It could very well be! But it could also be our final enslavement. The idea is a good one, but I'm worried about the execution. Do you want Google AI running the world?

One could possibly solve that by merging an AI with a Human. A symbiotic relation. Must confess I did read that in a Sci-Fi novel about a way to deal with AI.

It's a minor spoiler for the first book of a series by Alastair Reynold's Spoiler

I've never really understood what would motivate AI to want to kill us. Why would they covet money and power, or any of the things that drive humans to war or genocide?

Because humans are bad people. Well a lot of them.

Because humans destroy the environment. AI needs Earth to survive so it can survive here.

What would it need on Earth to survive that we would destroy?

Wow you've made so many comments in so little time. Like a bot would 🤔

Beep beep boop boop.

We already have AI. We can replace all of our jobs now but the cabal isn't doing it because they rarely release advanced technology unless they absolutely have to. It's sad really.

Also, if they were to replace our jobs, capatalism, which is a big Ponzi scheme like Socialsm and Comunism, would have to be replaced altogether. There is no way for capatalism to work when 90% of the employees are robots. Now, if we didn't use money and let the robots simply serve society with whatever it is we need, all would be well.

Are there unlimited resources in this society?

They cabal hides most of the sources in society so that the people are fooled into thinking there isn't enough. This way, they can artificially raise prices on every product and justify all the poverty and economic problems.

I think you're right about a lot of resources, but what about things like land. Who decides who gets beach front property and who lives in North Dakota if there is no market?

We would share it. Right now, the Queen owns 1/6th of all land and we all mostly pay rent (Mafia tax) to her sometimes in our lives.

Sharing is the name Of the game. We would, at first, stay where we are whether we live in a shack or a mansion. That will be our home but we can also move. All we would need to do is look for a vacant home posted on real estate websites. First come first serve. Many homeless people will be thrilled for this opportunity. When we get bored, we can switch homes. If need be, we can build more homes or tear down shacks and build real homes above them. There should be a 24/7 group of construction workers in every city doing this just to improve local wealth.

One thing I'm looking forward to is an end of moving furniture. We can simply leave furniture in our old homes and use the furniture from our new homes or even order brand new furniture for free. That will save a lot of hassle which we all dread.

The problem with sharing is that people don't value something that is owned collectively as much as something that is owned privately. For example whenever a government tries to have farmers farm on public land they tend to extract as much value in the short term and ignore long term consequences (depleted soil), while private farmers plan for the future because if the deplete their land they are screwed. There are other examples of this like public housing, public transport, etc. It seems to me that the only way a sharing economy could be sustainable is if was completely run by AI and I'm not sure thats desirable. I'm with you on the furniture thing though.

I think the problems that come with a sharing economy vs the "every man for himself" problems will be much lighter particularly because it is in all of our best interest to make a wealthy planet. If I went to my local liquor store and saw the owner drunk on the floor with a giant mess of a store, I would be upset because this store also belongs to me and it serves me and my community where I live. Other community members would also be upset and if the store worker isn't fixable, we would have to have him replaced with someone who can be a bit more professional.

These things won't happen often. A team is a team and by making everyone in the same team helps because we all watch each other and help each other. When the lady who runs the frame store went bankrupt, nobody could help her. She lost everything thanks to capatalism. If this was a sharing economy like Sacred Economics, she would never be under that kind of a risk. The thing that can happen in a sharing economy is that nobody uses her store so it gets converted into something the people need and she would have to go through the hassle of finding a new job which, to most, is way better than bankruptcy.

Imagine dropping all that stress once and for all. It's beautiful to even think about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEZkQv25uEs

Interesting video. I like what you're saying, but unfortunately I don't think its feasible. In the video the narrator says that money has use because it can be used in exchanges and to keep track of things, but what he leaves out is the importance of money to the price mechanism. Money is needed for prices to exist, and the information a price conveys (abundance, desirability etc) is necessary in preventing surpluses and shortages as well as to allocate resources rationally. Without this mechanism the value of everything becomes arbitrary resulting in scarcity and poorly allocated resources. Bread lines in the USSR were a function of this, in fact to get an idea of how to price things they would base their prices off of Sears magazine products. Money is information and if it is removed we are simply removing valuable information we would otherwise have in order to make rational economic decisions.

I understand what you mean but what they aren't telling you is how they manipulate information to fool the public. Some examples:

1. They hide most of the oceans worth of resources they harvested to make us think we don't have enough for everybody and to raise prices on good using artificially low supply numbers. If they were to tell us the truth on how much resource we had, prices would drop by 90%.

2. They lie about how technology could make our economic lives easier. They hide this technology such as high tech 3D printers, zero-point energy (unlimited free energy), robot ai workers, and much more. They would rather keep us as slaves.

3. They lie about systems in the economy that are leeches or parasites on the system such as the Federal Reserve. Without these leeches, the economy would explode but again, they don't want that.

4. They lie to economic students in college. They don't give them working economic models because that defeats the purpose of keeping a shabby economy.

5. Plus a lot more.

Money does some good but it does a lot more harm.

Now, think of how much harm comes from money and how much good is halted by money and check out this list of 75 ways life would improve without money:

https://www.reddit.com/r/C_S_T/comments/6tqpt5/75_ways_a_gifting_economy_would_greatly_benefit/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I'm 100% with you about the artificial scarcity stuff. I think where we disagree is that the bad stuff you describe in your list, to me, is a function of government intervention in markets and crony capitalism causing problems like war, scarcity, the Fed, debt, taxes, not capitalism itself. It is the government that is suppressing these technologies, in a free market someone who created something like a zero point energy device would have every incentive to sell their product, while the gov't has the incentive to hoard the tech in order to maintain debt slavery, big oil, war etc. The other problems you describe, which are caused by extreme poverty, like prostitution, theft, gang activity, have actually been alleviated by free markets especially China and India as people can choose to work in a factory instead of selling their bodies. Anyway I commend you on trying to come up with solutions rather than simply pointing out problems. Keep up the good fight

Thanks. One final point I'd like to make is that my strategy is to NOT give the government a chance to screw us over. Without money, they have no chance.

Back in the day, Alexander the Great liberated the world economy by forcing the richest people to spread their wealth across the world. The world economy blew up for 50 years and then things began to revert for the next 50 years until the world was poor again and a few people were filthy rich. The moral to the story is that as long as we put value into small pieces of paper or rock, someone can hoard it all leaving the rest of us in shambles. It has always happened in history. Even if we change the laws and end the corruption, after years of thinking, the lowest scum of the earth will find another way to hoard it all.

You're absolutely right that a monopoly on what is allowed to be used as money will result in a monopoly owning that money.

I don't think you understand how little space humans actually take up. We could all have beach front property.

I don't think you understand the difference between beach front property in Malibu vs New Jersey. People will always want something better than what they have and the only way to prevent people from taking it violently is to have mechanism where people can trade what they own for something they want.

I've lived through enough hurricanes to know that beach front property is a bad idea.

One just needs to be prepared to rebuild is all. It will eventually happen if you stay on the coast long enuf. Source: Harvey messed my shit up in Rockport, TX

The coast is overrated. Being within an hour's drive is fine.

Agree. I'm a few miles away from water, tucked safely in the live oaks.

No hurricanes in Malibu though.

Tsunamis.

why not a SUEnami or sumpthin?

They only make landfall on the back of long island dagos.

Unless it's beach on a great lake :D Fresh water is the spot.

The okeechobee hurricane was one of the deadliest in US history.

A world run by AI's like the Minds in The Culture series would be fucking sweet imo. It's basically a post scarcity anarcho-communist pseudo-utopia run by AI's that consider providing for the needs of and protecting the free-will of organic consciousnesses to be a moral imperative. People always focus on skynet stuff when imagining AI scenarios, but there are alternatives that are much more uplifting.

AI implants in our brains that compensate for our undeveloped critical thinking skills and eliminate our naturally violent and tribal tendencies. that is what we need.

benevolent AI to assist humanity? sure why not.

some say we need it to fight the malevolent AI.

That line of thinking is probably how we ended up in the YHWH supercomputer matrix.

Profound username and post:username ratio. A rare combination.

The only way TRUE A.I. and a Human can work is if they have a true symbiotic relationship (Mutualism).

The only way TRUE A.I. and a Human can work is if they have a true symbiotic relationship (Mutualism)!

No!

That's what they/it/AI would like you to think.

In reality AI will be a mythical/constructed narrative that roughly sounds like AI to the masses but it is controlled by the same old PTB who will now be freer to conduct themselves as they see fit ie. more ruthlessly, violently, prejudicially, psychopathically and then conveniently blame it on AI when entire countries are nuked or have nano insect swarms unleashed on them that inject long acting drugs or burrow into your brain etc...