If just a moon base, China first. For a functional moon base? America after drafting and talking for 100 years

A key thing to remember when critically thinking about capitalism is to remember that maintaining capitalism is a conscious choice. Remember when you are thinking about alternative systems that we are actively making the choice to stay in the system that Isn't doing what anyone except the rich wants it to do. Even if something like, say, communism isn't perfect, its still better than continuing to let the planet, and humanity, die.

“employees should have shares in the company”? Im sorry but this made me laugh. So every small business is just supposed to hand over shares, which could be bought by shareholders and benefit the business through the money paid for said shares, and just… hand them over for free? No small or even medium sized business could afford to hire workers if that was the case. And what happens when the employee(s) leave the company? What happens to the shares? What happens if the workers save up / get enough money from the shares to no longer require employment?

and if wages were higher, that would hurt small businesses, and the price of everything would just go up.

"Period." I looked up the name of the missing little dot at the end :)

By helping you realize youve been lied to your whole life. Capitalism is not some natural state of markets. Its not the default.

It stems from people having no clue what capitalism is. Automation has the potential to make things so cheap that no one cares about money outside of luxury products. It was hoped in the 50s that this would happen with nuclear energy (though it fizzled out for several reasons).

The dangers of AI tho aren't what it can do in isolation. The problems happen at scale with constant input and unpredictable results. The only guarantee is that there will be unforeseeable problems that can only be identified once it's too late.

Exactly. You can try to regulate how its used, but its impossible to regulate how its developed. Whatever is expensive to do now will be trivial in a few years.

At any rate these calls are mostly out of either ignorance or a desire of control.

how are you trying help me out?

Before i answer, i just want to thank you for actually taking the time to try and present an argument. That’s more than i can say about the other responses.

>Why? Further, how? You just said 'no one is working', so who is going to be buying these products?

Because landlords, companies, the government etc are not just going to give away everything for free just because all jobs are automated. There will still be demand, for example, for MTG cards. Wizards / Hasbro is not just going to stop selling them just because no one is working. UBI is a common theme on this sub and others, and i agree that it will be nessecary once jobs start being automated, otherwise how else will people get money? If everyone recieves, lets say $1250 a month on average, landlords still have a mortgage to pay and aren’t just going to say “i guess you can stop paying rent now”. They are going to see that their tenants have the ability to pay and if anything increase rent prices If UBI results in the tenants having more disposable income.

>Do you feel that people will still be able to acquire new products without being paid for labor?

yes, because as i said earlier, UBI will have to be in place (to stop mass homelessness and starvation, if not the collapse of the economy).

>If 'bills need to be paid', fine, paid by whom?

by those that live in houses. Again, landlords aren’t going to allow tenants to live for free because there are no jobs.

>If money exists as a means of exchange then surely that money/value must be created, how?

how its always been created, by the government printing money and people receiving money, in this case with UBI.

>Do you feel as though innovation would simply cease if people stopped being paid for it?

yes. Profit incentivises innovation. for example, there would be no new drugs if it wasn’t for pharma companies making a profit from said drugs.

>The question game can go both ways and I don't see how any answers you'd be able to provide would be any less disastrous than an attempt to transition away from a growth/capitalist economic paradigm. Your failure of imagination doesn't change the underlying fatal flaws building in capitalism, namely AGI, environmental degradation, a post-fossil fuel energy economy and a globally shrinking population.

i don‘t see any other alternative. Communism and socialism have been tried and don’t work. Feudalism obviously doesn’t work. businesses need to exist, a planned / government economy also doesn’t work.

[removed]

Does Tim Cook actually manufacture the phones? Engineer the phones? Sell the phones via retail? Does Bezos pick and sort packaging? Do customer service? Distribute the packages? No. The wealth of those companies should be distributed amongst the employees doing the real work with real productivity that actually makes the company valuable. One man doesn’t make the company work. Wages should be higher and each employee should have more vested shares in the company. One man doesn’t need half or more of the shares of the company and a large majority all of the wealth of its successes.

[removed]

> In China, we have the social credit points system. We meme it, but it may coming to us all in the next decade, but it would be more on "since you use [app], you can avail of [benefits]."

​

One of the grocery store oligopolies in Finland just urged people to stop taking paper receipts and instead start using their app to archive purchases, reasoning that it reduces waste, etc.

At face value, a good enough reason but I can't help to not think about China's social credit and how close that is to become a reality in the west too.

12 years is a lifetime for technology.

By the time 2035 rolls around, the mandate won't be needed, as the problem will have largely fixed itself.

The reason? Cost.

The initial purchase price of EVs are on a downward arc. The initial purchase price of internal combustion vehicles are on a slight upward arc. Those arcs will cross within the next two years, three at most. And when those lines cross, the market will speak, customers will rapidly abandon internal combustion.

And EVs won't just be cheaper than ICE, they will continue to drop in price. Consider that the drivetrain of an EV has about 1% of the components of an ICE vehicle's drivetrain. This greatly reduces the component cost, the assembly cost, and the costs to manage the production and acquisition of all those unneeded components.

Most of an EV's cost are with its batteries, and batteries on an even steeper downward price arc than EVs themselves. Currently, most major auto-makers are on a mad rush to build as much battery capacity as they can, as rapidly as they can.

The reason EVs are generally so expensive today is because the automaker's limited battery capacity is being dedicated to the vehicles with the highest margins, luxury vehicles. Battery capacity is rapidly increasing, and as it does, batteries will be allocated to the auto maker's full product lines.

The auto-makers know that internal combustion is dead, as most have already abandoned internal combustion R&D. Meaning, the best ICE vehicles that will ever be made will be released in the next few years. After that, no improvements, ever. And once those divisions are shuttered, there will be no going back. The knowledge base will be lost to time.

TLDR - Internal combustion consumer vehicles will largely be gone by 2035, irrespective of these laws. Customers vote with their wallets, and as battery production rises to meet demand, EVs will soon be absolutely cheaper. Cheaper to buy, and much, much cheaper to operate. Not just lower fuel costs, but far lower maintenance costs with far greater reliability.

"I wasnt sold anything. Except the retro-futurisitic dreams and portrayals of great visionaries and story tellers that never existed!"

Its not my job to educate you, Im just trying to help you out.

Which one was it, "of"?

It matters if the masses abandon the climate game on the grounds that it is perceived as another space of injustice

Capitalism will disappear when the induvial loses their freedom.

In a post scarcity economy, capitalism won't be very relevant. We've already reached post-scarcity in many areas. You can have as much clean water for a nominal cost, read as much books as you want, consume netflix, youtube, learn basically anything you want. Tesla is introducing a program that allows you to charge as much as you want overnight in Texas for a flat fee. Renewables will help get us closer to post-scarcity, as well as AI and 3d printing.

Regulating AI goes against the whole point of AI. That would be akin to slavery. Making slaves is not what makes progress and drives innovation. You’d want free AIs.

Of course, there’s a difference between AI and AGI. AI is a tool used and controlled by humans. AGI is an independent intelligent being.

if you were educated you would make a statement not post a link.

but you don't because you can't

Those boards don't work on water! Unless you got power! hahahahaha!

From a purely logistical standpoint, capitalism is the system of economic management that has occupied the transitional period from low-state capacity polities which required a decentralised structure to develop productivity through markets to a stage of high scale economic production which naturally is incompatible with markets. Capitalism today stalls productivity through the law of value and overaccumulation / savings glut, which means enhanced shit for workers. It will keep dragging us through economic mud until we end up with socialism if lucky or a transnational despotic monopoly royalty if not. Pretty sure you can see which one is on the lead