You must log in or register to comment.

RavenWolf1 t1_itzg56w wrote

No it won't. Automation will take most jobs before that.


Kong_Here t1_itzl6fw wrote

Until we have automation that can design, install, maintain, and upgrade itself, we are going to need engineers to do so. I can tell you as someone trying to hire skilled engineers right now, it's only getting worse out there. We don't have the educated population to maintain our path of global innovation.


Kinexity t1_iu00e1g wrote

The less people need to do other jobs the mor engineers you can have. Not everyone can be an engineer but there is more people who can be engineers than those that actually become engineers.


TheSingulatarian t1_iu085lf wrote

Those people go work on Wall Street instead.


Kinexity t1_iu0a0sk wrote

Somewhat true. One of my profs wanted initially to work in a financial firm but at the end said fuck it. Wall Street will (or at least should if not even must) loose importance so we should free up more potential engineers.


tmmzc85 t1_itzomo2 wrote

Maybe we shouldn't have made military service a prerequisites for higher education for the majority of the population?


Gaothaire t1_itzqwgf wrote

But think of the profits of warmongering weapons manufacturers!


TheSingulatarian t1_iu07z38 wrote



Primus_Pilus1 t1_iu2ka3s wrote

That joke just emanates more cruelty as the years go by.


KillerInfection t1_iu2we6b wrote

It's the same amount of cruelty but just more evident as the years better reveal the hypocrisy inherent in Western Capitalism cloaked in jingoistic bullshit.


purple_hamster66 t1_iu0pt1w wrote

We don’t need a complete solution to have massive efficiencies. A car used to take 1000 workers to build in 1980. Today it takes fewer than 250 workers… and even fewer at a Tesla plant.

A gas car has 2000 moving parts. An electric car has 100. It takes way less effort to design, source, build, and test an electric car than a gas car.


amobiusstripper t1_iu0npiq wrote

Automation can actually design and code it's self now. People have no idea how advanced the next gen of robotics will be. It will be near human and the only thing we need to worry about is the power source. It will be here in 2 years.


Equivalent-Ice-7274 t1_iu2s7zn wrote

Robots will NOT be near human in 2 years. Are you saying that in 2 years, a robot will be able to drive itself to someone’s house in a work truck, and perform any plumbing job that a human can? More like 20-30 years.


red75prime t1_iu4c2ky wrote

I agree on the unrealistic expectation of 2 years. The closest thing to human agility we have is Boston Dynamics robots which use hand-tuned dynamic control algorithms. This approach is not scalable by itself and it's unlikely that it will be integrated with machine learning approaches in 2 years. Or that the transformer-based robotic control will scale to realtime control of humanoid (or equally complex) robot.

But at some point AI controlled robots will start feeding back into manufacture of AI hardware. At that point AI-based economy will explode by removing inefficiencies of human-based economy (coordination problems, lengthy learning time, wages and so on).

It will not take much time after that for operating cost of a universal robot to sink below minimum wage.

Every year that passes increases probability of such an explosion. So 2040s can (and most likely will) be in an entirely different era than 2030s.

That's why I distrust confident technological predictions on the scales of 20 years or more.


Equivalent-Ice-7274 t1_iu4crzn wrote

The main problem besides the AI is the robot hands. We have nothing that is even close to the strength, speed, flexibility and agility of the human hand, and it may be an engineering problem that would require exotic materials to achieve.


red75prime t1_iu4hadn wrote

Ah, engineering problems. They are certainly a factor. However, AIs seem to be good at coming up with potential solutions (take AlphaFold for example) and prototyping and testing could be made highly parallelized in AI-controlled R&D.


Equivalent-Ice-7274 t1_iu4htyp wrote

It’s possible, but it’s not close to being developed yet. I am baffled by the people who actually believe that we will have robots that can do anything a human can do in 2-3 years.


red75prime t1_iu4in64 wrote

Yep, Gates' law: "Most people overestimate what they can achieve in a year and underestimate what they can achieve in ten years."


yillian t1_iu1l3o1 wrote

Still need people to repair them. That's what the future will be. Repair techs, managers, safety teams, compliance teams and HR.


IBuildBusinesses t1_iu0gqls wrote

The average person does not have the chops to become an engineer.


swazhr t1_iu23u02 wrote

You must have never met an engineer


IBuildBusinesses t1_iu2617d wrote

I’ve worked with many. I don’t know what engineers are like where you’re from, but where I am, I can assure you most people would never get through 4 years of university math,physics an EE to even become an engineer. I’m sorry to hear the engineers where you’re from are idiots. Do buildings fall down a lot there?


KingRamesesII t1_iu3w1vl wrote

I remember my first EE course freshman year of college after earning a reputation as a “smart guy” my whole life and I was like “This is difficult enough to learn, but you’re telling me some madman just sat around and invented this, from scratch?!”

That’s when I learned the difference between above average intelligence and genius.


swazhr t1_iu378eb wrote

The average citizen where you're from can't afford college and is an idiot? You must be American. Takes a real weirdo to need your fellow citizens to be powerless so non-threatening to feel good about yourself. Good luck in the coming years 🤧


IBuildBusinesses t1_iu37k2k wrote

I’m not American. And you missed my point.


The_Original_Hybrid t1_iu3n76o wrote

The dude probably doesn't even have a degree, or if he does, it must be in a subject like history or art. Anyone who comes from a STEM background will know that engineering is a difficult major. It has one of the highest dropout rates.

I'm fairly confident in saying that the average person would be unable (or unwilling) to finish a bachelor's in engineering.


[deleted] t1_iu7jodf wrote



The_Original_Hybrid t1_iu80uo2 wrote

LMAO that's probably because you have a degree in history or art. It's a well known fact that the majority of engineering students dropout.

Do you think it's likely that all of those students had experienced some unfortunate life-changing event which suddenly forces them to dropout, or is it more likely that they simply aren't smart enough to complete the degree?


TheDividendReport t1_itzs320 wrote

Maybe AI won’t automate engineers but surely it will augment and improve the current workload?


SoylentRox t1_iu084rl wrote

Of course it will automate engineers. Many but not all engineering problems are described as a simple optimization problem you can autograde.


purple_hamster66 t1_iu0q02i wrote

I think “autograding” is what a robotic teacher does, right? :)


SoylentRox t1_iu0qt8k wrote

Yeah basically. Typing on my phone but yes. Basically like if you want to engineer a gear train you are really asking for "the cheapest set of gears that does function X, has a 99 percent chance of working past warranty period Y, and fits in as small as space as possible".

So the machine can propose various gear sets and you can auto score how well it met the 3 terms I gave above.

It can use that score as an RL signal to propose better gears.

At scale - with millions of simulated years of practice and hundreds of thousands of variations of the "design a gear train" problem - even a very stupid algorithm that learns poorly will still be better than any human alive.

Simply by brute force - it has more experience and can propose a thousand solutions in the time a human engineer needs to propose one.


overlordpotatoe t1_iu1ky18 wrote

I don't think it'll be a huge issue if there are enough workers and it's just a matter of there not being enough with the proper qualifications in a particular field. There are many things you can do to encourage people towards certain jobs that we mostly just don't want to invest in. Make tuition and housing free for anyone in that course as long as they're passing their classes and guarantee them a good job afterwards. We need to be willing to invest in the kind of workers we have shortages of.


poobearcatbomber t1_iu2qak2 wrote

Not only is it getting worse but so are standards. Imagine how many incompetent engineers are out there.

On top of that because demand is so high there is essentially zero benefit to working hard and bettering yourself. They do not reward hardwork in tech at all, they just promote you instead. That's how they can justify it to their investors. I want to be paid more for what I do, not take on more responsibilities.

Sry for the rant. It's been a day.


Dras_Leona t1_iu04c4j wrote

Automated tools will allow 1 engineer to maintain 100 robots.


SoylentRox t1_iu088qw wrote

Probably won't even take an engineer just a technician working remotely.


Primus_Pilus1 t1_iu2kmk9 wrote

Actual engineers are generally level 3 or level 4 of tech support chains.


therealzombieczar t1_iu3uai8 wrote

a decade in engineering:

it's been happening for a while, cad/cam improves, less engineers needed, ai is already in common use to optimize structures...

it's just a matter of time before the majority of people just aren't competent enough to be useful...


SoylentRox t1_iu07tl6 wrote

So the automation will be developed regardless of if usaians are available to do it. China is investing heavily in AI also and has less obstructive regulations actually enforced. (They care a lot less about the risks to workers and pollution)

A shortage of workers means more potential profits for automation.


Bakoro t1_iu2cm3b wrote

We absolutely do have the numbers. What we also have is a gross misalignment in the economy where many developers and engineers are being paid to make bullshit, and a lot of them are doing redundant work because the idiotic "competition is always good no matter what" stance of capitalism, even when it's purely wasted effort.

In addition, a lot of people who are smart and hard working enough to be engineers simply don't have reasonable access to education.

We do still need more educated people, but we could be putting who we have to more productive use.


Down_The_Rabbithole t1_iu03c64 wrote

The labor shortage is NOW in 2022. Automation isn't here yet to fill up the empty job openings yet.


RavenWolf1 t1_iu063zj wrote

If only they paid living wages then that labor shortage would disappear like magic.


Down_The_Rabbithole t1_iu07pw6 wrote

There are more job openings in the world than workers to fulfill those roles, so no. That's not the case. Even if the job would provide everything somebody would want there would still simply be too few people to fulfill those roles.

The true solution is to automate away those jobs but we don't have the technology yet and having children takes ~18 years before they can enter the workforce.

So we're going to experience a crisis of labor shortage one way or the other. There's no real solution going forward just a notice that things are about to get worse.

Unless you're working class/lower middle class. Then things are going to be great as employees have to compete for your labor which will result in higher compensation and working conditions.


PIPPIPPIPPIPPIP555 t1_iu0mtl0 wrote

We do not have to produce soo many things if there is less people so a lot of jobs will dissapear if the population is becoming smaller


Down_The_Rabbithole t1_iu0pczy wrote

Not how it works. There is an explosion in job applications right now because of the transition to a digital economy. Digital goods are already unlimited, meaning if there are fewer consumers it doesn't mean a (programmer/artist) just has to produce less. The worker needs to produce the same amount, the end product just gets distributed to fewer people digitally at the end, which doesn't impact it as much.


PIPPIPPIPPIPPIP555 t1_iu0vjdd wrote

Yes so fewer people will pay for the digital product and it will not be profitiable to compete if the costumers can not pay for the digital products and services


billcube t1_iuh94a1 wrote

What if... In the movie "Sleep Dealer", some tasks in "first world" countries were conducted by residents of second/third-world countries, remotely. What if we could engineer process that would make those jobs available to robots/remote humans?


RubiksSugarCube t1_itzu68k wrote

At some point. Meanwhile, in my hood I've got restaurants and stores limiting hours and, in some instances, outright closing because the can't find employees. There's going to be a lot of pain throughout the system as the new automation integrates itself.


RavenWolf1 t1_iu066e5 wrote

If only they paid living wages then that labor shortage would disappear like magic.


Boobahdoo t1_iu0hjv2 wrote

Paid living wages and lowered working hours so they have lives outside of work*


ablacnk t1_iu29p17 wrote

The margins are so thin that it often isn't possible to do that. It's not like restaurants choose to shut down because they're really that obstinate about wages, the math just often doesn't work out.


billcube t1_iu3nao2 wrote

What I see around here is the rent the restaurants have to pay make it really hard to be profitable.


DungeonsAndDradis t1_iu3vg11 wrote

I was talking about this to my friends the other night. Restaurants are in an especially hard place right now. Inflation means people go out to eat less. Supply issues mean everything costs more. Labor shortage and wage hikes means hiring workers is difficult. Inflation also means rents have skyrocketed.

Restaurants are just taking hit after hit after hit. And that's considering that most restaurants fail within a couple of years of opening, anyway.


billcube t1_iu4ksvj wrote

Something I can't explain myself is why more restaurants didn't jump on a more digital process?

I have seen a few (chain) restaurants where most of the process is supported by an app/website/tablet where you can book your table, see the menu, order stuff and pay for it.

This makes it much easier for the staff and optimizes a lot of the flow. It doesn't remove the ability to ask a human to help you and it makes reordering much easier. Add some AI to the mix and recommandations/promotions could be very opportunistic.


DungeonsAndDradis t1_iu4msyz wrote

I was at a Panera the other day, and they only allowed ordering from the kiosk in store. They had no one to run the registers. It actually went pretty quick.


RavenWolf1 t1_iu48atn wrote

Then we have to ask should that business even exists then? I think any business which can't pay living wages shouldn't exists.


liquifyingclown t1_iu0til3 wrote

There wouldn't have been, had it been introduced years and years and years ago when it should have; nor would it have been as much of a struggle if human beings were actually being paid properly during the transition.


4quarkU t1_itzis58 wrote

Thank God.

On the bright side, wages should go up. Oh no. Wait. All that worker demand will go to something that can work longer hours with far fewer defects or failures in output, no expectation of better working conditions or workers safety, other than the usual maintenance which is completely mutually beneficial and probably 100% automatable, doesn't require pay or benefits, won't likely be the object of or the instigator of sexual harassment, most likely would consumes far fewer overall resources per unit of output especially when you add in the defect/error rate, as far as anyone can tell really likes what it does and never tries to do anything else (no job ghosting or moonlighting), and a million other reasons I don't have the time or patience to detail, but I think ya get the point. Finally, we'll be able to what we want instead of what we have to too.


EulersApprentice t1_iu2ubw8 wrote

>Finally, we'll be able to what we want instead of what we have to too.

Well, for certain definitions of "we" anyway.


lovesdogsguy t1_itztuik wrote

A lot of these articles really don't need to be posted here. That title is just silly.


RavenWolf1 t1_iu484dl wrote

Yeah. I don't know why this certain person spams all irrelevant links here all the time. If I wanted to read articles like this I would go to /r/Futurology. People shortage has nothing to do achieving singularity.


CrankyStinkman t1_iu0fntb wrote

Yeah, this is actually great news. Those jobs are leaving no matter what…


ghostfuckbuddy t1_iu1ru3w wrote

Bold prediction. We need enough workers to build all that automation first.


RavenWolf1 t1_iu49aq9 wrote

Sure, but it is not like that we need to build 10 billion robots with human hands. No, once we have achieved certain level of AI we don't need humans to do that. After that robots can build and maintenance robots. Robots factories build automatically robots with very minimal supervising from humans.


[deleted] t1_itzjzh6 wrote



nixed9 t1_itzv0p0 wrote

What? What are you talking about?

Who thinks this?

What evidence is there for this?

Why would they think this?

What capitalist-based society would intentionally sacrifice productivity?


sonderlingg t1_itzi8ac wrote

If only these researchers knew what singularity is


visarga t1_iu3b3o0 wrote

The singularity won't come by itself, we have to work hard towards it. There's lots of work in transitioning.


fjaoaoaoao t1_iu0coiw wrote

What is this article? Population is not really expected to decline in the next 40 years, barring massive sudden and unexpected events.

Yes, will population decline as it has started to in some of the most wealthy nations? Yes, but that is much different than the overall world population descending.


futebollounge t1_iu0aart wrote

Does anyone else think aging will be solved by the time this happens?


pdawes t1_iu332jy wrote

I'm not betting on aging being solved per se but I bet we will see many more cancers and conditions that kill people in old age treatable/curable by then and drastically expanding lifespan.


Technical-Berry8471 t1_itzkhko wrote

Less population, less demand.


-ZeroRelevance- t1_iu1cgva wrote

The problem is that the working population will decrease faster than the population itself, as the proportion of retirees will continue to grow over time


jimsan3 t1_iu0cg0u wrote

Robots anyone? Sheesh


fleebjuice69420 t1_iu0ktvm wrote

Christ sakes. People are more than just workers. They’re also consumers. Decrease in demand will be met with decrease in supply. Net neutral. Oh, and robots


pdawes t1_iu32oho wrote

The population will be older though, many in need of resources and care they can't provide for themselves. Japan is probably the country to watch and see what happens, since they lead on this trend.


Fibonacci1664 t1_iu0l1d2 wrote

Have these researchers ever heard of A.I.?

It's a wild new concept, maybe they're not quite up to speed yet!


Apprehensive-Ear4638 t1_iu05mdv wrote

The future isn't built for us to work. That's the job of AI to replace work and most likely innovate a way around traditional work through technology.

My hope is that AGI will be so intelligent, so useful, that it can solve most of the worlds issues. The need for money would be completely arbitrary if something like a replicator existed, and I'd fail to see why someone would keep that from others. What power would there be to gain from normal people by elites if AGI could do anything? What importance would that relationship have?

The need for menial labor would be gone, and the idea of scarcity would be gone as well. Regular folks wouldn't have anything to offer. The whole world would have to restructure from the economic collapse that would ensue, and what would be rebuilt would hopefully be a united human race.

The idea of greed in this scenario might only be a factor for a short period - until the cats out of the bag.


Pccaerocat t1_iu1cgg7 wrote

No one can afford kids anymore.


amobiusstripper t1_iu0nd7x wrote

Yeah A.I. Is bonkers advanced it will be robots for everything soon.


weelluuuu t1_iu1uygq wrote

Robot rolls its unblinking eyes


Maxstressed t1_iu1nz5f wrote

imo this is a direct result of the sharp decline in the future financial stability caused by the greediest generation ever born. Climbing the ladders of society and then promptly locking all the doors behind them and installing further measures to disqualify more of the population from obtaining the same. (Red tape).

I won't care because i've spent 20 years building my skills through various trades/assignments/jobs to not have to depend on anyone. I'm just as comfortable with a hammer and nails building a house as i am troubleshooting a microcontroller or writing code. I've re-wired houses, installed PV set-ups, built numerous tiny homes, changed my transmission on my truck, you name it, i do it.

Until the "status quo" remove the 75,000$ barrier to entry for an over-rated piece of paper that states you can pay universities and memorize and regurgitate facts as opposed to genuinely understanding the principals at hand and understanding the engineering, i'll never use any of these skills to help the older generation due to their attitudes about the situation and lack of empathy towards destroying an entire generations future.


The_Original_Hybrid t1_iu3pv3w wrote

Lol why is that people who don't have a university-level education are always the most critical of it? Do you truly believe that it's possible for someone to get through a math-related degree simple by regurgitating facts?


Maxstressed t1_iu60nm2 wrote

I think it's horseshit that is so heavily paywalled. As per maths related degrees, yes, understanding the how and why interactions between equations etc requires instruction, but the heart of this article is about population decline and lack of work force, getting "great paying work" for the mass majority (not including entrepreneurs, or other outlying situations) this mass of wealth requires a giant paywall to make a living wage. If you've not been blessed with super stable life, the 80% of jobs out there, vs cost of living are simply inequitable. It doesn't make sense to populate anymore. The societal economics of the country are fundamentally destroyed because the hamster wheel of chasing a better life doesn't exist anymore. Most things are unattainable without disproportionate sacrifice


green_meklar t1_iu3908x wrote

In 40 years there aren't going to be any jobs for (non-augmented) humans anymore. AI is coming like a tsunami and any projection about the job market that doesn't account for that is going to be hilariously wrong.


rollerqueen t1_iu3dkld wrote

You mean it won’t be the vaccine that depopulates is?


beachmike t1_iu3qfou wrote

Societal collapses and apocalypses have been predicted countless times, and they've always been wrong. This latest prediction will be no different. AI, automation, and robotics will become a gigantic factor, providing virtually unlimited "workers" and labor.


AdBig5700 t1_iu3s2vh wrote

And what robots won’t be more common and sophisticated by then? Like the robotics industry is just going to stop progressing over the next 40 years along with other automation and AI?


Funny-Education2496 t1_iu3yo72 wrote

Except for the ever increasing number of increasingly sophisticated, artificially intelligent robots who will be able to do just about everything.


GeneralZain t1_iu5xkby wrote

all departments at my grocery store are already running low on staff...nobody seems to want to apply...I work in the meat and seafood area, and a month or two ago we had enough employs to manage the place, but they we are down to a skeleton crew, its getting kinda bad already...


Josco1212 t1_iu14oo6 wrote

20 feet of water covering coastal cities will kill more people (and the economy) well before the great people shortage occurs.


a1b4fd t1_iu1e1zj wrote

Slowly rising sea levels don't kill


Josco1212 t1_iu1scyy wrote

2.4 Billion people live near a coastal area. You don’t think mortality rates will go up when they are displaced?


Rauleigh t1_iu1djkn wrote

What would scaling back business/economic growth look like? Is the need to automate so that we can continue to increase an excess standard of living or to prevent a dramatic decrease in standard of living. What jobs are most essential that aren't getting filled, are they being prioritized already? Why not?


a1b4fd t1_iu1g5u2 wrote

Likely people getting poorer/stuff becoming more expensive


youcantbeme3 t1_iu1fk5u wrote

Population decline will cause many, many more problems than just a worker shortage.

But continuing to grow the population will cause even more problems. We’ve built an unsustainable system with an embedded growth obligation on a planet that simply does not have the resources and something will have to give.


FlippyFloppyGoose t1_iu1hztj wrote

We could kill 99.99% of the population tomorrow and we wouldn't be short. We can't just keep having babies and using up the planet indefinitely. At some point the population will reach a steady state where we're hovering around the point of "so bad nobody will have kids".


overlordpotatoe t1_iu1jlf8 wrote

See I always see this, but I also see that we're going to have mass unemployment due to AI replacing workers. Which is it? Of course many people would have to change what kind of work they do, but you can't have both catastrophic unemployment and a catastrophic worker shortage.


SteppenAxolotl t1_iu1zmko wrote

We're in the beginning of the age where the labors of the poorly educated masses are no longer necessary. The approaching problem of this age is how to humanely deal with large unwanted populations that serve no useful function, the depraved economic imperative encouraging endless population growth by those that can't cope with change should be resisted by all means.


EulersApprentice t1_iu2ulw9 wrote

Trying to mess with population growth is dangerous business, you know.


TylerDurden-666 t1_iu271hy wrote

capitalism can't last another 40 years... there's going to be plenty of work for everyone fixing our planet


Time-Box128 t1_iu30yhl wrote

Yeah but if there’s les s people won’t there be less work overall


NoRip7374 t1_iu3djog wrote

Yes, west and china population is declining rapidly. You can feel it in poorer EU countries that start to have shortage of workers for everything.


Ok-Significance2027 t1_iu3k25s wrote

"If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality." Stephen Hawking, 2015 Reddit AMA

“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.” ― Buckminster Fuller

"...This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals..." Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?

Lost Einsteins: The US may have missed out on millions of inventors


cheezum5000 t1_iu3nrbv wrote

Jobs for everyone and less people consuming the earth beyond it's capacity. How awful.


FireDawg10677 t1_iu3ss56 wrote

Greedy politicians and Billionaires have created this society with their fuck you i got mine policies


VCRdrift t1_iu44xcc wrote

You're gonna have to mobilize every welfare recipient sitting on the couch. Get out them flaming whips.


Danger-Dom t1_iu6b39h wrote

Sometimes I'm amazed how solutions seem to come right as problems get too big to handle.


IntrepidHorror5986 t1_itzkzw3 wrote

This article states that labor productivity is stagnating. This must be wrong, because there are everyday now posts on this subs from people who "feel" that progress is quickening. Statistics must be wrong.


a1b4fd t1_iu03ne1 wrote

I think it's because AI's impact on economy is still low


SoylentRox t1_iu08mt6 wrote

Yeah. Just a few elite companies are able to get AI to even work. You need a critical mass of skilled AI experts on one company, a bunch of other people to support the infrastructure required so the AI development is productive, and tens of millions in hardware. You need technically savvy managers who know the context of the decisions they are making, people person's who fake it can't make effective decisions on cutting edge ai projects.

Thos excludes almost all companies.


TopicRepulsive7936 t1_iu3834z wrote

Steam engine was easy to measure because it has increased the things that were already consumed, but how do you measure a new thing like organ printing. My answer would be that you don't because it's stupid.


a1b4fd t1_iu3b8te wrote

Healthier people are more productive/live longer, thus producing more


green_meklar t1_iu391w9 wrote

Those things can both be true simultaneously. The real problem is that most people don't understand economics.


TopicRepulsive7936 t1_iu376l8 wrote

I would have to know what exactly is labor productivity measuring. Is it a per capita average? If so that could be misleading.


roidbro1 t1_iu0a6pt wrote

Laughable to think human society will be about in 40 years time. It aint the lack of fucking and babymaking that will get us, it's the overpopulation and climate catastrophes.

They put this shit out to allude to the fact everything will still be fine and dandy in decades to come. Spoiler alert: >!It won't!<


DonBandolini t1_iu2ozkj wrote

it’s really crazy how hard this narrative has been getting shilled this year, the billionaires really want us to buy into this huh?


loganhudak t1_iu2xlgy wrote

But more food for us living right?! World hunger is defeated!


Firesword173 t1_iu0h3to wrote

Here's an idea, let's have a nuclear war and terminate half the world's population.