Living in a soon-to-be AI-driven Society (within 15 yrs)

[Mossling]

All I am saying is the threat to manufacturing from technology is not some Liberal propaganda, and we should be taking the issue seriously.

Haha, yeah there's a hint of 'fake news!' in the response, isn't there. We have the Carrier evidence, and the interviews with employees there at the factory that Trump visited during his campaign now, even, and yet because Trump does not even publicly recognise this looming technological tsunami, while promoting 'clean coal', and 'made in America' while he sells products manufactured abroad on the cheap, some of his hopeful voters have apparently invested their entire heart in his vision.

Personally I couldn't believe it recently when I saw the advertisement for AI solutions play on YouTube before my video played. It was like something out of a sci-fi movie. I recall the feeling of swiping a sophisticated smartphone touch-screen was something similar.

I felt kind of betrayed by society - that such technology and its mechanism was not being researched and implemented by my government 'for the good of the people', and had been hidden away - intellectually and physically - from public view until it physically got into my hands.

It made me wonder what else was out there in R&D departments waiting to revolutionise peoples' lives that the apparently 'caring government' couldn't care less about.

But as has been mentioned here already, if one's self-view entirely orbits around a very traditional concept of 'protestant manual labourer doing God's work on his way to heaven', then anything that threatens the continued satisfaction of that vision - a vocational as well as spiritual identity intimately fused together - then there is a very possible Amish-style response on the cards, rather than acceptance and adjustment.

One has other case studies, such as the people of Tanna Island who have resisted 'modernisation' ever since far more technologically advanced humans arrived there. They have formed cargo cults - wanting the tech but not the education that created it, and have even resorted at times, out of desperation, to attempting to construct 'radios' from stones and wood (assembled in the same shapes as real radios) to call back the donors who gave them cargo in the past.

I think it could be said that the relative global safety that the Amish communities in the US enjoy, is down to US modern tech. Shift them out of the US and to a border in the middle East and I am guessing that their philosophy on modernisation would change pretty quickly, or else they'd just implode or be invaded. As far as they are concerned nowadays, however, on their current situation they'd probably side with the idea that God is protecting them, not modern technology.

Of course it's their freedom to choose their reality, but it will be awkward to see how far such beliefs keep them safe if their sociopolitical climate changes significantly. Evolution has been a wise concept to embrace even long before Darwin's time - if one's competitors have better weapons then watch out!

The YouTube video of the Japanese 'ki master' who kicks his students butts without touching them vs MMA guy comes to mind. So sad and awkward to watch - the brutality of truth and evolved science towards those hypnotised by wishful fantasy. May it be a warning to the would-be future manual labourers.

[Mossling]

LOL, nothing to see here, folks?

This is NOW, wake up:



And people are thinking about in 20 years time maybe robots or maybe not. Haha.

Just think about what you see in the above video being extrapolated over 5 years of progress in automation and AI application, let alone 10 years.

And those few humans that do appear in that vast warehouse look pathetic - like the people who had to do the nightshift while everyone else was enjoying a good night's sleep.

Hard demoralizing labour is going to be a thing of the past.

Just wow. Science rocks.

But maybe the next big Infowars and Breitbart headline will be: 'Science and robots is a Liberal Agenda!' - I would not be surprised.

EDIT: And this was 2014:



Now things are probably even more sophisticated.

[SciameriKen]

I can't wait until the day where I tell my son, "In my day we had to wait 2 days for something to arrive from Amazon", as he 3-D prints at home :)

[Sivad]

And people are thinking about in 20 years time maybe robots or maybe not. Haha.

I'm aware of at least half a dozen studies on the effects of automation on employment that say different, you should look into it.

[Sivad]

All I am saying is the threat to manufacturing from technology is not some Liberal propaganda, and we should be taking the issue seriously.

I never said it wasn't a concern, just that right now it's not that much of a problem. We're being told that right now robots can do most factory jobs and that's simply not true. We're being told that the jobs can't come back because it would be cheaper to automate than to pay workers a living wage, that's also false. We don't currently have the technology to automate most work, that's decades off.

[Sivad]

All I am saying is the threat to manufacturing from technology is not some Liberal propaganda, and we should be taking the issue seriously.

Haha, yeah there's a hint of 'fake news!' in the response, isn't there. We have the Carrier evidence

What evidence? Carrier moved its operation to Mexico, those jobs weren't automated.

Hundreds Of Carrier Factory Jobs To Move To Mexico

[Serpent]

How much manufacturing do we need?
How much raw material is there left for making more robots, more cars, more leaf-blowers, more hovertoys, more bombs, more disposable crap?
Once we ate up all the rainforests and filled all the oceans with plastic, do we still keep printing more pistols and David knock-offs?

[SciameriKen]

All I am saying is the threat to manufacturing from technology is not some Liberal propaganda, and we should be taking the issue seriously.

I never said it wasn't a concern, just that right now it's not that much of a problem. We're being told that right now robots can do most factory jobs and that's simply not true. We're being told that the jobs can't come back because it would be cheaper to automate than to pay workers a living wage, that's also false. We don't currently have the technology to automate most work, that's decades off.

Your argument is that it is a concern - but not right now because the problem is decades off - do I have that right? From a policy standpoint - when does it become a concern - decades off sounds pretty close to me!

I am not sure the basis of your argument that robots can't do most factory jobs - because we current do not see robots doing these jobs now (Which is false, btw - video above, robots building cars, etc)? Might it be possible we do not see robots doing these jobs because its just cost prohibitive at this moment? Could it be possible that its just cost prohibitive because industry has access to workers with a lower standard of living than the average American? Would it also then be possible that if we attempted to force industry to use American workers - the cost of developing automation would no longer be cost prohibitive?

[Serpent]

Could it be possible that its just cost prohibitive because industry has access to workers with a lower standard of living than the average American? Would it also then be possible that if we attempted to force industry to use American workers - the cost of developing automation would no longer be cost prohibitive?

When all the people are unemployed, who will buy the manufactured goods?

[SciameriKen]

Could it be possible that its just cost prohibitive because industry has access to workers with a lower standard of living than the average American? Would it also then be possible that if we attempted to force industry to use American workers - the cost of developing automation would no longer be cost prohibitive?

When all the people are unemployed, who will buy the manufactured goods?

Right here right now there is a market - who cares about the future? :)

[Serpent]

Right here right now there is a market - who cares about the future? :)

Mossling does.

[Sivad]

Your argument is that it is a concern - but not right now because the problem is decades off - do I have that right?

I clearly said that it's a concern, I don't understand how that could possibly be missed?

I am not sure the basis of your argument that robots can't do most factory jobs - because we current do not see robots doing these jobs now (Which is false, btw - video above, robots building cars, etc)?

I'm sorry but a promo video isn't much of a case, you're gonna need some data.

Might it be possible we do not see robots doing these jobs because its just cost prohibitive at this moment? Could it be possible that its just cost prohibitive because industry has access to workers with a lower standard of living than the average American? Would it also then be possible that if we attempted to force industry to use American workers - the cost of developing automation would no longer be cost prohibitive?

No, no, and no. There are millions of manufacturing jobs still in America and millions upon millions all over the developed world. I think Germany, a country with strong unions, high wages, and excellent benefits, has somewhere close to 20% of the workforce employed in factories. So if the robots were ready to go "lights out" we definitely would have heard about it by now. The technology is not there, robots can't perform even the most simple tasks like sorting parts anywhere near human proficiency.

[Athena]

Could it be possible that its just cost prohibitive because industry has access to workers with a lower standard of living than the average American? Would it also then be possible that if we attempted to force industry to use American workers - the cost of developing automation would no longer be cost prohibitive?

When all the people are unemployed, who will buy the manufactured goods?

Who is going to pay the taxes? I am disappointed that nothing has been said about the revenue problem. We need to rethink our social/industrial and governmental organization. We could be entering a new golden age if we can think more creatively about how to fund government and how the government distributes resources.

[SciameriKen]

Your argument is that it is a concern - but not right now because the problem is decades off - do I have that right?

I clearly said that it's a concern, I don't understand how that could possibly be missed?

Its not missed - you say its a concern - but then you dismiss us when we say we are concerned about it. Your actions speak louder than your words.

No, no, and no. There are millions of manufacturing jobs still in America and millions upon millions all over the developed world. I think Germany, a country with strong unions, high wages, and excellent benefits, has somewhere close to 20% of the workforce employed in factories. So if the robots were ready to go "lights out" we definitely would have heard about it by now. The technology is not there, robots can't perform even the most simple tasks like sorting parts anywhere near human proficiency.

Maybe, or maybe the German's don't want to rock a boat, perhaps the reluctance to shift to robotics is a cultural issue?. They have a reputation for excellence in their automotive products - so they definitely did not want to jump ship and export all their jobs as our crappy auto manufacturers did. The Germans may be an outlier in that they feel they are competitive without trying to streamline every aspect of the production line for profits.

Its a worthy example though that suggests robots aren't here yet as you pointed out. What is your long term out look though? Like really long term? 100 years -- 200 years? thoughts?

[Mossling]

When all the people are unemployed, who will buy the manufactured goods?

The people will - with their UBI, or money earned providing non-essential other services rooted in the dynamics of emotional subtleties that AI can't and it seems likely won't be able to ever master - deep poetic channeling of human feelings, for example.

The technology is not there, robots can't perform even the most simple tasks like sorting parts anywhere near human proficiency.

The clue is in the title of this thread - it's not just about robots, but robots with AI. It's the AI that will do "the sorting" and the robot arm will merely select the chosen item.

(you can skip to 07:35 to pass his personal introduction and get to 'the magic':)



(imagine robot police running after criminals like in these models :D)


So this is where we are - publicly - at the moment. No doubt more dazzling developments are presently dancing around in R&D labs.

Who is going to pay the taxes? I am disappointed that nothing has been said about the revenue problem. We need to rethink our social/industrial and governmental organization. We could be entering a new golden age if we can think more creatively about how to fund government and how the government distributes resources.

We discussed this in the previous thread attached in the OP.

Government-run automation for society's essentials will bring in 'revenue' to distribute to those who work to maintain the automation and lesser Universal Basic Income (UBI) for the non-workers. Human citizens will be ready to 'stand in' if the automated system somehow fails, however - hacked, bombed, and so on - and the humans' potential to do so will be rooted in their qualifications, which will include practical philosophy qualifications - virtue ethics 101 and beyond. Part of this qualification will be lifestyle - demonstrable behavioural acts of self-care, and then acts of care delivered to others, for example, often enough and regularly enough so that their understanding of practical philsophy is embodied. In this way, a society has patriotic citizens on 'standby', and just like retired older people in our communities today, they are given welfare and recognised for their inclinations towards virtue as an essential social practice, and thus supported for 'free'.

As inferred in a post above, it is all too easy for groups of humans to take on a cargo cult sort of outlook, whereby they believe the ultimate deliverer of their goods is a deity of sorts, rather than scientists and engineers. This means that communties that wish to benefit from advanced engineering applications whilst not being useful in supporting the system that maintains those applications should be seen as parasitic and thus dealt with accordingly.

[Sivad]

Maybe, or maybe the German's don't want to rock a boat, perhaps the reluctance to shift to robotics is a cultural issue?. They have a reputation for excellence in their automotive products - so they definitely did not want to jump ship and export all their jobs as our crappy auto manufacturers did. The Germans may be an outlier in that they feel they are competitive without trying to streamline every aspect of the production line for profits.

Doubtful. Anyway it wouldn't explain every other culture in the developed world with high manufacturing employment.

What is your long term out look though? Like really long term? 100 years -- 200 years? thoughts?

In a hundred years it'll likely be lights out for all products and even some of the professions(surgeons, lawyers, engineers) may be obsolete. The next hundred years is going to make the innovations of the last hundred look like an elementary school science fair. At 200 years it's hard to project, all that's certain is things will be radically altered. I get where it's going, and I look forward to it, but for me reality is far more interesting than hype.

[Mossling]

At 200 years it's hard to project, all that's certain is things will be radically altered. I get where it's going, and I look forward to it, but for me reality is far more interesting than hype.

You have a better grip on the current tech reality and future than Dr Kai-Fu Lee?

There is also the opposite of hype for an impending AI-driven world - it's called down-playing something. And there are plenty of reasons why someone would want to do that.

[Serpent]

[Serpent » July 26th, 2017, 4:33 am[/url]"]When all the people are unemployed, who will buy the manufactured goods?]
The people will - with their UBI,

Still no. UBI is a bandaid; subsistence level payout; no frills, no goodies, no amazon deliveries. And even that, only as long as somebody pays enough income tax to cover it. Once the corporations stop making profit, because nobody can afford the products, they stop paying tax (actually, a lot sooner, but let's stay in the realm of fantasy where the rich pay their dues); the redundant workers have already stopped paying tax; the public servants who were administering all this revenue and expenditure have all been replaced by computers, so they're not paying tax; the robots are not paying tax.... Somewhere in there is a Grade 3-level math problem.

or money earned providing non-essential other services rooted in the dynamics of emotional subtleties that AI can't and it seems likely won't be able to ever master - deep poetic channeling of human feelings, for example.

Nobody gets paid money for that. Especially when nobody's got any to spare. Nor should anyone be paid for artistry or play-acting or games. But even if they were, the money would have to come from somewhere, and no new wealth is generated by channeling emotion.

Really, the only way a machine-serviced society could work is without money.
Post-employment humanity must necessarily overcome its obsession with evaluating everything in terms of currency.

[Mossling]

[Serpent » July 26th, 2017, 4:33 am[/url]"]When all the people are unemployed, who will buy the manufactured goods?]
The people will - with their UBI,

Still no. UBI is a bandaid; subsistence level payout; no frills, no goodies, no amazon deliveries.

Toiletries, clothing, furniture, 'smartware' or whatever the wearable tech of the future will be called - are you suggesting that UBI won't cover these manufactured essentials?

These things are some of the basics needed for survival and there will likely still be competition between manufacturers I suspect.

This is how wealth will be generated - the same as it has always been. If Duggie flakes a better spear point than Uggie, then guess who's going to get richer through virtuous means?

Grade 3-level capitalism conundrum.

As for tax money to pay for UBI - easy, it comes from converting the equivalent work done by government-audited robot solutions into potential salaries of the individuals who would have to take over the jobs and produce equivalent output (of manufactured essentials) via human labor in the event of a robot workforce breakdown. Collect those robot salaries as money for UBI usage.

After all, the manufacturers would have no market if not for the people, and those people are the nation's insurance policy if all automation gets hacked or whatever.

Essential goods will always be needed, and so the companies that produce them cannot just be given a monopoly on the profits gained from their manufacture and sale.

There's a price to pay for the privilege of manufacturing essential products - goods that are guaranteed to sell, basically. They can be taxed quite hard, since their robot workforce will have plenty more advantages beyond merely reproducing human skills. There's no sickness or complaints or bullying, and so on.

[Serpent]

Toiletries, clothing, furniture, 'smartware' or whatever the wearable tech of the future will be called - are you suggesting that UBI won't cover these manufactured essentials?

Yes, it will, as long as the unemployment rate is below a critical level, and the employed and business people earn enough surplus to tax - increasingly. Off the top of my head, I'll say the tipping point is 20-25%; roughly the depth of the great depression. But half of America is already earning too little to levy income tax on, though they still contribute to government coffers through pension contributions and sales and property taxes.

This is how wealth will be generated - the same as it has always been.

How it always has been generated was by opening new sources of raw material, taking territory and resources away from indigenous populations, cutting down forests, fishing out the oceans and damming rivers. There are no new conquests to make, unless you go out to space, and the initial cost for that is prohibitive. No private enterprise will make that kind of investment with a dwindling market for their products back home. No government can afford to do that while also paying out UBI - or any other social assistance.

If Duggie flakes a better spear point than Uggie, then guess who's going to get richer through virtuous means?

Duggie spears the last elk and then they both starve.
Do you still not get the concept of finity?

As for tax money to pay for UBI - easy, it comes from converting the equivalent work done by government-audited robot solutions into potential salaries of the individuals who would have to take over the jobs and produce equivalent output (of manufactured essentials) via human labor in the event of a robot workforce breakdown. Collect those robot salaries as money for UBI usage.

That's very difficult to calculate - and impossible to administer.
Even if you managed to pass the legislation.
Have you heard what the US senate is totally occupied with right now?

[Mossling]

I forgot to reply to this comment:

Haha, yeah there's a hint of 'fake news!' in the response, isn't there. We have the Carrier evidence

What evidence? Carrier moved its operation to Mexico, those jobs weren't automated.

Watch from 12:50:

CEO of United Technologies Greg Hayes pointing out that by following Trumps wishes to bring their manufacturing work back to the US, they'd automate more.

And as regards automation and what it means for the US Economy and jobs in general, check out FOX news 3 years ago:

How it always has been generated was by opening new sources of raw material, taking territory and resources away from indigenous populations, cutting down forests, fishing out the oceans and damming rivers.

That's if one has an agenda to aim for unsustainability. It makes sense, I suppose, if one believes in apocalypticism, but for those who care about their future generations, a different mindset is required.

There are no new conquests to make, unless you go out to space, and the initial cost for that is prohibitive. No private enterprise will make that kind of investment with a dwindling market for their products back home. No government can afford to do that while also paying out UBI - or any other social assistance.

Humans need constant conquest in order to have a healthy economy? Again, I don't think that is necessary. Nature delivers fresh reources all the time. Just open up nets where you are and harvest it. You don't need to expand territory.

When the Spanish arrived in S. America they reported very happy communities living along the Amazon - where people were placed between a constantly replaced large supply of fish and the fast-growing fauna and flora of the jungle. Everything was provided for - all they had to do was a bit of fishing, a little farming and hunting, and the rest of the time they enjoyed their natural human life. What's the problem with that?

If Duggie flakes a better spear point than Uggie, then guess who's going to get richer through virtuous means?

Duggie spears the last elk and then they both starve.
Do you still not get the concept of finity?

Skillful sustainable approaches to hunting, my friend. Just like indegenous populations have practiced for thousands and thousands of years. It works the same for hunting and processing any national resource. And there's a privilege in being allowed to do so - a social responsibility that must be recognised.

As for tax money to pay for UBI - easy, it comes from converting the equivalent work done by government-audited robot solutions into potential salaries of the individuals who would have to take over the jobs and produce equivalent output (of manufactured essentials) via human labor in the event of a robot workforce breakdown. Collect those robot salaries as money for UBI usage.

That's very difficult to calculate - and impossible to administer.

Monitoring individual companies' automated manufacturing output and comparing that to the projected output of humans doing it, and then calculating equivalent salaries - I'd say this is probably on the level of Grade 3 mathematics.

[Sivad]

I forgot to reply to this comment:

Haha, yeah there's a hint of 'fake news!' in the response, isn't there. We have the Carrier evidence

What evidence? Carrier moved its operation to Mexico, those jobs weren't automated.

CEO of United Technologies Greg Hayes pointing out that by following Trumps wishes to bring their manufacturing work back to the US, they'd automate more.

It's pretty clear why he'd be saying that, he's the CEO of a company making wild profits off cheap foreign labor. I'm not disputing that there are a lot of people making the claim, I'm saying the clam is obviously bogus and if it were up to me I'd call their bluff.

[Sivad]

As for tax money to pay for UBI - easy, it comes from converting the equivalent work done by government-audited robot solutions into potential salaries of the individuals who would have to take over the jobs and produce equivalent output (of manufactured essentials) via human labor in the event of a robot workforce breakdown. Collect those robot salaries as money for UBI usage.

That's very difficult to calculate - and impossible to administer.

Monitoring individual companies' automated manufacturing output and comparing that to the projected output of humans doing it, and then calculating equivalent salaries - I'd say this is probably on the level of Grade 3 mathematics.

Bill Gates: We should tax the robot that takes your job

[Sivad]

The State and Innovation: Socialising Both Risks and Rewards, lecture by Mariana Mazzucato

Building on her book The Entrepreneurial State: debunking private vs. public sector myths, Mazzucato’s talk focuses on the public sector investments that led to the Silicon Valley growth model. She argues that the limited narrative of the state’s role in innovation—in the media, in policy and in economic theory— as only ‘fixing markets’ rather than co-creating and shaping them, has justified risks to be socialised while profits are privatised. It is this, not the “robots", that are leading to the problematic relationship between innovation and inequality. Barcelona, May 2017.

[Mossling]

Bill Gates: We should tax the robot that takes your job

Thanks a lot for posting that - very interesting.
His nerdy laugh at the end - haha, he loves this tech stuff so much.

‘fixing markets’ rather than co-creating and shaping them, has justified risks to be socialised while profits are privatised. It is this, not the “robots", that are leading to the problematic relationship between innovation and inequality.

Right. So it will be interesting to see how and when things are going to change. It seems that the governments should already begin taxing robots, but maybe this should have started a long, long time ago - before even ATMs replaced bank tellers, and so forth, when technology was bypassing 'middle men', for example. Perhaps Duggie and Uggie should have been taxed by their tribe as soon as they had invented a new more efficient flint blade/point?

[Serpent]

[S --new wealth generated was by opening new sources of raw material, etc]
That's if one has an agenda to aim for unsustainability. It makes sense, I suppose, if one believes in apocalypticism, but for those who care about their future generations, a different mindset is required.

That's what I'm saying! Expansion is no longer feasible.

[S -- There are no new conquests to make,]
Humans need constant conquest in order to have a healthy economy?

Growth economy has never been healthy. It has been the norm for the last 5000 years.

Again, I don't think that is necessary. Nature delivers fresh reources all the time. Just open up nets where you are and harvest it. You don't need to expand territory.

This is plainly incorrect.

When the Spanish arrived in S. America they reported very happy communities living along the Amazon - where people were placed between a constantly replaced large supply of fish and the fast-growing fauna and flora of the jungle. Everything was provided for - all they had to do was a bit of fishing, a little farming and hunting, and the rest of the time they enjoyed their natural human life. What's the problem with that?

Other than the Spanish killing off the natives? Only the sewage in the harbour. And the civil wars. And the women in jail on suspicion of a miscarriage. And the slums.

Skillful sustainable approaches to hunting, my friend. Just like indegenous populations have practiced for thousands and thousands of years. It works the same for hunting and processing any national resource. And there's a privilege in being allowed to do so - a social responsibility that must be recognised.

Aha.
All 11 billion happy little hunter-gatherers, in air-conditioned condos, on hoverboards.

Good luck with that.

[Athena]

We discussed this in the previous thread attached in the OP.

Government-run automation for society's essentials will bring in 'revenue' to distribute to those who work to maintain the automation and lesser Universal Basic Income (UBI) for the non-workers. Human citizens will be ready to 'stand in' if the automated system somehow fails, however - hacked, bombed, and so on - and the humans' potential to do so will be rooted in their qualifications, which will include practical philosophy qualifications - virtue ethics 101 and beyond. Part of this qualification will be lifestyle - demonstrable behavioural acts of self-care, and then acts of care delivered to others, for example, often enough and regularly enough so that their understanding of practical philsophy is embodied. In this way, a society has patriotic citizens on 'standby', and just like retired older people in our communities today, they are given welfare and recognised for their inclinations towards virtue as an essential social practice, and thus supported for 'free'.

As inferred in a post above, it is all too easy for groups of humans to take on a cargo cult sort of outlook, whereby they believe the ultimate deliverer of their goods is a deity of sorts, rather than scientists and engineers. This means that communties that wish to benefit from advanced engineering applications whilst not being useful in supporting the system that maintains those applications should be seen as parasitic and thus dealt with accordingly.
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member

Posts: 1111
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Blog: View Blog (54)

Mossling, I see a couple of really exciting things to discuss in your post, but they may be totally off topic?

Exactly how is it determined who is a contributing member of society and who is not? Does this go with a method for excommunicating those who are not deserving? Should we build walls to protect those we want to be members of our community and keep out those whom we do not want? Can AI identify those who have a right to be inside the wall and those who do not, and can AI be used to protect our community? Maybe if we had chips implanted this could be done. Perhaps with AI we could have a perfectly regulated society. How much regulating power do we want to give AI?

Should we educate the young to be of service? What would this education look like? Actually, these citizen responsibility and education questions are questions that started the Renaissance in Italy. The 14th century was a very difficult time in our history, unraveling Europes established communities and discussion became in Italy about how Rome was structured and how citizens were prepared to be citizens.

Education for technology is for slaves and prepares everyone to serve the military industrial complex as AI must be served. But who is making the decisions, and how are people prepared for making decisions? How will AI be prepared for making decisions? Bing- that chip means this human is not authorized to enter this part of the city, remove citizen. All your arguments for not being removed are futile because what comes out of our mouth doesn't matter- it is the code in your chip that matters. Your AI is smarter than humans. Right?

[Mossling]

Again, I don't think that is necessary. Nature delivers fresh reources all the time. Just open up nets where you are and harvest it. You don't need to expand territory.

This is plainly incorrect.

Why?

When the Spanish arrived in S. America they reported very happy communities living along the Amazon - where people were placed between a constantly replaced large supply of fish and the fast-growing fauna and flora of the jungle. Everything was provided for - all they had to do was a bit of fishing, a little farming and hunting, and the rest of the time they enjoyed their natural human life. What's the problem with that?

Other than the Spanish killing off the natives? Only the sewage in the harbour. And the civil wars. And the women in jail on suspicion of a miscarriage. And the slums.

What are you talking about? The Spanish apparently killed them off with European 'farmer diseases' and the jungle reclaimed the sites. I was giving you an example of sustainable living. There's no reason why a post-work society can't operate in the same way, but with just more sophisticated technology.

Skillful sustainable approaches to hunting, my friend. Just like indegenous populations have practiced for thousands and thousands of years. It works the same for hunting and processing any national resource. And there's a privilege in being allowed to do so - a social responsibility that must be recognised.

Aha.
All 11 billion happy little hunter-gatherers, in air-conditioned condos, on hoverboards.
Good luck with that.

Lol, again, why?

[Mossling]

Exactly how is it determined who is a contributing member of society and who is not?

As I wrote above to you already - something like this I would expect:
"practical philosophy qualifications - virtue ethics 101 and beyond. Part of this qualification will be lifestyle - demonstrable behavioural acts of self-care, and then acts of care delivered to others, for example, often enough and regularly enough so that their understanding of practical philosophy is embodied. In this way, a society has patriotic citizens on 'standby'"

Does this go with a method for excommunicating those who are not deserving? Should we build walls to protect those we want to be members of our community and keep out those whom we do not want?

Should gang members who are loyal only to their gang be trusted with broader social responsibilities?

Those who do not lean towards practicing Tit-for-tat cooperation are basically cheaters. They'll pretend to be honest cooperators but then cheat you. And such an anti-social attitude is inevitably extended to micro-societies also - the cheater's own community of cells, and it seems that as such cancer more easily appears as the cells try to mutiny or jump ship.

Prosociality is the only healthy option for civically socialised (as opposed to feral) human beings. Anti-social behaviour leads to internal and external difficulty. All the best philosophers pointed this out - from Socrates, to Confucius, to the Buddha, to Nietzsche, or Heidegger. They spoke of virtue and good heart as the key focus for any civil human being.

Can AI identify those who have a right to be inside the wall and those who do not

Possibly - Body Mass Index compared to one's calculated ideal, for example, is one key indicator of self-care. It's not difficult for a computer to access that. And there can of course be others - frequency of oxytocin release, cortisol levels, and so on.

We humans are particularly geared up to identify virtue in another human being, or its absence - because it is such an important factor concerning our continued survival. So eye contact, posture, gait, diction, word choice, clothing, muscle tone, and so on and so forth - are all indicative of whether virtue is present or not. Check out statues or paintings of kings and queens sitting on thrones - no matter the culture they tend to have the same key 'virtue' traits.

[Serpent]

Nature delivers fresh reources all the time. Just open up nets where you are and harvest it. You don't need to expand territory.
[This is plainly incorrect. ]
Why?

For a great many factual reasons we don't have time to go into here, including physics, biology and history.
I contend that capitalism as we have known it depends on expansion and growth, and that there is a definite limit to both; that Earth and nature are finite, while human greed has so far shown no similar constraint. People keep multiplying and wanting more stuff.
I do not see what will alter that trajectory.