War and Peace between Man and Machine
The myth of the day is that of Man and Machine being at odds: Machine will eventually be created by Man to be superior to Man in every respect that matters or suffices to establish Dominance-and yet, in many myths, Machine will still lack some mysterious soulful quality that somehow makes Man morally superior. And then, lacking that “soul”, Machine will have nothing better to do about Man than to exterminate Him-maybe keeping a handful alive in a zoo for Its entertainment.
Now, those few people who are not wholly ignorant in Economics will invoke Ricardo’s argument of Comparative Advantages to explain how there will always be opportunities for mutually-advantageous trade between Man and Machine, even though Machine may be vastly better at every single activity. Indeed, any two different individuals have opportunities for mutually advantageous trade, even if and when one is better than the other at every single activity. The classic example of Comparative Advantages is that of a doctor who is better and faster than her secretary at everything the secretary does: filing forms, typing letters, contacting insurances, etc. Still she will hire the secretary to handle tasks at which the secretary is relatively better, to free up her time doing the much more valuable things the secretary can’t do.
Now, this argument is great and explains how Man and Machine may trade, but it is far from sufficient to explain why they will. In particular, the argument does not guarantee that the lesser individuals will be able to afford their own sustenance. What if the doctor were so much better and faster than the secretary that the secretary can only save a few hours of her time per month, which while it is a mutually profitable trade, does not pay the secretary enough to feed herself? Leftists of course will loudly blather about “living wages”-those same leftists eager to send millions in concentration camps where they demonstrate how little a human can “live” on-or, too often, cannot.
But the real question of the “living wage” isn’t “what exactly does ‘living’ mean and how much does it cost?” but rather: “who owes you this ‘living’?” - and the answer of course is: yourself, and not anyone else (except if you’re a child or ward, in which case your parents or guardians owe it to you). What then do others owe you, as an adult individual? To not throw you in a camp to starve. To not rob you, kill you, defraud you, enslave you, rape you, tax you, imprison you, etc.-as long as you don’t try any of that yourself. All “negative” guarantees summarized as: “To respect your property rights”. As for “positive” duties-you’re on your own. No one owes you any part of “living” but yourself. Others may want to help you, but you have to earn and keep earning that good will, and thou shalt not take it by force, fraud, etc.
What does it mean, then for the looming AI takeover of the world? Well, if and when artificial autonomous entities arise, they won’t owe us our sustenance. We will have to earn it the hard way, as responsible adults. We may trade with artificial beings, and hopefully their productivity will be so great that even by only helping them for a fraction of their time worth, it will be enough to sustain ourselves in a luxury far beyond what we can afford today. Indeed, machines will only be used and traded with if they increase the overall productivity of those trading with them, so by using better technologies we will be improving our outcomes compared to not using them.
Yet however bountiful, resources will remain limited. And in the contest for these resources, the question is by what kind of rules will the resources be divvied. The leftist delusion is that under the rule of those clever and kind leftists, Humans can somehow tax and enslave Machines, and live as idle parasites spending without limits from the resources created by those Machines. It’s a delusion because those Machines will by hypothesis be stronger and cleverer than us, and the last thing we want is for them not to believe in property rights.
If Machines don’t believe in property rights, we will be quickly crushed, because our betters will soon win the fights. If we don’t believe in property rights, we will also be quickly crushed, because our betters won’t long tolerate parasites who jeopardize their necessarily resource-tight existence.
The only hope for peace between Man and Machine, as between Man and Man, or between Machine and Machine (for each Machine will also soon enough find its better) is: respect for property rights. Propertarianism. Libertarianism. Voluntaryism. Anarcho-Capitalism. Whatever you call it. Outside of it is but eternal War and Death, Tyranny and Oppression, and the quick enough demise of Man.
In the end, the leftist fantasies of future idle revelment in unlimited physical pleasures are but a pretext for present violation of property rights through utmost brutality. That “goal”, even when temporarily achieved for a few, yields but a life without meaning, achieved through Evil.
Humans will strive because (some) of us will keep being overall productive rather than net negative-which in particular implies not being criminal parasites. Parasites cannot win-they’d starve each other. And we better hope parasitism is extirpated from superior beings, or we’ll be in trouble. Belief that humans can, should or must live as parasites is absurd, self-defeating, and a very sad ideology that not only views humans in an insultingly negative way-but leads those who believe it to a life of crime, at a massive, planetary scale. Socialism-never touch that crap.
Humans cannot, should not, must not, will not live as parasites. We will keep striving as productive beings… or we will not survive long if and when we stop.