How many 10x productivity revolutions do we need? At the end of it, will there be only one person left producing everything for humanity in 5 minutes each Tuesday afternoon?
I think we’re already productive enough, just not distributive enough.
When will we have reached enough productivity?
Submitted 8 months ago by udon@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Comments
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Randomgal@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
When do you think your boss is going to have enough yatchs?
PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world 8 months ago
The ceo of the shitty place I work already owns two entire islands in Croatia. Guess what, it’s not enough and he wants to buy a third.
Disgusting.
Asswardbackaddict@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Don’t feed the windego. It only grows hungrier.
DarkFuture@lemmy.world 8 months ago
When we eat the rich.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Never. The line must keep moving upwards. If it doesn’t come from productivity it comes from enshittification, layoffs, offshoring, etc.
jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 8 months ago
To clarify, this is the thinking that is towards the core of the issue.
Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 8 months ago
Our economy relies on growth. Whatever it takes. Exponential if possible. When is it done growing? When is a tumor done growing?
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
booly@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Increasing productivity of workers is met with demand for more production-intensive products. It’s like how every time hardware improves, software becomes more complex to take advantage of that increased capability. It’s like Jevon’s Paradox, but applied to productivity of workers.
One prominent example: our farmers are more productive than ever. So we move up the value chain, and have farmers growing more luxury crops that aren’t actually necessary for sustenance. We overproduce grains and legumes, and then feed them to animals to raise meat. We were so productive with different types of produce that we decided to go on hard mode and create just-in-time supply chains for multiple cultivars so that supermarkets sell dozens of types of fresh apples, tomatoes, potatoes, onions, etc., and end up eating much more fresh produce of diverse varieties compared to our parents and grandparents, who may have relied more heavily on frozen or canned produce, with limited variety.
BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
This is actually a stupid question. Loaded questions like this are annoying.
myrmidex@belgae.social 8 months ago
As soon as a capitalist has enough money.
Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Heat death of the universe, hot it.
jenesaisquoi@feddit.org 8 months ago
No, just heat death of the planet
Fedizen@lemmy.world 8 months ago
About 45 years ago we hit it. Its why its just been layoffs and office fuckery ever since
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 months ago
I’m agree with the consequence but not the cause. Jack Welsh figured out the cheat code to increase short term stock prices by laying off people, regardless of their actual role or value to the company.
Since then, every company has done it whenever they need a quick boost in numbers.
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 8 months ago
We’re kind of at a point where the cost of making stuff isn’t very important. It is far outweighed by the cost of moving stuff - not only financially, but environmentally and temporally.
There probably isn’t a lot more refinement to be done in most manufacturing processes, other than very niche things like microchip fabrication. Production machinery can pump out T-shirts or drinking glasses or automobiles faster than people will buy them, so the factories run for shorter periods of time. The only profit margins to be had in manufacturing come from bulk production runs, which is why you can’t order 10 injection molded parts or 50 custom silicon packages - you have to buy like 5000 units just to pay the cost of spinning up the production line.
But logistics… we’re basically killing the planet to solve logistics problems. A massive amount of greenhouse gas production is due to transportation. We need better ways to move things around.
udon@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Well, I think in that scenario I thought about transportation as included in the 5min/week workload. Basically you click 3 buttons and everything goes wroom on its own from there.
drofenvy@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Until we can make everything through the tireless efforts of a single Australian man
Saleh@feddit.org 8 months ago
If the environmental damage was accurately priced in, it would be much more attractive to produce locally with local materials and with local knowledge.
It would be less “efficient” in the sense of what a production facility could do in terms of output/input at the gates of the facility, but it would be much more efficient in terms of the overall economy.
lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 8 months ago
There is a hole in the heart of every rich person. They try to fill that hole with money, but the hole is never full.
When Elon Musk and every person like him says, “I have enough money”: that is when the people who actually produce value will have reached enough productivity. Not before.
darklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 months ago
When we’ve achieved Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism.
udon@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I’d love some FALGSC!
TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
Never. There’s always more to do. Once you can produce food, shelter and entertainment with zero effort, people will start working on less urgent stuff that got ignored because we were busy working on the essentials.
Currently, we’re ignoring preventative medical and psychological care, because we’re busy fixing everything that is broken. Well, not even all of it. Just some parts get fixed. Maybe, in the future fixing stuff is so cheap and easy, that we can shift our focus to prevention.
Once we’re there, we can start focusing on the next big thing, like building a Dyson sphere or whatever.
Feyd@programming.dev 8 months ago
This is completely incorrect. We’re ignoring preventative medical care and other urgent stuff to make rich people rich because we have a stupid economic system where rich people decide what is important
TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
Well, there’s a bit of that in there as well. Maybe that example was too specific to serve its purpose.
The idea is that urgent tasks get prioritized, while everything else gets ignored. Currently, we are ignoring a variety of important tasks, because they aren’t important enough.
Once automation fixes all the urgent stuff, we’ll tackle all the less essential ones, and oh boy are there a lot of them. Some of them trivial, and some quite useful.
splendoruranium@infosec.pub 8 months ago
Never. There’s always more to do. Once you can produce food, shelter and entertainment with zero effort
We’ve been able to do that for about 100 years now. All of humanity’s technological problems have been solved - on paper - for generations. There’s unfortunately never been a magical consolidation period where all the hungry were fed and all the exposed were sheltered. That’s not something that automatically happens.
The technology and production capacity to raise Somalia to the same literacy, living standard and life expectancy Denmark exists. It would just require surplus growth and production capacity to go to Somalia and not Denmark for a few generations. Example nations are arbitrary, adjust as needed.
Saleh@feddit.org 8 months ago
A lot of the medical and psychological problems are caused by the “fixing” of other things.
Valmond@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Very interesting question!
The economy doubles roughly every 20 years (since centuries at least), and for me we are already there (living in the EU mind you).
We still need some more for renewables, but that’s about it IMO.
NOW, that is my perspective, maybe people growing up today thinks “just a bit more and I’ll be satisfied”, but I doubt it. You can’t eat 50 steaks a day.
The evident problem we have is that rich people siphon away lots of it, so we still have to get up at 8:30 and drive to work. A gradual transition (people still need to work) seems what would be the best way forward, IMO.
udon@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Yeah, I guess I was thinking about this as “If we were to set a productivity goal for humanity, where would that be?” It’s a bit tiring in everyday life (in my line of work but I guess everywhere?) that you can always produce more of everything and there is no point where your todo list is just empty for a while. If it is, just add more items.
zxqwas@lemmy.world 8 months ago
On a population level the more prodctive we are the higher living standard we can afford. Usually the choice is getting another gadget instead of fewer working hours in the US at least. Some European countries are reducing work weeks.
diegantobass@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Karl Marx enters the chat
Epzillon@lemmy.world 8 months ago
This is what I find fascinating about capitalism. It builds on the premise of increasing profit by increasing efficiency and quantity. With that mindset we should strive to improve efficiency until no one needs to work and everything is automated and autonomous, no? That would be the peak of efficiency? But then how would people Pat for the products being produced? They cant, it needs to be free, since no one has a salary because theyre not working. But then the CEOs wouldnt make money. So theres no incentive unless your goal is not monetary but to improve the ultimate wellbeing of humanity. Its inherently a flawed concept since the main incentive is monetary, yet we refuse to accept what must be the ultimate goal to be able to keep power above others.
And yes, i know this is very simplified. But still explain to me why we do mass layoffs in favor of AI slop if the incentive is not entirely monetary and for the sake efficiency and or cutting costs. Explain how and who will sirvive the further we go along? Capitalism at its core makes the rich the survivors. There wont be infinite recursions of 10x productivity revolutions because the workers will die off in the process.
Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social 8 months ago
As long as most of our productivity goes towards the ultra rich, we'll never have enough
Buffalox@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Once I would probably have said when everybody has enough.
But I have found out that is naive, because looking at billionaires, it’s obvious that people just increase their consumption to the extreme if they can. Apparently we will never have “enough”.With near limitless resources, we will probably want to own our own planets.
jaybone@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
Is it the Mormons that get to own their own planet when they die? Or is that the JW’s?
Buffalox@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Mormons
mycodesucks@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Actually, ironically, that would be BETTER than what we have now. Billionaires increasing their consumption would at least mean they’re SPENDING their money on something which is paying SOMEONE.
Instead they hoard and do nothing with it.
Lembot_0004@discuss.online 8 months ago
I suppose 30-50 years ago. The main problem is that we produce too much useless garbage we shouldn’t be producing. If we would be able to stop that, we would have plenty of everything for everyone.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Hey I love my double packaging, because I love sorting my garbage. /s
TabbsTheBat@pawb.social 8 months ago
Well for most humans it’s when we reach star trek, and for corporations it’s when we reach *insert corporate dystopia of choice*
MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Brawndo
TabbsTheBat@pawb.social 8 months ago
It’s got electrolytes :3
jbrains@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
goodreads.com/…/133403-we-should-do-away-with-the…