From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Wed Apr 29 1998 - 11:46:09 MDT
Paul Hughes wrote:
> Over the last several years I have become a big advocate for
> free-markets. However, there has been some nagging questions that I
> have yet to answer without resorting to some form of socialism in order
> to solve. Can any free-market advocate answer any and/or all of the
> following questions:
>
> 1) Is there a single field which is intrinsically safe from automation
> in the course of the next 20-30 years? If you can think of more fields,
> please elaborate.
a: Jerry Springer Show guests ;)b: writers
c: artists
d: scientific researchers
e: explorers
f: colonizers
g: politicians
h: lawyers
i: plaintiffs
j: teachers
k: strippers
l: robot maintenance
> 2) Are these remaining fields if any, sufficient to employ the majority
> of humanity? If not, what will the rest of humanity do in order to
> survive?
have fun? explore new worlds? maintain the machines?
> 3) For those who are unemployed and do not have sufficient investment
> income, is death the inevitable result? If not, how will they survive?
considering that the more free and capitalistic a society is, the more it
tends to privately fund charitable organizations, and recruit volunteers for
charitable organizaitons, then a future economy should free people up to
help improve the lives of others through volunteer organizations. I think
that education will be the great growth industry along with mind network
interfacing.
Education will not mean just learning facts, which will be easy in such a
world, but will be teaching others HOW to learn and think efficiently.
> 4) Will most people alive today be able to save enough before their jobs
> become automated?
>From my experience, the more productive my job becomes, the more I get paid
for it. By that time I should be making the equivalent of a Major League
athlete's salary....
> 5) If how much money one has saved is the the key to surviving
> automation, does this not portend very badly for young people who have
> had less time to save for their forced retirement? If this is true,
> does this mean that the future is going to be populated almost entirely
> of rich and old people and their children?
you have no idea, nor do I of the sort of economic trends that have yet to
even start, but will be branched off from the technologies we can currently
conceptualize. It is too soon to tell. However, based on past history, I am
rather optimistic.
>
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:00 MST