This is our monthly place to discuss relevant topics that have not appeared in recent posts.
There's a rising new paradigm for physics that's now got 'Many World Interpretation' (MWI) of quantum mechanics in trouble! If this new paradigm is correct, then the Bohm (pilot-wave) theory is correct, and MWI is out!
The big idea is that space-time is a super-fluid. Although this idea is not new, over the last decade, a number of physics theories (in cosmology and quantum gravity) based on the idea, have reached the point where they are fitting together coherently enough to say that a tipping point has been reached, and space-time as a super-fluid is an idea whose time has come.
What are the advantages of the space-time as super-fluid idea?
*Potentially offers explanations for dark-energy, dark matter and big bang
*Offers a way to unify gravity with other forces (quantum gravity)
*Black holes - theory of gravastars - avoids Singularities, properties of black holes explained as 'phase-changes' in the space-time fluid.
*Fluid dynamics - strong analogies to quantum effects , offers concrete model for the Bohm pilot-wave model.
I want to provide a link to more details about this last item , because its really quite striking - all the quantum effects such as wave inference etc. seem to naturally fall out of fluid dynamics, look here:
"A droplet bouncing on the surface of a liquid has been found to exhibit many quantum-like properties, including double-slit interference, tunneling and energy quantization."
Now I'm not saying that this stuff is about revolutionize physics just yet, but its all reached the point where other physics theories are starting to come under a little pressure!
You might update your blogroll. gnxp is over on unz now. The late Seth Roberts' blog no longer exists.
"The risk of something seriously dangerous happening is in the five year timeframe. 10 years at most." Seems bettable, if anyone can offer verifiable markers of such dangers.
Is Elon Musk talking complete nonsense?
Ambition and intelligence are probably irrelevant.
North Korea exists. The USSR happened. Etc...
Forget the U.S. underclass. Think of the Third World, which shows our future. Do you really suppose that the masses of unemployed workers and impoverished peasants worldwide lack ambition and intelligence?
My solution was meant as a response to the speculation that people who live "paycheck to paycheck" might revolt.
If you think there could be a different revolution, where a much smaller minority of intelligent and ambitious people revolt, it might warrant a different solution.
I heard smart and ambitious people like to play MTG though...
It's whatever you want to do with your pile of resources. I'm just saying there's at least 1 way to prevent a revolution due to economic exclusion of the masses.
I do like the thought of having a giant black castle on top of a mountain with hundreds of 10 ft tall robots patrolling.
You can also automate guard labor. There are realistic technological solutions to keep all humans under control 100% of the time.
Many of those poor would be very intelligent and ambitious people. I doubt bread and circuses would indefinitely protect you against a movement that seeks power of its own and draws its support from the poor.
Bread and circuses. Won't work out any better this time 'round.
If I were mega rich, I'd just donate 1% of my income to prevent a revolution. Pay poor people to eat fast food and watch netflix etc.
You have a strangely narrow idea of "wealth" and "cost". If a working minority had to support a non-working majority than that would always cost that minority a lot in terms of the precious resource that's called "leisure time" (what good is money if you do not have time to spend it?) I'm also curious why you consider working say 16 hours a week as a cost people would like to avoid, while they would be completely okay with not being allowed to have children (a policy which you couldn't even justify on the basis of work ethic since it would be a society with a severe and chronic lack of employment so luck rather than work ethic would determine who gets to have a job and who doesn't). There will also always be a status component attached to employment, especially if it means having a lot more income than non-working people, that gives unemployment a real psychological cost.
I agree with Stephen Diamond that the socially acceptable solution is a sliding scale of less hours worked as a percentage of lifetime to push more people into jobs that are very difficult to automate (or that society refuses to automate). I also think that 100% automation would not be a good idea: we'd be handing over our fates to the machines, if something happened to the machines or if they turn against us and we survive we'd be back in the stone age unless we maintained a reserve of subsidized human scientists doctors and engineers.
So you mean, like, "Eschew Obfuscation," right?
Yes; radical change is risky - things can go wrong. I'd much prefer this happens gradually with lots of time to adjust.
(As if what I'd prefer matters.)
You seem ambivalent:
"If we can free most people from needing to labor to survive, without seriously harming other people, I count that as a win, not a loss."
"Let us hope that Robin is correct; if so this problem won't actually come up for quite a while."