The “resources” we rely on require (working) humans, less working humans means less resources. The population we have today won’t disappear all at once but when they age out of the workforce, a smaller population will not be able to support them
In other words, if we are below replacement level, we will eventually have a situation where the old outnumber the young, which means that the young have to work harder to support the old
The biggest concern right now is the looming massive unemployment crisis and you’re worried about too much demand for work?
It’s a two sided issue. We’re laying off a bunch of people in jobs that require thinking, but not doing stuff in the physical world. But jobs that require doing physical things are still much more difficult to automate if it requires any sort of flexibility to conditions. We’ll still need people in a bunch of roles, they’ll just be jobs people won’t want to do as much, because it’ll be dirtier and harder work. And of course in our present economic system at present time, these jobs aren’t very highly paid since we don’t have a real shortage of workers yet.
And how does fewer working people decrease resources? Fewer working peole means less land? Less water? Less energy?
Land on its own doesn’t produce much useful, you still need people to work it. Power plants need employees too. Etc. There are still so, so many things we can’t accomplish without humans physically present and moving objects. Automation makes things more efficient, but we still need humans.
If the population of the world shrunk evenly in all ages, it wouldn’t be an issue. It’s only an issue because the population is aging.
And yes, in the future we’ll probably have AI doctors, AI teachers and AI engineers to provide us mediocre healthcare, education and help invent stuff. But we won’t have AI electricians or AI plumbers anytime soon. Much harder problems to automate.
You understand that money is a fiction, right? It’s not even numbers on a piece of paper anymore, it’s ones and zeroes.
Fewer people means more resources per person and less damage to the earth.
The “resources” we rely on require (working) humans, less working humans means less resources. The population we have today won’t disappear all at once but when they age out of the workforce, a smaller population will not be able to support them
In other words, if we are below replacement level, we will eventually have a situation where the old outnumber the young, which means that the young have to work harder to support the old
Not if the robots take all the jobs
The biggest concern right now is the looming massive unemployment crisis and you’re worried about too much demand for work?
And how does fewer working people decrease resources? Fewer working peole means less land? Less water? Less energy?
It’s a two sided issue. We’re laying off a bunch of people in jobs that require thinking, but not doing stuff in the physical world. But jobs that require doing physical things are still much more difficult to automate if it requires any sort of flexibility to conditions. We’ll still need people in a bunch of roles, they’ll just be jobs people won’t want to do as much, because it’ll be dirtier and harder work. And of course in our present economic system at present time, these jobs aren’t very highly paid since we don’t have a real shortage of workers yet.
Land on its own doesn’t produce much useful, you still need people to work it. Power plants need employees too. Etc. There are still so, so many things we can’t accomplish without humans physically present and moving objects. Automation makes things more efficient, but we still need humans.
If the population of the world shrunk evenly in all ages, it wouldn’t be an issue. It’s only an issue because the population is aging.
And yes, in the future we’ll probably have AI doctors, AI teachers and AI engineers to provide us mediocre healthcare, education and help invent stuff. But we won’t have AI electricians or AI plumbers anytime soon. Much harder problems to automate.