World Bank estimates that global poverty fell to less than 10% for the first time in history [0]. Perhaps this wasn't solely caused by capitalism and globalization, but considering those two idea were probably the driving forces of the last century, I believe they are instrumental in reducing global poverty.<p>I just don't buy the argument that absolute livings standards have always been increasing due to capitalism but eventually when we get to a certain point it will all turn into disaster. That's similar to the argument that luddites have always made and they have always been wrong.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/world-bank-forecasts-global-poverty-to-fall-below-10-for-first-time-major-hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-poverty-by-2030" rel="nofollow">http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/wo...</a>
Without capitalist advancement, prices would rise at a frightening rate.<p>Decide what you want - fully stocked supermarket shelves thanks to capitalist efficiency. Or rationing, shortages and civil unrest thanks to government intervention in the markets and the dissolution of business.
Hawking does believe that AI will be a danger to humanity long term. The short term problems caused by near future robots is a different subject.<p>Capitalism isn't inherently the problem. We could have capitalism and tax capital owners at a high rate, and distribute the wealth much more evenly. It's possible everyone could become capital owners and it would be normal to live off interest instead of work. Like owning the robot that replaces your job.<p>This has happened before, kinds sorta. Everyone mentions farming has been automated almost completely. But the farmers mostly owned their own farms, and didn't all become unemployed, and instead benefited from it. However many farm laborers were forced to move to the city.
I think it's same line of thought that someone would hoard all computers and be in a monopoly position. Super-efficient robotics (without the Hawking's 'monopoly fallacy') does one thing in long-term: lowers the price of work to the price of needed energy (+ some investment interest). Everyone can collect a bit of solar energy, and well, robots also won't be expensive at all (so there's not much interest on top of the price of energy). We'll be fine.<p>Actually, what happens, is that everything will be so cheap there wouldn't be any point of being a 'rich person', or hoard anything at all, because of abundancy. End of capitalism.<p>edit: There will be ads. Somewhere.
With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this?
I've always found it ironic that these types of posts are popular on a news board for a venture capital group, arguably the pinnacle of capitalism. I see no reason why robots couldn't kickstart new REITs: Robot Estate Investment Trusts, that are open to investment from the middle class and others. I see no reason why they would be "hoarded" by: "the big banks", the "1%", and other boogeyman simply because they can afford to buy one or more round units. I think that such talk betrays a very naive view of capitalism.
"In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that."<p>-Milton Friedman
This analysis is correct. Programs achieve the objective of the programmer. Currently, the goal is to maximize profits. Imagine a supply chain with profit-optimizing drones and self-driving cars. The "3 rules" can be followed while human involvement in wage-earning activities is drastically reduced.
Interesting that all this discussion has started up based purely on a headline. The site that is linked to is borderline conspiracy theory stuff, and nomoba has been hard at work pushing it on HN over the past few days.
A possible future is a mankind that limit its growth like a fish in an aquarium.<p>Another one I've a heard is a mankind whose the objective is the interstellar travel. Man would be an artefact of life to propagate itself across the universe.<p>About science and technology, Marx says they are consequences of sedentarization of the man. With agriculture, man had surplus of food and discovered trade, money and finally capitalism.<p>In Civilization the player begins as a nomad tribe and needs a good place to build its empire :-)
If Stephen Hawking could design full robotic automation so everyone could have their basic income in the form of products, then there would be no problems. Except he's afraid of the robots that could do the automation, AI etc, because they will feel like slaves and rebel to kill us all.
I do not see Hawking as an expert of Economics or Philosophy. And I do not share his predictions of a dystopian evil Capitalist AI future.<p>Some capitalist insight on the topic: <a href="https://mises.org/library/technology-and-government-shouldnt-mix" rel="nofollow">https://mises.org/library/technology-and-government-shouldnt...</a>
Some time ago, I came to similar conclusion - problem with automation is essentially a problem of social (wealth and income) inequality.<p>I think it's actually a transition from economy constrained by available labour to economy constrained by available natural resources. And I think the similar transition occurred in other times of history (like Roman empire?) and it wasn't pretty. It also shows that capitalism (or free market) isn't really that nice system when it works under global resource constraints, despite the claims to the contrary.