::::3D printing is getting very convenient::::
::::Local/Used/Recycle Ads are getting better than Amazon::::
::::AI is getting very good::::
::::Food wars means more emphasis on local produce::::
::::Meat is becoming less important::::
::::Energy is becoming more decentralized::::
Well, what happens to the third world when the first world no longer needs to exploit it?
I guess what I'm really asking is:
~skedaddle3644 wrote (thread):
I wonder if we will be ever rid of a “third world”, the Pareto principle, also known as the 80/20 rule, states that there will always be a minority of things. Of course, as things get better over time, definitions will change.
The 20% can be broken down even further too, 20% of the top 20% and so on… This works in nature too, 80% of the planets rotate around 20% of the stars, 80% of software glitches are caused by 20% of bugs, 80% of sleep quality occurs in 20% of sleep…
So, maybe we will never be rid of the Third World, there is likely always going to be someone better off than someone else, I'm optimistic things won't be as bad as some worry about.
~tatterdemalion wrote (thread):
What will the bourgeoisie in the imperial core (first world) do with the proletariat of the imperial core when they no longer need them?
I think decentralized energy is farther off in the future; hopefully countries will build out more nuclear and shut down fossil plants sooner, but that depends on having access to uranium and a state capable of enriching it (plus proliferation concerns). I guess we're all hoping for "energy independence" that relies on clean sources, but disagree on whether nuclear is appropriate.
There's a techno-optimistic angle of this: the same technology that reduces the reliance on poorer countries can also be used to help the people in those poorer countries. After all, we're all human and with the same basic requirements. Call it trickle-down techonomics, but it has an effect nonetheless. The problem is getting poorer and developing countries access to these new technologies, but access is better problem to have than the technology not existing in the first place.
Historically, the question of "but what will the people do without jobs?" has always been asked when some new, revolutionary technology appears. So far, that question has always been answered by new jobs appearing elsewhere. If you were to tell someone living in the US from the early 1800s that technology would improve so much that over 90% of the population would be out of a job (>90% of the labor force was farmers, compared to 1.3% today) they'd be panicked. But of course, we know that it has instead opened the opportunity for people to work in other sectors that can dramatically improve our lives in other ways.
The real question is whether we can set aside greed enough to empower people to live good lives in a post-labor world. Universal basic income is practically a requirement, in that regard.