#and i feel like this happens with me and a lot of the common consensies with costume colors

[romainlettusdinnerparty]

sometimes idk who’s the colorblind one, me or all the poeple who thought wills jacket in the leak was green

[andersa]

Fully Automated Luxury Communism *IS* Our Future

I have been planning to write on this topic, but a recently featured article in OneZero inspired me to kick it off now. This is my rebuttal.

  In his analysis of the book Fully Automated Luxury Communism by Aaron Bastani, Robin Whitlock wrote an article that he felt outlined the reasons why Bastani is incorrect in his belief that one day (perhaps sooner than we may realize), the world will transition to a one-world, communist-style form of government. I haven’t read Bastani’s book, but, I have been an avid supporter of this concept for nearly a decade after watching the movie Zeitgiest: Moving Forward.

Over the years, I have also engaged in conversations about this topic with literally thousands of people, and most of them repeat the same fallacies over and over in their denial that such a thing could ever possibly happen. I have found that many people have several cognitive biases that hinder their ability to look forward into the future and see what it could potentially look like.

Often, they believe it will look and behave very similarly (if not worse) than what we have today, maybe just with a few more gadgets to play with. In fact, most people are completely unaware of their own biases, let alone that there are 175 known biases that influence our rationale.

Of course, the most obvious is the negative connotation that the word “communism" brings to mind. Immediately, the thought of walking skeletons forced into labor camps spurs a knee-jerk reaction to immediately stop listening to any argument that can even remotely be deemed “pro-communist". But, just to touch on some of the other common biases that influence this conversation (and most people’s daily lives) are:

Declinism- when we remember the past as better     than it was, while simultaneously believing the future will be worse than     it likely will be.

Just-World- Many of us who live in developed     nations like to believe the world is a just place. It makes us feel     secure. To think that somewhere in the world someone is dying of hunger,     can overwhelm us with guilt if we think about it while we enjoy an     expensive meal at a nice restaurant. So, we chase away the guilt by     reminding ourselves that we work hard and we’re good people, so we deserve     this nice meal. Anyone who doesn’t have access to such things is just not     trying hard enough, so they get what they deserve. Of course, this bias     can cloud our judgment of other people and their situations. It helps to     cloak the madness of the system we have built. It’s also a bias that     politicians tend to exploit to get you to vote for them, and one that     makes people believe the world in the future will be pretty much the same     place it is today.

Belief & Confirmation Bias: Our beliefs shape     our perception. After all, the human condition requires we believe in     something for it to be real. When one believes in something, they will     find or fabricate as much evidence as necessary to support that belief;     likewise for something one does not believe in. Our brains automatically     default to our belief structures when analyzing nearly any subject. And,     it can sometimes be difficult to examine the evidence with an open mind     that may challenge those beliefs.

Dunning-Kruger: The more you know, the less     confident you are. Fools rush in without understanding. The wise     understand how little they know and pause for consideration.

Framing: It is amazing what a frame can do for a     portrait or painting. The right frame really makes the piece pop and     increase the appreciation of those beholding the piece of art. The same     goes for our brains. Major media, consumer data companies, and marketers     understand how their piece of art is framed MATTERS. A LOT. It is often     seen that they will frame things in different ways for different consumer     tastes and preferences. It is an extremely easy way to manipulate the masses.     And, once one recognizes this bias, one begins to see the frames around     everything.

Familiarity: Our comfort zone. Whether in the     physical sense or the literal, most of us have a pretty small comfort zone     surrounding every aspect of our lives. If something encroaches without     permission, or we are challenged to venture outside of our zones, it can     be stressful and uncomfortable. While the huge world outside of our zones     can be harsh and unforgiving, it can also hold the key to amazing new     discoveries in all areas of life.

Self-Attribution: A common example of this is     when working in a group, you feel like you’re doing more than everyone     else. The interesting thing about this is: if you ask 10 people in a group     if they feel like they’re doing more than others, you’ll likely get 9     responses that support their belief they are working harder than everyone     else.

Sunk-cost: You’ve invested a lot of time, effort,     and money into a project (or your career). But, it’s not going as you had     hoped. It’s difficult to walk away from something that is not serving its     intended purpose.

Anchoring: This is when you’re so focused on one     goal, that you miss out on opportunities to have a better outcome because     you refuse to deviate from the initial goal.

Survival: The celebs (and capitalists) make it     all look so easy. Like anyone can go to Hollywood and become a huge star.     But, what we often don’t hear about are all the failed talent who just     didn’t get the right break into the industry. If one does not succeed, one     is simply failing at trying hard enough (similar to the Just-World bias).

There are many others that fit into this conversation. The ambiguity effect (avoiding options where the outcome is unknown), anthropocentric thinking or anthropomorphism (common in discussions about AI), attentional bias (marketing and constantly being told capitalism is the best way), and so on.

But, even FALC supporters are sometimes clouded by their own biases. In addition to the few of the above, automation bias (excessively relying on automated systems which can give erroneous information that overrides correct decisions) is one. Berkson’s Paradox ( The tendency to misinterpret statistical experiments involving conditional probabilities) is another. And, especially the Bias Blind Spot (the tendency to recognize bias more in others, less in oneself).

So, regardless of these biases on both sides of the conversation, people want to see hard facts and plausible ideas about how this future may come to fruition or why it will not.

The truth is: NONE of us know for sure.

But, there are some things that should be considered before completely shutting the door on the idea of humanity living in a Fully Automated Luxury Communist structure in the future. So, back to the original article I am rebutting by Mr. Whitlock. I seriously doubt he read the book, though that is simply an assumption. But, this assumption stems from the fact that many of his rebuttals to the concept are deeply entrenched in a capitalist mindset, disregarding the very essence of the book.

1                                    Assumption One

For instance, many of the government labor statistics he quotes are based on a flawed system of tracking that the US is notorious for. He also claims that automation is a “long way off and not necessarily replacing jobs”. This is also a flawed analysis due to Moore’s law. But, Moore’s law aside — some even believe Moore’s law is dead or evolving— he goes on to state that according to McKinsey digital who stated two years ago that less than 5% of jobs are able to be automated over the next decade. That is a seemingly naive assumption compared to the breakthroughs we have seen in the past two years from companies like Boston Dynamics and their amazing robots.

And, to counter that McKinsey article showing an example of a lumberjack, or construction and raising outdoor animals:

So, now we get into the cost of all this automation. Sure, it is a prohibitive factor for many, especially small businesses. For now, that is. In accordance with Moore’s law, as things become smaller and more advanced, though, the prices tend to drop. The more assistance provided to small businesses (whether by government supplementation or not), the faster these technologies will drop in price and advance.

Then, by quoting articles that are years old (2014 & 2017), the argument is made that, for instance, self-driving cars are facing major logistical and regulatory issues. Again, without considering the major advancements made recently. In fact, he very conspicuously left out Tesla in this analysis. Or, for that matter, the drone taxis that started in Dubai in 2017, and are now being adopted and accelerated by Uber and Boeing.

So, by assuming that automation is not going to replace most jobs anytime soon, we are really turning a blind-eye on the advancements going on around the world.

2                                    Assumption Two

Moving on to asteroid-mining. Mr. Whitlock used an article from 2012 (nearly a decade old) to prove the point that we were a decade away from identifying suitable asteroids to mine. In 2015, Obama signed a law into effect called “Space Law” allowing private companies to mine asteroids. And, the example used — Planetary Resources — struggling only to be acquired by Consensys, Inc. (a blockchain company) is an extremely poor (on purpose?) example, considering that companies like (to name only a few) Deep Space Industries, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Bigelow Aerospace, and even The Blue Origin aerospace company owned by Jeff Bezos are going all-in on this concept.

In the article, he also tries to point out that these ventures being profitable are the highest concern. That is, again, a false assumption. While it is true that funding needs to happen to make these a reality, one must also realize that funding, in itself, is a fallacy. By this, I mean:

The idea of fiat currency having any sort of value is false. It can be created out of thin air. It is either simply a piece of paper or a number on a computer monitor. Nearly the entire world uses fiat currency.

Nor is the number of materials hidden in the asteroids “speculative, at best”. That is his own assumption, without any real-time understanding of how the above-mentioned companies conduct research to identify lucrative asteroids.

As noted in the original article, Mars One’s for-profit business went bankrupt (though the non-profit side is still running). That is a sign that for-profit in this sector will struggle. Perhaps an even bigger signal that non-profit will eventually win in this sector. As an added point of interest, space is a HUGE business and destined only to grow:

 The point is not profit. The point is to succeed at nearly any cost.

3                                    Assumption Three

Aside from the fact that the vast majority of people are essentially wage-slaves who toil away at mind-numbing tasks to make their bosses a little richer, this entire area completely leaves out the concept of AI and quantum computing. Mr. Whitlock is stuck in his own biases that only a company can do what is being talked about and that companies can only be run by humans. While this is certainly the case today, the advent of AI is not to be scoffed at. In fact, the entire premise of arguments against a system like FALC is akin to the people who 20 years ago scoffed at the idea of having hand-held computers that we know as smartphones. It is an archaic way of thinking… Fearful, even. The truth is: We are on the precipice of technological upheaval never before witnessed by humanity. We better get our heads right to understand the challenges we will face and how to make life better for all humans as a consequence of technology. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in dystopian lives as described by some of the dystopian authors people love to quote.

This concept is not some glorified hippie utopia (utopia is highly subjective, btw) of rainbows and lollipops all day. Stop fooling yourselves and diminishing the world we live in and are about to arrive in. This is the reality we face. When people are displaced from employment and when precious metals & minerals are no longer rare, it will not happen suddenly and it will not be a hundred years away. Try the next 10–30 years, MAXIMUM, for us to really start seeing these effects. Sure, you and I may not be around to see it, but my kids will be.

We need to expand our highly myopic understanding of what is in front of us. If you don’t, others will, and it will be you who is left in the dust.

DISRUPT, OR BE DISRUPTED. That is the motto of the 21st-century.

Finally, yes, the future may be run by corporate empires. That is a scary prospect. In the near future, it may be necessary to eliminate the idea of corporations. All other details aside, the idea of competition is only a hindrance to the advancement of these technologies. Why split the resources (money, labor, etc.) between so many different companies hoping for a profit for a few individuals? In many ways, this is a ridiculous notion. It means fewer resources for each company and wasted time between advancements. This problem is becoming more and more obvious as technology advances.

And, all of this is in addition to the people who are working to cure aging, upload minds into the cloud, and make us into something else to redefine what it means to be human like the Transhumanist movement. If one doesn’t take all of these considerations into account when thinking about the future, they are doing themselves and the future a disservice. Because even though you may stick your head in the sand to avoid seeing it, millions of others are working toward this future whether they realize it or not.

There is so much more I could add to this, but then I would need to write a book… A book explaining Fully Automated Luxury Communism…