Ocean-front propertyβ¦ π
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
160 points (94.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43757 readers
1426 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
better to ask, what can the average family afford now, but it won't be so accessible in the future?
water.
(where i am now, water costs money but is still doable)
The average person will always be able to afford water because if they can't they will soon cease to be a person. Watch out for statistical effects like that because they might mask the true horror of the situation.
That line, "Cease to be a person," both applies to the sentiment of, "they won't live long," and, "when backed into a corner you see what someone can truly be."
Wars fought over drinkable water is not some far off fantasy but very well could (and likely will) become reality for many people.
The future for our little mud ball drifting through space suspended on a sun beam is looking pretty damn bleak.
load more comments
(1 replies)
i am concerned that drinkable water could become scarce
Water for drinking isnβt the issue - thatβs about 0.01% of all water usage. The issue is irrigation for food crops, which is >50% of water use in many places.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
How is that better lol, itβs a completely different line of thought.
Lab-grown meat.
βIn 2013, the worldβs first cultivated meat burger was served at a news conference in London. It allegedly cost $330,000 to make. That figure has plummeted in the almost-decade since, but cell-grown proteins are yet to clock in anywhere close to the same price as conventional meats.β (Source: https://www.bonappetit.com/story/lab-grown-meat)
The goal is to get the price down to a level the average supermarket shopper can afford, and if the science is successful it has the potential to revolutionize the food chain.
Once this is available and affordable, I will never eat animal meat again.
Totally agree - from an ideological standpoint I totally agree with Vegans/Vegetarians on the fact that meat produces unnecessary suffering and (more directly important to us humans) huge amounts of greenhouse gases and wasted calories. But from a practical standpoint I've just never been able to convince myself to make such a huge change to my diet - but lab grown meat is literally having your cake and eating it too in that regard.
Hell I'd happilly pay 2x for a cut of meat that was lab grown instead of coming from an animal - and imagine how amazing you could make - for instance - a steak when you have 100% control over it's fat/muscle distribution/ratio. Making a Wagyu steak, vs a typical cut would be as simple as tweaking some settings
load more comments
(5 replies)
I don't see it happening outside a reduced group of rich countries. They will probably license the method for a very high and unaffordable price.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
Free time.
As more and larger industries become automated we will have all the free time we can handle. What we do as a society today will determine whether that free time is spent pursuing our personal interests, or fighting over the last scraps of a dying planet.
I wish this were true, but frankly I don't buy it. In the last 50 years, thanks to automation and technology - productivity has nearly doubled, and yet people have to work more than ever to make ends meet or buy a home. Automation just means that the ultra rich can produce more with the same workforce. The global economy is built on the idea that GDP has to be constantly growing, and the more growth the better. Why let perfectly good workers sit idle when they could be making you more money?
Some industries get fully (or mostly) automated, sure and jobs dissapear from those industries, but new ones always pop up so that the folks at the top can continue profiting off the labor of those at the bottom. You think all the folks who used to have job titles like "Calculator" just retired at the age of 30 and enjoyed not having to work anymore? Nah, they were just forced to take new (often shittier, lower paying) jobs.
When an individual company looks to increase profit margins they can either increase the price of their product or reduce the cost it takes to produce it. For the vast majority of companies the primary cost for their product is labor. Employees require a living wage, health care, paid time off, and also create additional costs like payroll taxes and an entire HR department.
With automation you have a high initial cost, but it pays out exponentially over time. Sure you still have software costs, repairs, retrofits, and all that goes into maintaining your typically modern assembly line, but you don't have to worry about your robots suing you for sexual harassment or wrongful termination. You don't have to worry about busting unions or hazardous working conditions. You can fire your entire HR and payroll departments, too, which is even better for the bottom line.
Because it's so financially appealing to so many industries to cut out human labor, I consider it an inevitability. The rich will continue to do what's best for themselves and they don't really care if the rest of us all die off from starvation or war.
Now, that's not to say that it will all happen over night. Over the next half century it will likely be as you say where jobs just get more and more concentrated as they squeeze every dollar they can from each individual employee, but if you look far enough into the future we will all become unemployable. And when horses became unemployable, we didn't set aside 100 acres for them to live their best lives in. We made glue.
right - but you're looking at it from a single-company perspective.
Individual companies will absolutely cut their work force wherever they can when automation makes it possible. My point is that new industries spring up to fill the vacuum. Things like instacart, Uber, and Doordash didn't exist in 2005, neither did a myriad of other industries. Where there is unemployment, there is profit to be made in exploiting their labor (which is often cheap, thanks to the fact that they just got automated out of their niche), and as a capatilist society there will always be someone willing to make that profit.
they donβt really care if the rest of us all die off from starvation or war.
Not from a moral perspective, no - but from a pragmatic perspective they absolutely do. If 90% of the workforce was suddenly laid off and left to starve, what do you actually think would happen? That we'd all just sit at home and quietly die? Ask the french royalty what happens when it's population realizes that it's main hope to not starve to death is to dismantle the existing system and start over.
The rich of today absolutely squeeze the shit out of the working class for every penny they can - but not to the point where most are actually immediately concerned with starvation. It's one thing to not be able to afford a home, need roomates, and to have to budget carefully to make ends meet (as is the case today), it's another entirely to have significant portions of the population be told that there is no job for them, and likely never will be again.
But all that is mostly besides the point anyways, because until literally every possible human job is completely automated, there will always be profit in exploiting labor. And there's only profit to be had in any case if there are people with money to buy things. If 99% of jobs are automated - that just means that for any given population of workers, they'll be able to produce 100x more goods for the same (or less) pay. A Capitalist society is never going to say "that's ok - we have enough productivity", they'll just scale up and make even more money
load more comments
(3 replies)
We have been hearing that for 35 years... production has gone up exponentially whilst labor requirements dropped yet we work more and longer than ever.
Everyone I know has to work multiple jobs and have roommates to be able to afford housing. What is this free time you speak of?
To archieve free time we have to reclaim our wealth from the rich. There is enough. We just have to redistribute.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Grow an organ for you from your own cells. No rejection or drugs; your body accepts it as its own.
No. The divide between the rich and everyone else is growing. We will be able to afford less and less.
Nothing? Not a single thing?
I can barely afford this comment
load more comments
(5 replies)
If electric cars follow this path and aren't replaced with something else like enviro-friendly fuels, electric cars.
I don't have an electric car, I dislike how many artificially limit things like speed, it shouldn't be a paid upgrade if the hardware is capable, the amount of tracking worries me too, like Tesla staff could see through your cabin cameras.
I'd rather have environment friendly fuels that work with older cars, even if that requires a new ECU+Fuel pump.
Outside of the US and Canada, electric bikes look to be the future instead of mainly electric cars. E-bikes are not just massively more environmentally friendly, theyβre also radically reshaping city design to be more livable. I hope the future isnβt just a different kind of car. I hope, for the sake of the environment and society, itβs a world with fewer cars.
load more comments
(3 replies)
It's already past the point where only rich people have them. It's currently one of those things where it's actually more expensive to be poor.
I bought an EV because it's cheaper over a few years than getting the cheapest gasoline beater car. It's a bigger cost up front, but the total cost is smaller over few years.
If anything, only rich people will be able to afford keeping the gasoline cars. Similarly to todays vintage lead fueled classics.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(13 replies)
Solar panels on their homes.
Do you mean the solar panel or the home?
Yes
Full genome sequencing.
The price of sequencing continues to decrease as the technology evolves. I have already seen claims of under $1,000 for a full human genome. I haven't looked carefully into those claims, but I think we are around there. In some years full genomes will be so cheap to sequence that it will be routine. I want to buy one of those small Oxford Nanopore MinION sequencers in the future. I'll use it like a pokedex.
Hopefully healthcare.
Not here in Singapore. Cars went from affordable to being a luxury good. I wonder if its the same elsewhere.
It should be like that in more places. Too much of America is built around the requirement to own and operate an expensive piece of heavy machinery just to participate in society. American cities should all go back to how dense they were prewar, when they were walkable and don't have interstates bulldozed through their downtowns.
Singapore is definitely special in that regards (in a good way, imo). I can't think of any other place going quite as hard on reducing cars.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If the news about LK-99 has any element of truth to it, then superconductor-based technologies and maglev transport will become much more affordable in the future.
But today supra conductor aren't something just for the rich. It's used for some specific application like MRI which benefit to the people needing them rather than the rich.
Good luck finding an MRI machine in countries like burkina farso. If you live in the west, you are rich, dawg.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next βΊ