Conversation

Without robots I don’t see how a thoroughly top-heavy distribution lands smoothly. I myself will be 90 in 2064 if still alive. Probably < 1 working age person per infirm retiree. It will be ugly. That’s why I’m working on my robots already.
Replying to
Iirc ratio of working age to retired has already fallen from like 16:1 post WW2 to like 4:1. Productivity growth kinda kept up, but barely. Now without robots we’re in deep shit. Possibly literally.
2
19
To be clear I think this is net a good thing. Smaller robotically supported world population. Like 2-3b in steady state. But far higher standard of living, mansions with 20 robots for every person. Like Asimov spacer worlds basically. Caves of Steel future is too hard to build.
3
28
If I live to be 90 (doubt it), my last decade is as far in my future as the 70s are in my past. Even if rate of change slows, it will be radically different, mostly in known bad ways, and I plan to be very mad and curmudgeonly about it. Unless I get my mansion with robots.
3
16
Show replies
Show replies
Replying to
De-growth will get ugly. Everything in our world is built on growth - 401ks, corporations, debt, pensions, etc. We do not have a good alternative economic model for shrinkage or a way to transition to it, without creating chaos. twitter.com/ideafaktory/st
Quote Tweet
Replying to @dnlmc @AlecStapp and @Scholars_Stage
I think depopulation is good for long-term resource mgmt & *could* facilitate more comfortable lives for all. Near-term, I expect great turmoil. De-growth & redistribution that feels fair to all—if achievable—will be painful & violent, judging by history. twitter.com/ideafaktory/st
3
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Show