Some Paragraphs
These are for the literature review. It's about two and a half pages double spaced, but it feels too short.
Economics are important. They can determine whether times are good or bad, and have done so for as long as economies have existed. Capitalism, the primary economic system of the world since society itself began, has worked reasonably well, seeing we're here today. It has done at least "well enough," though how much more has been debated--some see it as a superior system, while others see it as becoming increasingly obsolete. One of capitalism's fundamental concepts is that people work to allow themselves to survive. People can do a variety of things, but the important part is that it's their hard work that makes them successful. Capitalism gives people the incentive to work, which is one reason it has done better than, say, Stalinism (communism in the Soviet Union), where people had no incentive to work. This is something considered a positive property of capitalism--we'd all like to think that we could all be rich if we just worked hard enough, right? Some examinations have shown the case to be otherwise, however [Class in America]. Multiple causes could be attributed to this fact--overpopulation, corruption, exploitation, foolish leadership, or the "evil forces of the universe." No matter the base cause, the result is always some kind of economical trouble. Another possible cause, perhaps unsuspected (or not), could be technology. Technology has had all sorts of effects on the economy, some positive, some negative. "Simple" technologies that we may take for granted, such as laundry machines, do make our lives easier. However, the relatives of this type of machine have more complex effects. Technology creates machines that do things people originally did by hand. These machines reduce the need for human labor. What twenty men can do with shovels, one man can do with a Cat* (large digging vehicle thing). This means that nineteen of those men with shovels need to find new work. Fortunately for them, there were plenty of things to do, as society didn't have everything. When society started to have "too much," problems arose, as there weren't as many jobs. Society recovered, as people created new things to do and new ways to make their livelihoods. However, it's a possibility that a problem could arise in the future, one with three possible outcomes and no chance of full recovery.
A "precursor" to the problem existed with the Industrial Revolution. A modern version exists today. In the United States, many Americans complain that they can't find jobs because they're being outsourced to other countries and are being taken by immigrants [source]. While this may be bad for American workers, it's good for workers of other countries. This is because the number of jobs in the world stays the same overall; the only changes are for the two countries. This doesn't hurt the world (at least not directly). But what if jobs were outsourced into the void, to nowhere? What if they just disappeared? Technology has the potential to do this. What would we do then, if no one had work to do, but those who owned the machines had everything the world would ever need?
A situation a bit less extreme than this example occurred with the Industrial Revolution. Machines and factories were created, and they boosted production [some statistic?]. The world was producing more than ever before, yet so many people had almost nothing. The world's population was increasing, but that's not everything. Many [most?] people who lived on farms four hundred years ago lived in better conditions than the people who lived in cities 90 to 120 years ago, yet the world had more of almost everything physical. Along with this, skilled craftsmen were replaced and displaced by factory workers. One person on a machine could produce as much fabric or clothing as [a number] of tailors could make by hand. This means less people were needed for producing fabrics, textiles, and clothing overall. People adapted though, and new jobs were created.
What if 90% of the jobs went away? What if machines did nearly all of the work? That would mean that the world would have enough food and materials for humans to survive, but no one would have anything, as no one could work to earn it. This would obviously be a problem. This could recreate what happened in the past, but many times worse. The three results may be the end of capitalism, human extinction (which is relatively unlikely; mass population reduction is more likely), or technological regression (which is extremely unlikely without the population of humans going extremely low).
What's Known
The Industrial Revolution was an event that introduced automated production. It would be small compared to what could happen.
Technology has replaced production workers mainly. It could theoretically replace many others, including engineers, those who repair things, some social workers, and those that even design new technology (see technological singularity, I believe).
Having machines do jobs is like outsourcing to nowhere--no one benefits from it except whoever needs the job done. There is no worker to benefit from doing work.. This creates a negative total.
No jobs means no capitalism. This forces a move to an entirely new economic system, which could be similar to communism, but doesn't have to be it. Communism could work assuming we have an uncorrupted leadership (which is difficult). It doesn't have to be communism though. [Also to my knowledge: I'm not plotting to overthrow the government and make the planet a communistic dictatorship under my control. You're not allowed to assume that I am. This is for you. You know who you are.]
There's already a problem with there not being enough jobs. It can't be because "the world doesn't have enough money." There's probably enough food in the world to feed everyone. However, there are three problems: people wasting around 30-50% of it, distribution, and "Get your hands off my food, it's mine and not yours."
Unrelated solution: Sterilize a significant portion of the population. It'll be lower within 50 years guaranteed. Or people can be educated to be less selfish and more open-minded.
If whoever is reading this (you) finds any typos, feel free to say so.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
About the Idea
This project will examine what could cause the decline of capitalism and three possible outcomes, those being extinction, regression, or a transition to what is effectively communism.
Capitalism is based on the idea that people make themselves survive. They work in some way and fend for themselves and themselves only. In nature, you'd have a hunter that hunts for himself and his family if he has one. He can use the pelts of his prey to fashion items for himself, or he can trade them to others for things others may have. This natural system works well in almost every situation. The exception that immediately comes to my mind is when a person is unable to work for their survival. This could be because they're physically or mentally incapable, and can't do what it takes to survive. Something like natural selection kills them off, which is what happens in nature. Another situation would be when there's no method of survival at all, which is often caused by domination by another force.
In modern society, survival doesn't occur with the hunting of deer to feed your family. Most people have jobs which pay them money, and the money is used to buy food. This happens because not everyone needs to focus on finding food--food is so plentiful only a small percentage of the population needs to find [grow] it. Instead, people work on improving the quality of life in some way (both directly and indirectly). One part of this is the production of goods that are useful and make life easier and more enjoyable, be it chairs, refrigerators, or chocolate. Because humans have advanced technologically, machines now do a lot of this work. Hundreds of years ago, when food was plentiful enough that not everyone had to be farmers, many people made their living as craftsmen. When the Industrial Revolution came around, many skilled craftsmen were replaced by machines, as the machines were a great investment--they were extremely fast and precise and didn't need to be paid. One person with enough money could build a factory, which could take the place of hundreds of, say, weavers and fabric makers. The factories did employ people, but they didn't need as many. The Industrial Revolution and the arrival of automated production displaced a lot of people.
To be continued sometime in the future.
Capitalism is based on the idea that people make themselves survive. They work in some way and fend for themselves and themselves only. In nature, you'd have a hunter that hunts for himself and his family if he has one. He can use the pelts of his prey to fashion items for himself, or he can trade them to others for things others may have. This natural system works well in almost every situation. The exception that immediately comes to my mind is when a person is unable to work for their survival. This could be because they're physically or mentally incapable, and can't do what it takes to survive. Something like natural selection kills them off, which is what happens in nature. Another situation would be when there's no method of survival at all, which is often caused by domination by another force.
In modern society, survival doesn't occur with the hunting of deer to feed your family. Most people have jobs which pay them money, and the money is used to buy food. This happens because not everyone needs to focus on finding food--food is so plentiful only a small percentage of the population needs to find [grow] it. Instead, people work on improving the quality of life in some way (both directly and indirectly). One part of this is the production of goods that are useful and make life easier and more enjoyable, be it chairs, refrigerators, or chocolate. Because humans have advanced technologically, machines now do a lot of this work. Hundreds of years ago, when food was plentiful enough that not everyone had to be farmers, many people made their living as craftsmen. When the Industrial Revolution came around, many skilled craftsmen were replaced by machines, as the machines were a great investment--they were extremely fast and precise and didn't need to be paid. One person with enough money could build a factory, which could take the place of hundreds of, say, weavers and fabric makers. The factories did employ people, but they didn't need as many. The Industrial Revolution and the arrival of automated production displaced a lot of people.
To be continued sometime in the future.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Abstract - Draft (and other things)
Background Information
Removed
Why is this question relevant?
Conclusions
I'm writing on this topic because this is something that I find interesting. It also has less potential to offend people, so that's good (one reason I'm not writing on the effects of religion). This is something of a thought I had about a year ago, and is one of the things I've wanted to develop more fully.
The research question may be, "Will automation [technology] kill capitalism?"
Capitalism has been the successful economic system throughout history. It's the most basic system, as it rises naturally from interaction between humans. It's the base economic system. Alongside it, technology has evolved, too. It has advanced with time, and its growth helped capitalism, which then invested in it in turn. The two have been mutually beneficial for a long time, as technology allows capitalists to be more successful, and more success means more technological advancement. One of the products of this growth is automatic machinery, which was used to produce goods of all kinds. These machines replaced skilled craftsmen and workers, as they were faster, more precise, and didn't require regular pay. They were incredible investments for wealthy entrepreneurs. However, this new way to produce things upset the societal system that previously existed, and many people had to find new ways to make a living. Society has adapted to this change, but the change has been increasing and eventually machines may completely replace workers. Machines can now drive carts, move things, produce things, and regulate themselves. One of the few things they don't do is create themselves and repair themselves. When technology advances enough for them to do nearly everything humans do to make a living, there won't be enough work to be done by humans left (especially with the global population rising as it is). Similar problems exist right now. One of the commonly known reasons for the weak economy is lack of jobs. Many jobs have been taken by immigrants or people from other countries, as employers would prefer them to Americans; workers from other countries require less pay, which means more profit for the employers. While this isn't good for the workers of America, it creates jobs in other countries, and thus the total amount of jobs stays the same, and only America is hurt--the rest of the world isn't. However, if machines are used to do jobs, the total number of jobs in the world goes down, and the world is hurt. This makes it more harmful than simply outsourcing, as eventually almost no jobs will be left. Eventually, machines may be producing enough for everyone to live, but no one will be able to have anything because they can't work. This is where capitalism may fall apart. This study will examine the relationship between technological advances, particularly of automation, with capitalism and the possibility of technology eliminating the need for humans to do anything, and thus rendering capitalism an impossibility.
Removed
Why is this question relevant?
Conclusions
I'm writing on this topic because this is something that I find interesting. It also has less potential to offend people, so that's good (one reason I'm not writing on the effects of religion). This is something of a thought I had about a year ago, and is one of the things I've wanted to develop more fully.
The research question may be, "Will automation [technology] kill capitalism?"
Capitalism has been the successful economic system throughout history. It's the most basic system, as it rises naturally from interaction between humans. It's the base economic system. Alongside it, technology has evolved, too. It has advanced with time, and its growth helped capitalism, which then invested in it in turn. The two have been mutually beneficial for a long time, as technology allows capitalists to be more successful, and more success means more technological advancement. One of the products of this growth is automatic machinery, which was used to produce goods of all kinds. These machines replaced skilled craftsmen and workers, as they were faster, more precise, and didn't require regular pay. They were incredible investments for wealthy entrepreneurs. However, this new way to produce things upset the societal system that previously existed, and many people had to find new ways to make a living. Society has adapted to this change, but the change has been increasing and eventually machines may completely replace workers. Machines can now drive carts, move things, produce things, and regulate themselves. One of the few things they don't do is create themselves and repair themselves. When technology advances enough for them to do nearly everything humans do to make a living, there won't be enough work to be done by humans left (especially with the global population rising as it is). Similar problems exist right now. One of the commonly known reasons for the weak economy is lack of jobs. Many jobs have been taken by immigrants or people from other countries, as employers would prefer them to Americans; workers from other countries require less pay, which means more profit for the employers. While this isn't good for the workers of America, it creates jobs in other countries, and thus the total amount of jobs stays the same, and only America is hurt--the rest of the world isn't. However, if machines are used to do jobs, the total number of jobs in the world goes down, and the world is hurt. This makes it more harmful than simply outsourcing, as eventually almost no jobs will be left. Eventually, machines may be producing enough for everyone to live, but no one will be able to have anything because they can't work. This is where capitalism may fall apart. This study will examine the relationship between technological advances, particularly of automation, with capitalism and the possibility of technology eliminating the need for humans to do anything, and thus rendering capitalism an impossibility.
Research Plan
A very rough and vague plan.
- Research what automation has done for capitalism up to the present
- Effects with the Industrial Revolution
- Automated production currently
- Research some predictions for the future
- Machinery may replace human workers in almost everything, creating a problem for capitalism
- Research what automation has done for capitalism up to the present
- Effects with the Industrial Revolution
- Automated production currently
- Research some predictions for the future
- Machinery may replace human workers in almost everything, creating a problem for capitalism
Abstract - What is my Research Question?
How has and how will automation (at first production machinery, and later other things) affect capitalism?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)