Some believe that regardless of the scale of production and the voluntary exchange of goods, there will always be individual with an acreage to rob it all. They argue with a simple bill: the firearm simply costs little than the loot. From this perspective, no artificial intelligence or automation will endure the necessity of forceful defence of property, and plunder will forever stay a rational choice in the planet of eternal shortages.
But is that presumption inactive valid?
Man is simply a predatory, armed, aggressive ape with strong territorial instincts and a tendency to collective violence. This is our animal nature, shaped by millions of years of evolution. However, we do not wage war due to the fact that war is an end in itself. The ability to force developed due to the fact that it helped our ancestors survive, gain food, defend feeding grounds, and take resources from competitors.
So war is not the eternal metaphysical request of man. It's either a food technology or a resource that provides it. And all technology loses its meaning erstwhile cheaper and more effective technology emerges.
Gin and Kale
Imagine a thought experiment: everyone receives a bottle of Gin, which can instantly materialize any want — from lunch to yacht to factory. In specified a situation, a rational individual simply wants what he truly needs. Organizing a bakery robbery or stealing individual else's car makes no sense erstwhile the same goods can be obtained directly, without any effort or risk.
The rifle, like money or production assets, is only a tool for acquiring goods that meet our needs. Asking the genie for a weapon to get individual else's car is as absurd as wishing a million dollars alternatively of the circumstantial things we'd like to buy with that money. It's a classical mix-up with the target.
Violence can be utilized to take distant someone’s food, home, land, tools, or the effects of his work. However, it does not satisfy most another biological needs. I can't force another man to sleep for me, pee, eat or enjoy me. I can force him to do a certain thing, but he will always do it with his body and for his body. I'll inactive stay awake, hungry and unsatisfied.
Violence is only useful where you can take distant a material resource or force it to produce specified a resource. If the resource can be obtained straight from the Genie, the force becomes a costly and preposterous action.
The first want must be to destruct another Genies
Critics of my approach say that the most logical strategy would be to immediately destruct or take over individual else's bottles to destruct a possible threat. In military jargon, it is simply a request that the hazard be completely eliminated at the origin itself.
However, it is worth asking about the eventual meaning of specified action. Getting a monopoly on Jain bottles would make specified a single ruler of civilization — individual completely untrustworthy and socially related. Power for power itself, which comes down to the brutal satisfaction of another people's poverty, becomes a game in which the real benefits of possessions disappear. Only a bare advantage becomes the goal.
Moreover, an effort to take over all the bottles alone would require tremendous efforts: reconnaissance, weapons, organizations, risks and fighting against people who could want for a protection field, shelter or their own defenses. alternatively of enjoying unlimited abundance, the aggressor would make the first wishes to make a planet of permanent war.
He would gotta destruct another people's Djinns not due to the fact that he needs goods, but due to the fact that he can't stand the existence of people he can't control. This would not be economical rationality, but a dominance obsession disguised as a strategy.
Must a man have more than others?
The argument is frequently raised that satisfying basic needs is not enough, due to the fact that people will immediately invent fresh artificially limited goods to build position and belonging to the elite. This phenomenon will surely occur, but it does not gotta lead to armed conflicts. The key here is the discrimination between tangible and intangible goods.
Physical needs have natural biological limits. A man needs a certain amount of food, space or warmth. Collecting thousands of cars or millions of tons of potatoes rapidly loses its applicable dimension and becomes only a symbol. However, the symbols already belong to the intangible world.
Intangible goods — knowledge, art, entertainment, fresh experiences — are inherently infinite and mostly non-competitive. Digital copy practically costs nothing, and the consumption of work or technological explanation by 1 individual does not deplete others. The improvement of artificial intelligence will fill us with an abundance of specified goods, allowing an unlimited generation of content tailored to each recipient. In specified an environment, the conflict for access to them loses the right of being.
People will proceed to compete for recognition, popularity, records, precedence of discovery, exceptional experiences or position in voluntary communities. They will want to compose better books, build more beautiful yachts, make more interesting worlds, and gain more hard peaks. However, specified competition does not require others to take up bread or occupy their territory.
Culture allows you to make infinitely many fresh goals without having to multiply material scarcity. You can't make everyone have more potatoes than everyone else, but everyone can read a different book, experience another adventure, make a different story, and be the best in their own niche, without taking anyone into it.
Wars are about food
Wars have always been about food, widely understood as material conditions of endurance — energy, earth, water, natural materials, and labor. Even erstwhile honor, religion, or prestige were written on the banners, there was always a mechanics for acquiring resources under political decoration.
The war on land was a war on pastures, farmland, fisheries and taxpayers. The war for the trade way was a war for access to food, natural materials and energy. The war on slaves was a war to take over individual else's work to produce goods. The war on the empire was a conflict for the anticipation of taking a racket from more people.
Even erstwhile the militants thought they were dying for the honor of the chief, the glory of the dynasty, or actual faith, the organizers of the war gained land, ports, mines, people, and taxes. Ideas mobilised soldiers, but material resources financed armies and constituted the prey of the winners.
Domination is simply an evolutionary technology that facilitates access to these goods. The herd hierarchies were created to optimize the endurance of the species by more effective food acquisition. While herdage as specified can be discarded, energy and substance can not be fooled — it is an indelible foundation of biological life.
But dominance is not the eventual goal. A individual standing higher in the hierarchy gained first access to food, a safer place, and the anticipation of reproduction. If a advanced position did not give any advantage to access to resources, it would become an empty title for which life is not worth risking.
Warriorism, territorialism, and aggression did not arise so that we could execute defilades, wear uniforms, and perceive to verbels. They were methods of gaining the energy needed by surviving organisms. If energy and substance become inexpensive and widely available, the biological foundation of wars will fade.
Abundance Will Not Make Men Angels
Technological progress, of course, will not magically change human nature. There will always be individuals wanting to destruct or dominate. The change is that force will no longer be a viable economical model.
When the creation of goods becomes cheaper than their theft, and the possible victim is able to immediately make defenses more effective than an attack, theft and conquest simply cease to bind in the profit and failure account. In a planet where the most valuable resources are digital and dispersed, the physical business of territory or factories is missing the target. Even if psychopaths fight for empty symbols of the position and mountains of rotting potatoes, these clashes will stay meaningless to the remainder of society.
In the past, the conqueror could enter the city, plunder the warehouses, take over the land, get the residents to work and take out the treasures. present he can only take what physically he finds in a busy place. This will not take distant the competence of an engineer, networks of voluntary contacts, client confidence, organizational culture or cognition distributed between thousands of specialists.
What is most valuable in modern economy is increasingly not found anywhere. You can't break into a warehouse and take out an algorithm, a brand, talent, ingenuity, or cooperation ability. You can bargain a computer, but not the community of programmers who created its software. The mill can be occupied, but without the knowledge, suppliers, service and voluntary work of people, it will only stay a hall full of rapidly destroying machines.
A slave works as much as he has to to avoid punishment. A free man develops skills, takes the initiative, experimentes and cooperates due to the fact that he participates in the profits of his productivity. In an increasingly complex economy, a individual employed voluntarily and well-paid produces many times more value than a man watched by an armed guard.
Therefore, the conqueror may inactive destruct the modern economy, but it is increasingly hard to take it over. AKach can inactive kill a man, but it is increasingly little suitable to take over what a truly valuable man produces.
The gin is coming.
The magic bottle is inactive just a thought experiment, but its function is gradually taken over by AI, automation and advanced robotics. Each year they drastically reduce the labour and capital costs needed to make value.
This does not mean that substance will completely lose meaning. As long as we're biological organisms, we gotta eat, drink, heat and occupy space. However, by developing technology, satisfying these irreparable needs consumes an always smaller part of human work.
In a society of hunters and collectors, almost all activity was utilized to gain food. Agriculture allowed 1 man to feed respective others. The manufacture has made 1 farmer can produce food for tens or even hundreds of people. Automation and robotics will lead to this process even further.
Food will stay biologically most important, but economically little valuable. Information, knowledge, inventiveness and the ability to coordinate voluntary cooperation will be an increasingly crucial part of the value. And information is not effectively obtained with tanks.
We're entering an era where it's cheaper to make and offer than bargain or force. In specified realities political terrorism and physical aggression will vanish due to the drastic decline in their profitability. That is why conventional states — now functioning as territorial monopolies of force and extortion — are doomed to bankruptcy.
Their fall will not be the consequence of a violent revolution. It will be the consequence of an absolute economical account.
Grzegorz GPS Swiderski
]]>https://Twitter.com/gps65]]>
]]>https://t.me/CanalBlogeraGPS]]>
