Postmodern Communism

So basically a society of fatasses unable to do anything but sit down on their chairs and be served? Sure sounds like a dream come true. Also, machines won't make unlimited amounts of goods, so you trust that humans are willing to fairly share the goods? And even if resources weren't a problem, doesn't sound like a dream society to me.

And what about after the most efficient sexbots are made?

>We could feasibly automate everything that needs to be produced (Including food) with the technology we have today. The only reason we don't is because no one is trying to.

Are you retarded? Almost every company where automation is feasible is automating. The trouble is that they're just firing their human employees and pocketing the difference.

Then we've finally made it, that's the peak of human progress.

>Total automation would mean the complete collapse of humanity as it would eliminate the need and thus the incentive to innovate
Where was the incentive to discover the structure of DNA? Where was the incentive to go to the moon?
Prestige is still a thing people will reach for.
Plus this

Ideally once the idea gets out there, people will come together to speed the spread of automation.
>So basically a society of fatasses unable to do anything but sit down on their chairs and be served? Sure sounds like a dream come true. Also, machines won't make unlimited amounts of goods, so you trust that humans are willing to fairly share the goods? And even if resources weren't a problem, doesn't sound like a dream society to me.
What keeps people from being fat now? Most people don't need to stay in shape for their drugs, they do it for themselves. People will still be body builders/runners. (more people, if anything, because they'll have more time and no need to get sponsorship)
Machines can, hypothetically, create a ammount of goods greater than the amount that is needed, thus there would be enough to give everyone as much as they need. The people would be in charge of very few things. Everything from production to distribution would be automated

auto-mates soon then?

>If everything can be perfectly automated, there's no reason to use people at all.

if people can't earn money they can't buy shit

>Almost every company where automation is feasible is automating. The trouble is that they're just firing their human employees and pocketing the difference.
All jobs could be automated. Sufficiently complex machines can create any goods from cars to iphones to apples, wheat and oranges. (Automated farming equipment and crop harvest is possible, just not profitable)
And this would be nationalized (I.E the government would take over the businesses,so the corporations couldn't profit off of it)

The OP seems to be operating on the assumption it would all be nationalized and distributed.

The reality is most automated stuff is going to be privately owned, unless there's radical change in government policy. And in that case, you're right, it's going to get worse before it gets better. We'll probably have to get over a recession/depression as people become less profitable to employ (and therefore less people have incomes, which makes all that extra productivity pretty nill).

>privatize
>nationalized

why not socialize?

>And this would be nationalized (I.E the government would take over the businesses,so the corporations couldn't profit off of it)

Pipe dream built on an already flawed assumption that our automation tech is already that advanced. It'd take another decade or two before we hit that point, and even then unless you've got some dictator or revolution it's not getting nationalized without a fight from vested interests.

People are by their nature competitive. There will always be high level competition and innovation, even without capitalism.

>What keeps people from being fat now?
If people get used to being served all the time and not having to go anywhere, the motivation to actually go somewhere and work out will be much higher. Today people go to work and have things to do in their lives. Sure, nothing stops them from being fat, but if everything was automated and people wouldn't need to do anything, even less people would do something like go outside. Part of working out is also the social aspect, which would fade away in your "dream" society. People get used to being served and therefore lose the sense of doing something as simple as working out as time goes on.

>Machines can, hypothetically, create a ammount of goods greater than the amount that is needed, thus there would be enough to give everyone as much as they need.
Sure, this would be the case for some time. My point is, however, that it can't last forever. The resources will run out even if everything is mechanised, most likely even faster than today, as the machines would have a smaller sense of how much resources are left, focusing on producing goods and not caring about the effects producing these goods has on the long run. Also, wouldn't this your society mean that everyone would be vegetarians? Or how are you planning on producing meat with only the help of machines?

>if people can't earn money they can't buy shit
If goods don't cost money to make (because everything from energy production to machine maintenance is 100% automated) then shit doesn't need to cost money.
Or, the government creates the automated factories before the corporations do.
>Pipe dream built on an already flawed assumption that our automation tech is already that advanced. It'd take another decade or two before we hit that point, and even then unless you've got some dictator or revolution it's not getting nationalized without a fight from vested interests.
20 years is next to nothing. The infrastructure necessary to automate everything would take substantially longer than that to be built. But it could happen without any major technological breakthroughs. It won't be easy, but we could do it. And Revolution would be worth it if it meant Freedom From Want for all the peoples of this country, and ultimately, the world.

>If people get used to being served all the time and not having to go anywhere, the motivation to actually go somewhere and work out will be much higher. Today people go to work and have things to do in their lives. Sure, nothing stops them from being fat, but if everything was automated and people wouldn't need to do anything, even less people would do something like go outside. Part of working out is also the social aspect, which would fade away in your "dream" society. People get used to being served and therefore lose the sense of doing something as simple as working out as time goes on.
They'll still have the social aspects. People will still talk and hang out. Probably more so, since work won't be an issue. People aren't typically anti-social by nature

>Sure, this would be the case for some time. My point is, however, that it can't last forever. The resources will run out even if everything is mechanised, most likely even faster than today, as the machines would have a smaller sense of how much resources are left, focusing on producing goods and not caring about the effects producing these goods has on the long run
We can totally program computers to factor in the supply and demand of a good and making the amount needed and no more. Running out of resources is inevitable in any scenario where resources are being used faster than its produced. (eventually, we'll run out of coal/oil) we could always colonize space for more stuff
>Also, wouldn't this your society mean that everyone would be vegetarians? Or how are you planning on producing meat with only the help of machines?
Why not? Chickens are already often raised in boxes thay are stacked 5 high. Human interference is really only necessary for feeding, cleaning, and moving them. We could have systems to automatically breed, feed, exercise, clean and slaughter cows. It's feasible

There is no reason to be competitive if people do not have to compete for resources.

>There is no reason to be competitive if people do not have to compete for resources
People compete for prestige, attention, and love. None of which requires a finite amount of physical resources

Which is why nobody participates in things like sports or videogames.

>innovation

>They'll still have the social aspects. People will still talk and hang out.
Where exactly do the future generations get social connections? If everything is mechanised and humans are not needed for anything, kids won't need to go to schools, daycares or anything of that sort. Therefore most of the social aspects of lives of future generations are taken away. You can argue that some kind of social clubs can be created for that purpose, but I still am not convinced that these would be popular.

>We can totally program computers to factor in the supply and demand of a good and making the amount needed and no more.
Fair enough. However, do you think people will stop being greedy and settle for the amount that machines have programmed them to have? And your idea of colonizing space to grow goods is at the moment nearly impossible, and it would not solve the lack of resources unless the colonized planets would have these resources. Colonizing that sort of planets is even further away than colonizing Mars for example, which I think has been already planned.

Another point is, if everything was worked by machines, wouldn't the society be really vulnerable to terrorist attacks of sorts? If everything lays on the hands of computers, warfare could and would be much more devastating for the majority of population. Basically terrorists could do a cyber-attack against the machines working to produce all the goods, and every single person would be left without anything. I am not willing to believe that these machines could be made unhackable, nor do I believe that the kind of cyber-attacks would not happen even if the whole world was connected to one source of getting goods. If that was the case, does our planet have enough goods to keep the wole population alive and living a decent life even today? For example drinkable water?

That's what space is for. We'll just expand into the stars, go exploring and shit.
>you now realize Star Trek is the future of humanity

Only a matter of time my friend, pending the inevitable feminist chimp out.

>Where exactly do the future generations get social connections?
Is that an actual question?
>If everything is mechanised and humans are not needed for anything, kids won't need to go to schools, daycares or anything of that sort. Therefore most of the social aspects of lives of future generations are taken away. You can argue that some kind of social clubs can be created for that purpose, but I still am not convinced that these would be popular.
Public schooling isn't necessary now to maintain our current society. We wouldn't do away with it just because at the end they won't be forced to work.

Name one thing you do that doesn't involve social interactions. You're talking to someone via a Columbian Cigar image board right now. The most popular video games are multiplayer based (COD, LoL, CS, MMO's) Where's there's multiplayer socialization is inevitable. There's no reason parents wouldn't arrange playdates, or have friends watch their kids while they go party or whatever.

>However, do you think people will stop being greedy and settle for the amount that machines have programmed them to have?
If they want a bit more than necessary, why not give it to them? At least as long as it's not excessive. Most people won't be asking for 50 thousand flip flops.
A>nd your idea of colonizing space to grow goods is at the moment nearly impossible, and it would not solve the lack of resources unless the colonized planets would have these resources. Colonizing that sort of planets is even further away than colonizing Mars for example, which I think has been already planned.
You're right. But we're running out of resources as is. Right now in real life, if all trends continue, eventually we'll run out of resources. There's no getting around that unless we figure out a way to create more matter. (which is impossible)
Eventually the sun will die and so will the Earth. Eventually we all die. Eventually we run out of resources. But it's impossible to prevent that

so what will the people do instead of working?

Anything they want, within reason. Live, love, create and explore.

>Image boards, video games
Having social contacts with people online is quite different from people in real life. And still, if you only get to physically meet people who are family friends, your social circles will be quite small. Sure, you can also meet people through internet and connect with them in real life, but that would not really happen for the same reasons it doesn't happen nowdays. Social contacts could and would still exist, but more and more people would choose to not create social contacts because they would not be required in the same way.

>Public schooling isn't necessary now to maintain our current society.
I kind of understand what you mean, but I disagree with it quite a lot. In my eyes public schools are necessary, because kids get their social contacts mostly from there and it widens their way of seeing the world as they get exposed to more opinions than being privately schooled. However, if people were not "forced" to work, public schools and schools in general would lose some of their purpose in the eyes of many people. After all, if you don't have to work, you can learn about stuff you are interested about at home, because you don't have to maintain a standard of knowledge as you are not required to work.

I am not sure about how happy people would be in this kind of a society either. There are a lot of people who need a purpose for their lives that they get from working and doing something they consider important. If all of this was taken away from them, what purpose would they have in life? The terrorism point stands still as well.

>Having social contacts with people online is quite different from people in real life. Sure, you can meet people through internet and connect with them in real life, but that would not really happen for the same reasons it doesn't happen nowdays.
The reasons it doesn't happen nowadays is because people don't have the free time or money to travel across the country to hang out with people
>Social contacts could and would still exist, but more and more people would choose to not create social contacts because they would not be required in the same way
If someone doesn't want to be social they shouldn't need to
With nothing else to do, I think people would be more social because they'd have more time to meet people and hang out with people.

>I kind of understand what you mean, but I disagree with it quite a lot. In my eyes public schools are necessary, because kids get their social contacts mostly from there and it widens their way of seeing the world as they get exposed to more opinions than being privately schooled. However, if people were not "forced" to work, public schools and schools in general would lose some of their purpose in the eyes of many people.
Parents send their kids to school either because A) it's the law. B) it's a chance to get rid of their kids during the day. Or C) to better the kid's standing. All of those things would still be true; kids will go to school because their parents will make them.
>After all, if you don't have to work, you can learn about stuff you are interested about at home, because you don't have to maintain a standard of knowledge as you are not required to work.
When was the last time an employer asked anyone to solve for x? Or what year the Declaration of Independence was signed? Most of what we learn is irrelevant to almost all work.

>I am not sure about how happy people would be in this kind of a society either.
Happiness cannot be quantified, so it'd be incredibly difficult to compare how happy people are

>what purpose would they have in life?
They'd simply consider something else important. They'd write books, make art, or videogames. All of which would be more satisfying because they would (probably) get more positive input from consumers.
The terrorism point stands still as well.
Terrorism is always a threat. You could effectively cripple a nation's economy by blowing up a few Power Transformers in a major economic center.

>
The reasons it doesn't happen nowadays is because people don't have the free time or money to travel across the country to hang out with people.
Is it really?

Parents send their kids to school either because A) it's the law.
Why would this kind of a law be required when machines take care of everything? How would machines keep count of who goes to school and who doesn't?
>B) it's a chance to get rid of their kids during the day.
No. The reason that comes closest to this is to get them to go somewhere when they have to work during the day, not to get rid of them. If parents are home all the time, would they not be happy to spend the time with their kids, look at weekends for example. If you want to get rid of your kids during the day, are you ready to have kids? I can't say I have had kids so I'm not 100% sure about this, but I'd like to imagine that spending time with kids is a really important thing for the parents and if they had a choice, most would not send their kids to somewhere rather than spend time with them.
>C) to better the kid's standing
In your society, standing would be taken away, no? Machines take care of everything, so there is no competition or better standings that should be competed for by putting kids to schools. So no, I don't see a single reason why kids would be put to school. If parents would be home all day, they would take care of teaching the kid in most of the cases.
>When was the last time an employer asked anyone to solve for x
Maths is supposed to teach you to think logically as well, which is useful in almost whatever you do.
>Or what year the Declaration of Independence was signed?
That is not needed for work, but people would look kind of weirdly if you did not know this kind of basic information about your countrys past.

>They'd write books, make art, or videogames
Assuming that factory workers, office workers or for example farmers would enjoy writing books or making art is dumb. Not everyone is interested in writing books or painting pictures. If one is not interested about it now and all their jobs would be taken, that would not make an illiterate factory worker suddendly search for same kind of purpose or satisfaction from writing books or painting pictures.
>You could effectively cripple a nation's economy by blowing up a few Power Transformers in a major economic center.
In this society of yours, everything could be destroyed and people would not even have to be at the country to make this happen. Therefore a lot more people would consider crimes related to terrorism as their chances of getting caught would be lower and chances of surviving would be much higher. Who would even take care of criminals? Machines?

>We could feasibly automate everything that needs to be produced (Including food) with the technology we have today.

I know why Veeky Forums shits on STEMfags but maybe Veeky Forums should learn some basic STEM skills so that they don't say completely stupid shit like this.

>Is it really?
I know that's the reason I don't. That, plus the fact that I'm ugly as hell so don't want people to see me.
>Why would this kind of a law be required when machines take care of everything?
Why is it required now when most jobs are in the service industry?
>How would machines keep count of who goes to school and who doesn't?
Preferably, there would be volunteer teachers. If not, then a system that uses facial recognition to see each student in the classroom.

>No. The reason that comes closest to this is to get them to go somewhere when they have to work during the day
Spending time with your kids is nice. But more than a couple hours with anyone is enough to make you frustrated. (Especially if they're too dumb/immature for a genuine conversation)

>If parents would be home all day, they would take care of teaching the kid in most of the cases.
I feel like you haven't meant many young parents. Parents will always want their kids to be geniuses so they can brag about academic awards/grades.

>Assuming that factory workers, office workers or for example farmers would enjoy writing books or making art is dumb
The people that don't enjoy influencing the workd and creating things aren't the people that need purpose. If someone is illiterate in modern America it's a reflection on how little he cares about his life, they could just do drugs all day.

>In this society of yours, everything could be destroyed and people would not even have to be at the country to make this happen
Computers don't need to be connected to the internet to compute. The computer just needs to know how much to power which motors to move the machines to make it build/do what it needs to.
And maybe there'll be more terrorism, or maybe there'll be less because there's less stress and therefore less anger.

There was a funny Philip K. Dick shortstory about self-replicating factories.

Found it:
archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1955-11/Galaxy_1955_11#page/n71/mode/2up

>Why is it required now when most jobs are in the service industry?
Because people still have to work. There are still jobs that kids can choose from which is why they go to school, to get to know things and decide what interests them and what they want to do as a job. If there are no jobs, it would be a waste of everything to keep putting the children to schools.

>But more than a couple hours with anyone is enough to make you frustrated.
I would like to think that one wouldn't get bored of the company of people like their own kids or parents, however I can see this being true. Kids should not be thought to have genuine high level conversations though.

>Parents will always want their kids to be geniuses so they can brag about academic awards/grades.
Sure. Part of it is also because geniuses will be able to get to better jobs and earn more money and therefore be able to support their parents' own lives better, which would disappear when work etc. would be gone.

>The people that don't enjoy influencing the work and creating things aren't the people that need purpose.
This isn't true in all cases. Some people enjoy working in an office and feeling like they are contributing to the society by working there in the office. If their job was taken away, they would feel like they are not contributing in any way. Even all literate people can't become writers or painters. And not all of the people who even want to write stories are able to produce good enough stories for themselves, or book publishers.