Monday, March 23, 2015

FALC


In the past few years, technology has been a major source of controversy in several first-world societies. The majority of objection to technological advancement comes from those who worry about the potential damage that our ever-advancing technology could cause in our economy and our inter-personal relationships. Others, such as members of FALC (Fully Automated Luxury Communism) argue that technological advancement is not something to be afraid of, it should be embraced. Members of FALC believe that technology is our future, and that we should encourage the widespread use of technology in work environments, even if that means technology almost entirely replacing humans. While I recognize the validity of FALC’s arguments, their idea of “luxury communism” lacks credibility. A society completely run by technology is very new concept, and is not supported by the proper research and social experiments that would reveal all of it’s shortcomings. Logistically speaking, if FALC were to implement they’re ideas, which would require establishing an entirely new economy, they would need to provide an answer to countless questions and problems that realistically would take years to answer and stir endless controversy. I believe the most pressing and provocative question that would need to be answered is, who would be in charge of all of these robots- our government or private enterprises? The answer would potentially determine the role that technology would play in our every day life.  Not only do I think that establishing an entirely new economy is unpractical, I believe it is theoretically wrong. Technology has already taken over our everyday lives in terms of communication, however the idea that we could potentially rely on technology for almost everything that is needed to sustain life and our overall well-being is frightening. Not only is technology constantly malfunctioning and completely unreliable, it is untrustworthy… A certain degree of human involvement in the work place and in society is necessary to maintain quality control and accessibility. Another concern that I have about a “fully automated luxury” society stems from the overwhelming and inevitable job loss that would occur. If jobs are being taken over by technology, people may have no way to make money, which makes attaining any form of “luxury” impossible. Although the idea of technology doing all of human’s dirty work is appealing, establishing luxury communism will never be practical, and would never be able to support a functioning economy.

7 comments:

  1. Over the past couple of decades, technology has advanced at a lightning rate compared to the twentieth century. Older generations see dangers in some of the potential technologies of the future if it continues to advance. Many technically advanced people see technology as a window to a better world. Many of these people have gathered to create the idea of fully automated luxury communism (FALC). FALC is the idea of having machines take over the jobs of the people and to “aim automation to its fullest extent.” Largely incorporating technology into our economy and labor force has many pros and cons. Many argue the negative effects it will have on humanity, lack of jobs, and governmental problems. If people’s jobs are replaced by machines, they must find other things to occupy the free forty hours they would usually spend at work. FALC finds this to be an era of improvement and change based on machines being the labor force. Technology is a short-cut to an easier life for the people. Bastani says that there will be a “guaranteed social wage, universally guaranteed housing, education, and healthcare.” Because of how poorly the government will handle this, I object to this prediction. People will only have to do minimal maintance on the machines. Many would object these opinions for multiple reasons. Technology is so far from achieving this goal that it is almost impossible to envision a world like this. Neither the government or business enterprises would properly own and control these machines because the high desire of power.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Before I start off my comment, I need to tell you that I am a technology nut. I am a CS (Computer Sciences) major and I love technology. In most cases I am very excited to hear about its advancements and all of the cool new things it is enabling us to do. However, with that being said, I cannot help but to agree with your blog post. I would love to see our society mesh perfectly with the huge technological advancements talked about in the article, but I just can’t say that I can envision it, due to the problems that you addressed. You wrote about how we would have to completely reconstruct our economy in order to find work for people, and that reconstruction is not something that I think everyone would be all for. I think the kind of technology that this article is talking about, would scare so many people. I believe that it would probably be a century from now until our people learned how to accept and live with the kind of technology that could render humans useless. But, who knows, maybe the people of our society could get along and get used to robots. There have been some pretty huge technological advancements that we’ve become accustomed in just the past 50 years, maybe we can continue to familiarize ourselves. There will always be growing pains with this sort of stuff. I don’t really know what I think to be honest, your blog post is very logical but I guess I will just continue to be optimistic. ☺ Besides, I have a hard time believing that our technology will advance as fast as these scientists say it will because I feel like their predictions are rarely very accurate. For example, in 1989 Back to the Future: Part II told us that we’d have hovering skateboards in 2015! I want my hover board! Well, now that I think of it, I don’t think Doc Brown really meets the qualifications of a real scientist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian merchant’s article on luxury communism wrestled with the idea that our global future consists of a automated lifestyle, much like the futuristic cartoon, The Jetsons. Followers of what he calls the Fully Automated Luxury Communism (FALC) movement, or Luxury Communism purport a society in which machines ran by algorithms and smart technology do work once performed by humans and the humans run the machines. As with any global culture shift, this Luxury communist will become a matter of politics. Those concerned particularly with unemployment, at this point would question the idea on the basis that it would create widespread unemployment especially among those not qualified to run the machines essentially turning the economy upside down. However, this idea is one that has been grappled with already. Books like the Red Mars trilogy or TV shows like Star Trek, paint a society fully integrated in this new system effectively. Everyone has a role. In reality though, as MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson puts it, “Many things we consider necessities today – phone service, automobiles, Saturdays off – were luxuries in the past.” The idea of Luxury Communism is not to rid people of jobs but to make their lives easier by taking society away from being slaves to careers. In fact, it is a utopian ideal we have been progressively striving for ever since the industrial revolution. As Aaron Bastani, founder of Novara media explains, naysayers are wrapped up in the notion that, “if you work hard and play by the rules,” you can achieve with you want. In reality, if you want to achieve something you, “seize the means of production.”

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian merchant’s article on luxury communism wrestled with the idea that our global future consists of a automated lifestyle, much like the futuristic cartoon, The Jetsons. Followers of what he calls the Fully Automated Luxury Communism (FALC) movement, or Luxury Communism purport a society in which machines ran by algorithms and smart technology do work once performed by humans and the humans run the machines. As with any global culture shift, this Luxury communist will become a matter of politics. Those concerned particularly with unemployment, at this point would question the idea on the basis that it would create widespread unemployment especially among those not qualified to run the machines essentially turning the economy upside down. However, this idea is one that has been grappled with already. Books like the Red Mars trilogy or TV shows like Star Trek, paint a society fully integrated in this new system effectively. Everyone has a role. In reality though, as MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson puts it, “Many things we consider necessities today – phone service, automobiles, Saturdays off – were luxuries in the past.” The idea of Luxury Communism is not to rid people of jobs but to make their lives easier by taking society away from being slaves to careers. In fact, it is a utopian ideal we have been progressively striving for ever since the industrial revolution. As Aaron Bastani, founder of Novara media explains, naysayers are wrapped up in the notion that, “if you work hard and play by the rules,” you can achieve with you want. In reality, if you want to achieve something you, “seize the means of production.”

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brian merchant’s article on luxury communism wrestled with the idea that our global future consists of a automated lifestyle, much like the futuristic cartoon, The Jetsons. Followers of what he calls the Fully Automated Luxury Communism (FALC) movement, or Luxury Communism purport a society in which machines ran by algorithms and smart technology do work once performed by humans and the humans run the machines. As with any global culture shift, this Luxury communist will become a matter of politics. Those concerned particularly with unemployment, at this point would question the idea on the basis that it would create widespread unemployment especially among those not qualified to run the machines essentially turning the economy upside down. However, this idea is one that has been grappled with already. Books like the Red Mars trilogy or TV shows like Star Trek, paint a society fully integrated in this new system effectively. Everyone has a role. In reality though, as MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson puts it, “Many things we consider necessities today – phone service, automobiles, Saturdays off – were luxuries in the past.” The idea of Luxury Communism is not to rid people of jobs but to make their lives easier by taking society away from being slaves to careers. In fact, it is a utopian ideal we have been progressively striving for ever since the industrial revolution. As Aaron Bastani, founder of Novara media explains, naysayers are wrapped up in the notion that, “if you work hard and play by the rules,” you can achieve with you want. In reality, if you want to achieve something you, “seize the means of production.”

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yet some readers may challenge my view by insisting that technology is more helpful than harmful I would have to agree with Ashlyn. On the one hand, I agree with FALC’s idea that technology is rampant in today’s society and can very well take over the future, but I still insists that there can be very harmful ramifications. Just as Ashlyn said technology does already play a huge role in our society today. In school almost everyone has a lab top in order to do their homework, and if they don’t the library provides computers. Students rely on the accessibility to the internet. In today’s society phones are a must have. Cellphones have made communication amongst people very simple and fast. The idea of FALC (Fully Automated Luxury Communism) is very scary because a lot of people would be out of jobs. To live in a society fully dependent on robots raises questions like “what is the point of going to school?” or “How is the future economy going to be effected by such a momentous economic change?” If a massive amount of people are out of work rebellions can start, and then our nation would have a whole new set of problems to deal with. Yes, technology does make things much more easy to do and more efficient, but there has to be a fine line between technological advances and hard earned jobs. I believe the advancement in technology is going to happen rather we like or not, but what the government does with technology is going to determine the fate of many people.

    ReplyDelete