CrystalShadow said:
It would depend on what kind of resources we have relative to the population, and what the minority might stand to gain from massive population reduction.
No doubt, but mass genocide of populations don't tend to be effective when a minority (especially a rich one) is trying to kill of a majority. That majority tends to get pissed and start a revolution that ends up with that rich majority either fleeing or dead. Mileage here varies depending on how well armed said majority is.
your implicatioon of shifting the work to other fields presumes those too don't end up subject to automation.
It seems a little naive to assume art and customer service jobs can't be automated, long-term. We're already seeing warning signs of retail staff being replaced with machines... Early days yet, but it's a bad sign on the whole.
As for sports, maybe. But only a handful of people hachave what it takes to be top athletes, and that being left in human hands would be mostly due to the incredibly arbitrary rules of 'fair' competition. Otherwise we wouldn't be checking for drugs. In other words, it's a field that isn't looking for the absolute best, but rather the best within a restricted set of criteria.
It's not that you can't automate art or customer service; you certainly can. It's that people don't tend to particularly like art or customer service that's automated. It depends on what sort of customer service we're talking here, too but in broad terms people like to talk to people more than machines and that customer demand does have an effect. As for sports, if most people are unemployed because they simply don't need to work, they will be looking for diversions. With this growing demand, I think it's reasonable to assume more sports leagues at more levels would rise in demand. Same goes for art. All that leisure time needs to be filled with something and art/sports are two of human kind's favorite diversions.
This kind of depends on how cynical you are, and how far you imagine automation to be able to get...
It's also possible to imagine a world where the machines themselves take over. What they do with us at that point would depend on what values we instill in them. Overly utilitarian reasoning (which seenems a reasonably probable resulyresult of our current values as a society), could easily lead the machines to question the purpose of the continued existence of humans...
Eh, a machine takeover is a plausible flight of fancy. I don't think it warrants serious consideration until we at least have a working cognizant computer. I'm more concerned with what we'll do if 90% of human "work" becomes automated; it seems the more immediate issue. But, if we did come up with cognizant robots, we'd need to, as you said, instill values in them and hope those values stick. Otherwise, things could get messy.
In short, even being optimistic, what do you do with a huge number of people who cannot meaningfully contribute to society directly in the sense that we currently value what a person spends their time doing?
The options are pretty limited.
1. find 'busywork' that doesn't really serve any purpose, just to occupy these people's time...
2. Get them to do the work anyway, regardless of how absurdly innefficient that may end up by comparison to the machines.
3. Sort out a means of supporting this population without requiring anything from them in return
4. Eliminate as much of this population as possible...
Got any other potential options? because that's about all I can think of as alternatives...
1. This seems possible. A fair-few professions already engage in massive amounts of busywork. Hell, how much youtube gets watched at peak business hours I wonder. I know I contribute to that figure!
2. This seems less likely, unless efficiency isn't the most valuable part of the work. See: Art, sports, customer service. Any field you can think of where efficiency is less important than the human element, I think the automation problem isn't so much a problem.
3. Depending on the efficiency of the production of basic goods/services, this may become a reality. If you can produce all basic goods in mass quantities for a pittance, you don't really need the population to put anything back in. But we'll still want someone to act/draw/throw a football/have a chat with us, so that's where people will shift their focus I think.
4. And that's the rub. If automation becomes really good, there isn't really a need to reduce the population. Plus, threatening the lives of billions of people isn't likely to end up with them dead, it's likely to end up with you dead. You'd need a method for eradication and a reason (assuming our hypothetical rich minority aren't psychopaths.) In a world of automated plenty, you might get #1, but you'll be hard-pressed to get #2 I think.
I can't think of any others either, except perhaps space colonization. Still, I think 2-3 are probably enough to prevent 4 from being necessary or even desirable. It's the optimist in me.