Automation – filthy rich or deadly poor?

The current trend in our society is to automate repetitive tasks and release human capital from the workforce, and thereby increase the profits for the business owner. The efficiency and profits by utilizing such methods is incredible high. But the big question is; will the owner get insanely rich and the worker suddenly unemployed and deadly poor.

Is our automated society the cause of terrorism? The unemployed, deadly poor; acting upon their desperation?

Is there some substance behind Jacque Fresco’s pursuit of the Venus Project? A resource based economy? Or is it simply utopia?

We will try to establish some facts about automation, and hopefully enlighten some aspects of the intended usage of this fantastic technology.


We need to understand the economy to understand automation. We also need to understand automation to understand the economy. Resource based economy is not far from the truth in our current time due to the fact that our global food production is stagnating with an increasing population and the detrimental impacts of climate change. This is not going to improve; shit will happen.

Resource management has always been our source to becoming rich unless you are a dictator, stealing all the resources and profits from the able men and women. Resource management is the origin of our monetary systems where the excess production could be traded for other goods. Basically this is why the democracy is an incredible success. It enables all free men to participate in this management system. It is actually quite fascinating to understand that money is nothing more than a transitional tool, rather than something you can possess. It is a tool used for resource management, and our democracy enables all to participate.

It is not difficult to establish this as a fact and conclude that money is a resource management tool. When resources are in surplus and plentiful, the excess money can be used for social interaction, an equally important tool for management.

Money is a resource management tool

If we can understand that money is a management system for our resources, and our modern automation system is a management tool for our resources, it seems that they both are equal in their purpose of creating an economy.

Is automation an economy?

Let’s try to establish this as a fact.

Definition of Economy and Automation

An economy (from Greek οίκος – “household” and νέμoμαι – “manage”) is an area of the productiondistribution, or trade, and consumption of goods and services by different agents. Understood in its broadest sense, ‘The economy is defined as a social domain that emphasizes the practices, discourses, and material expressions associated with the production, use, and management of resources’. Economic agents can be individuals, businesses, organizations, or governments. Economic transactions occur when two parties agree to the value or price of the transacted good or service.

Economic activity is spurred by production which uses natural resources, labor, and capital. It has changed over time due to technology (automation, accelerator of process, reduction of cost functions) and innovation.

By the definition of economy we can conclude the following:

Economy is a method of management, conservation and exchange of resources, labour and information

An important fact and addition to the above-mentioned statement is the following:

Economy is facilitated with the use of money

Automation is the technology by which a process or procedure is performed without human assistance. Automation or automatic control is the use of various control systems for operating equipment such as machinery, processes in factories, boilers and heat treating ovens, switching on telephone networks, steering and stabilisation of ships, aircraft and other applications and vehicles with minimal or reduced human intervention. Some processes have been completely automated.

Automation covers applications ranging from a household thermostat controlling a boiler, to a large industrial control system with tens of thousands of input measurements and output control signals. In control complexity it can range from simple on-off control to multi-variable high-level algorithms.

The definition is not entirely conveying the real knowledge of what an automated system really is. Most of our automation systems are used in the industry and factories for means of production. This makes us understand that automated systems are mainly used for resource management, and thereby increasing the value of the resources by means of fabrication. The resources are converted into products and the process is managed automatically by the automation system. Our automation systems can be used in many other situations, but most of them are facilitating a resource management system, or an energy management system.

We know that our technology is at a stage where our automation systems also are used as management for our economy and information systems, through the use of advanced computers. Everything is computer automated, and fairly transparent in our communities. The bank’s supervision of every person’s economy is already implemented as an automated management system. Even if our personal economy is unmanaged or managed, our economy is achieved by a computerized automation-system on a higher level. All resources are managed in almost all levels, all the way down to the consumers and retailers, the reference points of our economy.

Automation is used for other purposes as well, but from the above definitions and statements it is reasonable to conclude the following fact:

Automation is a method of management, conservation, production and exchange of resources, labour and information, thus an economy

This might sound strange to many, but is a reality. Our automation systems are about to be more dominating than money used as a tool for the management, preparation and exchange of goods. Because the exchange of goods are getting marginally profitable, automation can remove the need for human intervention and the major cost related to the transition of the goods from a resource to a product.

But is it true that automation can replace the economic transition between producer and consumer?

Replacing money

An automated system is an economy, because it has the same function as the current economy, in regards to management, conservation and production. But since money is the transitional tool used for the exchange purposes, you could say that a robot lack what humans possess; the possibility to do the exchange. This is of course a weak statement, due to the fact that money is electronic, and managed by an automated system. But it would be difficult to remove money from human control, because this control is directly connected to our ownership, and thus our freedom. This is why money in pure digital form would in many regards be a danger to most people’s freedom, and degradation of our ownership.

An automated system can replace money as a transitional tool because our current electronic system already has such system implemented. But still, the control mechanisms for our electronic money are still managed by the owner due to the freedom the money provides. Consequently, it seems that money cannot be replaced by an automated system because its management is connected to the owner’s freedom.

But we can use the automation technologies to enrich our lives, create new inventions, increasing our welfare, and have fewer children.

Fewer children?

Automation – the facilitator of growth and poverty

Until now, the people who own the automated production facilities know that growth is equal to an unprecedented accumulation of wealth. Automation (economy) is basically creating products for nothing, because the end result for the owner is incredible sales and wealth, without any work.

This means that our resources are facilitating extreme profits for some people. Or we can rephrase this to: This means that our economy is owned by the owners of our automated resource management systems. They can dominate the resource purchase market, and the resource sales market without doing anything in-between, because machines are doing the work for them. We know that this will have a huge impact on the distribution of ownership, money, power and freedom.

This is why our current automation systems are used for the purpose of growth, rather than the opposite. Is growth good, might be a reasonable question to ask?

Those who do not own the automated production will be sellers of raw-materials or product buyers. They will in some way be slaves of the production labour, purchasing power and negative ownership. When American production was replaced by cheap Chinese production, the effect was an increase of purchasing power for American consumers, and thereby a small shift in ownership distribution. This was something that directly impacted the production companies without automation. The rich suddenly became a bit poorer. Still, the American society is suffering the shift in power from producers to consumers. But this will be short-lived. When the production systems are suffering equally by the cost of raw-materials and everything is automated, the production owners will control the economy.

Some would say that the current automated production is lowering prices and creating products that is available for all people, and that growth is good because more people will buy products and the prices will be even lower.

The problem with such opinions is that it enables increased poverty. Lower prices will enable more poor people to feel richer, because they have access to ownership. Similarly, when you mass produce cheap houses, people get access to ownership and freedom. But for each efficiency increase, and increased growth, the profits will be lower and lower until the monetary system will start to fail. This is a very slow process, because a lot of people work hard in the opposite direction, since our monetary system and democracies improves everybody’s ability to be a part of our resource management system.

This might have a negative outcome when the population exceeds our ability to manage our resources. The automation system might become the facilitator that failed. Just like our monetary management systems that repeatedly fail because of mismanagement issues.

When the economy fails, it is always in its quest to manage our resources and ownership by our monetary system.

So basically our current automation-systems are supporting poverty, because it is used for the purpose of increased resource extraction, increased ownership and increased management. It thereby decreases our access to resources instead of increasing them. Many would argue that this is not true. But an increased extraction will in the short run increase our tradeable resources, but reduce the available resources. Still we are lacking extremely efficient recycling systems, and with an increasing and more demanding population this truth becomes more obvious. Food is the most important resource, and you cannot recycle its availability or increase its amount by increased efficiency in fabrication. This supply is currently only diminishing.

It is quite fascinating that humans are lying to themselves when they participate in a system that supports growth and poverty, a degradation of human existence they call technological development.

It might sound a bit strange that automation is actually making us poor. Everybody would believe the opposite. But our current automation systems are reducing the resources available per capita, even if it seems like the system is increasing our access to them. It is fairly easy to understand the implications this system have. If suddenly a factory for global production of a specified product fails, it will push prices to extreme levels, unaffordable to most people until they have a new factory up and running. This is how you can understand that automation seemingly makes products for nothing, but at an extreme cost when it fails.

Automation is increasing efficiency and reducing the amount of resources needed per capita

This might have implications for our future, because the system aggravates the illness that is linked to growth, because automation appears to be a remedy to it, rather than a dangerously limiting factor. Automation is therefore an illness when used for the opposite purpose of what it was created for, but the greatest tool of our time if we understand its purpose.

Since our economy is unarguably connected to our ownership, freedom or lack thereof, it will be equally subjected by our society’s increased automation and those who owns the production. This will not change unless automation is available to all, and we all are freed from labour and negative ownership through its correct application.

One barrier will be hard to overcome. The removal of fossil fuels!

Replacing Fossil fuels

At some point Oil and Coal will rapidly change our world. In contradiction to when they first understood what fossil fuels was, it will be more difficult to solve how to forget about it since it has been one of the main drivers for our extreme growth.

Only one system can replace fossil fuels; an automation system. But this is only going to happen if we understand what it can do for us.

Some would argue and say that solar power and wind power would replace fossil fuels as the main energy resource. But the calculations fail when they include our diminishing resources, and increasing populations. We need more energy to compensate for this effect, unless we are thousand times more efficient, a parameter we probably have exhausted, because the current automation systems were used to facilitate extreme growth.

Let’s try to find some numbers and some facts about how this task will unfold!

Our agricultural land has been expanding for decades, but is declining at high speed. This sounds strange, but since our populations have increased exponentially, we have currently available only 0.195 hectares of land per capita world-wide. Since we are 7.6 billion people, this currently amounts to approximately 1,48 billion hectares of arable land.

By 2100, we will be around 11.2 billion people and around 0.132 hectares of arable land per capita. Even if you are an extremely resourceful gardener you would understand the limitations of feeding a family with an area this size. Climate changes and resource management issues will probably reduce these numbers considerably.

We can probably calculate other resources into the equation, but it does not really matter what the price of oil or gold is, when it cannot pay for the diminishing food supply. Food-surplus is currently defining our monetary system, driven by fossil fuels and water. Without it, all other resource management systems will be of less importance.

The reduction in arable land is approximately 32%, due to our population increase. The mathematical results does not compute, and we will be poor, unless we manage our populations.

Let’s use these numbers as a measurement for our current resource management system:

We will have 32% less food, and need to remove Oil and Coal from the equation which is currently around 150.000 TWh globally. This amounts to an energy-efficiency increase of 150.000 TWh / 11,2 billion people =  13.4*106*1,32 = 17,7 million Wh, or 17700 kWh per person globally.

To replace fossil fuels we need to be more than 18 thousand times more efficient

This number is representing the kWh component of our efficiency, and might be difficult to relate to. But there is some pragmatism to this number, when we hope that windmills and solar panels can replace our current fossil fuels.

Remember that 1 horsepower is 0,73 kW, and our previous reference point when we translated power to an understandable measurement in the machine world. When each person on our planet are using more power than 24000 horses per hour, we can more easily understand that it would be difficult to replace this amount of energy. Just imagine 24000 horses in everybody’s garden or a small apartment in Beijing for that matter; or you can do the simple calculus, 11 billion people multiplied with 24000 horses. It is difficult to imagine a world with 264 trillion horses.

Let’s calculate the amount needed to replace this amount of energy just for the fun of it.

Can solar panels replace fossil fuels?

Let’s assume that our solar panels are giving 150-200 Watt per square meter (fairly standard calculation). If we have 5 efficient sun-hours a day, we will get around 1000 Watthours (1kWh) per day. This is not far from the truth, and we will use this number for the sake of simplicity. Annually this gives us (if we dont have winters), around 365 kWh annually.

If we just assume that this number is the global average, we can get the number of square meter needed to power our population.

150000 TWh / 356 kWh/Sqm = 421 Billion Square meters = 421348 Square kilometers

Since the barren land use is approximately 19% and 28 million square kilometers it should be possible to replace fossil fule with solar panels.

The problems regarding centralization versus distribution will determine the outcome of this discussion.

But placing all solar-panels in the desert is probably not a great idea, compared to a distributed model, where all can contribute.

DC – is a keyword.

Can windmills replace fossil fuels?

We can try to include windmills into the calculations. If we look at an average windmill, ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 MW, we use 2MW as the average windmill.

We then need the amount of 75 billion windmills ( 75*10^9 ) to replace the current fossil fuel.

This seems a bit more like an achievable goal than using solar power. But any of the two, is still close to an impossible goal to achieve.

Will we be able to build 75 billion windmills to replace fossil fuels?

Let’s try to get some numbers on the area these windmills need. A windmill in the range 2MW, will probably have about 75 meters diameter or more for its rotational axix. We assume that the windmill use a square who is about 75×75 meters = 5625 square meters (0.005625 square kilometres). Extremely correct numbers are not really necessary because we will use them to give a certain impression of the scale this will end up with.

We multiply this with 75 billions, and gets 421 million square kilometers.

Since the area of the earth is 510 million square kilometres (only land  149), we can conclude the following.

Wind power cannot replace fossil fuels

Would it be interesting to live in a world of wind-mills? Would there be wind at all?

Can battery systems replace fossil fuels?

From theoretical knowledge about lithium ion, it takes approximately 1 kg of lithium to produce a battery at 10kWh.

This means that we need 150000*1012 / 10*103  = 15*1012 kg of lithium to replace the current energy consumption.

The current worldwide lithium resources are estimated to 53 million tons, or 53*109 kg. This means that we need around 300 times the current resources to be able to replace current oil consumption.

So when Tesla founder Elon Musk argues that we might improve our chances with some giga-factories for the production of batteries, we can hope that he will muster some calculus that we still don’t have available.

We can argue that a battery can be recycled, recharged and have environmentally good features. But it cannot replace fossil fuels. In the quest to replace fossil fuels and produce the batteries needed, the energy demand will be high. Since the current recycling of batteries demands more energy than producing them, the energy from batteries cannot be used for its own recycling.

Batteries cannot replace fossil fuels

But we do see considerable innovation in new types of batteries, as Aluminum Air, and other technologies. Maybe this will cahnge.

What can replace fossil fuels?

Our statements about solar panels, windmills and batteries basically conclude that nothing can replace fossil fuels. We cannot increase our efficiency 18 thousand times even with automation.

We can conclude with one fact:

Currently, solar panes is the best option for us too replace fossil fuel as an energy resource

In a distributed model, this might work, because all can contribute.

In combination with automation, we can harness the energy of the sun, and implement automated systems for the energy distribution or consumption.

With automation everybody can be insanely rich, and the sole inheritor of their poorer or ignorant parents.

Some people have misinterpreted this simple piece of knowledge.


Scientists cannot really provide us with a solution because the solution are not in the scientific domain. Who are really listening to them anyway. But our monetary system can, because it is the transition of resources that determines what resources will be put into use.

But monetary control will come at a price, because we can print money, and thereby it is disconnected from our resources. This introduces an imaginary logic, where we can add money in our management systems and hope that this increases management, and not mismanagement.

Hope is anti-causal by definition. It is therefore dangerous to think that increasing the size of our monetary system or our fossil fuels-production will provide us with increased management when our resources are not limitless. When we found oil, we started doing this to everybody’s astounding applause, because we had energy to increase our resources and our money to manage them; both provided us with new assets. Since oil needs to be removed, how can we avoid a collapse in our management system?

We can actually see this tendency today, when increased drought increases monetary spending to fight it. I might be logical if the drought is short-lived. But if we increase energy production and monetary spending for each pending crisis, it has to stop somewhere, because the money spent is a typical mismanagement issue. You cannot allocate resources to fight drought, when those who do the fighting needs food provided by the resources that vanished.

Some people think that adding money in the form of digital currencies is a good idea. This will increase management. But digital currencies cannot do what real money can do. Digital currencies are not real, and cannot facilitate a transition of resources that are physical in nature. And will government be possible if a vital part of the resource management and the basis of our freedom becomes invisible to the society. An economy generated and controlled by software engineers, who has a challenging relationship with their surroundings and human communication. Are they going to get fed by our resources with a virtual currency that is disconnected from our assets? And what if our electronic communication and wireless networks are attacked? It is fairly easy to disrupt digital and electronic systems. A digital currency is likely to fail in a future that we know will be in turmoil.

Digital currencies increase the possibilities for unsustainable growth, because it increases our management system or our mismanagement system.

But how our monetary system should operate, is not a part of our discussion on how automation can change our society. But we can state an important fact that we need to know for the purpose of our discussion.

Our monetary system is currently the key facilitator of management in our society.

Without money, it will be difficult to socially interact and communicate properly, as well as execute our freedom of speech, freedom of movement and all other aspects of freedom that our monetary systems facilitate. Even government would be very difficult to maintain without money. Because taxation would be tough to collect, unless there is a surplus of resources and consequently money.

But money is the key to changing our current resource management systems. It can easily destroy our mismanagement systems like fossil fuels, and create a foundation for more viable alternatives like automated green cities with happy rich people.

Democracies in our management system

Democracies need to be strengthened. Those nations who do not have it, must consider converting, because it is a part our resource management system, and it cannot be altered if we exclude parts of it. In parts of Asia and Africa we currently have extreme increases in populations. Is this because they more efficiently manage their resources, or not? This is a very difficult question to answer. Some might believe that instability will occur if democracy is implemented in these countries. Yes, it has a high probability. Democracy is a part of our resource-management system. Because of this, it will prevent democracies to expand beyond their limits, merely because it is a part of our management system. It is almost comparable to the alcohol ban in the US. The alcohol management system failed, and gave a rise to huge illegal market, probably bigger than the managed system was, because it was managed.

Managed systems like democracies our monetary system and other egalitarian philosophies are trying to prevent unsustainability and purposely tries to give equal access to resources for all inhabitants. Everybody are working towards the purpose of having a rich life  in the interest of money and capitalism, because it is the facilitator for our riches.

I think we can conclude that democracies are a limiting factor for unsustainable growth:

Democracies is averting unsustainable increases in populations, because it is managed by the people who are affected by its limitations

Therefore the opposite logic will be equally important:

Increases in populations is degrading our democracies, due to mismanagement of our resources beyond its limitations

This means that democratic governments and politicians are becoming non-democratic, not purposely, but because of votes from people who starts to feel the increased failure-rates of the inflated economy. The rich will not notice, because they are being inflated, due to their influence and promises of increased employment if the politicians do what is needed; printing more money for the purpose of growth. This will only lead to increased mismanagement, and further detrimental impacts to our democracies.

Populations cannot be managed if the population itself is not included in the management system. Try to automate a machine not included in the automation system. Or try to control the resource management system with an non-managed monetary system, which manages our resources. Probably not reasonable comparisons, but still equally illogical!

The logic we are looking for might be explained by simple mathematics!

Automation a management-solution

We all probably understand that we need help in reducing the population. If we reduced our population by 50%, a fairly reasonable task, this would account for 5.6 billion people and would reduce our energy-need by approximately 75.000 TWh.

Automation is all about replacing human work with something more efficient

It is quite strange that families still are having three children or more when we have robots that replaced the need for these children a long time ago.

But we still have a media-system that is conveying human fear, fear of crime, fear of getting shot, fear of death and a fear of a lonely old age. This is in many cases a contradiction to reality, depending on where you live, and how huge the populations are at that location. Such fear-mongering is not helping when families are trying to make a good choice for the future of their family.

The ones that can be blamed for this, is the banking sector and the politicians. Instead of using robots for its intention, they financed a centralised food-production, house production, garments production. They probably thought that this would generate extreme wealth. And it did, for some but at the cost of poverty for everybody else.

Wealth for everybody is the opposite of growth, because it facilitates increases in resources per capita, not the opposite.

This means that if the mathematics is going to make any sense, we have to realise an automated future, where we don’t need human capital. Machines will hopefully and eventually replace us, so that we can live in the Garden of Eden and harvest its abundant resources (probably the only interesting thought religion ever gave us).

This will only result in a workforce problem and a technological challenge where the automation systems are intended to terminate jobs, not humans. But a requirement is that the humans themselves choose to participate in such a future. This might be the biggest challenge of them all.

What about the maths?

The mathematics behind an automation system!

We know with a hundred percent correctness that being rich is directly connected to our resources, or the monetary systems that facilitates transactions in this resource management system.

In a previous article, Globalisation or Armageddon, we conclude that globalisation is promoting growth and reduced freedom due to a reduced ownership. Since we know that ownership to resources is connected to being free, being rich is being even freer because the ownership is much higher.

But how can you become rich if everything is stagnating; less children being born, less products being sold, and much more unemployment due to automation.

This is a fairly simple calculation, and will give us some clues about what we need to do.

Instead of replacing the population’s energy usage at 150.000 TWh, we understand that we only need an automation system that replaces their work, and not their energy consumption. How do we calculate this?

Let’s assume that an automation system can replace workers with a ratio of 1:1000. This is to some extent skilled guessing (but guessing) and is used for the intention of our simple calculations. If our consumption is reduced by 50%, it is reasonable to understand that the main task for the automation system is maintenance of an overproduction and a down-scaling of the population due to old age.

Most of our production is already automated…. This means that we only need to maintain the current production and down-scale it.

The owner might realise a 50 percent reduction in sales, but if he has no workers, only machines, it is quite difficult to understand that he will suffer any loss when his entire surplus is generated by doing nothing.

Let’s do the maths:

  • 50% reduction in production (half the number of consumers)
  • 50% reduction in population (customers) = – 3.75 billion
  • A 1:1000 reduction in the workforce (highly skilled guessing)
  • A 50% reduction (or more) in energy usage for the machine compared to the human

The result would calculate to 75.000 TWh / 1000 / 2, which is approximately 37.5 TWh

Assuming this costs us 0.1 dollars per kWh (not far from the truth), will save us around 159 500 trillion dollar every year.

Would such savings lead to a recession and global turmoil?

These numbers does not need to be correct to impress any super capitalist. They show us a potential to free up resources approximated to 159 500 000/7,5 = 21 million dollars per capita world-wide. Probably more than the cost of the 24000 horses we need today.

Who would not want to be a part of such energy efficiency calculations? Basically, all people on the globe would have access to free money (resources) and could spend them on their ever-increasing automated food supply.

This means that if human population decreases, and the automation-systems grow, there are no limits to how rich humans can be.

An increase in our ownership to resources is the source of being rich

This is simple mathematics …..  Do we need to say anything about such simple calculus?

But the calculus involves human choices we not entirely are able to control unless we use our management system efficiently for the purpose of sustainability, not the opposite.

Sustainability due to global recession

Can half the children take care of our old?

Such discussions have been created by old politicians to capture votes in a world of increasingly old people. Maybe we should downgrade the old people’s right to vote. Young people are not able to vote before they are grown up. It might be reasonable to consider that old people should not be able to vote when they are about to be incapacitated and “out-grown”.

All questions with regards to a sustainable future are biased by our past. Our parents are the main source to the information leading to this pre-historic way of thinking. Because they taught us too applaud good grades, rather than the most important thing an education cannot produce – great minds.

What they vote for is biased towards their experience and how they want to exit this world, not how our future generations should enter the world. Their vote is a vote of the past, not our future.

They still think that a lot of grand-children is enriching their lives, rather than creating scarcity since the next generation need to get by with many times less resources than they did. When previous generations say “it was great when I grew up” they probably don’t understand that their sexual conduct or lack of it, is the cause to the current resource issues.

The solutions to take care of our old is directly connected to our resources, not our ability to pay tax!

Eventually they will understand that when the food resources are threatened, people will feed their children not their parents.

Our generation have technologies that no previous generation ever dreamed of having; technologies the next generations most likely will surpass. The current and next generations can easily revolutionise the world and beyond with their new knowledge, if they use their current knowledge wisely.

Our future is depending on something that goes beyond the behaviour of homo sapiens, where we willingly should enter a economic recession. It will contradict what our parents and grandparents believed and actually make us rich.

Filthy rich beyond anybody’s imagination

If we reduced our population with 50% and did this trough two generations, all people would have almost 1 hectares of arable land per capita. Our children would be rich beyond our imagination, and they would have sustainable machines doing their work.

Food would be in abundance, and the people would be able to live on sustainable energy resources, through automation and monetary transactions, unless they are eliminated in a climactic cataclysm and war? Would the economy be bad if we had negative growth for two generations? Why are people talking about Armageddon if a recession contaminated our economy, when it rather would be our salvation?

Why would anybody want to create a beautiful world, when we would rather be poor, inflict suffering to billions of people and shoot our neighbours (terrorists) because they were born at the wrong side of the fence where the grass is burning due to drought?

It is interesting to listen to politicians, how they lead us to believe that increased growth, poverty and despair is our future, because they cannot argue the simple truth about our world and where it is headed. Don’t they understand that food-resources per capita are the foundation of our economy? Or are they equally stupid to the man who thinks economy is numbers created by a computer, or the amount of sales performed per quarter?

After WW2, the sexual revolution and baby-boomers was the result. Today we do not want a third round where we are killing all the men and impregnating all the women; a mathematical calculation that will lead to another sexual revolution for the remaining, but a total devastation for the future.

A war in our current situation will be so devastating that most people do not have any realistic understanding of how this will unfold. Today, the last people that experienced the last war have passed away. This is sad, because they understood exactly how such events unfold. With an extra 5-9 billion people on our planet, such actions will not be a pretty sight.

It is better to do this in a controlled manner, with the use of our management system.

Automation’s main trait is to replace human work and its inefficiency

Maybe it would be reasonable to replace politicians with machines too? The decision-logic of a machine might surpass any politician in creating results that follow logic deduction and causal behaviour.

If our resources are limited, our monetary system will be affected. It will grow bigger and we will be more dependent on it. The opposite is true if resources are plentiful, and our monetary system will in effect be of less importance, because our ownership to resources will increase.

A resource based economy is the reason to our monetary systems existence

Would money exist if we had ownership to abundant resources?

The main purpose of automation; is to facilitate an economy, management and energy efficiency by removing people from the workforce, thus an increased wealth and resources for the ones who remains. This will in effect increase our ownership to resources and eventually (hopefully) replace our monetary system as an economy.

It would be stupid to think that governments will help us in participating in a future where their tax income will be reduced each year as a result  of a shrinking monetary system. But when food availability is scarce, taxes will not have any purpose because there are nothing to tax without any food surplus. Most capitalists would have a hard time with the calculus where the current basis of their riches will shrink, unless they turn the stones and realise that increased property prices due to less availability is not being rich, but stupid.

But they can invest in automation, because when their riches shrink they will still make money by doing nothing!

But, it might be too late!

  • Climate issues
  • Migration issues as a result of climate
  • Resource issues
  • Increase in despair and anti-causal religious behaviour
  • War?
  • Donald Trump?

But that relies entirely on the determination of our children’s mothers…. filthy rich or deadly poor.

Be the first to comment on "Automation – filthy rich or deadly poor?"

Leave a comment