Stephen Hawking Says We Should Really Be Scared of Capitalism, Not Robots(portside.org)
portside.org
Stephen Hawking Says We Should Really Be Scared of Capitalism, Not Robots
http://portside.org/2016-03-03/stephen-hawking-says-we-should-really-be-scared-capitalism-not-robots
12 comments
Blogspam of a blogspam of this Reddit AMA post: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama...
Economics is a study on how to distribute finite resource. Traditional economics have only considered unbounded input resource such as air. Now we're entering an age where we'll be having near-infinite output resource. Nuclear fission energy, robot labor, and maybe even creativity. Economics needs to branch out to think about how near-infinite output resource can be fairly distributed.
Linkbait. What Hawking actually said was far more measured. The author then ran with it to express his own opinion.
>If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
Can you please not be intellectually dishonest? I don't agree with his endorsement of socialism but don't pull a Trump and try to twist his words.
Can you please not be intellectually dishonest? I don't agree with his endorsement of socialism but don't pull a Trump and try to twist his words.
Hawkings doesn't use big words, but in the end, it does amount to "we should be afraid of Capitalism, not Robots".
What do you think "the machine-owners […] lobby against wealth redistribution" means? Machine owners are obviously the capitalists, who own the means of production. And they do currently lobby against wealth redistribution. It's only natural: they have wealth and power, they intend to keep it.
Linkbait, sure. But I don't see any misrepresentation of Hawkins' words here.
(Edit: Of course, I'm not talking about strong AI here, which is obviously much more dangerous if realised. I'm imagining dumb stuff like the Star Trek replicator.)
What do you think "the machine-owners […] lobby against wealth redistribution" means? Machine owners are obviously the capitalists, who own the means of production. And they do currently lobby against wealth redistribution. It's only natural: they have wealth and power, they intend to keep it.
Linkbait, sure. But I don't see any misrepresentation of Hawkins' words here.
(Edit: Of course, I'm not talking about strong AI here, which is obviously much more dangerous if realised. I'm imagining dumb stuff like the Star Trek replicator.)
In other countries, there are dictators or "ruling parties" instead of capitalists, and they will create exactly the same problem. He's right, this is not about capitalism at all.
Whatever. Those ruling parties still control the means of production just like our western capitalists do. The way they hold their power over people is just more obvious.
Besides, those countries don't dominate the world and impose their ways on the rest of the world. Capitalists countries like the USA, Russia, and China do.
Besides, those countries don't dominate the world and impose their ways on the rest of the world. Capitalists countries like the USA, Russia, and China do.
Not even reading this, but personally I'm more concerned about social darwinism, meaning the idea some people have, where the strongest should naturally dominate the weak in a societal context, just like it happens in nature. There will always be this idea that people who might starve, should starve.
I'm more scared about the ideological aspects of anarcho capitalism, which seems to be embedded in the libertarian ideology. Basically it would imagine a society without state or authority, which to me is the return to an uncivilized world.
So the knot here seems to be about basic income (based on Friedman's negative income tax), and how it would be financed. Somehow it seems to boil down to the problems talked about by Marx, which are about the means of production. Except now, the means of production require so little labor, but I still think Marx is relevant here.
I'm sure politically it's currently almost impossible to make companies give money back to non-contributing citizens in a form of taxes, especially in the US. But ultimately, that's where all the money will be, and I don't think special interests will always be able to argue to not give back.
I'm more scared about the ideological aspects of anarcho capitalism, which seems to be embedded in the libertarian ideology. Basically it would imagine a society without state or authority, which to me is the return to an uncivilized world.
So the knot here seems to be about basic income (based on Friedman's negative income tax), and how it would be financed. Somehow it seems to boil down to the problems talked about by Marx, which are about the means of production. Except now, the means of production require so little labor, but I still think Marx is relevant here.
I'm sure politically it's currently almost impossible to make companies give money back to non-contributing citizens in a form of taxes, especially in the US. But ultimately, that's where all the money will be, and I don't think special interests will always be able to argue to not give back.
> Basically it would imagine a society without state or authority, which to me is the return to an uncivilized world.
That will be the case ONLY IF absolute power comes in the hands of one or few individuals (or capitalists). Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hence, in an ideal world, there should be no state authority, but the authority/power should be DECENTRALIZED within a vast number of individuals not a single or few capitalists with vested interest.
I'm a Software Developer and as an implementation of this decentralization, I can think of open source projects. In large open source projects like Linux or Debian or Java, one might imagine that a few elite programmers can control everything like you say. But there is no return to the uncivilized world, because the power to influence the development is decentralized into millions of contributers, testers, security researchers and auditors across the world! As Eric Raymond says in on of his famous writings, "if there are enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". I think this same aphorism applies to the real world too if you replace bugs with general societal problems.
That will be the case ONLY IF absolute power comes in the hands of one or few individuals (or capitalists). Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hence, in an ideal world, there should be no state authority, but the authority/power should be DECENTRALIZED within a vast number of individuals not a single or few capitalists with vested interest.
I'm a Software Developer and as an implementation of this decentralization, I can think of open source projects. In large open source projects like Linux or Debian or Java, one might imagine that a few elite programmers can control everything like you say. But there is no return to the uncivilized world, because the power to influence the development is decentralized into millions of contributers, testers, security researchers and auditors across the world! As Eric Raymond says in on of his famous writings, "if there are enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". I think this same aphorism applies to the real world too if you replace bugs with general societal problems.
Hey Paul Graham, one of the most respected intellectuals in the world wants to engage in a conversation you decided to be a part of. Do you care to retort? (Paul Graham is one of the founders of YC. Earlier this year, his defense of income inequality caused a stir across the internet: http://www.paulgraham.com/ineq.html)
I think both views can be compatible.
One can support income inequality, while also supporting a safety net for everyone.
Actually, I think a universal income plus free healthcare is desirable. But I also think rewarding people with more income for their achievements is key to sustain progress.
Hawking is probably concerned because the UK is getting a bit too capitalistic, while ignoring that many decisions are suboptimal for most of its inhabitants. For example, the healthcare system is struggling to cope with more patients and an ever decreasing budget. A subpar transport network makes shipping and commuting inefficient and very contaminant. An artificial limit on housing pushes prices up and extracts rent from the majority to hand it in to the ruling class.
One can support income inequality, while also supporting a safety net for everyone.
Actually, I think a universal income plus free healthcare is desirable. But I also think rewarding people with more income for their achievements is key to sustain progress.
Hawking is probably concerned because the UK is getting a bit too capitalistic, while ignoring that many decisions are suboptimal for most of its inhabitants. For example, the healthcare system is struggling to cope with more patients and an ever decreasing budget. A subpar transport network makes shipping and commuting inefficient and very contaminant. An artificial limit on housing pushes prices up and extracts rent from the majority to hand it in to the ruling class.
You notice that apprx. every single problem you listed in the last paragraph was not about being too "capitalistic" (i.e., laissez faire), but the state actively messing things up.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Ironic this ends up on the top of a VC's forum
I know the domain is shared with ycombinator, but this really is just a general tech forum, right? Slashdot for grown ups if you want.
I think that's giving it too much credit -- this forum is much more a part of the marketing arm of YC (the investment firm) than it is a general forum (like e.g. Reddit).
I find Charlie Stross' take on this in Accelerando interesting...
In my opinion we should be properly scared of both, capitalism and robots. We don't want any of them out of control.
But the argument here makes not sense.
If "machines produce everything we need" then, by definition, there is not human labour. Without labour, it doesn't makes sense call it capitalism. I don't know what it would be.
But the argument here makes not sense.
If "machines produce everything we need" then, by definition, there is not human labour. Without labour, it doesn't makes sense call it capitalism. I don't know what it would be.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10361314 (95 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10369153 (160 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11202172 (165 comments)