This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Why do people opt for get rich schemes when they could just turn a hobby into a business by doing something they actually like doing?”
Hobbies take time to develop into viable businesses.
People often overlook how much time, effort, and resources are required to make a new business break into a new market before it begins turning a profit.
Massive enterprises like the social media giants were roundly criticized in their early years for operating without turning a profit for years before they became viable and self-sustaining entities.
People often fail to comprehend how much of an investment is required, from manpower to infrastructure to market development, to go from concept to generating revenue on a break-even basis.
When people are struggling to make ends meet every month, their choices become limited and long-term endeavours are sacrificed to fill their hungry bellies today.
This is the worst consequence of the historic levels of income inequity we are experiencing today. This is, by far, the worst consequence of the $60 trillion stolen from the working class in the U.S. in the last several decades alone.
We have had our opportunities stripped from us while being thrown into the middle of an ocean and told to dog paddle for our survival while getting thrown plastic-laden chum to feed on until we drown and being mocked for our inability to survive the challenges created for us by the exploitative class.
A person who has time, energy, and resources to capitalize on a hobby they love can succeed based on privileges denied to a majority who struggle with inescapable poverty for life.
This is why we need UBI.
When people are free to pursue what they love, they stop chasing wild geese and become less prone to falling for grifters and making bad decisions out of desperation.
Eliminating the threat of homelessness and destitution frees people up to achieve their potential, but even more so, it’s an insurance against being victimized by one’s desperation that otherwise translates into numerous costs to society, ranging from crime to toxic coping mechanisms and domestic disruptions.
UBI both saves on social costs and grants a massive boost to economic growth through individual motivations, contributing innovative solutions that carry the potential of becoming massive engines of economic growth.
Anyone wishing to engage in a dialogue on UBI is invited to participate in an open space on Quora dedicated to the issue. You may need to register for a Quora account — It’s free, and I don’t get any kickbacks from it. This space is intended purely for stimulating discussion on the topic — there are no hidden surprises beyond possibly needing to join Quora if you want to post comments. Visitors to the site can read the content without registration hassles.
This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “I don’t want my jobs to be automated. What can I do? Will there be a chance to get it?”
Hi again Furquan. 🙂
You have asked me several questions on automation in the last few months, and I appreciate that you find value in my words. Thank you.
I have to say that it is essential to understand the automation revolution is inevitable and unstoppable.
The decisions for automation are being made not by us lowly citizens but by those who have the power to implement what they view as solutions to their needs — such as cutting back on labour costs.
The career one chooses for oneself does not matter to the ownership class because their perspective is based on what they are willing to pay to produce the revenue they seek for themselves.
This is the fundamental flaw of capitalism.
Capitalism, as it stands, has been permitted to flourish in ways that disregard the needs of the many in favour of the whims of the few. I say “permitted” because we have always had the power, as a people, to restrain corruption, but we have been mollified by messaging and the “luxurious” benefits of modern technologies.
We used to be much better at restraining greed, and our societies flourished. The ownership class, however, has invested hundreds of billions over the last half-century in lobbying the government, installing government puppets, and creating propaganda machines often referred to as “Think Tanks,” like the Heritage Foundation. Their goals are clear: to re-establish dynastic rule over the people. They made that abundantly clear when they released Project 2025 and issued a threat against anyone who resisted.
They have become so comfortable in their misanthropic regard for citizens that they no longer hide their agenda.
As individuals trying to navigate and survive the nightmare of this transformation into fully automated societies, we have two personal mandates to adopt.
The first mandate we have to ourselves is to equip ourselves with as much knowledge of the transformations as we are able. You have shown yourself eager and well underway on your first step by simply asking questions. The only way to anticipate the changes coming and avoid any potential disruptions to your life is by asking questions.
The second mandate we have for ourselves is to accept the fundamental premise of capitalism, which is that every human being is a business entity. We have no choice now because the era of life-long jobs and straight-up career ladders has vanished. That means even a stable job one is employed within today will be temporary, not necessarily by malice, but because the world is changing rapidly. The capitalist owners of that business also have to adapt to the changes or go bankrupt.
We are, in essence, in a surreal state of every person for themselves, and it’s taking a toll on us as individuals and creating cracks in the social contract.
This leads us to a second set of mandates we have to ourselves by serving our fellow citizens.
The first of these “community mandates” is to stand against lies and disinformation. Call out the lies and counter them with facts. Refuse to support individuals and institutions that disseminate lies. Take action, like boycotting Fox, and make your decision public. Let other people know there is a line to be drawn between decency and depravity in society that we must all be in solidarity with if we want to re-establish ourselves as humans worthy of the distinctions we revere when referring to our collective selves as “humanity.”
Greed is not good. Greed hurts us all, and we must support each other, or we will not survive the challenges ahead without great calamity and horrific losses of life that will scar whatever remains of humanity for whatever future may manifest for us as a species.
The second of these “community mandates” is to do what you can to support actions intended to restore decency. For example, I can do little with my resources beyond shooting my mouth off at every opportunity and creating memes to challenge the bullshit. I also actively sign petitions and help out in ways that are available to me.
Register with this organization — Change dot org — get on their list and peruse the many ways in which people are taking action worldwide:
Choose from whatever causes matter to you and support them by signing a petition. If you can afford to donate even small amounts, that helps. Please don’t underestimate the power of a single voice when it comes together in harmony with millions.
Anyone can start up a petition on this site. If you have something that you specifically want people to support, such as protecting jobs in a particular industry or role — something tangible in which people can take action by speaking up, then you can contribute toward the issue of ongoing automation.
The third social mandate may be construed as primarily a personal bias. It is an inevitable necessity precisely because of automation and because capitalism forces us all to be capitalists on some level.
Each of us needs some support to survive the challenges of meeting our basic needs.
Society, as a whole, produces more than our basic needs.
The success of capitalism is predicated upon innovation and productivity.
These three fundamental presumptions are what have led me to understand this fourth premise:
As I look back on my life and consider the thousands of hours spent on resume development and submitting tens of thousands of applications to employers that either mostly ignore and mistreat their applicants or allow the ignorance that defines many of the decision-makers among them to result in abominations like this:
I think that this entire system is broken.
Had I not wasted so much time and energy trying to fit into a system that has largely rejected me, I would have had plenty of time to develop my skills and voice to carve out my unique place of success in this world and the capitalist system we operate within.
For all the benefits that capitalism proffers to society, what it robs from us as we are herded through dehumanizing machinery to be regarded as commodities is a horrendous evil and a blight on humanity.
For this reason, I welcome our transition to a fully automated society because at the end of this painful transition is the freedom to live our lives as we choose.
The only thing that’s missing right now from our global support to a universal basic income is the awareness and acknowledgement we need from the wealthy class that this is THE best solution for almost all of our social ills — and it is much more than simply a solution, it’s an opportunity for them to capitalize on the repressed ingenuity of billions of people worldwide.
Once they realize the amount of untapped potential within the human race, in which they are shortchanging themselves with a master/slave relationship as employers/employees, they will broadly endorse UBI. Sadly, many are too short-term focused to want anything more than the quick buck that Donald Trump and sociopathic exploiters among the ownership class embody.
None of them are capable of innovation. They are capable of parasitic forms of self-enrichment. Elon Musk has clearly shown us that material wealth is not derived from personal innovation but by bleeding the benefits of the innovations of others.
My suggestion for you, Furquan, is to not buy into the myth that you will need a job to ensure long-term security for yourself because that’s a lie. Your long-term security is guaranteed only by your skills, capacity to provide value (mainly through any innovations you can devise), and the community supporting your efforts.
There are many different ways to perceive one’s challenges, and in this case, it appears to me the best way to represent this and the challenges we face today are embodied with an ancient curse:
I wish you all the best of luck in your future during this exceptionally unique period in human history that we have had the “great fortune” of being born into.
Anyone wishing to engage in a dialogue on UBI is invited to participate in an open space on Quora dedicated to the issue. You may need to register for a Quora account — It’s free, and I don’t get any kickbacks from it. This space is intended purely for stimulating discussion on the topic — there are no hidden surprises beyond possibly needing to join Quora if you want to post comments. Visitors to the site can read the content without registration hassles.
This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Why is there so much misogyny or misandry online? Is it because of the internet being filled with socially outcasted people?”
What you see online doesn’t exist because of the Internet. It has always existed as “normal” and without being challenged throughout society.
Imagine what the Internet would be like if it existed before the Civil Rights movement. There would be “Whites Only” and “ Coloureds Only” websites. Facebook would be racially segregated, and so would genders. Any woman visiting an auto servicing site would be banned. They would be allowed only at sites that promoted the expectation of their role of being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. People would be penalized for visiting sites that violated segregation laws, and all those “wonderful sensibilities” from yore would permeate the virtual world in far greater degrees of hatred and bigotry than we see now… because they would be considered acceptable by the majority.
The virtual world has only allowed those “old sentiments” that we have deluded ourselves into believing we have grown past to remind us they still exist. They’re just not considered acceptable by the mainstream.
That’s why those attitudes stand out.
The upside, however, is that we can and do push back on that toxicity while social media enables us to talk about it directly.
We can confront racists and bigots directly now when, in real life, we would bite our tongues and walk away to let them believe there’s nothing wrong with them or their attitudes.
Complaining about the prevalence of such ugliness results from a naive view of the world and a Disneyesque vision of humanity through rose-coloured glasses.
In real life, you can associate with people you agree with and avoid those you find toxic, but it’s not easy to do online.
That’s a good thing because pretending this horror doesn’t exist is how it continues.
Over 5 billion people are online, so you can’t single out portions of the population you don’t like and pretend the Internet is a magnet for a small subsection of humanity. These attitudes are prevalent everywhere.
The online world is the only safe space to resolve them. We would otherwise find ourselves either trying to ignore them to let them metastasize and grow worse or joining along because of being pressured into it, like being pushed into a cult for fear of one’s life.
Use your voice online and speak out against the ugliness. Challenge the bigots you encounter. Make them accountable for their hatreds.
That’s the only way to deal with the horror. That’s the only way to make our species heal.
You have an obligation to yourself, your sanity, and the future of our species now that you have been empowered with a platform to fight back against what’s broken with humanity. If we don’t, we won’t have a human civilization by the end of this century. We’ll have a shattered smattering of primitive tribes struggling to survive a planet that has become hostile to human life.
This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Is it ethical for employers to pay workers at the market rate even if it constitutes wage slavery and lets them barely survive?”
If you’re getting paid the market rate for a position you’re filling, that’s the highest level of ethics you should expect from an employer.
I worked for a government-related agency (part of the government Stewardship program of pseudo-outsourcing) for almost five years and was paid 40% below the market rate. I was stuck with that for reasons that will take this answer in an entirely different and unrelated direction. Suffice it to say that my options were radically reduced due to another arm of government choosing malfeasance to manipulate politically based optics in their favour at my expense.
At any rate, I found myself in this environment in a less-than-challenging role, which worked for me for a time as I had suffered a severe degree of trauma and needed mental space to learn how to cope with a new reality.
When I began working in this operation, management was so pleased with my performance and capability that they wrote an entirely new job description and offered me a full-time position within my first three weeks as a temp. Since my engagement before this one involved physically hauling 16 metric tons daily (at 52 years old) at an hourly rate less than one-quarter of what I had been used to as a professional, I jumped at an opportunity to function in a leadership capacity.
As much as I was surprised to enjoy the role and the people I worked alongside, I was shocked to discover that my rate was below the least-paid staff who reported to me. I was told I had to prove myself when I expressed my dissatisfaction. I responded that I already had, or they would not have created a new position for me. That changed nothing for the better for me, and I continued working there because I was more concerned with struggling through an ugly state of mind at the time and in no shape to be successful in professional interviews. I had already been bombing the ones I managed to get during that period.
During the first company Christmas event hosted by that employer, I had an opportunity to meet the Finance VP. I first witnessed him in his speech, declaring everyone was family. I was later introduced to him by an exceptionally proud supervisor and manager. The VP’s initially positive reaction indicated he had heard abundant good news about my performance.
He smiled and asked me a question. I managed six words before he turned around like I didn’t exist and walked away in another direction. I thought his behaviour was rude, which ended my thoughts on the matter as I continued to enjoy the event. As it turned out, that was my first indication of a sustained round of abuse I was to endure from him.
For the next five years, he played a game of “You look familiar, but I don’t know your name” with me. He enlisted his HR executive in his game as they behaved like they didn’t know me each time they visited the facility, averaging about twice yearly. His HR sidekick seemed to enjoy the game as she furrowed her brow each time she was introduced to the staff when she showed up on average once per year.
Throughout that period, I found myself constantly mitigating the incompetence of the leadership in the facility and saving thousands of dollars in lost productivity per week. I remember being given a production design assignment the manager couldn’t resolve, causing him great stress. The number of errors generated by his inability to deploy an effective production system seemed to stress him to the breaking point, and he thought I would make an appropriate scapegoat.
He offloaded responsibility for his job onto me under threat of losing my job if I couldn’t resolve his problem for him. It was pretty laughable in retrospect because I already had plenty of experience designing more complex production flows within a technical environment, so the system I devised resulted in a complete turnaround and a successful production flow that everyone appreciated, as stress levels among production staff also significantly dropped.
The short of this is that although I routinely exceeded expectations far beyond the role I was paid to fulfill, beyond management-level functions, and well into director-level functions, I could not find myself being paid the market rate for the job I had on paper. I was being paid 40% less than the market rate. I remember quoting that figure to a different HR personnel, and her response was an expression of surprise: “How did you know that?” I was more shocked by her question than I think she was about my knowledge of the market. It’s pretty easy to find out what the market pays for roles. However, the standing directive from company leadership was that discussing salaries was strongly frowned upon.
This environment had all the hallmarks of a highly incompetent and corrupt environment, and I’ve barely scratched the surface of examples I can provide. Do keep in mind, after all of this, that this environment represents government by proxy and the degree of corruption displayed was criminal. My constitutional rights were violated, and I had no recourse beyond the court system in which I could not afford to participate. I did, however, file a suit against them, so that’s on record if I can finally afford to take them to court.
After eventually receiving an agreement that I would have my income adjusted to near market rates, I experienced a gradual moving of the goalposts where my expectations degraded from an agreement they made to a realization they had negotiated in bad faith. My attitude degraded over time, and I stopped offering extra-curricular solutions to issues I had worked on during my off-work hours. I stopped stepping forward to volunteer for tasks above the role I was hired for, and the response was an attitude that I was being derelict in my job.
They eventually decided to terminate my position by claiming they were going in a different direction. This is an “at will” environment, and they were within their legal rights to terminate me at their discretion. I was entitled to six months of severance and received only four.
Workers have no protections in the modern workplace without the strength of union membership and the resources it provides.
Ethics is a matter of individual character; the shame is that ethics are not a universally held standard of conduct. The primary reason for people quitting their jobs is due to abusive environments. That means that most work environments are unethical, which aligns with my experience as an independent professional who has been stiffed by many people who hired my services to extoll their satisfaction with what they received and then denied me my compensation.
A LOT of employers and people who hire other people to work for them are entitled assholes who will screw over anyone they can get away with. It might be the case that I just had shitty luck, but it was far and above more than half of the people I encountered who lacked ethics.
This is only one reason that when people like Donald Trump or Elon Musk brag about stiffing their contractors, I see red. None of those people would want to brag about such horrid behaviour around me because, after a lifetime of enduring it, I doubt I could restrain myself. I would rather avoid a prison sentence for losing my shit over some psychopath’s gloating over how they screwed someone over.
If you’re looking for ethical behaviour from your employers, good luck because if you do find an ethical employer, hang onto them like they’re a prized treasure. They’re just as rare.
Getting paid at a market rate is at least better than getting paid less than the market rate and being expected to perform at higher levels of responsibility than those who get paid more to supervise your work. They don’t set the market rate, while most employers deliberately seek young and inexperienced people because they don’t want to pay the market rate.
A LOT of jobs I see posted indicate an upper limit of experience precisely because older workers know when they’re being ripped off or manipulated by an unethical employer.
This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Considering you’ll die without a job, why is being employed not a right? Can society really just ensure someone dies by refusing to hire them anywhere?”
As the world of work becomes increasingly automated, the workplace dehumanization issue rapidly grows into a sociopathic dismissal of our essential qualities as living, breathing, thinking, and evolving beings. This pressing concern will affect more and more people in the future with increasing rapidity as workplace automation continues to adopt and incorporate an increasing rate of technological advancements into their operations.
Meet the Humanoid Robot Working at a Spanx Factory (18 minutes)
To be clear, the dehumanization of the workforce isn’t a consequence of automation but of aggregation into ever larger corporate entities now spanning the globe in their operational reach. Automation is merely a step toward increased efficiency and reduced operating costs. Automation is simply the formalized acknowledgement of transforming labour into a dehumanized function that benefits capital-infused decision-makers chasing profit. What was once an entity supporting community development within the “Mom-and-Pop entrepreneurial environment” has become industrialized economics.
Entrepreneurs of today are the artists of yesteryear who sought out patrons to support their initiatives and receive benefits in return for their support in a parasitic relationship that both drains value from the creative individual and shapes their creative output in their narrowly defined image to fit an increasingly homogenized production system.
The dehumanization of the workforce began when people became deemed commodities, and “Human Resources” departments were created as legal defence linebackers to protect corporations from the consequences of exposed liabilities.
The world of employment has become less about identifying skills and more about choosing appealing aesthetics and fetishes. One is no longer in a position of being hired to function in a role with an expected standard of performance in fulfilling the requirements of that role inasmuch as they’re selected like an attractive product on a shelf that will complement the rest of the pieces on a mantle.
The disconnect between the function one is intended to fulfill, the decision-maker determining the need, the department composing the requirements list, and the agency tasked to identify appropriate candidates has become so much of a production line that they cannot help but to regard all their people as narrowly defined replaceable cogs with limited capacity and range in an expense paradigm rather than as an investment and a partner in the enterprise. The only success an individual can contribute to a dehumanized function is to meet predetermined expectations in a static environment with an expected and finite lifespan.
Corporations may be deemed people, but they’re more machine than human. Unlike humans, they can only change course and be adaptive to evolution when the small number of myopically focused humans operating them can implement global changes that often involve complete retooling and rebranding or being incorporated into another corporate system.
Once that occurs, however, whatever unique nature or personality that may have existed in the original entity is subsumed into the more enormous beast.
The issue of jobs and employment is a critical metric only for those whose role in society is to diagnose the overall health of the “super beast” referred to as “the economy.” Individuals are irrelevant to their equations. Humans are no longer humans but cattle to be herded in a dehumanizing system that renders everyone only as valuable as accords the desirability of their functionality in a narrowly defined capacity within an inhuman entity.
One’s value as a human in society is determined only by the nature of the type of cog they can function as within the parameters of an acknowledged entity that deems them suitable for its overall operation.
Society doesn’t “ensure” anything because society is a collection of humans operating within a cultural framework. The corporate culture we have endorsed for society has, in return for our loyalties, suffused society with an apathetic disinterest in the human condition and the plights of individual humans.
UBI is the only path available to regain our humanity and create an economy that serves humans rather than modern dynasties comprised of a small handful of monarch-like beings. Without it, system-wide collapse is inevitable.
This post is a response to a question posed in its full format as follows: “Is Elon Musk evil or corrupt? I tend to admire people that take their money and build something of value.”
Elon Musk is a typical human born into a life of privilege and who happened to be smart enough to leverage that privilege into such a degree of wealth that it allowed him to free up restraints on the ego that drove him to that wealth.
This phenomenon occurs because humanity has no overarching vision that unites us and that we all consciously strive toward in everything we do.
Far too many are still at the toddler stage of “I’ve got mine, eff you,” and our culture of wealth worshipping exaggerates the sort of narcissism we see running rampant everywhere.
Musk, Bezos, and an appalling list of etceteras got wealthy because that’s what they valued, not because they dreamed of using that wealth to better humanity. The people working on the betterment of society are mainly working on shoestring budgets while relying on closely-knit relationships with others who believe in the potential of what they’re doing.
Those are the invisible creators throughout society that people with privilege — the sharks among us love to feed on and claim credit for their creation. It is like a pattern Musk’s fanboys should be able to spot now due to their knowledge of him, but they somehow fail to see the obvious.
The consequence of this worship mentality is that we no longer view the wealthy as we view other human beings. The rich and powerful acquire, along with their materiality, a perception of superiority as a human who magically transcends human failings.
They don’t, but we see evidence of an analogy that money is like salt for food; it magnifies what was already there.
We haven’t come to grips with the implications for us as a species because of this particular blind spot we have cultivated through millennia of worshipping imaginary super/extra/meta humanoid beings as paternalistic avatars for our species.
We are groomed from childhood to worship, which comes naturally through trust between a parent and child. That depth of connection between humans is what defines humanity. For a species that has arisen from a history of barbarism, it’s not surprising to see relics of that bonding psychology in play to serve as the uniting vision for a culture we lack as a species.
This blind spot we have and this compulsion to worship wealth and power have been coming at a cost that nowhere near enough of us can yet see. Those who do are freaking out because of the eerie similarities the fawning behaviour he receives has with cult members. Being a fan is one thing, but abandoning all reason to avoid critical analysis and engage in a blind defence of antics that are blatantly self-serving nonsense only shows that it’s not Musk that’s a problem; it’s us.
We still haven’t gotten to that stage where we understand the meaning of “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” — however, if we don’t get our environmental issues under control, we won’t have a choice but to believe unlimited wealth in the hands of too few is too much of a threat to the future of our species to allow it to continue without ensuring it halts immediately via guillotine.
Those who still don’t get it should ponder the wisdom of establishing an entirely new industry catering to the wealthy that will be responsible for the most significant environmental damage from a single human activity than all others, and that’s the amount of carbon pumped into our atmosphere to lift a ship into our outer atmosphere for ego boosting junkets for the pampered class.
They’re already responsible for the lion’s share of lifestyle contributions to our environmental issues, and no one is crying foul about their latest space penis ventures.
They’re not necessarily “evil” (even though Bezos does a tremendous job of being convincing in that area); they’re just self-serving adults with power who have the emotional development of children.
The consequences of failing to restrain power will undoubtedly be considered “evil,” but all of us will evenly share the blame.
This question was originally answered on Quora and written as is.
I’m not familiar with Devin per se, but I don’t see AI “replacing people” in any capacity it is developed to function within — and I use that description with a caveat because AI IS replacing hundreds of thousands of jobs — if not millions worldwide.
AI has the potential to liberate humans from mundane tasks. It can free up time that would otherwise be spent on repetitive, clearly defined functions while still relying on humans to make decisions and set the parameters for these tasks.
Tasks that require creativity, judgment, and understanding of context will continue to be the domain of humans. These include quality control analyses, determining the scope and context of tasks, and designing the application for which a task is intended.
This is where the waters become muddy because most jobs are mostly drudge work.
Millions of labour hours are spent every year on tasks that can be automated.
Capitalists know how much they can save by eliminating humans from repetitive and clearly defined tasks.
Many may be arrogant enough to believe they can supplant human creativity and intuitive judgment with an artificial solution. Companies like Disney, however, are butting up against an immovable wall in this regard and getting their noses bloody because of their sociopathic disregard for the human equation in the capitalist environment.
We will see many psychopathic capitalists decide they can do without the most expensive of their labouring monkeys, and they will fail because of it.
We are likely to witness a significant loss of jobs due to AI. This is a reality that few people doubt, and those who do will be in for a rude awakening when the replacement rate reaches a critical level.
Yes and no, but yes, jobs will be lost. Developers with initiative, resources, and creativity to imagine solutions will also be empowered to create their own software enterprises. New jobs will be created, and we’ll see an explosion of “individual corporations” replacing a landscape of monolithic enterprises that employ hundreds of thousands, which will be much healthier for our economy in the long run. This change in our corporate landscape will reintroduce the stability we once had before the middle class came under assault in the 80s and eviscerated our unions.
Right now, when a monolithic corporation makes a minor cut in its costs, thousands of jobs are lost. The economy is stunted as a result of a minor bookkeeping adjustment or on the whims of a sociopath who decides they no longer need to pay half of the staff of the enterprise they just purchased and sends them off packing.
In an environment populated mainly by independent entrepreneurs and small “mom-and-pop shops,” any single endeavour can fail, and its failure has no discernable impact on the economy or society at large.
The biggest, most disruptive, and potentially destructive challenge is arriving at this newly recovered and economically defined demographic dynamic through a smoothly managed transition.
The most crucial step to reduce the negative impact and the widespread hardship resulting from the transition to an automated society is to build a solid base upon which people are free to live and pursue the motivations arising from their imaginations and inventiveness.
We must improve liquidity throughout our economic systems, which requires a two-fold process. While the first is to ensure everyone’s basic living needs are met through a universal income floor, the second requires freeing up capitalization for entrepreneurial initiatives.
This second step will be the most difficult to implement because it will require the most powerful among us to relinquish their power. That will happen through reasoned measures or due to entrenched and narcissistic arrogance that will lead us all to widespread chaos.
Hopefully, most will be able to identify entirely new vistas of opportunity for themselves in which they can benefit from the changing landscape in ways that are becoming less and less possible by reaching a saturation level where the only room left for growth is a takeover of smaller enterprises.
As individuals, their creative capacities and economic potential are far more reliant on the support and inspiration they receive from the collaboration synergies than on armies of sycophants telling them what they want to hear.
Some will be wise enough to leverage a massive transition in human society in their favour because they understand and value human ingenuity. Others will fail because their misanthropic disdain toward their servants leads their economic inventiveness to an empty silo devoid of value in the marketplace. If we are to go by the statistics which indicate the prevalence of psychopaths at the boardroom level matches the density of a prison population, I would expect about 20 percent of our plutocrat dynasties will not survive the transition and humanity as a whole will be the beneficiaries of such a surgical culling of our economic dynamics.
Below is a screen of current AI initiatives underway for augmenting the software development process — 24 AI projects for software development alone as of September 2024:
Since deciding which option might be best to explore for one’s projects, here is some further reading on AI tools for software development:
thotbag 