Tomorrow all the unemployed?

[Exnihiloest]

I believe that it would be sterile to debate these questions very early when the amalgamations you practice prohibit it. Thus, in your simplifying vision, you put on the one hand the interest for money (= power) and on the other hand motivation, in the general sense where "no one acts without a reason to act *" in the same box; "to discover" this last psychological spring is to state the obvious.
Your stance as a champion of liberalism, techno-science and the world as it is, ...

The "world as it is" is actually what I base myself on, unlike you who base yourself on an imaginary world, invention or fad.
The world is made of a planet and beings who have evolved and survived through their adaptation. This adaptation corresponds to the development of abilities, instincts and behaviors without which survival on the planet would not have been possible. To be concrete, for example the instinct of survival, the search for meaning, so curiosity (for the prehistoric man, a sound could be a sign of danger), group life and mutual aid (life becomes more comfortable by sharing spots), acceptance of confrontation (animals, enemies), individualism (diversity is less risky than if we were a race of clones, we need explorers) ...
My world is a world of men. Your world is an abstraction that you call economy without any connection with people, as proof what you write to follow.

The notion of "abstract value" obviously does not correspond to what you are talking about: if the economy manages to meet needs and strives to create a maximum **, it is only because it is difficult for it to successfully transmuting the commodity into an increased sum without a substantial or symbolic use value; as a result, it tends to reduce this use value to the minimum possible, or even to do without it as we currently see, by using regulatory bias forcing users to change cars under the pretext of "ecological" expiration or by financing from public funds an energy transition that is supposedly virtuous in climate terms, but at the same time continuing an orientation contrary to this objective.

The economy becomes for you a thinking entity which would act on its own, which "tends" towards this or that, succeeds or not, plays with regulations and people ... This economy does not exist. The economy is just a macroscopic view in the form of a shapeless blob, of men and their actions responding to their psychology shaped by thousands of years of evolution. You hope to draw universal laws like Newton's from it, waste of time, we are not in hard sciences as in physics.
This economy is only your interpretation of all the interactions of men between them, which respond to stimuli, their neuronal treatments, intimate motivations such as the desire for property or domination, to utopian dreams of ideal worlds, each of which to its version, to sadistic deviations, looking for pleasure, comfort, stability ...
From this diversity you draw this formless average called "economy" but which does not correspond to anyone, and you deduce that it would oppose men when it is the product of them. Men are everywhere in the economy. My world is that of men. Capitalism is their current stage of evolution, the one towards which men tend when we let go of them. To deny the real man by claiming that the Economy is the god who manipulates them, what you are doing is simply inverting the causes and the effects.

* Leibnitz.
** The existence of advertising proves that "needs" are a social creation and do not in any way relate to an alleged human essence.

Advertising is at the outset the need for those who produce, to make their product known, both for the reasons of satisfying their ego and to effectively allow a social position, or simply to be able to live from their work. All these points start from intimate concerns related to psychology. Placing "social" on "creation" is like plating "economy" on "society", that does not make them autonomous realities. The only reality from which the economy and the social emerge, it is men and their intimate mode of functioning which shapes both.

[perplex]

I am at 100% with Exnihiloest, with a few nuances, capitalism goes straight into the wall, to make robots to excess or to participate, which will eventually out in the long term, what is called the world worker factories.

We can no longer backtrack, so it will end in chaos, at first, this is where we will see whether or not the human has the ability to put forward his kindness to his fellow, sorry the I dream...

The human has something else to do than spend his life in the factory or work ... It will still be that he reaches a high enough level of education to choose his life and death ... long subject .

A ++

[Ahmed]

I have the impression that these are more than just "nuances" ...

[perplex]

[Exnihiloest]

I am at 100% with Exnihiloest, with a few nuances, capitalism goes straight into the wall, to make robots to excess or to participate, which will eventually out in the long term, what is called the world worker factories.

We can no longer backtrack, so it will end in chaos, at first, this is where we will see whether or not the human has the ability to put forward his kindness to his fellow, sorry the I dream...

The human has something else to do than spend his life in the factory or work ... It will still be that he reaches a high enough level of education to choose his life and death ... long subject .

A ++

If capitalism succeeds in making robots with powerful, general-purpose, and affordable intelligence, no one will resist. He will go shopping, take the children to school, prepare the kitchen ...
For once, it is a risk, at best that of ending up like the Eloïs of Wells in The "Time Machine", at worst that of disappearing, replaced by AI in which will very probably be born consciousness and the same qualities and qualities that organic humans have, the same causes giving the same effects. I think plausible that the "robot" (which will no longer really be one in the sense in which we understand it today), or the form of evolution of homo sapiens that nature, indirectly, will have allowed.

[perplex]

replaced by AI in which will very probably be born the consciousness and the same qualities and through which organic humans have, the same causes giving the same effects. I think plausible that the "robot" (which will no longer really be one in the sense in which we understand it today), or the form of evolution of homo sapiens that nature, indirectly, will have allowed.

I like the idea that the nature, indirectly will allow its coming ... the future of the man would be a robot, not impossible .... Before reaching a level of real conscience, it leaves us of beautiful days, and surely the time to produce an effective parade.
But the robot will be eternaland certainly capable of self-maintenance, to see perfecting oneself, and above all to have an almost absolute knowledge.

On the other hand, he will not know right now the happiness of reproducing.
The miracle would be that it continues to serve us, for that it should be made a little maso in the original design

If capitalism succeeds in making robots with powerful, general-purpose, and affordable intelligence, no one will resist. He will go shopping, take the children to school, prepare the kitchen ...

Before he prepares the kitchen, I think he will know how to do it. war. It has great projects on youtube, and it's not models.

I trust the armies of our countries, to put an end to it, (I speak of humanity)
Climate immigration will certainly speed up the process ...

A ++

[Ahmed]

Exnihiliest, you write:

The economy becomes for you a thinking entity which would act on its own, which "tends" towards this or that, succeeds or not, plays with regulations and people ...

I have never said this: the economy is indeed the product of human activity, but the economic sphere retroacts on each economic agent and thus presents itself "as" an entity, not thinking (what a bizarre idea?) But perceived as autonomous (it is a determinism). Of course, as you maintain that the whole is not greater than the sum of the parts ...
Regarding the facts that show that the economy meets needs only secondarily, I mentioned advertising: you answered by amalgamating information and advertising. Advertising is much more than information (sometimes it does not contain it), it is it that arouses new needs through well-known biases of mimetic desire and if it were not effective, can not see why these gigantic budgets.
Another simple fact is observed during the destruction of surplus food: perfectly consumable foods are voluntarily denatured while food needs remain unfulfilled.
Even more important, but more complex: the production of real goods can no longer be exchanged in quantities proportionate to the accumulation of abstract value waiting to be valorized and the financial industry compensates for this lack by mechanisms ingenious and debt-making that now irrigate all sectors. Thus, the illusion can continue a little further ...
But as you reject everything that is opposed to your social "atomism", I do not hope to convince you: you are right, from this point of view the economy cannot exist!

[sen-no-sen]

To say that the economy is a thinking entity is not unfounded.
It is only necessary to overcome such a prerequisite to redefine the notion of intelligence beyond commonly defined standards.
Scientists no longer hesitate to speak of animal intelligences, vegetable or even viral.
For the AI ​​specialist and physicist Alex Wissner Gross even intelligence is equation ["F = T ∇ Sτ"].
Intelligence is a force that acts in such a way as to maximize the future capacity of an entity, regardless of its biological origin or not.
Thus an anthropotechnical ensemble, such as a human enterprise or society, can quite well be regarded as endowed with an intelligence, an intelligence whose ends are beyond its sub-elements.

[Exnihiloest]

Exnihiliest, you write:

The economy becomes for you a thinking entity which would act on its own, which "tends" towards this or that, succeeds or not, plays with regulations and people ...

I have never said this: the economy is indeed the product of human activity, but the economic sphere retroacts on each economic agent and thus presents itself "as" an entity, not thinking (what a bizarre idea?) But perceived as autonomous (it is a determinism). Of course, as you maintain that the whole is not greater than the sum of the parts ...

I did not assert that you asserted that the economy was a thinking entity. What I am saying is that you present it as if it were one, example: "the economy [...] strives ...", "it is difficult for it to succeed ...", this which, in fact, is the same.

The whole is not greater than the sum of the parts and I explained why: if the gathering of the parts allows the whole to exist, it is because the elementary properties of the parts and their possible interactions allow the functionality of the whole . It is only our way of seeing that changes paradigm by neglecting the elementary operations to see only the whole as a whole. This is exactly what physics does when it talks about "temperature" rather than the cumulative kinetic energy of each particle. Obviously, this is very practical, but it does not change the kinetic energy of each particle, it is only a way of seeing a property of the whole. The kinetic energy of particles generates temperature, or rather our interpretation of what temperature is. The reverse is not true, the temperature does not correspond to a physical object. Likewise, it is the human qualities and inter-relations that create the economy, and not the economy that creates human qualities and inter-relations, even if it influences them. There is a primordiality not to be neglected

Regarding the facts that show that the economy meets needs only secondarily, I mentioned advertising: you answered by amalgamating information and advertising.

It's wrong. I said the advertisement is "at the beginning the need for those who produce, to make their product known. "This is not an amalgam, I never said that advertising was limited to information, your formulation is reductive (sophism of the scarecrow).

Advertising is much more than information (sometimes it does not contain it), it is it that arouses new needs through well-known biases of mimetic desire and if it were not effective, can not see why these gigantic budgets.
Another simple fact is observed during the destruction of surplus food: perfectly consumable foods are voluntarily denatured while food needs remain unfulfilled.

The destruction of surplus food is in many cases a legal requirement. For example, the remains of school canteens should not be donated, should not be carried away by the staff ... (which used to be so, but today, with the precautionary principle, we want to trace everything, and the remains are not). That had to change, I did not hear that it was.
"Perfectly consumable", word in the air, who guarantees it? Because to "recycle" without tracing (who would take care of it, who would pay for it?), The slightest problem can give rise to legal proceedings. The same people who want us to "give" the surpluses would be the first to want to condemn those who did so if the surpluses turned out to be outdated. The additional activities required have a cost and the associated responsibilities need actors. "Yaka" is a totally inadequate phrase.

Even more important, but more complex: the production of real goods can no longer be exchanged in quantities proportionate to the accumulation of abstract value waiting to be valorized and the financial industry compensates for this lack by mechanisms ingenious and debt-making that now irrigate all sectors. Thus, the illusion can continue a little further ...
But as you reject everything that is opposed to your social "atomism", I do not hope to convince you: you are right, from this point of view the economy cannot exist!

I do not deny what would oppose my social "atomism", I say that your economy is the product of it, like the temperature that of the agitation of each particle in their bath. You hope to act on the particles, the cause of the temperature, by changing the temperature which is the effect. It is the squaring of the circle.

[Exnihiloest]

To say that the economy is a thinking entity is not unfounded.
...

We could even raise an altar to her, and in the face of our great fervor, perhaps she could follow our prayers.
Of course, there are also those who pray capitalism and liberalism, another powerful thinking entity, and those who pray to the rising little thinking entity called ecologism. This could trigger a war among the thinking entities, and fortunately prayer can be our help.

Thus an anthropotechnical ensemble, such as a human enterprise or society, can quite well be regarded as endowed with an intelligence, an intelligence whose ends are beyond its sub-elements.

No, for the reason that she has no motivation of her own, so no desire to act. Only men who are at the maneuver have them.