[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Post-AGI Economics II―"Don't just seize the means of production, put them on the blockchain!"

Claim: "Technology always creates new jobs"
Retort: "That is not a law. That is an observation of the past. But even if it does create new demand for labor there is no reason to assume that that new labor must be done by a human."

[alancalverd]

Since you haven't found your terminal goal, you treat that continuous objective as if it's your terminal goal, because nothing else has higher priority to pursue.

Beware! If you start telling me what I think, and that what I state is wrong even though you have no evidence to the contrary, you will earn the contempt I normally reserve for philosophers and economists.

[alancalverd]

: "Technology always creates new jobs"

People create jobs, and people create technology.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Since you haven't found your terminal goal, you treat that continuous objective as if it's your terminal goal, because nothing else has higher priority to pursue.

Beware! If you start telling me what I think, and that what I state is wrong even though you have no evidence to the contrary, you will earn the contempt I normally reserve for philosophers and economists.

I didn't say that feeling based decisions are wrong. They are just generally sub-optimal to achieve long term goals. Rational and goal oriented thinking tends to be more sustainable and have reliable results.
We can classify action and decision making processes based on their complexity, or depth of neural network to perform them.
1. Reflex. Least number of neural network layers lie between input and output.
2. Feeling based decisions have additional layers for pleasure and pain for feedback mechanism.
3. Emotion based decisions have additional layers for expectation of past and future pleasure and pain. 
4. Reason and goal oriented decisions have additional layers for expectation of past and future conditions, and comparison with the goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The US Literally Cannot Repay Its National Debt.

The Congressional Budget Office has admitted that the US national debt cannot be repaid. So what's the solution from the US Government and Federal Reserve, will this weigh on the election, and what will the result be for the stock market?
★ ★  CONTENTS  ★ ★
0:00 The U.S. Can't Repay Its Debt
1:00 How the Government Goes Into Debt
4:00 The Size of the Deficit
8:15 Inflating Away the Debt
12:40 Fixing the Deficit

When determining economic policies,

Ask for:
- goal
- problem
- solution
- alternatives
- trade-offs

[alancalverd]

I didn't say that feeling based decisions are wrong. They are just generally sub-optimal to achieve long term goals.

I have no long-term goals, and would not subscribe to anyone else's without question.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

America?s Birth Rate ?Crisis?
Some of the comments.

When I was a kid, the narrative was " Earth is over populated" now it's " we need more people"

Because back then, birth rates were above replacement and population was growing exponentially, without the technology to support a population as large as today's technology level would enable us to support. Today, we run into the opposite issue of having persistent below replacement birth rates and how in the future, there wouldn't be enough young people to pay off the pensions of retirees

When determining economic policies,

Ask for:
- goal
- problem
- solution
- alternatives
- trade-offs

Without defining the terminal goal, the policies can't be evaluated for their effectiveness and efficiency. Reactive and random decisions would be made without knowing if they are good or bad.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I didn't say that feeling based decisions are wrong. They are just generally sub-optimal to achieve long term goals.

I have no long-term goals, and would not subscribe to anyone else's without question.

What's your question?

[alancalverd]

in the future, there wouldn't be enough young people to pay off the pensions of retirees

Only an innumerate economist would spout such drivel.
Young people (say under 20) do not pay taxes or invest in pension schemes, but they cost money to feed and educate, which could be better invested in technology to make people's lives better, or to secure the pensions of the working population.

Fewer people = more natural resources per capita, the only road to sustainability.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Young people (say under 20) do not pay taxes or invest in pension schemes, but they cost money to feed and educate, which could be better invested in technology to make people's lives better, or to secure the pensions of the working population.

When the previously productive people get older, they need to be replaced by the younger generation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Fewer people = more natural resources per capita, the only road to sustainability.

How low can you go? Is 1 enough?

[alancalverd]

When the previously productive people get older, they need to be replaced by the younger generation.

But as there are now fewer people under 20, there is less burden on the working fraction.

A simple model is to assume that from day 1, each female gives birth to one child at age 20, and people die at a linear rate from age 60 to 100. You can then plot the working fraction as a function of time, and discover that it rises from 0.5 to about 0.63, then decreases back to 0.5 in around 100 years. At that point you can revert to "replacement"  levels of reproduction, with a stable population of about one fifth of your starting number, so everyone has 5 times the natural resource availability. This is sufficient for the UK to be indefinitely sustainable at a substantially better standard of living than present.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But as there are now fewer people under 20, there is less burden on the working fraction.

But in the next decades there will be less working fraction. Except if the retirement age is increased, or mortality rate of retired people increases.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Fewer people = more natural resources per capita, the only road to sustainability.

How low can you go? Is 1 enough?

If there is only one individual human exists in the whole world, the natural resources per capita will be the highest. But is it sustainable?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

New Theory of Consciousness Explains Why Zombies Don?t Exist

A collaboration of a neurologist, a computer scientist, and a philosopher has just put forward a new theory of consciousness. It is based on the idea of causal models. The authors claim boldly that their idea solves the hard problem of consciousness and explains why zombies don't exist in nature. Really? I've had a look.

Mind-Controlling Cordyceps Turn Insects into Zombies | Bad Natured | BBC Earth
Insect behaviour seemed strange... until the horrifying reason was revealed.
There's an interesting comment.

What if the fungus fell on her and is now making her say ?It does not infect humans? 😅

It looks like zombies do exist.

[alancalverd]

But in the next decades there will be less working fraction.

Not true for the first 100 years. Try doing the maths (it's easy with a spreadsheet). When the population has reached the desired level, you return to 2.4 children per female or whatever is then the replacement rate, and enjoy the advantages of indefinite sustainabilty at several  times  the original standard of living.

[alancalverd]

If there is only one individual human exists in the whole world, the natural resources per capita will be the highest. But is it sustainable?

For the lifetime of that human, yes. But if you want the species to survive you need a mummy and a daddy. And if you want to avoid the dangers of inbreeding, you need lots of mummies and daddies.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If there is only one individual human exists in the whole world, the natural resources per capita will be the highest. But is it sustainable?

For the lifetime of that human, yes. But if you want the species to survive you need a mummy and a daddy. And if you want to avoid the dangers of inbreeding, you need lots of mummies and daddies.

Do you care if our species will survive or not?

[alancalverd]

Not at all. My concerns extend to the next two or three generations, beyond which I have no possible influence or interest.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Not at all. My concerns extend to the next two or three generations, beyond which I have no possible influence or interest.

What need to be done to help the next two or three generations?
Why limit ourselves to that particular number? Why can't it be extended further? Why not less than that instead?