[Pops]

Yeah automation is freaking wonderful and well undoubedly negate any and all population-related problems. It will even automated the manufacture of free electricity. Just like on Avatar.

It is a funny thing about modern communication, it seems like if you aren't spewing small minded, simplistic, Limbaugh-esque platitudes and bumper-sticker-verses meant to impress upon any casual passerby just how friggin outraged you are (or in the case of PO, CC, limits, etc; just how dead we all are) then it doesn't seem like there is much conversation to be had.

I'm just kinda thinking about what might happen on the off chance that civilisation lasts another 10 or 20 years without going all Flintstone - I'm not arguing it will be kiss Jane, pat Astro on the head and cop a feel off of Rosie.

But to put it into Doom-talk, which gets us first, lack of job or lack of energy?

[radon1]

The point isn't that they are free, only that they are cheaper than the alternative - us.

This is not robots that are cheaper, this is the humans that produced these robots that are cheaper. Because these humans are located in a low cost jurisdiction. The cost of a robot is the cost of the human labor that produced it.

Let' say, we have a peasant that spend 8 hrs working every day, 7 hours harvesting his crops and 1 hour doing metal works making metal tools for his work. In order for one such peasant to become a smith, we need a minimum group of 8 peasants who would give up their metal works and outsource them to the smith, otherwise the smith will not be occupied full time and won't take up the new profession. Therefore, in order for the new profession to appear, we always need a minimum group of consumers of the products of this new profession - 9 in this case, 8 peasants and 1 smith. This logic may be extrapolated to infinity.

The 8 peasants will be producing 8*12 months*productivity per month volumes of crops. The 1 smith will be producing 1*12 months*productivity per month volumes of metal works. Together this is their production (or GDP).

The peasants will be consuming 8*12 months*consumption rate per month volumes of crops and metal tools. The 1 smith will be consuming 1*12 months*consumption rate per month volume of crops. Together this is their consumption (or national income).

Given that the production has to be equal to consumption, they can figure out at which proportions the metal tools are exchanged for the crops between the smith and the peasants. This is their prices. They can barter their production, but also use any production item or tokens as their "money" for these purposes.

Once the production, consumption and prices are established, they are stuck there at the position of equilibrium, as the equations above have a single solution only - this is how the maths and objective logic work.

In practical terms, this means that if one of these 9 decides to pursue some other activity outside the scope of their professions, they as a system will run into deficit and experience hunger because of lack of crops or lack of metal tools.

In order for a new profession to appear in their settlement (some woodworks or something), based on the same logic they would need either more people joining them, or a wandering merchant discovering their settlement and enabling trade between them and other similar isolated pockets of people ("reproduction contours").

It is no different with robots. In order to have someone to be employed in production of a robot, we need a sufficient number of people engaged in the system. And if we want more robots, then we need to engage more people.

[Pops]

The point isn't that they are free, only that they are cheaper than the alternative - us.

This is not robots that are cheaper, this is the humans that produced these robots that are cheaper.

Very good, that is exactly my point but not as in your example, here is the flaw:

At the very beginning of your example, you leave out how was it the farmers had an extra hour a day to do metalworking to begin with. It was because metalworking made farming more efficient, they were each banging out hoes, so to speak, to replace digging sticks. The farmer who became a smith was put out of farming by the technology of smithing that made him redundant as a farmer.

You say the farmers were working 8 hours a day (7 hours a day farming and 1 smithing) and when one decided to specialize the rest merely took up his slack on the farm. What really happened was one farmer and part time inventor (Jethro Tull) messed around in his spare time and invented the planter. All the farmers became more productive due to the technology (for a time) and as a result their labor was less valuable and even food itself becomes less valuable.

So with the increasing surplus and falling value of farming, another farmer decided to specialize and since everyone wore homespun, he became a weaver - and he of course eventually invented a loom and increased his production. That, predictably, reduced the value of human weavers (and clothing) further and, so the story goes, put poor old Ned Ludd out in the cold.

But now those former weavers (and would be weavers) had spare time due to the new technology making clothing cheaper and them redundant so...


The question then becomes can this be extrapolated to infinity as you suggest?


So far human population has expanded to absorb the ever increasing surplus created by technology and especially hydrocarbon slaves, rather than the opposite I might add. But what happens when any of the several limits we face puts a stop to the expansion of the economy and population? Or what if human population stabilizes on its own like any other natural population? Will human ingenuity and increasing technology automatically halt?

Either the system collapses due to falling inputs and adopts a lower tech level or
Humans become mostly redundant and society adjusts or
An energy breakthrough allows continuing innovation and expanding our territory off the planet or
...?

Crap, there goes another surplus hour, LOL.

[Pops]

We are supposed to be positive around here. It's good for advertising or hit or something? I have pretty much given up with the positive thing. Been around too long to believe anymore in the tech fairy.

Nah, it's just that all doom all the time gets boring, likewise with the rose colored glasses that make everything look peachy. The truth is going to be somewhere in between - or, like the weather in the Ozarks and average of the extremes.

[Pops]

Humans become mostly redundant and society adjusts or

i.e.:

Fast-Food Workers Seeking $15 Wage Are Planning Civil Disobedience
The next round of strikes by fast-food workers demanding higher wages is scheduled for Thursday, and this time labor organizers plan to increase the pressure by staging widespread civil disobedience and having thousands of home-care workers join the protests.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/busin ... trike.html

[MD]

The point isn't that they are free, only that they are cheaper than the alternative - us.

It is no different with robots. In order to have someone to be employed in production of a robot, we need a sufficient number of people engaged in the system. And if we want more robots, then we need to engage more people.

It requires more of the "critical few". What used to be called the "useful many" become excess baggage.

80% reduction will happen. I don't know the timeline, but it's inevitable. How's that for doomerism?

All we can do is focus on legacy.

[radon1]

Very good, that is exactly my point but not as in your example, here is the flaw:

At the very beginning of your example, you leave out how was it the farmers had an extra hour a day to do metalworking to begin with. It was because metalworking made farming more efficient, they were each banging out hoes, so to speak, to replace digging sticks. The farmer who became a smith was put out of farming by the technology of smithing that made him redundant as a farmer.

No flaws, no extra hours. This was a simplified example purely for illustration purposes. The metalworks were assumed to be necessary for farming. If metalworks look too advanced, take any other activity that is vital for farming and can be outsourced.

What really happened was one farmer and part time inventor (Jethro Tull) messed around in his spare time and invented the planter.

Inventions do not matter. Steam engine was invented some 2000 years ago and no one bothered to use it until the system reached the size sufficient to be able to utilize it. Same story with many other inventions.

It does not matter whether their total output grows or not as a result of specilisation - it may or it may not. What's important, is that the system will arrive at the state of equilibrium at some point and will be stuck there, until we introduce either more people into the system or external trade with other systems.

So with the increasing surplus and falling value of farming, another farmer decided to specialize and since everyone wore homespun, he became a weaver - and he of course eventually invented a loom and increased his production. That, predictably, reduced the value of human weavers (and clothing) further and, so the story goes, put poor old Ned Ludd out in the cold.

So, how many farmers are needed for each of them to become specialized and pursue a profession? More than 9, it looks. Seems like here you are making an implicit assumption that the system is unlimited in terms of the headcount - which is contrary to a key assumption in the example.

But lets assume that we have enough people to have a single person assigned to each profession - logically, this is the situation at which we should arrive by way of inventing, specializing, running surplus etc. But then, each professional person would be investing varying number of hours in their production, and as a result they would be unable to effect exchange of their output in proportion to these hours - unless we introduce more people into the system until it becomes balanced. We are at the same point again - for more professions, we need more people to balance the system.

Will human ingenuity and increasing technology automatically halt?

Want to see what happens to automation when a system of the division of labor falls apart - look at Roman aqueducts. Roman cities did have sewage systems, European cities did not have them until some 19th century.

[KaiserJeep]

This is the USA, where we spend 7% of our incomes for enough food to make us the country with the most obese and the most morbidly obese people on Earth.

We will still be able to feed our own population after the expected five-fold increase in the cost of food caused by the end of cheap energy. We will still be able to heat our homes and then every once in a while buy some $50/gallon vehicle fuel and drive around like Lords and Ladies under the envious gaze of all the bicyclists on the road.

We might even be able to keep up the pretense of US Government handouts for the inner city Welfare class - for a while. Of course, all our large cities will soon acquire the rundown appearance of Detroit. Our suburban communities will all be gated, and your friendly Neighborhood Watch group will morph into gun-toting vigilantes protecting the suburban vegetable patches and fruit trees.

Other countries will not be so fortunate. In a new after-FF world where Americans can barely afford to live, many people will starve.

[Pops]

This was a simplified example purely for illustration purposes. The metalworks were assumed to be necessary for farming.

It was a good illustration, too. Farming technology is the root of modern society. Metalworking is a great example of a tech that improved the efficiency and output of farmers, creating the surplus cheap food that enabled the population numbers to explode.

At the same time making many farmers redundant.

Inventions do not matter.
...
it does not matter whether their total output grows

We're obviously not going to come to any conclusion, you think tech is a result of population growth and surplus and I think population growth is a result of tech surplus.

So, how many farmers are needed for each of them to become specialized and pursue a profession?

In the real world there have been eons and millions of low tech farmers who never did become specialized because they couldn't develop enough surplus to experiment and inovate. There are billions of farmers working right this instant who've not advanced much beyond a grub hoe.

Since it is your position that it takes numbers of people and not surplus to create innovation, how many do you think it would take?

Seems like here you are making an implicit assumption that the system is unlimited in terms of the headcount - which is contrary to a key assumption in the example.

A system is unlimited as to numbers of people. What limits the population is the capacity of the system [and the capacity of the technology], if the system is Easter island then the number is one thing, if the system is the earth it is some larger number, if the system is the universe it is something larger yet.

But then, each professional person would be investing varying number of hours in their production, and as a result they would be unable to effect exchange of their output in proportion to these hours - unless we introduce more people into the system until it becomes balanced.

I'm not following this. There is no rule that hours should be valued equally if that is the point. Once humans began to specialize, their value to the system became variable based on their intellect, ingenuity, experience, dedication, etc. In fact that is one of the problems with increasing technology that has always stressed society. Burger flippers just aren't worth much because there are too many people to do too few jobs [because of tech] and like Ned Ludd before, they are going to be misbehaved today. So the problem isn't too few people, I think it is too many.

[radon1]

At the same time making many farmers redundant.

This comes back to the steam engine example.

We're obviously not going to come to any conclusion, you think tech is a result of population growth and surplus and I think population growth is a result of tech surplus.

No. Tech is a result of growth of a system of the division of labor. This is not population as a whole.

There are billions of farmers working right this instant who've not advanced much beyond a grub hoe.

Yes, because they are not involved in the modern, capitalist system of the division of labor. Their systems of the division of labor (reproduction contours) are limited to themselves or their immediate neighborhood. They are the potential source for further automation, once the capitalist system accommodates them.

Btw, why don't they develop advanced smithery, you think?

A system is unlimited as to numbers of people. What limits the population is the capacity of the system, if the system is Easter island then the number is one thing, if the system is the earth it is some larger number, if the system is the universe it is something larger yet.

I refer to a "system" as to a system of the division of labor, a reproduction contour, i.e. a number of people who are involved in economic exchanges with each other on a full time basis. This number is limited and not the planet's population as a whole.

Earth as a whole may have a myriad of such "systems" isolated from each other, or interacting insignificantly, and it actually does. Currently, a capitalist system with the main financial centers in the US(UK) is the biggest and the dominant one, but even this system incorporates far less than a half of the planet's population.

There is no rule that hours should be valued equally if that is the point.

Another way to look at it: it is clear, at least intuitively, that a system (a reproduction contour above) with a single person engaged in each profession does not make sense. There will be critical shortages of some important production, and excess of other. The people would have to settle professionally in certain proportions - so many of this profession, so many of this and so on. And these proportions are not arbitrary.

[Pops]

There are billions of farmers working right this instant who've not advanced much beyond a grub hoe.

Yes, because they are not involved in the modern, capitalist system of the division of labor. Their systems of the division of labor (reproduction contours) are limited to themselves or their immediate neighborhood.

They are the potential source for further automation, once the capitalist system accommodates them.

Btw, why don't they develop advanced smithery, you think?

Ah, I see, it is the capitalist system that causes specialization.

And the several billions alive outside that system today (reservoirs of potential capitalist profit) sprouted unbidden from the soil over the last couple hundred years due to ...?

There are many reasons different peoples developed differently and obtained various levels of surplus and so technological innovation. Native Americans for example didn't have access to large animals for domestication. That was a severe constraint on the work they could accomplish and the surplus they could produce compared to Europeans.

[radon1]

Ah, I see, it is the capitalist system that causes specialization.

Any growing system of the division of labor causes advancing specialization, not necessarily a capitalist one. I referred specifically to today's US-centric capitalist system because the question was about today's farmers. In order to become industrialized, these farmers would need to join that system because they have no other option for these purposes currently.

[Pops]

At the same time making many farmers redundant.

This comes back to the steam engine example.

No, the innovation was not the planter itself because they had been around for centuries. The equidistant rows were what allowed mechanical horse drawn cultivation to reduce weeds and increase aeration (which increases decomposition of organic matter making it available to the crop but robs the soil of humus - a different argument) resulting in increased harvests and reduced labor, way before mechanical traction.

Horse-Hoeing Husbandry
https://archive.org/stream/horsehoeingh ... 3/mode/2up

[radon1]

And the several billions alive outside that system today (reservoirs of potential capitalist profit) sprouted unbidden from the soil over the last couple hundred years due to ...?

Due to what? If they have "not advanced much beyond a grub hoe"?

[Pops]

Mainly the lag between declining death rate (due to spread of technology) and the decline in birth rates.

[Pops]

Any growing system of the division of labor causes advancing specialization, not necessarily a capitalist one.

Hmm, I can't figure the difference between "growing system of the division of labor" and "advancing specialization" unless the "growing" part means population increase.
LOL, sorry.

Still seems to me we have a classic chicken/egg disagreement, population causes surplus vs surplus causes population.

So let me ask this, looking at the illustration I just posted, do you think Germany will continue to increase its level of automation past it's population peak or will they be stuck there?

[radon1]

Any growing system of the division of labor causes advancing specialization, not necessarily a capitalist one.

Hmm, I can't figure the difference between "growing system of the division of labor" and "advancing specialization" unless the "growing" part means population increase.
LOL, sorry.

Back to the example: if those 9 people grow to 10, then to 100, 1000 and so on - then their system is growing.

At the same time, the planet's population can be 100000, 100m, or 1bln and be growing - it does not matter, as long as it exceeds the size of the system above.

Still seems to me we have a classic chicken/egg disagreement, population causes surplus vs surplus causes population.

See above - population is irrelevant, as long as it is greater than the size of the system.

The only situation where it is not greater, is where it is equal to the size of the system, meaning that a system has incorporated the entire planet. We are by far not there yet and have never been there.

So let me ask this, looking at the illustration I just posted, do you think Germany will continue to increase its level of automation past it's population peak or will they be stuck there?

Why Germany? To my knowledge, the most automated countries are Japan, the US and Italy.

But anyway, Germany seems to have slid to 0% interest rates, meaning that they arrived at the point where they will have difficulty progressing the division of labor internally, unless they undergo some "structural change", eg a Ukraine-type military operation on their territory. So, they entered a cycle similar Japan's from 1990s onwards.

In principle, in these circumstances the market forces should promote automation in Germany, as in absence of internal resource they push for external interactions and automation is one of those, being a replacement of expensive German labor with cheaper robots (i.e. cheaper non-German labor).

Looking into Japan, however, we see consistently low unemployment despite obvious incentives to further automation for similar reasons. This may be due to two factors. First one is demographics - lower employment due to automation is compensated by lower workforce numbers due to aging population. Second one is the social relations - the Japanese take great care in creating "jobs" or providing social guarantees for those who do take hit by automation, or even outrightly resist automation at a regulatory level.

Looks like both these factors should also be in play in Germany, especially post-population peak. Germans are known for their social state.

There can be a third factor also - new jobs can be generated naturally, as long as internal consumption remains strong for whatever reason.

[Pops]

Man you are talking in circles, LOL. As much as you deny it, all I get so far is more people equals more jobs.

"Any growing system of the division of labor causes advancing specialization,"

LOL, one doesn't cause the other because they are the same. Division of labor is specialization. Wiki says:
"The division of labour is the specialisation of cooperating individuals who perform specific tasks and roles."

"if those 9 people grow to 10, ... then their system is growing."

No, the population is growing, that's all. Lots of people don't equal lots of jobs, sure there is lots of potential work in a large unemployed population but there has to be profitable work to do and customers who want and can pay. Many of those 3rd world countries with declining mortality rates but hig birth rates should be be dynamos of specialization if all that were necessary was a growing "system." If your theory were true there would be no unemployment.

"population is irrelevant, as long as it is greater than the size of the system."

But you just said the system size is the population size, and if the system (population) is growing there will be more "specialization." Presumably that means unlimited jobs regardless of automation and ever increasing "productivity", ad infinitum. Yet there are tens of million of unemployed in advanced countries alone. In the US there is an unprecedented number of long term unemployed, these are largely older, experienced people who are the epitome of "specialist" yet the "system" has not been able to keep them employed for some reason.

Increasing population enables increasing specialization no doubt, there isn't much call for a brain surgeon on a remote island population of a dozen folks. But the converse is not true that a growing population necessarily causes a growing system of specialization.

Maybe you should to explain to me again the difference between the "system" and the population because it just isn't sinking in.


In relation to specialization and technology and unemployment, increasing specialization has the benefit of continually reducing the knowledge and skill required to do any particular task. That simplicity increases speed and ease of training and is a boon to productivity (read: profit) - a great benefit to employers but also has the effect of reducing the overall worth of the employee - they are easily replaced, just a cog in the wheel. The fact that increasing specialization has reduced tasks to such small increments only plays to increasing automation.

As I said to Pstarr up thread, you don't need to replicate an entire human to automate a task, just parts.

Finally, we have never before been in a place where machines could theoretically do just about any human task - many are like "technically recoverable" oil, they can be done by machine, just not profitably. IBM's Watson shows that much of what we call intelligence is just memory and parsing speech and can out "think" the most agile memories - in fact it got it's first job last year evaluating individual lung cancer treatment plans at Sloan Kettering.

[KaiserJeep]

What actually happened in Germany was that the "social state" became too activist for the rest of the EU or for American corporations. I work for a very large American high tech corporation, which had a great many German employees right up until the point where they mandated 4+ years of employer-paid unemployment benefits, 6+ weeks of vacation per year for all employees, etc. Then my employer decided that we could no longer afford very many German employees and moved most of their job functions to Ireland and India. What's left in Germany is a skeleton crew of experienced people.

"Off-shoring" labor is of course not new. "Near-shoring" is the current vogue, we are replacing North American employees with South American employees from the same or an adjacent time zone.

Activist unions are primarily to blame for off-shored labor in the USA. The UAW in spite of protests to the contrary, destroyed the US automobile industry when the cost of benefits and salaries for both current and retired employees escalated beyond affordability.

Robots became more affordable, not only because they got cheaper, but because human labor got more expensive. Nor will you catch those robots picketing outside the factory gates, screaming at scabs and being interviewed on the MSM.