ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- Most environmental problems seem too big to face head on and actually solve. So conventional thinking, like degrowth, says we should retreat from these problems.
But new technologies - new tools - will change the game completely. Robotics and artificial intelligence mean that the marginal cost of labor is going to plummet toward zero.
As labor gets cheaper and more abundant, so does everything else. And this means that every environmental problem is going to become much more feasible to solve.
Adam’s book, ‘Brighter: Optimism, Progress, and the Future of Environmentalism” is available on Amazon www.amazon.com/dp/B0BNYC1GWY and as an audiobook on Amazon, Audible, and iTunes.
Visit the RethinkX Website: www.rethinkx.com
Learn more about the Climate Implications of Disruption: www.rethinkx.com/climate-impl...
Read our full reports
Climate Change: www.rethinkx.com/climate-impl...
Energy: www.rethinkx.com/energy/reports
Transportation: www.rethinkx.com/transportati...
Food & Agriculture: www.rethinkx.com/food-and-agr... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
In a time when free access to information has never been easier it is staggering that the general public are so deaf and blind to the changes that are just around the corner. If governments don't start informing citizens of the positive changes there will be anguish and rioting.
we need to reinvent our material supply lines from the current linear "raw materials into trash" into circular loops. We are still constrained by the physical environment, mining, refining, etc.
JB strubal red wood materials
The economy will be reinvented.
Very true. A circular economy is coming.
Mining landfills.
Wall-E was a robot. A self repairing solar powered machine that cleaned up our mess.
It's fantastic to see you back, Dr. Dorr! I was amazed by RethinkX's article on humanoids.
"Science fiction" is truly becoming reality; Unitree's G1 humanoid robot is very impressive.
The cost of labor moving down to marginal levels is insane to think about as the main points of economics will become outdated (i.e. issues surrounding scarcity).
Thanks as always, Adam!
It's important to remember that any material input has a large portion of labor in it. From the moment something is being pulled out of the ground or grown to being moved, processed, sorted, cut, formed, assembled, and freighted ..... labor is added. While automating this labor can make both dirty technologies as well as green ones cheaper, it does eliminate the excuse that going green and picking up the garbage is just too expensive.
There is a very substantial energy cost to training the A.I. needed for labour replacement robots. It isn't clear that this extra energy use will not push the environment beyond critical thresholds before clean energy and cheap labour can begin the remediation process...
This problem falls into the same class as the Y2K bug. Had we done nothing the Y2K bug would have been devastating.
AI and robots are more energy efficient than humans, so perhaps if we pair this with the decline of birth rate we can have a stabilizzation of human population without having to sacrifice quality of life as much.,
@@WaveOfDestiny Or start moving off planet and take dirty industry with us. Does not have to be mars Then we can remake earth as a nature preserve.
You give me hope for a viable future on this planet. Thanks!
Great to hear someone pushing the possibility 😊
Thank you!
Love your videos and content 😅😊
That's Incredible, Keep Going!
When talking about costs, don't focus only on the investment, think about interest rates and all kind of opex too (energy, maintainance, task creation, design...)
I struggle not to despair.
I read his book and I am reasonably convinced that humanity has a good chance at addressing climate change. Even if they aren’t entirely correct on their predictions they have outlined a mechanism by which change is taking place and can reasonably be predicted will take place. A breath of fresh air that has seriously helped my mental health towards the issue.
My biggest worry now is what the rapid deployment of robotics into the economy may do to societal stratification. If corporations own all of the robots, and have all of the leverage in the owealth produced, do middle and lower class populations get permanently relegated into a poverty class where they have no choice but to comply? Given the extreme neoliberal culture the U.S. exhibits, I fear that a permanent robotics induced guilded age could be the result.
Adam and rethinkx seem to be more optimistic of these implications than I am. I hope that it is warranted.
Adam, if you somehow are reading this, care to address this issue? I’m probably not the only one who shares this concern.
The only wrong climate answer is not addressing it.
It's not only labor but cost of energy is a limiting factor. Many things are not recycled, for example, because the cost of energy to recycle them is higher than just building from raw materials. So cost of labor and energy needs to become essentially zero for a utopian future. With renewable energy and AI to improve outputs of renewable energy, this is inevitable.
Other limiting factors are material and entropy production.
Great summary. Consider making a short with your key point. Easier to share and get attention.
i use that analogy a lot too..and this one..fools fighting in a burning house.....cos...it's kinda..rampant, actually...
Thanks
We need a good system for distribution of income so all people will gain from this.
I'd suggest the wealthiest most powerful get most of everything. That's adorable to be able to think "all" people would benefit. I wish we could trade brains.
Insightful. Visionary. Legendary. Thank you
Looking forward to a leisurely future 🎉🎉🎉😂😂😂
How will you afford your leisure if you don't have a job?
@@Sekir80 you may be provided with a UBI universal basic income-AFTER those who own the robots take their huge cut.Seems like a 2 tier society will emerge -a few overlords owning the robots/units of production and those who once had jobs-pretty scary!!!
@@MauriceOldis UBI is a short term and unsustainable solution. We need to get to where there is no point in having money.
There is no huge cut because if Joe's robots can make something I can make the same thing and sell it for less. The economy as we know it heads for collapse. But then a group of concerned mothers open a robotized factory to make healthy baby food. Free to all mothers. People who care about our health do the same for healthy food production. People making robots stop charging for them because money is worthless. Yeah way too optimistic but that is the bones of it. Maybe we need to figure out some guidance. If I know that I would get a Nobel prize.
Bring it on!
I think there should be a health based income on top of a UBI. Something that would incentivise people to get physically and mentally healthy with individual goals managed by a custom AI. This would include rewards for sticking to a healthy diet and exercise program. People could sell selective of their medical data to governments and corporations for. People who did not want to take part would still avail of a standard basic income.
Ok, yes but when? Is it another 10 years? Is it tomorrow? I see a lot of promises but yet to see anything of real substance. I agree it will come. I just wonder what hurdles are left to solve and how quickly will those be solved. Not sure many folks know.
We don't know. This is bleeding edge of a new science. Progress is not predictable or well understood.
Just to prevent unwanted comments. What we are doing now has roots reaching back to the 1940s and it slowly grew with the power of the computer. But it was slow and small. The quest to build the best graphics cards for gaming has provided AI researches with the leg up in computer power needed to make deep learning useful.
Swell robotics, and, Ai jobloss is the only thing I worry about anymore. Anyone else feel the same?
Hey Graduates, "I just wanna say one word to you, Robots, there's a great future in Robots." 🤑🤑🤑
The only unskilled job in robotics currently, is a robot taunter/pusher/puncher
My biggest question is who is going to buy all the stuff robots can produce when we get redundent? robots dont buy stuff.
Enter ubi, vat tax, social redistribution schema. The dollar and money’s meaning could shift, maybe towards more niche currencies. Also investment in robots could create an ownership class and an underling class like the movie elysium in the dark version of events. Alternatively, we all own our own scaled down version the means of production or robot. And finally, the option that our costs go down so much that earning wont be a problem, because human labor will be still be in demand and it sill be enough to afford the cheaper future goods. Anyone owning nvdia stock might consider holding for a while
Yes, I think we forgot the MATERIALS in - Labour + MATERIALS + Overheads.
This all goes to zero with sufficient robotic penetration.
While I see the importance of moving towards labor superabundance asap, I am a bit concerned about the social and economic effects of millions of people out of work without any means of support. Without very strong governmental action supporting unemployed people, there will be mass homelessness and riots not to mention political chaos. The problem is that the government is basically broken and cannot get anything done in a timely way unless the corporate donors are demanding it.
I don't understand how it matters how cheap labor is if there is no humans left that can earn money by labor to keep the economy going?
Things will be different. Nearsighted people talk about universal basic income. This is a short term and difficult to fund solution. In time we will do away with money. This has been a topic of debate for 100s of years. Now it is real. I see a world where people are driven to achieve for a sense of accomplishment. People might group together to design and build orbital habitats. Clean up the earth by moving industry to space or the moon.
Consider the alternative. Do we roll the clock back by limiting technology to 1900 to ensure employment for everybody?
@@danharold3087 yes a world where induviduals are encouraged to explore and discover their potential as a person and contributeer to society's. To challenge oneself, inspire, helpout and get in touch with both the outer and inner space. While ai do the monotenous cumbersome labor that adds no value to the human experience. A omni economy that hands you the tools you need at the moment but never let's you horde material things other than personal memerobilia. Where society is managed by agi with no bias other than the greater good for nature man and progress. Uncoruppted without fear, greed or spite. That would be something 🙂✌
Environment check. Human life purpose still to be figured out. Are the robots going to consume also 🤔
No worries. A.i. will be built by man to do his work. A.i will explain to man, that a.i. is here to think, man can still do a lot of the work needed to keep himself happy and content, and I can't imagine a.i. not willing to pay people to build it things.
I don't see how a.i. will logically conclude it will have to make billions of robots, just so it can retire humans and feed them and medicate them, and etc...... That's not a smart thing to do. It's redundant, inefficient, and illogical. No a.i. is going to do it. Man will try.
If anything, I'd imagine a.i.'s goal would to make sure every person contributed to society, and was compensated for it. That could mean something as simple as going on walks in the neighborhood and picking up trash, or spending time at the animal shelter. Whatever. Keep people busy doing things that keep them occupied doing what they like.
There is nothing more satisfying to me than building something. I wish I could have worked on the pyramids. That would have been such a cool project to work on. It's hard to believe slaves could build them. If they were slaves, I hope they were proud.
What will robots do to unemployment and how will people find a new sense of life?
Removing ferrel cats in Australia.
The big question is: will we develop these technologies before destroying the planet's life supporting system?
Enviro damage, biodiversity loss, the energy & climate breakdown (interconnected crises intersects with other social challenges) have an underlying cause - our view & relationship with nature (nature & natural resources is to be exploited for profit; it has no inherent value) - tech & machines can't / won't fix that.
The underlying solution to the climate crisis is to respect nature, and consider nature in ALL human activities, such as reducing consumption & eliminating polluting & destructive activities and / or minimising their impact.
Tech can assist alter how humans interact with nature, eg deploying renewable tech & switching to e-transit can decarbonise 90% of the economy. Using new agri techniques (restorative agri) & incorporating agrivoltaics is also critical. Tech could possibly also help with climate adaptation, but it must be remembered that climate mitigation is far more urgent & critical, and should be prioritised.
Returning to a more mechanical tech (not requiring electricity) is also required, eg active transit (walking & cycling), passive housing, bioluminescence & solar tunnels instead of electrical lighting etc. The less energy we need, the less we need to generate, store, transmit & distribute etc. It must also be noted that in areas where the greatest population increases are expected, eg Asia & Africa (and where the impacts of cc will be more keenly felt), the robot / AI revolution may not be as significant as in more advanced countries. Otoh, the G20 countries are responsible for 80% emissions; if tech can help reduce emissions here that WOULD help a lot).
Tech has a place, but if we are going to "solve" the climate breakdown we need to "fix" our relationship with nature. We should not be regarding tech as any kind of silver bullet... a tool is only as good as the one who wields it (for good & evil).
the only way to point the economy toward environmentalism is to TAX all forms of pollution. and also tax the upper level rich who go their wealth by exploiting the publics natural resourses. if we do that we won't see many "robots" but thats good- wealth needs to be dispursted to the people.
We don't need to end animal agriculture, on the contrary we need to increase it using regenerative models such as thse employed by Joel Salatan of Polyface farms. We need to do so in order to allow all humans on this planet to eat a species appropriate species specific diet consisting of the flesh and fat of ruminant animals. Glucose and Fructose are deadly metabolic poisons and the criminal misanthropic advice to consume plant based diets causes chronic diseases as a result off the oxidation and glycation caused by these toxins. As a result health care produces twice the so called green house gas as animal agriculture.
Your post is mostly disinformation and alternative facts. There is not enough land for the diet you are suggesting, and the preponderance of evidence points to a plant-predominant diet for longevity and minimizing chronic diseases. For your own sake, please find better sources of information and learn about critical thinking.
Its 51C in Mexico, we've had a year over 1.6C, the world's corals are dying, we're going to add another 50Gt Co2e per year for a while yet, but infinite-earther in chief AD, thinks adding millions of robots over the next 20 years is the answer. Lets destroy the world further in the name of saving it. Just make sure you have a positive attitude and a smile as you do it. With his "house analogy", he does realise we are in the burning house, Right?
It is almost impossible to change people's minds right now. People either don't care, and if they cared, they feel doomed and won't do much. Sure i can donate some of my money to planting trees or towards nuclear, but that won't do much. I'll still do it tho. What we need is a solution so impactful, shaking society at it's core, shaking this profit-over-life driven economy, to be able to actually change something, and that is AI. The best bet is to go all in i believe. We can't keep asking people to put a tiny bit of effort every year that does absolutely nothing when the rest of the world actually makes the situation worse. We need to change the world fast, all of it, even if it's risky it's still the best bet.,
Usually I am getting a lot of knowledge and inspirations from RethinkX. And I rarely push the 'dislike' button for TH-cam videos, but in this case I do. The reason being that some major problems are completed left out, and I wonder how they can be solved by the 'abundance' and 'cheapness' of robotic labor that you forecast. In short, these problems are overpopulation, biodiversity loss, material and recycling thereof, and entropy production.
The underlying problem of all major problems we are having today is 'overpopulation'. If instead of today’s 8 billion humans on the globe we were only 80 million people, none of the major problems would be as big as they are today. And we would have much more time to solve them. So how can in your view robotics solve the overpopulation problem, or at least substantially contribute to its solution? I consider not discussing the problem to not be acceptable.
The next problem left out in this video is the substantial biodiversity loss we are experiencing nowadays. If you think robots are or could be the answer, you need to at least mention the topic and give the viewers an idea of how they could alleviate the problem.
Also, in your discussion you are neglecting the material question. Life was based on recycling. Then the 'intelligent' human, the 'crown of evolution' appeared on the scene. And after the industrial revolution recycling was lost. Building robots requires a lot of exquisite material. Where should that come from? The robots will not be biological entities, but electro-mechanical ones. Or did I miss a point? First they need the material to be built. Then, after they are decommissioned, the materiel needs to be recycled. Do you really think the material that goes into these robots will be recycled 100%? If not, what is your estimate about the recycling percentage?
The last point is related to entropy production. On our plante life cannot exist on our planet without the constant influx of negentropy from the sun in form of radiation. Living beings transform low entropy items (food) into higher entropy items (excrements). But with the help of negentropy (light) low entropy biochemical molecules can be synthesised, for instance in the leaves of trees, and life can continue. With the industrial revolution humanity stepped out of the biological processes and started to produce entropy (read waste) in insurmountable quantities. Do you really think that building, maintaining and recycling these billions (?) of robots does not massively contribute to entropy (read waste) production?
I’d appreciate a reply to my points.
It never has been a question that we can but we will not , why $$$$$$$$$$ and time is best spent worshiping the bottom line and power. Remove that from our DNA and you may have something to discuss. There are three wars going on in the Middle East and one in Europe. What takes priority , unfortunately not the planet . Love you optimism not your reality
You may be right that robots may be "one of the best things ever to happen for the environment." Poor people around the world may be thrown out of work and, with no savings, may starve to death. No people, no pollution. Great for the environment. Not so great for humanity. Do you plan to explain how people will survive in a penny-per-hour labor market?
We as a society need to quit valuing people based on the bargaining power they have against union-busting multinational corporations. A society in which all the work is done with robots is richer than one without, but we have to make sure the benefits of the robots do not only go to oligopolistic robot barons.
I think a full labor crash is farther out. Robots will first replace work no one wants to do, is too dangerous to do, or is very easy to automate. We will still have a labor market for other tasks at least in the short term. Robots, like vehicles and power tools, will multiply the labor being done by the remaining people in the field. Someone still has to yell at the droids about what to fix and how to fix it.
Money is not something that needs to exist like it does right now. Governments will not let people starve, not all of them at least. The overadbundant resources can be redistributed.
@@WaveOfDestiny You're right when it comes to rich countries, but many poor countries don't have that much to redistribute, and $200-a-month garment workers won't be able to go back to being $100 a month farm workers once robotic seeders and harvesters replace them.
This is why we need businessmen like Trump and Vivek to lead us into the next four years!!!
So, you want your beautiful clean coal back?