When the very first cars were built, only the rich could afford it, but now a large part of the population (in developed countries) has one or more.
What do you think will be such an evolution in the future?
Ocean-front property… 😜
Don’t worry, I’m sure Corpos and the RIch will find a way to get government to eminent domain your property away and give it to them under some bullshit excuse like “protecting their investment in seaside property”
I know you’re only joking but fuck me, given the way things have gone this century…
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.
Water for drinking isn’t the issue - that’s about 0.01% of all water usage. The issue is irrigation for food crops, which is >50% of water use in many places.
Where do you live? Where I am we were used to have drinkable water in abundance, and only now start taking about that maybe in summertime we need to restrict car washing or so… what you say is something else entirely.
Lab-grown meat.
“In 2013, the world’s 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.” (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
I’m already fairly satisfied with the newer plant-based meat replacements. They just need to come down in price to below actual meat.
Not everyone can eat them though, for whatever reason it can cause extreme abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and more in some people.
I know, because I’m one of those people. Took 3 impossible burgers before I noticed the pattern and looked into it.
Felt like I was dying the first two times, felt like I was dying the third time too… but that was mollified slightly by recognizing the pattern and hating myself for doing it to myself.
All I can think of is capitalism filling it with shit.
Why make 50 beef burgers when I can add filler ingredients and make 100.
Capitalism breaks everything.
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.
Due to the environmental impacts they would have a strong incentive to not do that.
Not because they care that much about the climate, but if they can make a significant percentage of continents like Africa and Asia reduce their food production emissions they they themselves would need to reduce theirs less
if they can make a significant percentage of continents like Africa and Asia reduce their food production emissions they they themselves would need to reduce theirs less
I’m confused by this. Care to elaborate?
I’m inclined to agree, at least initially. I suspect it’ll depend on how much demand and competition there is in the field once it’s democratized. The other consideration is extraneous factors (e.g. soaring price of meat due to climate change) that could make lab-grown the cheapest/best option eventually.
Would licensing matter outside of rich countries? I confess I know very little about patent law and things like that, but I’d imagine that if - say - Thailand wanted to use the same method as the U.S. Company, that the U.S. company wouldn’t actually be able to do anything about it, since they’re not under the same jurisdiction
I can already buy impossible beef at my supermarket, it’s not even that much more that regular beef. And most fast food places offer it as well.
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 don’t 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
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.
Grow an organ for you from your own cells. No rejection or drugs; your body accepts it as its own.
A friend’s uncle paid to travel to an elite American hospital to get stem cell therapy instead of a knee replacement. While he did pay for the flight and the living expenses, he did not pay for the treatment because it was experimental. So yeah, it does cost a lot, but not because of the treatment itself. Of course, this coukd change when patents are applied and capitalism takes over the therapy.
