The work is finished! (Eco angle France2)

[eclectron]

We are therefore moving more and more towards an ultra-liberal model where only people able to adapt very quickly to changes will have "the chance to get out" according to the expression devoted ...
We can obviously conclude that all of this will not lead to more social peace, and clash will result, with perhaps parallel (but legal) economies as an adjustment variable.
* There is another method:the war...

I lost the answer I started ...

In short, it seems obvious to me that a transition must take place in society: the place of the master: money, or finance.
it is not the man who must yield, money is only a tool.
What good could a 100% automated economy, 100% efficient, 100% profitable and on the other hand men and women 100% useless and cannonballs?
While at the bottom, in theory and in dreams that we have long forgotten, the economy is there to bring happiness
At least one wellness ...

On the economy, the transition is also painful ... but not impossible.
The physical limitations to this dream remain, in my opinion, energy resources first, then resources in general.
Although we may be soberly happy.
For the rest, the place of money, the choices of society, the decision is ours (in theory). We must not forget it and give in so easily while resigning ourselves.

[Janic]

What good could a 100% automated economy, 100% efficient, 100% profitable and on the other hand men and women 100% useless and cannonballs?

perhaps this is its purpose?

[sen-no-sen]

What good could a 100% automated economy, 100% efficient, 100% profitable and on the other hand men and women 100% useless and cannonballs?

perhaps this is its purpose?

Indeed, a 100% automated world for a world without humans, this is the purpose of determinisms in games ...

An example (at Michelin) of jobs will disappear, but others will arise in the fields of control and design ... This is conceptually absurd, since if an automaton cut ten direct jobs and required ten new ones assigned to monitoring and maintenance productivity would be lower than before this change.

Absolutely! Obviously this kind of reasoning is not held by our friend "journalist" ...
As profit maximization is the only logic at work, it is completely naive to think that this kind of transformation will happen from above.
Similarly, if employment was once local, the development of automation necessarily induces a very high level of abstraction and a centralization of skills within large companies or groups of startups .
All of course for global technology diffusion, there are a few thousand engineers to replace hundreds of thousands of jobs ...
In the report, the engineer in charge of the automation of the trucks explains to us with a smile that the drivers will be "truck guardians" in the future ... for a few more years!
She does not tell us that once the technology has acquired its jobs (certainly occupied by posted workers) will be finished ...
They really take us for things!

[eclectron]

it is completely naive to think that this kind of transformation will happen from above.
...
They really take us for things!

Absolutely!
However the situation is so absurd that the exit can only be done from the top, there is no other viable and livable exit.
on the other hand it may "tear" a little to achieve ...

Personally I see only 2 ways to achieve this exit from the top: the revolution (peaceful? ) or desertion of the system as much as possible and building something else on the fringes.

I do not believe in a series of reforms by soft compromises coming from above, since it requires a total paradigm shift compared to money. by this way, the outcome seems very naive indeed.
I would be interested in your views on the issue?

[sen-no-sen]

Personally I see only 2 ways to achieve this exit from the top: the revolution (peaceful? ) or desertion of the system as much as possible and building something else on the fringes.

The peaceful revolution? pretty oxymoron!
Given the stakes, it will be a question of everything except pacifism.
I would rather think of a parallel model, more advantageous for us another primate mammal, based on a slower society and more aware of the determinisms at play.
In short, putting two models of development in Darwinian competition, the one offering the best compromises will win.
But it is a safe bet for the future to be a mixture of the two, this is also confirmed today, this is what we can call the technological feudalism... history shows us each time that the outcome is never totally good or bad, but oscillates between the two, all that remains is to be on the right slope ...

I do not believe in a series of reforms by soft compromises coming from above, since it requires a total paradigm shift compared to money. by this way, the outcome seems to me very naive indeed.

There is absolutely nothing to expect from the political class, nothing.
In principle, leaders are always those who serve the best interests of the system,as an agent their roles are therefore that everything stays in place.
The leaders of this world do not fundamentally direct anything, which immediately eliminates the most conspiratorial theses, History is only a narrative narrative made a posteriori, the real forces at play are those of statistical mechanics and the causal chains that flow from it.
At best politicians and other decision-makers will adapt to trends if they go in the right direction, but nothing more ...

[Christophe]

or desertion from the system.

Too easy, a quick and efficient solution: it "suffices" that everyone stop working because it is ONLY THAT which maintains the system ...

Obviously it is like for the white copy in class: it is enough that a few do not follow so that it penalizes all the others (even in large majority)

After that may pose some comfort concerns ... some time ... but any change of society requires sacrifices!

Don't tell me: no jpe not stop me because I have a loan ... except that your banker and the bailiffs would also stop ... in an "ideal" world ... so no risk for your buttocks!

No, the only thing that will cause concern quickly enough is energy (including food ...) and once there is no more energy ... it will be very hard to restart system...

Easy right?

ps: like, France2 is doing so in the revolutionary now !! (see title ...)

[Ahmed]

Eclectron, you write:

from the perspective of a scenario going towards 100% automation, don't you see fossil fuels as a blocked horizon? What is your secret ?

Fossil fuels are far from having said their last word and solar energy, not to mention any other sources of energy that can be exploited, to our misfortune, are more than enough to ensure technological domination; this without mentioning the possibility of a drastic reduction in consumption per unit of product, in order to further multiply the creation of abstract wealth, therefore the destruction of real wealth.

Further:

On the economy, the transition is also painful ... but not impossible.
The physical limitations to this dream remain, in my opinion, energy resources first, then resources in general.

The reasoning error is precisely that it is the economy (in the sense of what has been observed for three centuries) which generates this confrontation with these physical limits ... and also with d'autres.

Even further;

Personally I see only 2 ways to achieve this exit from the top: the revolution (peaceful? ) or desertion of the system as much as possible and building something else on the fringes.

For a revolution, a fortiori peaceful (it is obviously preferable!), To work, there must be a minimum of consensus (and of actors!) On the meaning to give it, otherwise we only reproduce the previous dominance with new players; from this point of view, we are far from the count, which is logical since the system pays agents to spread its propaganda. Desertion is impossible (except very marginally, therefore with little effect) since the system is, in essence, totalizing, so nothing can escape it.
It is however this second solution which has, by far, my preference: a fight can only be done on common ground, which consolidates the mainstream, whatever the winner of the confrontation, indifference is more effective , since it ignores a power that feeds on the affects of the dominated (whatever the meaning of these affects).

[Ahmed]

The paradox of the revolution is that to constitute real progress (in general, unfortunately, determinisms which were previously limited ), the conditions to be fulfilled are such that if by chance they are met, the revolution is no longer necessary ...

Note: on several occasions it is alluded in the last messages to "an exit from the top", which seems to me to lead to confusion: it would be better to say "an exit to the top", because the first formulation could be understood as a favorable development for the entire population following decisions taken by the top of the hierarchical pyramid (it would obviously be as naive as to believe that TAFTA type contracts will be beneficial for all!).

[eclectron]

Energy will cross with 100% automation.
It is not for tomorrow that we will be 100% automated up to the doctor-surgeon-autonomous robot.
For energy, there are certainly solutions on paper but if we stick to current sources and their distributions, the blocked horizon is not that far away. 50 to 100 years? by being a writer.
The 100% automated could in theory operate over an infinite period, what about oil, gas, nuclear coal over this period.
Sun yes, infinity on our scale, we have time to see it coming but what is its place in the current energy mix at European level for example:

all this problem is very speculative in fact but by extending the paths taken by automation and energy, we can imagine that it will get stuck at some point. new sources of energy will be necessary if one wishes to continue on this path.

For a revolution, a fortiori peaceful (it is obviously preferable!), To work, there must be a minimum of consensus (and of actors!) On the meaning to give it, otherwise we only reproduce the previous dominance with new players; from this point of view, we are far from the count, which is logical since the system pays agents to spread its propaganda. Desertion is impossible (except very marginally, therefore with little effect) since the system is, in essence, totalizing, so nothing can escape it.
It is however this second solution which has, by far, my preference: a fight can only be done on common ground, which consolidates the mainstream, whatever the winner of the confrontation, indifference is more effective , since it ignores a power that feeds on the affects of the dominated (whatever the meaning of these affects).

It is impossible at the moment t, as we know, we are in it.
I prefer to have the mindset "I'm looking for solutions so that it is possible" than to find all the arguments to confirm that it is impossible.
This is what "you" no longer see, it is we who decide.
Many, even outside of here, have the right conclusion but feel helpless and do not know what to do.
The system has done the job well, mass movements are less and less popular, by me the first.

If I don't do it, who will?

Personally, I chose to leave the system as much as possible and at my own pace.
If everyone does this in their corner, it will have an effect on the entire economy.
The wallet, there is only that true in this low world (for the moment)

For example, there are more and more people who no longer eat meat, this has an impact on this economy (this is an example)

Individually we have the power to influence society!

[The shadow]

Personally, I chose to leave the system as much as possible and at my own pace.
Reading this sentence made me laugh because I think you can escape the system and write with a computer that uses rare earths, gold, mercury, tin etc ..... and without forgetting to electricity managed by Nuclear and have an internet connection which uses DATAS CENTERS which Consumes enough to provide means to produce drinking water for the 3 Billion people who are thirsty ......
I have nothing against you Personally (it's true) nor see in any way an aggression but I tickle at the sight of your words
I still wish you that your wish comes true