"The crises that face science [from the ending of exponential growth in science funding after the Cold War period] are not limited to jobs and research funds. Those are bad enough, but they are just the beginning. Under stress from those problems, other parts of the scientific enterprise have started showing signs of distress. One of the most essential is the matter of honesty and ethical behavior among scientists.
The public and the scientific community have both been shocked in recent years by an increasing number of cases of fraud committed by scientists. There is little doubt that the perpetrators in these cases felt themselves under intense pressure to compete for scarce resources, even by cheating if necessary. As the pressure increases, this kind of dishonesty is almost sure to become more common.
Other kinds of dishonesty will also become more common. For example, peer review, one of the crucial pillars of the whole edifice, is in critical danger. Peer review is used by scientific journals to decide what papers to publish, and by granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation to decide what research to support. Journals in most cases, and agencies in some cases operate by sending manuscripts or research proposals to referees who are recognized experts on the scientific issues in question, and whose identity will not be revealed to the authors of the papers or proposals. Obviously, good decisions on what research should be supported and what results should be published are crucial to the proper functioning of science.
Peer review is usually quite a good way to identify valid science. Of course, a referee will occasionally fail to appreciate a truly visionary or revolutionary idea, but by and large, peer review works pretty well so long as scientific validity is the only issue at stake. However, it is not at all suited to arbitrate an intense competition for research funds or for editorial space in prestigious journals. There are many reasons for this, not the least being the fact that the referees have an obvious conflict of interest, since they are themselves competitors for the same resources. This point seems to be another one of those relativistic anomalies, obvious to any outside observer, but invisible to those of us who are falling into the black hole. It would take impossibly high ethical standards for referees to avoid taking advantage of their privileged anonymity to advance their own interests, but as time goes on, more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded as a consequence of having themselves been victimized by unfair reviews when they were authors. Peer review is thus one among many examples of practices that were well suited to the time of exponential expansion, but will become increasingly dysfunctional in the difficult future we face.
We must find a radically different social structure to organize research and education in science after The Big Crunch. That is not meant to be an exhortation. It is meant simply to be a statement of a fact known to be true with mathematical certainty, if science is to survive at all. The new structure will come about by evolution rather than design, because, for one thing, neither I nor anyone else has the faintest idea of what it will turn out to be, and for another, even if we did know where we are going to end up, we scientists have never been very good at guiding our own destiny. Only this much is sure: the era of exponential expansion will be replaced by an era of constraint. Because it will be unplanned, the transition is likely to be messy and painful for the participants. In fact, as we have seen, it already is. Ignoring the pain for the moment, however, I would like to look ahead and speculate on some conditions that must be met if science is to have a future as well as a past. ..."
The paper may have a point in that the internet makes possible a certain scale of deception via paper mills and brokers and such -- but the motivation to use the internet that way comes from the growing financial pressures that Dr. Goodstein identified.
Inefficiency all too often is celebrated by our society, as I wrote in 2010: https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html
"Also, many current industries that employ large numbers of people (ranging from the health insurance industry, the compulsory schooling industry, the defense industry, the fossil fuel industry, conventional agriculture industry, the software industry, the newspaper and media industries, and some consumer products industries) are coming under pressure from various movements from both the left and the right of the political spectrum in ways that might reduce the need for much paid work in various ways. Such changes might either directly eliminate jobs or, by increasing jobs temporarily eliminate subsequent problems in other areas and the jobs that go with them (as reflected in projections of overall cost savings by such transitions); for example building new wind farms instead of new coal plants might reduce medical expenses from asthma or from mercury poisoning. A single-payer health care movement, a homeschooling and alternative education movement, a global peace movement, a renewable energy movement, an organic agriculture movement, a free software movement, a peer-to-peer movement, a small government movement, an environmental movement, and a voluntary simplicity movement, taken together as a global mindshift of the collective imagination, have the potential to eliminate the need for many millions of paid jobs in the USA while providing enormous direct and indirect cost savings. This would make the unemployment situation much worse than it currently is, while paradoxically possibly improving our society and lowering taxes. Many of the current justifications for continuing social policies that may have problematical effects on the health of society, pose global security risks, or may waste prosperity in various ways is that they create vast numbers of paid jobs as a form of make-work."
Philosophy territory now... you wrote about technology making labor unnecessary 15 years ago - Aristotele did ~2000 years ago too (same text where he tried to justify slavery but nvm that): "For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, [...] if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves."
I bet in 2000 years they will still be writing about it - yeah, technology changes our lives (for better or worse).
It's pretty fascinating to look at the impacts this has had in the last 2000 years, or even just the last 200.
Take construction work. Incredible improvements through power tools, gasoline-powered mobile cranes, etc. The productivity per worker has exploded. A lot of this has been captured by induced demand: we build bigger, taller, grander. But the improvements aren't distributed equally. Which means that crafts that haven't seen much improvement are now more expensive in comparison to everything else. Which has contributed to our buildings having less elaborate facades and becoming more "bland"
The same in clothing. Clothing has become dirt cheap. Even the poorest people can afford new clothing multiple times a year. But in the same transition we have gone from everything being custom tailored to most things only kind of fitting, being made for variations of the most common body shapes. Not necessarily because tailored clothing has become much more expensive (though higher labor costs from higher average productivity haven't helped), but because every other step has become cheaper and tailoring hasn't.
I wonder what we will say about the trajectory of software in a couple decades
That's a great angle - will handcrafted software of the future become the equivalent of a tailored suit today? One might argue it already is, most companies and individuals do just fine using cloud/SaaS offerings and COTS apps. So on first glance it seems like automating software engineering would mainly benefit exactly those providers. The other side of the coin is that it also allows for cheaper/faster in-house DIY solutions and competition.
Yeah, I could see a world where it swings exactly the opposite way for software. Writing software for yourself is becoming cheap, but gathering requirements, getting alignment between stakeholders or marketing your software isn't getting much cheaper. Maybe everyone will end up with their own in-house solution? Or maybe we end up with configurable SAP-like behemoths, but instead of an army of expensive consultants configuring the software for your use case you have AI agents taking that part
I'm sure whatever path this takes will seems obvious in hindsight
"What if the future didn’t end in collapse… but in transformation?
2100 — Beyond the Horizon is a utopian short [ten minute] film presented as a speculative visual timeline, exploring a possible evolution of human civilization from 2026 to 2100.
Through advances in science, medicine, energy, space infrastructure, and global cooperation, this film imagines a world where humanity gradually moves beyond scarcity, disease, and planetary limits — toward stability, exploration, and coexistence.
This is not a prediction.
It is a thought experiment.
All scenes were generated using AI and assembled into a cinematic narrative.
Any resemblance to real events is coincidental."
Some options for dealing with economic dislocation by AI and robotics that I put together about more than a decade ago (which relate to my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."):
"Beyond a Jobless Recovery: A heterodox perspective on 21st century economics"
https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html
"This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."
"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."
Beyond not mentioning a Basic Income, one other thing which Bernie Sanders' comments overlook is the potential for transforming needed "work" into "play":
"The Abolition of Work" by Bob Black, 1985
https://web.archive.org/web/20080702023453/http://www.whywor...
I just reread (via an audiobook) "Voyage From Yesteryear" by James P. Hogan (from 1982) which is all about people brought up in an old way of thinking actively resisting transitioning to an abundance way of thinking (including by preventing other people from doing the same). Artificial scarcity is a powerful drug for the very powerful...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_from_Yesteryear
"The Mayflower II has brought with it thousands of settlers, all the trappings of the authoritarian regime along with bureaucracy, religion, fascism and a military presence to keep the population in line. However, the planners behind the generation ship did not anticipate the direction that Chironian society took: in the absence of conditioning and with limitless robotic labor and fusion power, Chiron has become a post-scarcity economy. Money and material possessions are meaningless to the Chironians and social standing is determined by individual talent, which has resulted in a wealth of art and technology without any hierarchies, central authority or armed conflict.
In an attempt to crush this anarchist adhocracy, the Mayflower II government employs every available method of control; however, in the absence of conditioning the Chironians are not even capable of comprehending the methods, let alone bowing to them. The Chironians simply use methods similar to Gandhi's satyagraha and other forms of nonviolent resistance to win over most of the Mayflower II crew members, who had never previously experienced true freedom, and isolate the die-hard authoritarians."
"The artificial intelligence and robotics being developed by multi-billionaires will allow corporate America to wipe out tens of millions of decent-paying jobs, cut labor costs and boost profits. What happens to working class people who can’t find jobs because they don’t exist?"
Anxiety is not identical to depression, but consider: "The Chemical Imbalance Theory of Depression: Where Is It Going?"
https://www.madinamerica.com/2020/02/chemical-imbalance-theo...
"The spurious chemical imbalance theory of depression is arguably the most destructive thing that psychiatry has ever done. ..."
The placebo effect can be very real...
And self-fulfilling predictions by authority figures can also be powerful...
Lack of neurotransmitters being produced in the gut due to microbiome issues is maybe the closest to a real "imbalance" -- like with the original article. Example:
"How Your Gut Health Affects Your Brain: The Mind-Altering Power of Your Microbiome"
https://www.sciencenewstoday.org/how-your-gut-health-affects...
"Your gut microbes can produce neurotransmitters like serotonin, dopamine, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), and acetylcholine—all of which are crucial for brain function. In fact, more than 90% of the body’s serotonin is produced in the gut, not the brain. This has profound implications for mood and emotional health."
Good luck finding things that work for you -- assuming you are not happy just the way you are.
"I like you just the way you are" - Mr. Rodgers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPDTpqtmzPQ
Indeed; good point! And how will all that play out? Better communications or more schlock to wade through on the internet? Or both?
As a historical analogy, a lot of telephone switchboard operators lost their jobs with the beginning of direct dialing with better telephone switching -- and direct dialing presumably is preferred by most people than having to talk with a person before their calls go through. Although something was also lost in that telephone operators also had a broader informal social role in a community (including as a gossip) and also informally coordinated some emergency services (judging from old-time movies).
Related:
https://www.bbntimes.com/society/telephone-operators-the-eli...
"As late as 1950, there were about 350,000 women working as switchboard operators working for phone company, and maybe another million working as switchboard operators at offices, factories, hotels, and apartments. Roughly one of every 13 working women was a switchboard operator. Of course, now the number of switchboard operators is nearly zero. The example is often given to point out that in a dynamic economy, even when hundreds of thousands of jobs are “lost,” workers do manage to transition to new jobs. But that basic story lacks detail. James Feigenbaum and Daniel P. Gross have been digging into two aspects: 1) What happened to the women who were displaced from switchboard operator jobs; and 2) for AT&T, what determined the speed and timing of investing in automation to replace switchboard operators? ... The effect of this shock on incumbent operators was to dispossess many of their jobs and careers: telephone operators in cities with cutovers were less likely to be in the same job the next decade we observe them, less likely to be working at all, and conditional on working were more likely to be in lower-paying occupations. In contrast, however, automation did not reduce employment rates in subsequent cohorts of young women, who found work in other sectors—including jobs with similar demographics and wages (such as typists and secretaries), and some with lower wages (such as food service workers)."
So, it sounds like the next generation who pursued different careers did OK even if the displaced generation did worse?
One difference though is that switchboard operator was a relatively recently introduced job in the past century given telephones are a recent invention. People have been writing/thinking, speaking/acting, and painting/drawing/art-ing essentially since there were people (essentially the jobs in the article being replaced).
What I put together circa 2010 is becoming more and more relevant:
https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html
"This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."
Thanks for the link, I will dive into it later. Your description of local subsistence economies sounds like CED, community economic development, which I think could become extremely relevant.
We need to support and train and find the social entrepreneurs who will pioneer and grow these economic alternatives.
"a friendly and kind guy mostly contented with his life" reminds me somewhat of another Irish author, James P. Hogan (who I was lucky enough to meet in person once through Princeton University's Infinity Limited science fiction society and corresponded a bit with many years later).
We already have that "defeated underclass" courtesy of a century of mainstream schooling (according to NYS Teacher of the Year John Taylor Gatto):
"The Underground History of American Education -- A conspiracy against ourselves"
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/10/john-taylor-gatto/the-cu...
"As soon as you break free of the orbit of received wisdom you have little trouble figuring out why, in the nature of things, government schools and those private schools which imitate the government model have to make most children dumb, allowing only a few to escape the trap. The problem stems from the structure of our economy and social organization. When you start with such pyramid-shaped givens and then ask yourself what kind of schooling they would require to maintain themselves, any mystery dissipates — these things are inhuman conspiracies all right, but not conspiracies of people against people, although circumstances make them appear so. School is a conflict pitting the needs of social machinery against the needs of the human spirit. It is a war of mechanism against flesh and blood, self-maintaining social mechanisms that only require human architects to get launched. I’ll bring this down to earth. Try to see that an intricately subordinated industrial/commercial system has only limited use for hundreds of millions of self-reliant, resourceful readers and critical thinkers. In an egalitarian, entrepreneurially based economy of confederated families like the one the Amish have or the Mondragon folk in the Basque region of Spain, any number of self-reliant people can be accommodated usefully, but not in a concentrated command-type economy like our own. Where on earth would they fit? In a great fanfare of moral fervor some years back, the Ford Motor Company opened the world’s most productive auto engine plant in Chihuahua, Mexico. It insisted on hiring employees with 50 percent more school training than the Mexican norm of six years, but as time passed Ford removed its requirements and began to hire school dropouts, training them quite well in four to twelve weeks. The hype that education is essential to robot-like work was quietly abandoned. Our economy has no adequate outlet of expression for its artists, dancers, poets, painters, farmers, filmmakers, wildcat business people, handcraft workers, whiskey makers, intellectuals, or a thousand other useful human enterprises — no outlet except corporate work or fringe slots on the periphery of things. Unless you do "creative" work the company way, you run afoul of a host of laws and regulations put on the books to control the dangerous products of imagination which can never be safely tolerated by a centralized command system...."
In 2010, I put together a list of alternatives here to address the rise of AI and Robotics and its effect on jobs:
https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html
"This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."
reply