Comment Re:What we need to be doing (Score 1) 179
You're still here after all these years?
Notably though if we actually run out of work to do we have a post-scarcity utopia, and that happens when people are so rich that there's basically not a single person who, given even more money, would even be able to think of something to spend it on. That's not going to happen any time soon, so we're basically dealing with a distribution problem, which requires distribution (e.g. minimum wage, set it to 1/3 national hourly GDP, the reason for this takes a while to explain) and redistribution (negative income tax, do it as a universal dividend) policies along with monetary policy to properly increase the money supply to not fall behind productivity growth.
Comment Re:Tech Dept (Score 2, Interesting) 179
Submission + - Writer turns down grad school acceptance due to AI misinformation (businessinsider.com)
In late 2023, I began noticing changes in the media landscape. Publications were laying off most of their writers, and friends in the industry lost out on great gigs and started competing with AI-generated writing.
As for the book industry, I realized AI will not spend years crafting a thrilling romance novel; it will instead churn out a thousand ebooks a month. For the commercial side of the industry, that will always be enough.
The link used for an example of AI-generated writing consuming the industry discusses cover letters and resumés, and in a great fallacy of equivocation the author decides this means creative writers like Brandon Sanderson, David Webber, and herself will be replaced by ChatGPT.
Instead of AI taking her job, the AI narrative took her job, or at least convinced her to give up on her career as a writer.
Comment Re:net zero parent (Score 1) 302
This works *remarkably* well. So well, that we also create products to help increase production because more production generically == more $$, and $$ is the final goal. However, too much production is not good, but we can store stuff - specially if it is season-dependent. So you produce for the market during a season, and store the rest to sell off-season, to maximize profit for your investment; That's why you don't have famines in developed countries for more than a century - there is typically enough of essential goods for 6 months to a year, and because you only produce a limited set of items (others you buy) you are not dependent on your own production to feed everyone.
In the end, the surplus is a side effect of market optimization performed by capitalism. We just need to ajdust the distribution mechanism to rely less on the same capitalist principles, and ensure that most people get what they need. That's the tricky part.
Comment Re:Good, and this is why. (Score 1) 302
The difference is, when it was the last time you felt compelled to burn a witch? or to kill a fellow man because of the skin of his color? If culture was passed without change, you we would all still behave like neanderthals and speak whatever language they spoke. Most of us speak another language and can count above 10 AND knows the concept of zero and that witches dont really exist. Because culture.
Culture changes. Culture evolves. Genetics take a bit longer to catch up.
> Anyway I am unaware of universally accepted definition of goodness either.
True
Comment Re:Seems like a strange question (Score 1) 302
Comment Re:war, volcanic eruption, flood, famine, disease (Score 1) 302
But fun fact if you're not aware - people have suffered the effect of pollution for millenia; from makeup to hats, lead, asbestos and arsenic were components very common until the end of the 19th century; Kingdoms were forged and lost with lead poisoning. The thing is - as you pointed out - you already know what is causing problems; It didn't took centuries, but decades. As a result, diagnostics and treatments are also more speedy and efficient, as a result of tech improvements and better scientific knowledge.
I still remember when AIDS was a death sentence. Things change, and with tech they tend to change quickly.
Comment Re:Reconsider. (Score 2) 302
Your ancestors had none of these, and they still survived.
Comment Re:net zero parent (Score 2) 302
This. But keep in mind we already have a surplus of food worldwide - this is not a problem today, and while there will be a shift in eating habits worldwide, it wont happen in one day.
Comment Re:Good, and this is why. (Score 1) 302
Comment Re:Author needs to see Idiocracy. (Score 2) 302
People that stop having children because of climate change have no place in breeding in the first place; Lets stop glorifying stupid people. Climate change *is happening* within their lifetimes, and humanity will adapt as it always does. Some of those children will be the *utmost intelligent human beings that ever walked the earth* - and will surely come up with both novel and ingenious ideas on both how to survive consequences of the climate change and maybe on how to reverse it.
If you're so worried about climate change, less than 100 companies account for >50% of the global emissions. Shutting them down *today* won't make a huge difference (as we need to offset dozens of decades of emissions), but its at least less defeating than the resignation you're proposing.