at play, generally people figure out that you don't need to have 7 kids to keep the family going (or need to have 7 kids because only 3 of them will reach adulthood), then birth levels drop to replacement or less. If we don't wipe ourselves out in climate change disasters or nuclear war, the population worldwide should peak this century, stabilize, and then slowly deflate.
One of the few things that bugs me about my own mortality atm is that i won't get to see all of this go down.
I think the bigger issue with basic income wouldn't be runaway inflation so much as a significant blow to all of the companies that have a labor pool comprised mostly with minimum wage part time jobs.
Why would Jim even bother showing up to his 22 hour a week job at Sears for $7.25 an hour when the government will give him that same amount of money to hang out at home and teach himself to paint or play guitar instead?
Well, for one thing, Sears is on the verge of going out of business. Even if it weren't Sears would have almost stopped hiring new employees because automation would have replaced Jim's job with a robot. The point we are making is that Jim is going to be unemployed regardless. You can either let him starve to death or provide him a basic living wage.
There'd be no reason for someone to work instead of collect disability
And this is the key difference in our arguments. In fact, it's the key philosophical difference between the 2 opposing sides in the thread. We both keep throwing a lot of fancy ideas around, but this is the really what we need to be talking about.
You believe that people are fundamentally lazy. If given the opportunity, people would chose to not have a career and just sit around all day doing nothing.
I believe that, at a fundamental level, people want to do something productive to better their lives.
In this automated future, fast food might be completely automated from "farm to fork" but there are a LOT of people who want to try new and crazy things. In this future, boutique restaurants with experimental menus could become wildly popular. Sure you might see everyday household good built from raw resources built entirely from automation, but high quality hand-crafted custom made furniture and whatnot could grow by leaps and bounds.
What if you could quit your job tomorrow and make a living pursuing your hobbies? Enough people will be freed from the menial workforce for hobbies like woodworking, fishing, trailblazing, and hell, even gaming could become meaningful careers.
You're both trying to make black and white what is a grey issue. Some people are lazy, and would sit around all day doing whatever makes them happy if given the opportunity. Others find happiness in activities that are productive. Both are fine places to be.
Hell, if I didn't want a higher standard of living, I'd spend all my time learning and working on my artistic talents. That's a big part of why I participate here, I learn a lot from the discussions.
What I don't want to do is turn my hobby (model painting) into a job. Because jobs suck, and I don't want to ruin the fun I have with model painting. Deadlines and the like are the antithesis of why I enjoy model painting.
Is it productive? For me, yes. For society? No.
But if you just increased and automated production and found bulk options for distribution, you wouldn't have deadlines, just an endless sisyphean row of models to be painted
The purpose of this thread is not to feed attention to any one forumer's unique nervous breakdown. Please try and keep it on topic and don't engage with awful people.
I think you should all consider developing some degree of self control, when you get the urge to engage in the most inane discussion possible.
+2
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I concur with the Tube/Elki axis. It takes two to tango - or in this case, it takes "one and then some other people" to let a thread be dominated by some insane weirdo, guys. I realize letting things just pass without comment is agony for some of you, but I think it is a skill worth practicing!
Sorry, I'll try to disengage sooner when it becomes apparent that someone is crazy (or at least having some sort of inane ego trip).
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
More on topic than my previous post, though I'm not sure if it fits in better in or equally with the other thread [which seems more general UBI policy focused than automation necessitating implementation of UBI to counterbalance the effect advanced automation has on labor], the city of Utrecht in the Netherlands is going to be launching a UBI program: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/07/01/3676097/utrecht-universal-basic-income/
Posts
What makes you think that would ever be a good thing? Look at the banana republics and company towns that existed in the past. I wouldn't count a single one as a long-term success. Our government can certainly be shit, but at least there's a potential for change. In your automated monarchy, you are the law and cannot be deposed, so god forbid you get dementia or the power goes to your head (which it would).
How long before you cease caring about other human lives? How long before you become paranoid?
They don't need to apply force.
They could buy a bunch of land, create a corporation, employ a bunch of people, and give them money for doing pretty much nothing except living their life. They can use every tax loophole they can get in this fucking world and basically pay as little in taxes as possible until one day they decide they aren't paying shit anymore, and then it's too late because they now have automated means of protecting their wealth.
What now?
Then someone invades and take everything from you. Because you don't have a military.
If you pay no taxes to some government with a military, you don't have a military to protect you anymore unless someone else is paying for it, at which point you're a mooch.
If you're still inside some sovereign nation, then you're subject to that nation's laws and taxes, and they'll have a military to enforce them.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Drones. Drones that never get tired, don't care if they die, can be easily replaced, and never miss their targets.
Then you do have a military force. You are a government.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Those banana republics and company towns were not built on the foundation of automated systems.
Machines managing things for me will ensure that should I no longer be fit for being a ruler, the government will still run itself, as it always had been. Machines might even be able to lie to me and tell me things that aren't true just so I shut the fuck up. Who knows. I would be so proud of having built such a robust system.
That begs the question: How did you build the singularity?
Its fun to talk about how perfect it will be, but getting there is the hard part.
Edit: Yeah I'm going to have to agree with Quid, the details of the singularity should be off-topic.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Edit: I have just noticed the irony of my Steam sig showing Fallout: New Vegas, a game in which I stole a private robo-army to protect my own kingdom at the expense of the rest of society and the human race.
Space colonization comes down to the "What's in it for me" problem.
Once you reach a certain distance, people are too far away to be a meaningful part of a given nation or company, and nobody has any reason to help them... or allow them.
Distances within the solar system are not outside what trade could take in the ancient world or the age of sail. The economics of mining on Mars just don't work currently. Now, if there was oil on Mars...
We could get an Australia situation. Constant population pressure drives organizations to build the space program. Spread lies that people are being sent to a utopia when in fact they're being dumped in a mildly habitable area with minimal supplies. Target society dregs to avoid condemnation and threat credible news sources to avoid scrutiny. Pay a few people to act as spokespersons for the missions thus driving more people to sign up. Never allow anyone to return. Population crises solved.
Space migration is not a meaningful way of reducing populations. It is just too expensive to keep people alive there, and even if we could afford it, why would someone foot the bill? Surely it's cheaper to mine asteroids with robots that don't require oxygen or living space.
Venus is closer, has 90% earth gravity (this is key), is closer to the sun so it can make better use of solar power, and is rich in carbon dioxide that can feed plants being grown in a floating city. The surface could also be trawled for raw materials.
If a floating city is built with awesome amenities (by construction robots even), it wouldn't be a bad place to live.
If the primary goal is reducing population on Earth, you don't need to try very hard to keep the colonists alive.
The fact the surface is about 800 degrees at all times, the atmospheric pressure would pop a human (and most of our machines) within seconds of entering it, has weather made up of mostly sulfuric acid, and the fact light cannot get through the cloud canopy typically is why we are more concerned with Mars, which we can reach the surface on and not immediately lose our machines to erosion or our pilots to insta-death.
On the one hand, this sounds plausible. On the other, it can't be true. A shrinking population reduces the value of capital. When a city is shrinking, the value of houses and the cost of rent both fall and the rentiers lose, even if their "return on investment" remains constant. This seems like a subset of a bigger problem in Picketty's analysis. He initially defines capital as physical stuff - factories, land, minerals - but then appears to treat capital as the monetary value of that stuff, and so talks about the Great Depression "wiping out" capital stocks, even though all the physical capital remained unchanged after Black Tuesday. If you stick to a monetary definition, it's clear that a shrinking economy depreciates capital, and you have to account for that when talking about distribution (or advocating things like a universal wealth tax, which will immediately reduce the amount of capital in the world). If you stick to a physical definition, then return on investment is not meaningfully defined. Curious to hear from people who've read his book.
Yes, but Nbsp was talking about a floating city in the clouds. We could be building massive dirigible balloon cities that float around in the carboniferous upper layers where the air pressure is about what it is on earth. You'd just need to take 02 with you if you leave the enclosure instead of a full pressure suit. Venus' atmosphere is so dense that such a thing could be possible with currently known materials.
While Mars has issues with radiation (which would need to be solved to reliably get people there anyway), the atmosphere issues are essentially the same with fewer variables as the surface is more stable and has (potentially) viable water and physical natural resources to work with. With Venus everything but probably fuel would need to be bused in (at which point why not just stay orbital).
Any sort of universal government support would likely cause the price of low-skill labour to rise and it may well cause it to rise high enough that automation becomes more cost effective, which leads to more research and development put into the subject, more economies of scale in purchasing taking hold and thus driving the adoption of automation in many fields.
Do you think that somehow the rich would just let the poorer people automate their own jobs but still get paid.
I ... what? This post makes no sense in answer to mine.
Well, you only implied they wouldn't be working shitty jobs because they wouldn't be desperate for even minimum wage.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
my b
You can see this exact phenomenon going on in China right now, simply because people want and expect a better lifestyle. Wages in China are going up, so businesses operating in China are turning to automation, and outsourcing to even cheaper labor markets. China is repeating what we just did a decade or two ago.
Which is a great thing. More and more work gets done with less and less people working. The social upheaval is going to be real though, if the benefits of increasing production aren't spread around equitably, so we get to watch history be made.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
That is why he is talking about the clouds in theory it would be doable to make floating areosats that basically float in the upper layer of the clouds. I am pretty sure you could even use O2 as your lift gas there due to the density of the atmosphere so no crazy or explosive gases needed for lift. The trick would be finding a way to navigate such a thing to avoid more nasty storms but overall it is probably one of the more human habitable places with minimal protective gear if you could make the areosats.
One of the few things that bugs me about my own mortality atm is that i won't get to see all of this go down.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".