I kind of agree with your description of our present situation as I've outlined here

However, I'm not sure in the future you have proposed - I think that's too hard for anyone to predict. Furthermore I don't think anyone controls capitalism - I think capitalism is the one that controls people.

The post-industrial age uses robotics and 3D printing, and no longer has a use for mass-production, mass consumption or the mass of humanity. — unenlightened

I don't understand this part of the apocalypse. Why would the fact that there's no need for human brute force production methods impact the number of people living and how would that then impact the demands of the people? It would seem the result would be that the least technologically savvy rung of society would have limited employment opportunities and those with means would have available to them a plethora of low cost consumer products created through cheap technological means. This would result in a greater chasm between the haves and the haves not, with the have nots using the democratic process to express their displeasure in being lost in the shuffle. They'd to this by voting for a populist who vowed to make America great again.

When the have nots do not see America brought back to the industrial age greatness, they will go back to their relegated role and the haves will continue to support more and more of the system by funding government programs, like health care.

That's my prediction of what would happen.

The problem is concentration of wealth, engineered by the central banks, not technology. Similar scenarios have existed before such as in the 1920s. The super-rich love to deflect with technology excuses and they make academia of full of their supporters to push such ideas.

Sort of relevant:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50

Why would the fact that there's no need for human brute force production methods impact the number of people living... — Hanover

The problem is concentration of wealth... — Rich

The concentration of wealth is a 'natural' phenomenon - a surplus accumulates as capital and is 'put to work' creating more wealth. The concentration of wealth is not a 'problem' (to the economy) as long as capital needs labour. If there is a cheaper alternative to a human, it will be adopted, and humanity is not in control of that.

The thesis is that the economy rules, and the economy no longer has a use for the masses. Therefore, 1. the masses have lost the power they had as producers and consumers, and 2. they have no function; therefore 3. they will be scrapped.

The post-industrial age uses robotics and 3D printing, and no longer has a use for mass-production, — unenlightened

Even if the robots are going to be the ones mass producing other robots and 3D printers, I don't think we're anywhere near being able to have robots repair themselves. It would be nice if we could figure out how to make simple appliances that don't easily break first. Until we can do that, I don't think that robots will be taking over--and that means that someone needs to mass produce robots, 3D printers etc.

And as much as I like the idea of things like self-driving cars, given how easily and majorly other sorts of gadgets, including computers, screw up and crash, it would take some sort of impressive mechanical failsafe system for me to trust a self-driving car.

There is nothing natural for private central banks to print $trillions at 0% for a handful of wealthiest people in the world unless one considers thieving bankers a natural phenomenon - which certainly can be argued.

And as much as I like the idea of things like self-driving cars, given how easily and majorly other sorts of gadgets, including computers, screw up and crash, it would take some sort of impressive mechanical failsafe system for me to trust a self-driving car. — Terrapin Station

No worries dude. Once 99.9% of the population is gone, the roads will be much safer.

There is nothing natural for private central banks to print $trillions at 0% for a handful of wealthiest people in the world unless one considers thieving bankers a natural phenomenon - which certainly can be argued. — Rich

Looking upwards from the gutter, it appears that bankers are in charge of the economy, but this is an illusion of perspective. They're just trying to make a buck the same as the rest of us.

No worries dude. Once 99.9% of the population is gone, the roads will be much safer. — unenlightened

Well, and I'd finally be comfortable spending time in India . . . unless that remaining 0.1% decides that they still all need to board the same train as me.

A minuscule percentage of humanity will survive to enter the post-industrial age. It will not be paradise. — unenlightened

No. It will not be paradise. Understatement of the century.

Your initial assumption is true, in that 7 billion+ economic actors is beyond the control of actual policy-establishing-and-enforcing human agents, like presidents, parliaments, economic unions, Central Committees, treaty organizations, and central bankers. If (more likely when) the major global economic and political arrangements fail, immiseration will fall on the masses, not the elite. And then the deluge.

In a rational economic system, providing for the basic needs and some wants of 7 billion people could keep everyone usefully occupied. Unfortunately, economics is not "rational". Never mind the 8 richest men§ that Oxfam says have as much wealth as 1/2 of the 7 billion others. The richest 10 million people, and the economic and political apparatus that they live within, control more wealth than just about everybody else on earth. They will be able to arrange a more pleasant post-industrial-globally overheated survival

The entire population of the earth, minus the bourgeoisie, mostly lacks class consciousness. We are not a cohesive "class" with well articulated class interests. We have not, and we can't effectively resist or redirect the economic forces that are going to be our Waterloo. (A few scattered small groups are attempting various future-oriented strategies, but these efforts are altogether insufficient. Not wrong, just not enough.)

We're screwed.

§ per the link from Bill Gates (Microsoft); Amancio Ortega (fashion chain Zara); Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway); Carlos Slim Helú (Grupo Carso); Jeff Bezos (Amazon); Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook); Larry Ellison (Oracle); Michael Bloomberg (Bloomberg financial information).

The post-industrial age uses robotics and 3D printing, and no longer has a use for mass-production, mass consumption or the mass of humanity — unenlightened

I don't understand how the model works without 'mass consumption'. There have to be people buying the stuff the robots make, supply-side economics only works in a command economy (if at all). There won't be the profits you are imagining unless there's a market for the goods or services. To my mind the likely scenario is that there continues to be 'mass consumption', but that in itself disperses power: where workers once organised at the workplace, there is little comparable consumer-organisation at the consumer-place.

(One of the most loathsome betrayals of us ordinary people was the espousal by supposedly centre-leftists of the need for a 'flexible labour market', something which I think of as a much worse creator of insecurity than your advertising psychology - but that must be the ghost of the old neo-Marxist still stirring in me)

More widely, extrapolation from where one is at present rarely has turned out to be the subsequent case. The history of medium-term economic forecasting is comparable to the history of coin-toss-guessing in its sheer beauty and success rate.

So my reaction is that such crystal-ball-gazing is interesting more as a statement of present mood than of likely future outcomes. To that extent, I agree: my mood is pessimistic, though I imagine things panning out differently.

I don't understand how the model works without 'mass consumption'. There have to be people buying the stuff the robots make, supply-side economics only works in a command economy (if at all). — mcdoodle

It doesn't work. The model changes. Robots don't make stuff for workers to consume because there are no workers. Non workers become non-consumers and have no value to capital. Robots are capital and produce products for capitalists. Everyone else fucks off and dies.

The flexible labour market is just the beginning of the end of labour power. Its not a betrayal, but the operation of historical necessity. This is a neo-Marxist analysis - do you not recognise it?

Of course they are trying to make $trillions in bucks - only they are doing it by stealing it with their money printing presses which makes them somewhat of thieves.; It's natural for bankers to act like this which is why they should be locked up just like they did in Iceland. That would also be quite natural.

The robotics part is just plain misdirection by sone hired academia a la Krugman. No different than previous eras of technology change.

Of course they are trying to make $trillions in bucks - only they are doing it by stealing it with their money printing presses which makes them somewhat of thieves.; It's natural for bankers to act like this which is why they should be locked up just like they did in Iceland. That would also be quite natural. — Rich

Sure. But locking a few people up doesn't change anything much.

The robotics part is just plain misdirection by sone hired academia a la Krugman. No different than previous eras of technology change. — Rich

I don't think so. Trade unions are losing power because heavy industry is being automated. It's a long way from complete, and will probably never be quite complete, but robots get cheaper and cleverer, and the miners, he dockers the car workers will never get back the power they once had. So workers' rights are eroded and wages are going down, and social care is being eroded. It doesn't matter which party is in power because the economy dictates.

The misdirection is the politics that suggest that 'we' can get our country back and revive those declining industries by separating ourselves from those other desperate powerless people, the foreigners. That what we need is strong government - which means rich men and dictators. Which sets us up for civil wars border disputes and so on. Misdirection blames the greens and liberals for all those pesky environmental regulations and the terrible cost of looking after the old the young and the infirm, and all that employment protection that stifles growth.

Robotics can also be an opportunity provided that they produce what people need, thereby relieving those people of the necessity to provide labour to buy their needs. It could be a (Marxist) utopian future where people can pursue what they truly want to do (music, reading, art, etc. etc.).

Perhaps this can be arranged by not taxing profit but requiring robotic production time (50%) to be contributed to the masses. Or (eek) common ownership of the means of production.

It's nice to dream.

Trade unions are losing power because heavy industry is being automated. It's a long way from complete, and will probably never be quite complete, but robots get cheaper and cleverer, and the miners, he dockers the car workers will never get back the power they once had. So workers' rights are eroded and wages are going down, and social care is being eroded. It doesn't matter which party is in power because the economy dictates. — unenlightened

Yes. This has been happening since the 1980s. The proletariat is either automated or its Indonesian children. Neither is likely to stage a global revolution. It's true Trump's message wasn't much more than nostalgia with some vague threats of trade war. This is not exactly a news flash.

Try HG Wells. If anybody actually watches the whole thing... I tend to agree with his long-term predictions.

The world is not governed by men of power, but by economic necessity.

If "economic necessity" means pragmatic scientific reason, governing the world versus our current ideological morass then forget it. Those that survive the cataclysm will find no entertainment value if every issue is dealt with rationally. Humanity almost certainly (?) will not survive the sheer boredom of a world with nothing to do.

Entertainment value seems to have more ideological sway in our society than any rational argument. The drama of the times, the complete horror of Syria, is (I think) our version of the Roman's spectacles in the Coliseum. The recent trend in exchanging establishment figures for individuals who entertain the best, is only just starting, I think.

The thesis is that the economy rules, and the economy no longer has a use for the masses. Therefore, 1. the masses have lost the power they had as producers and consumers, and 2. they have no function; therefore 3. they will be scrapped. — unenlightened

I'm with Hanover on this point, I don't see how the economy can destroy the masses. To mass is a fundamental attitude of the human psyche, like a herd animal, we find security and consolation in each other. We want, and do, the same thing, and this creates massing, and the mass.

A changing economy will change the mass, but I don't see how it will destroy the mass. You talk about "the masses" though, so your assumption is that the mass has already been divided into the masses. If you can identify how it is that the economy divides the mass into the masses, then perhaps you would have an argument as to how a continuation of this process would dissolve the mass altogether.

Trade unions are losing power because of free trade (free slave) treaties that allow corporations to build factories wherever slave labor is available and the central banks are giving corporations all of the free money they need to build these slave factories.

Mass destruction is accomplished by war and natural disaster, that's the 'how'.

If you want to go into the psychology of it, then yes the need for security in the group is an important motivation. But the group is not the mass. To get beyond the tribal stage takes an effort of political education. One sees the security benefits of a wider identification, with the trade union, or the nation, or the federation of states, and one makes the effort. But when the benefits are lost, because the collective power is lost, then the identification reverts back to the tribe. See for example the failure of the Arab Spring, or the collapse of Yugoslavia.

So sea levels rise, and London is flooded. The financial district will have already moved uphill - to Switzerland, perhaps. Millions of refugees head for the hills where they will be regarded as immigrants threatening 'our' survival. Civil war ensues, and because the arable land is also flooded, mass starvation mops up most of those who haven't been killed in the conflict. Rinse and repeat simultaneously all round the world.

Trade unions are losing power because of free trade (free slave) treaties that allow corporations to build factories wherever slave labor is available and the central banks are giving corporations all of the free money they need to build these slave factories. — Rich

You are not making a point against me, unfortunately. You are identifying someone to blame, which might make you feel better, but comes under the rubric of 'misdirection' as far as I'm concerned. The 'because' doesn't really matter; it is happening and it isn't going to stop because we all agree to hate bankers and corporations. That only continues the process, and confirms the power of the economy.

So sea levels rise, and London is flooded. The financial district will have already moved uphill - to Switzerland, perhaps. Millions of refugees head for the hills where they will be regarded as immigrants threatening 'our' survival. Civil war ensues, and because the arable land is also flooded, mass starvation mops up most of those who haven't been killed in the conflict. Rinse and repeat simultaneously all round the world. — unenlightened

You're kind of where I was when I was in my 20s. You're in your 60s? I'm guessing that means you're stuck there.

I was kind of hoping someone would talk me out of it by showing where I've gone wrong. Pessimism is not my usual mode, nor politics my usual concern. I think it was the combination of Trumpery, Putinism, and at home, Corbynism and anti-Corbynism together with Brexitry that got me wondering what is going on.

I'd like to believe it is just a psychological condition I've got stuck in, but you'll have to work a bit harder to convince me.

Why won't it happen? — unenlightened

Because those in power have a better understanding of economics than a random forum dweller spouting out some Marxist's flavoured dystopia, who thinks he knows how the world works by reading some dense literature about dialectical materialism, while being isolated from reality.

Several people already pointed this out: you didn't just leap to conclusions, you back somersaulted into a handstand onto the annihilation of 99% of the human population.

That's emotion.

The human race may, by simply following its nature, become extinct by its own hand. There's no recipe for accepting that. But maybe at some point in contemplating it, the beauty of the humanity might peep through for just a second. I'd much rather die with love in my heart than with anger. Especially when I already said: it's anger for things they couldn't help.

What do any of us know about the future?

Mass destruction is accomplished by war and natural disaster, that's the 'how'. — unenlightened

The world is born, grows, dies and then is re-born. We're at the end of civilisation - this has happened many times in history and will go on happening. There is no stopping this historical cycle. No technology and no society will ever escape this. It seems undeniable that man has a propensity for sin - and sin has a propensity for destruction. Thus ultimately even the best of societies will decay and die. A propensity is just a statistic though - there is nothing actually preventing a perfect society for existing for millenia - it's just not likely. As it happened with our own society, moral decay, the rise of hedonism, the fall of discipline, - these have brought all societies to their knees and will continue to do so. The masses of people are too stupid. Have you ever read this paper?

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Discipline exists when things are hard - people understand why it's needed. When things aren't hard, people forget why discipline is needed. When they forget why discipline is needed, they abandon it. When they abandon it, they stop doing what they did to make things easy. Thus things become hard again. And the cycles repeats.

Somehow, I find empty insults unconvincing. It must be my well known arrogance, along with a certain distrust of those in power, fed by a smattering of history.

Thanks, looks interesting.

you didn't just leap to conclusions, you back somersaulted into a handstand onto the annihilation of 99% of the human population. — Mongrel

Sea levels are rising. Ice is melting. These are not back somersaults but facts. Climate change measures, feeble as they are, are under attack. This is not a handstand. Most of the major centres of population and most of the arable land are very close to sea level. All in all, the conclusion is supported unless someone can either remove some of the supports or find some factor that I have neglected. I don't think I am being over-emotional; rather, I think it's the responses are favouring emotion over argument. As if my personality or qualification is a crucial part of the argument.

Sea levels are rising. Ice is melting. These are not back somersaults but facts. Climate change measures, feeble as they are, are under attack. — unenlightened

So how did you solve the cloud problem professor? Exactly how much higher is the mean temperature going to get? When exactly will London be flooded? How long will it take? How long will it last?

Meantime: remember that Rome ceased to be a republic and basically became a monarchy. Under what circumstances did that happen and what else what happening at exactly the same time some distance to the east? Who in 1 BC would have guessed how things would be three centuries later?

You did know there's a delay between the time the CO2 is released and the when the effects are actually felt... I'm sure you did.

I find empty insults unconvincing. — unenlightened

None of what I said are insults. It is a simple observational fact having read your post. You show a lack of understanding in economics. Have you heard of the The Luddite Fallacy (which is closely linked to the Lump of labour fallacy) -- both are well known and accepted among economists.

What you portray is the equivalent of Trump stating that climate change is a Chinese hoax. Pointing out that he severely lacks basic understanding of climate sciences would not be an insult, but rather an obvious observational fact.

Another obvious fact is that -- provided that no one wants to come off as painfully ignorant -- Trump has probably never taken an honest look at climate change. Parallel to you, it is bloody obvious that you have never looked up what technological advancements do to the economy, especially regarding jobs. And when I say looked up, I mean reading up some proper economic papers. So, why is it that you start a discussion about factual notions, but you can not be arsed to look up the actual facts? Your interests do not lie in becoming better informed about the world, but to confirm and reiterate your own predisposed narrative. "Intellectuals" are probably one of the most ignorant people of the world, Chomsky takes that throne with pride.

I will help you, this is a decent start.