How many 10x productivity revolutions do we need? At the end of it, will there be only one person left producing everything for humanity in 5 minutes each Tuesday afternoon?

  • Lembot_0004@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    I suppose 30-50 years ago. The main problem is that we produce too much useless garbage we shouldn’t be producing. If we would be able to stop that, we would have plenty of everything for everyone.

  • Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Our economy relies on growth. Whatever it takes. Exponential if possible. When is it done growing? When is a tumor done growing?

  • Epzillon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This is what I find fascinating about capitalism. It builds on the premise of increasing profit by increasing efficiency and quantity. With that mindset we should strive to improve efficiency until no one needs to work and everything is automated and autonomous, no? That would be the peak of efficiency? But then how would people pay for the products being produced? They cant, it needs to be free, since no one has a salary because theyre not working. But then the CEOs wouldnt make money. So theres no incentive unless your goal is not monetary but to improve the ultimate wellbeing of humanity. Its inherently a flawed concept since the main incentive is monetary, yet we refuse to accept what must be the ultimate goal to be able to keep power above others.

    And yes, i know this is very simplified. But still explain to me why we do mass layoffs in favor of AI slop if the incentive is not entirely monetary and for the sake efficiency and or cutting costs. Explain how and who will survive the further we go along? Capitalism at its core makes the rich the survivors. There wont be infinite recursions of 10x productivity revolutions because the workers will die off in the process.

  • TabbsTheBat@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Well for most humans it’s when we reach star trek, and for corporations it’s when we reach *insert corporate dystopia of choice*

  • can_you_change_your_username@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Let’s be a little more granular here. Increased production efficiency is good. If we could legitimately just have everyone take turns working five minutes a week and provide for all of humanity that would be great. The problem is how the benefits of increased productivity are distributed. If worker’s pay started at a reasonable livable wage and increased along with their productivity the world would be in a much different situation now. If we had a UBI scheme that allowed everyone to have a minimum acceptable standard of living automation would be much more desirable.

    • udon@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not a fan of UBI here as a practical solution, but it’s nice as a heuristic vision in discussions. It wouldn’t solve any problems on its own, prices would just adapt and you’re back at 0. That is, unless you put in the effort to fight the political fights for regulation of rent and food prices, working conditions etc. And if you do that well, you don’t need UBI. Anyway, UBI as a concept helps “summarize” where such fights would be needed IMHO, I just don’t believe it would magically make exploitative businesses not exploit everything they can.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    About 45 years ago we hit it. Its why its just been layoffs and office fuckery ever since

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m agree with the consequence but not the cause. Jack Welsh figured out the cheat code to increase short term stock prices by laying off people, regardless of their actual role or value to the company.

      Since then, every company has done it whenever they need a quick boost in numbers.

  • Valmond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Very interesting question!

    The economy doubles roughly every 20 years (since centuries at least), and for me we are already there (living in the EU mind you).

    We still need some more for renewables, but that’s about it IMO.

    NOW, that is my perspective, maybe people growing up today thinks “just a bit more and I’ll be satisfied”, but I doubt it. You can’t eat 50 steaks a day.

    The evident problem we have is that rich people siphon away lots of it, so we still have to get up at 8:30 and drive to work. A gradual transition (people still need to work) seems what would be the best way forward, IMO.

    • udon@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, I guess I was thinking about this as “If we were to set a productivity goal for humanity, where would that be?” It’s a bit tiring in everyday life (in my line of work but I guess everywhere?) that you can always produce more of everything and there is no point where your todo list is just empty for a while. If it is, just add more items.