OT: future of jobs or lack thereof

[dougthonus]

As far as I'm concerned, unless you reject the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there is categorically no such thing as renewable energy and its an impossibility that we can maintain energy equilibrium.

To rephrase this way then, I doubt very much we will be in an energy crisis that will determine human fate. I think we'll kill ourselves via some other method or escape the planet, and that we will effectively have renewable energy for all intents and purposes give the likely technological developments.

[johnnyvann840]

Lies told to you to manipulate people, 101.

Birth rate is slowing down so much across the globe that within the next 100 years, population will start contracting. Maybe 50. It just took a while for birth control to spread.

As far as resources, they are more available now than 50 years ago.

World population growth may slow down to levels of .06% per year by 2100 but that will still get us to about 11 billion people by 2100. Today we are at 6.9 billion. If you don't think that increase will lead to major problems with World natural resources and many other problems like lack of jobs for people, then you either have your head in the sand or your eyes covered and your fingers in your ears.

The scariest thing about that growth projection is that we will be at 9.5 billion people by 2050. That would be catastrophic... and that is WITH a massive projected reduction in growth rate.

[League Circles]

We can't escape the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It will bean issue wherever we go.

If we develop technology to truly colonize space, then I think we will be able to solve this problem too. We'd have a technological base that is exponentially better than what exists today and to me it is likely that:

1: We'd find our understanding of thermodynamics doesn't hold everywhere
2: We'd find we can figure out a way to maintain equilibrium
3: We'd find a way where energy can be created out of nothing.

or worst case scenario:
4: In a trillion years (or some other ridiculously stupidly large number) we might exhaust the universe's supply of energy.

I'm pretty open minded so I'll never say that these are impossibilities, but I should note that they are not technological limitations, but limitations of scientific law going back centuries. There is no such thing in essence as a supply of or creation of energy. All that we have ever been able to theorize, observe, and test is that energy is always, and only, converted from one form (higher quality/lower entropy) to another (lower quality/higher entropy). All natural processes are irreversible. What follows from scientifically accepted theory is that the universe MUST proceed (overall, net) in the direction of less efficient energy conversion, not more.

[coldfish]

Lies told to you to manipulate people, 101.

Birth rate is slowing down so much across the globe that within the next 100 years, population will start contracting. Maybe 50. It just took a while for birth control to spread.

As far as resources, they are more available now than 50 years ago.

World population growth may slow down to levels of .06% per year by 2100 but that will still get us to about 11 billion people by 2100. Today we are at 6.9 billion. If you don't think that increase will lead to major problems with World natural resources and many other problems like lack of jobs for people, then you either have your head in the sand or your eyes covered and your fingers in your ears.

The scariest thing about that growth projection is that we will be at 9.5 billion people by 2050. That would be catastrophic... and that is WITH a massive projected reduction in growth rate.

Not sure where you got the graph but it seems to be based on old data. Growth rate is collapsing as the economy improves. Its down to 1.09% this year and looks to go below 1% around 2020, not the 2040 shown on your graph. It should go negative, possibly as soon as 2070 and well before we get to 9 billion, let alone 11 billion people.

In 50 years, our biggest issue is going to be population shortage to fund retirement.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/07/30/how-big-of-a-problem-is-overpopulation/#189e64e5216a

[musiqsoulchild]

These things have a way of sorting themselves out.

What I do on an individual level is as follows:
1) I try to be healthier everyday than the day before
2) I try to minimize costs ( all kinds...not just money, but usage) everyday
3) I still have fun. I am just very clear on when I am ok with spending money for it and when I am not.
4) I am always looking to pick up new skills - especially technical AND DIY ones. So that I am never too far away from the caveman nor the computer scientist.
5) I strive to spend as less as possible on housing. For me that translates to quickly paying off the mortgage owning my condo outright
6) At work, I am always looking to add value. However, as I grow older, I am also looking to find my niche.
7) I will spend on further education; BUT I will not take out an educational loan.
8) I like to engage with people - real people. I find that it helps me connect to the world a lot better when I am engaged with my friends, family, peers, colleagues and complete strangers even.


There's still a ton I have to do. Recovering monetarily from a divorce is not easy. But I am on my way.

[dice]

Lies told to you to manipulate people, 101.

Birth rate is slowing down so much across the globe that within the next 100 years, population will start contracting. Maybe 50. It just took a while for birth control to spread.

As far as resources, they are more available now than 50 years ago.

World population growth may slow down to levels of .06% per year by 2100 but that will still get us to about 11 billion people by 2100. Today we are at 6.9 billion. If you don't think that increase will lead to major problems with World natural resources and many other problems like lack of jobs for people, then you either have your head in the sand or your eyes covered and your fingers in your ears.

The scariest thing about that growth projection is that we will be at 9.5 billion people by 2050. That would be catastrophic... and that is WITH a massive projected reduction in growth rate.

Not sure where you got the graph but it seems to be based on old data. Growth rate is collapsing as the economy improves. Its down to 1.09% this year and looks to go below 1% around 2020, not the 2040 shown on your graph.

that's exactly what his graph shows. the problem is that it shows pop continuing to increase at same rate from 1975 to 2025 despite growth rate in decline

[johnnyvann840]

World population growth may slow down to levels of .06% per year by 2100 but that will still get us to about 11 billion people by 2100. Today we are at 6.9 billion. If you don't think that increase will lead to major problems with World natural resources and many other problems like lack of jobs for people, then you either have your head in the sand or your eyes covered and your fingers in your ears.

The scariest thing about that growth projection is that we will be at 9.5 billion people by 2050. That would be catastrophic... and that is WITH a massive projected reduction in growth rate.

Not sure where you got the graph but it seems to be based on old data. Growth rate is collapsing as the economy improves. Its down to 1.09% this year and looks to go below 1% around 2020, not the 2040 shown on your graph.

that's exactly what his graph shows. the problem is that it shows pop continuing to increase at same rate from 1975 to 2025 despite growth rate in decline

Well yeah, we know that's because there are almost twice as many people now than in 1975. It's compounding growth so when you have 1% of 7 billion people it's the same as having 2% of 3.5 billion people. So, even at 1% growth we are adding as many people per year as we were 50 years ago with twice the growth rate.

And, like you said the chart is right in line with Coldfish's numbers but that doesn't change the fact that we are going to be at around 9.5 billion people by 2050. Imagine the World now with 2.5 billion more people using resources. 7 billion to 9.5 billion is 35% more people! That would be staggering to our usage rates. And jobless rates.

[coldfish]

that's exactly what his graph shows. the problem is that it shows pop continuing to increase at same rate from 1975 to 2025 despite growth rate in decline

Was reading the wrong scale.

[johnnyvann840]

Hell, I just looked at the most recent World census and we are already at almost 7.4 billion people today. So even with the growth rates decreasing the compounding growth in terms of people added is almost static. So, we NEED to get to negative growth in population very very soon.

[johnnyvann840]

I'll be long gone by 2050, so, although I'm glad I won't be around to see what happens. Doesn't stop me from thinking about young people today and what they are in for in a few decades. Not going to be pretty as far as the job market goes.

[dougthonus]

I'm pretty open minded so I'll never say that these are impossibilities, but I should note that they are not technological limitations, but limitations of scientific law going back centuries. There is no such thing in essence as a supply of or creation of energy. All that we have ever been able to theorize, observe, and test is that energy is always, and only, converted from one form (higher quality/lower entropy) to another (lower quality/higher entropy). All natural processes are irreversible. What follows from scientifically accepted theory is that the universe MUST proceed (overall, net) in the direction of less efficient energy conversion, not more.

Sure.

I just guess I'm going to say that:
1: Reaching equilibrium might be a technological possibility.
2: Our understanding of this scientific theory could easily prove wrong.
3: Energy obviously can be created somehow or else it wouldn't all exist now, so to assume it can never be created again seems like it may prove false.
4: Even if the above 3 are wrong, who cares, energy usage by this metric hasn't even begun to show as blip on the radar as a threat to humanity.

[dougthonus]

The scariest thing about that growth projection is that we will be at 9.5 billion people by 2050. That would be catastrophic... and that is WITH a massive projected reduction in growth rate.

It will be catastrophic for the people making up the impoverished areas that maintain most of this growth perhaps. I don't think it will have such a big impact on western society though in terms of the job market. It will be interesting to see if things prove otherwise.

[League Circles]

I'm pretty open minded so I'll never say that these are impossibilities, but I should note that they are not technological limitations, but limitations of scientific law going back centuries. There is no such thing in essence as a supply of or creation of energy. All that we have ever been able to theorize, observe, and test is that energy is always, and only, converted from one form (higher quality/lower entropy) to another (lower quality/higher entropy). All natural processes are irreversible. What follows from scientifically accepted theory is that the universe MUST proceed (overall, net) in the direction of less efficient energy conversion, not more.

Sure.

I just guess I'm going to say that:
1: Reaching equilibrium might be a technological possibility.
2: Our understanding of this scientific theory could easily prove wrong.
3: Energy obviously can be created somehow or else it wouldn't all exist now, so to assume it can never be created again seems like it may prove false.
4: Even if the above 3 are wrong, who cares, energy usage by this metric hasn't even begun to show as blip on the radar as a threat to humanity.

I agree with your underlying points. I double majored in History of Science in college so I'm acutely aware of how chronically wrong we find outselves scientifically over the ages. But just for discussion sake:

1 cannot be true unless 2 is true.

It's quite possible that all the energy that will or can ever be created was created before what we perceive to be the beginning of existence, which we might call the big bang. Or that all the energy that exists has always existed (that there was no beginning, so to speak).

I agree energy use isn't looking like it will impact us in any kind of devastating way soon.

My main point is just really that I question whether there is really a coherent difference (to us now) between the (likely) inevitable catastrophe of the human species happens 500 years from now or 5 billion years from now. And then to look at how the implications of that blurry difference would or should affect things like how we address AI, jobs, and the environment.

[dougthonus]

My main point is just really that I question whether there is really a coherent difference (to us now) between the (likely) inevitable catastrophe of the human species happens 500 years from now or 5 billion years from now. And then to look at how the implications of that blurry difference would or should affect things like how we address AI, jobs, and the environment.

That would get into a philosophical debate on what you feel the purpose of life is.

I enjoy life a lot, I'm glad I have it and exist. To me, there is intrinsic value in the thought that if we made it 5 billion years more that there would likely be trillions of other people who would get to enjoy the same.

Interestingly, I find it highly likely that if we can survive for another 1000 years while still progressing and not creating some type of apocalyptic outcome, that we will then be able to survive for as many years as there are left. To make it 1000 years, we will have to establish a whole lot of equilibrium on this planet and will have likely worked through the threats that potentially doom us all (and also I think within 1000 years we will figure out a way to at least colonize mars and possibly other planets in different galaxies).

I also think that if we get into the billions of years that even problems like the end of the universe will end up having solutions that we can't possibly foresee now despite how impossible it seems, but it's kind of a silly debate since it is effectively unknowable for us right now and the odds of us making it billions of years seem pretty low.

[petebraun0]

These things have a way of sorting themselves out.

What I do on an individual level is as follows:
1) I try to be healthier everyday than the day before
2) I try to minimize costs ( all kinds...not just money, but usage) everyday
3) I still have fun. I am just very clear on when I am ok with spending money for it and when I am not.
4) I am always looking to pick up new skills - especially technical AND DIY ones. So that I am never too far away from the caveman nor the computer scientist.
5) I strive to spend as less as possible on housing. For me that translates to quickly paying off the mortgage owning my condo outright
6) At work, I am always looking to add value. However, as I grow older, I am also looking to find my niche.
7) I will spend on further education; BUT I will not take out an educational loan.
8) I like to engage with people - real people. I find that it helps me connect to the world a lot better when I am engaged with my friends, family, peers, colleagues and complete strangers even.


There's still a ton I have to do. Recovering monetarily from a divorce is not easy. But I am on my way.

well said. I'll try to do the same.

[musiqsoulchild]

My main point is just really that I question whether there is really a coherent difference (to us now) between the (likely) inevitable catastrophe of the human species happens 500 years from now or 5 billion years from now. And then to look at how the implications of that blurry difference would or should affect things like how we address AI, jobs, and the environment.

That would get into a philosophical debate on what you feel the purpose of life is.

I enjoy life a lot, I'm glad I have it and exist. To me, there is intrinsic value in the thought that if we made it 5 billion years more that there would likely be trillions of other people who would get to enjoy the same.

Interestingly, I find it highly likely that if we can survive for another 1000 years while still progressing and not creating some type of apocalyptic outcome, that we will then be able to survive for as many years as there are left. To make it 1000 years, we will have to establish a whole lot of equilibrium on this planet and will have likely worked through the threats that potentially doom us all (and also I think within 1000 years we will figure out a way to at least colonize mars and possibly other planets in different galaxies).

I also think that if we get into the billions of years that even problems like the end of the universe will end up having solutions that we can't possibly foresee now despite how impossible it seems, but it's kind of a silly debate since it is effectively unknowable for us right now and the odds of us making it billions of years seem pretty low.

Interesting tangent.

I think we are nowehere near peak population capacity in terms of housing. Just look at vast swathes of unused land in the world.

The issue isnt one of available land. Its more to do with:

1) Water distribution systems
2) Transportation networks
3) Waste management systems
4) Food distribution

Almost 90% of the worlds population lives within 100 miles of a major water body. Just think about that.

I think its a lot easier to create the above systems than colonize another planet. Basically, you end up creating millions of infrastructure jobs by deciding to connect interior parts to major cities.

[khufure]

OK, maybe some of you tech savvy people can fill me in here.

I don't get the fear of AI. Every experience that I have had with it is . . . unimpressive. Its blatantly just a tool. A computer program written by a human. The only thing I have seen that separates an AI from just a regular program is that the AI modifies certain operational parameters (chosen by the programmer) to modify how it performs whatever task it was programmed to do.

Are there AI's out there that are actually self programming? Can an AI that was built to toast waffles decide to fly airplanes?

What am I missing?

The technology does not exist yet. IMO, and it's just my opinion, this won't happen until (1) you can connect your brain to the cloud/internet for perfect memory storage/retrieval (2) Moore's law number of neurons in computer's roughly equals what we have in our brain.

Code: Select all

#AI NEURONS            YEAR
     86,000,000             2016
     172,000,000            2018
     344,000,000            2020
     688,000,000            2022
     1,376,000,000          2024
     2,752,000,000          2026
     5,504,000,000          2028
     11,008,000,000         2030
     22,016,000,000         2032
     44,032,000,000         2034
     88,064,000,000         2036


     # NEURONS HUMAN BRAIN
     86,000,000,000

Moore's law is already proving hard to keep up with.. so ~2040? At some point we will be able to greatly enhance human intelligence in an exponential fashion. When that happens all AI challenges will immediately become (1)very interesting (2)potentially very scary (3) ???? .

[khufure]

As far as I'm concerned, unless you reject the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there is categorically no such thing as renewable energy and its an impossibility that we can maintain energy equilibrium.

To rephrase this way then, I doubt very much we will be in an energy crisis that will determine human fate. I think we'll kill ourselves via some other method or escape the planet, and that we will effectively have renewable energy for all intents and purposes give the likely technological developments.

Escaping to space|another planet is a romantic idea. It's in our DNA to be explorers. Traveling vast oceans to find the new world. The wild west. Etc. But escaping to another star system is just not feasible until our technology develops further. Most people have no idea of the vastness of space. Proxima Centari, the nearest star with a habitable planet, is ~4.2 light years away. The distance from the sun to the earth is '1 astronomical unit' or 1 AU. There are 63,241.1 AUs per light year. That means we have to travel 265,612.62 astronomical units to get to the nearest habitable planet. And this planet is tidally locked, meaning even if it has a breathable atmosphere (ETC!) it will be challenging to live on it.

These distances are so very far away that it is just not going to happen in the near. Humans can (1) evolve via technology to withstand harsher environments more easily (2) develop FTL transit of some kind (3) both (4) something else (mass extinction? something totally unexpected?). Something like this is much more likely.

[musiqsoulchild]

OK, maybe some of you tech savvy people can fill me in here.

I don't get the fear of AI. Every experience that I have had with it is . . . unimpressive. Its blatantly just a tool. A computer program written by a human. The only thing I have seen that separates an AI from just a regular program is that the AI modifies certain operational parameters (chosen by the programmer) to modify how it performs whatever task it was programmed to do.

Are there AI's out there that are actually self programming? Can an AI that was built to toast waffles decide to fly airplanes?

What am I missing?

The technology does not exist yet. IMO, and it's just my opinion, this won't happen until (1) you can connect your brain to the cloud/internet for perfect memory storage/retrieval (2) Moore's law number of neurons in computer's roughly equals what we have in our brain.

Code: Select all

#AI NEURONS            YEAR
     86,000,000             2016
     172,000,000            2018
     344,000,000            2020
     688,000,000            2022
     1,376,000,000          2024
     2,752,000,000          2026
     5,504,000,000          2028
     11,008,000,000         2030
     22,016,000,000         2032
     44,032,000,000         2034
     88,064,000,000         2036


     # NEURONS HUMAN BRAIN
     86,000,000,000

Moore's law is already proving hard to keep up with.. so ~2040? At some point we will be able to greatly enhance human intelligence in an exponential fashion. When that happens all AI challenges will immediately become (1)very interesting (2)potentially very scary (3) ???? .

Classic example of this is Chess playing programs. I still remember when Kasparov took down Depp Blue and then Deep Blue came back to win.

Nowadays, even second tier computers can beat first tier GM's with relative ease.

[dougthonus]

Interesting tangent.

I think we are nowehere near peak population capacity in terms of housing. Just look at vast swathes of unused land in the world.

The issue isnt one of available land. Its more to do with:

1) Water distribution systems
2) Transportation networks
3) Waste management systems
4) Food distribution

Almost 90% of the worlds population lives within 100 miles of a major water body. Just think about that.

I think its a lot easier to create the above systems than colonize another planet. Basically, you end up creating millions of infrastructure jobs by deciding to connect interior parts to major cities.

Colonizing another planet will be about protecting ourselves from accidentally destroying a planet more so than about space on the planet IMO. Also, I just think it is part of the human condition to attempt to expand outwards.

I think we can probably learn to physically sustain 5-10x the amount of people we presently do and given population trends that will probably be sufficient. How we manage that socially might be more challenging.