The problem is that it's already being described in terrible terms, even by the Pentagon, and here we are anyway. I think it's a problem of the "monkeysphere", the idea that most people just can't conceive that something is a problem until it's immediately impacting them or those who they know firsthand. So things are probably going to have to hit rock bottom before we start to turn anything around. (If that's at all possible at that point.)
I think we're also locked into a cycle of "eh whatever" until it's too late. We realists can shout until we're blue in the face, but even Katrina, Midwestern floods and the drying-out of California haven't moved a majority of the country to act or even to care. Everyone reading this site already recognizes the real danger, but the failure of reality to take hold beyond a realist minority means this continued discussion is just a big sermon to the choir. I don't think there's any way to snap the rest of the country out of denial until we have Atlantis II in Lower Manhattan.
Good summation of the problems, and I share your view that modern technology and automation really is historically and economically unprecedented. It really is going to require a rethinking of economic distribution that I hope works out along the lines you drew. However, this direction would not be without really big problems that might not be overcome:
1. Societal reorganization of this scale hasn't happened in history without intense violence and upheaval. Granted, automated production is unprecedented in history, but the more wealth that's accumulated by elites, the harder they'll fight to keep it and the more they can spread that wealth selectively to empower their position. (Arguably happening already for decades.) What kind of civil disorder would we undergo to get to the end point? It wouldn't be pretty.
2. We're in a race against environmental catastrophe, as you noted, with sustainable technology as the only horse in the stable. Your own figures project a few decades out for these types of positive societal changes, but those same decades are when we're forecast to see the biggest impact on sea levels, drought, and all the other bad stuff that could break the systems for civilization.
3. To get capitalist on it, will we continue to see improvements in technology and production when the rewards don't go to particular drivers of those improvements? Of course, if you get self-improving technology (highly likely), that changes the nature of this issue.
The problem is that it's already being described in terrible terms, even by the Pentagon, and here we are anyway. I think it's a problem of the "monkeysphere", the idea that most people just can't conceive that something is a problem until it's immediately impacting them or those who they know firsthand. So things are probably going to have to hit rock bottom before we start to turn anything around. (If that's at all possible at that point.)
I think we're also locked into a cycle of "eh whatever" until it's too late. We realists can shout until we're blue in the face, but even Katrina, Midwestern floods and the drying-out of California haven't moved a majority of the country to act or even to care. Everyone reading this site already recognizes the real danger, but the failure of reality to take hold beyond a realist minority means this continued discussion is just a big sermon to the choir. I don't think there's any way to snap the rest of the country out of denial until we have Atlantis II in Lower Manhattan.
Good summation of the problems, and I share your view that modern technology and automation really is historically and economically unprecedented. It really is going to require a rethinking of economic distribution that I hope works out along the lines you drew. However, this direction would not be without really big problems that might not be overcome:
1. Societal reorganization of this scale hasn't happened in history without intense violence and upheaval. Granted, automated production is unprecedented in history, but the more wealth that's accumulated by elites, the harder they'll fight to keep it and the more they can spread that wealth selectively to empower their position. (Arguably happening already for decades.) What kind of civil disorder would we undergo to get to the end point? It wouldn't be pretty.
2. We're in a race against environmental catastrophe, as you noted, with sustainable technology as the only horse in the stable. Your own figures project a few decades out for these types of positive societal changes, but those same decades are when we're forecast to see the biggest impact on sea levels, drought, and all the other bad stuff that could break the systems for civilization.
3. To get capitalist on it, will we continue to see improvements in technology and production when the rewards don't go to particular drivers of those improvements? Of course, if you get self-improving technology (highly likely), that changes the nature of this issue.