Do you know how many scientists who made important discoveries were born to a very poor family? The problem is not popullation or machines in this world. It is greed. We have not been able to figure out a sustainable economic system due to greed at the highest levels and wrong system of values.
Well its cited as an alternative to Capitalism which we are led to believe will mean abundance and equality for all. My point is if it was possible for technology to provide abundance would people see it as necessary to have a centrally planned economy. My posts are veering more and more away from economics and towards political science
Venus project - yes like that, although I also agree it sounds too good to be true. I would modify it to have no political leaders at all - no place that power could work its evil magic. I think our society organizing problem resolves around "The tragedy of the commons". I think that we are long past 1984 but most don't realize it. The internet and GPS technology make 1984 look like a picnic. I presume you mean "free markets". Do we have that now? Can you say whatever you like provided it physically harms no one? Can you vote for any good human being for president, or does money decide and the population gets a choice between two evils? Can a libertarian get elected in America? Is some philosophy more free market than libertarians? Free markets only work when all those who vote with their decisions have approximately equal power. That is why both unions and legal systems and criminal organizations and capitalism fail. Unequal votes cause bad things to happen. Power trys to maintain and increase its hold by making power unequal. I would think centralized power corrupts not institutions or organizations. (http://www.socialistusa.us/) The US started as a classless society but now classes have been promoted and decline is everywhere. One candidate claims that the middle class made the US great. Did it really? Or did equal classless opportunity and a common vision make it great? We will see what happens. Division giving you opportunity by definition exclude others from that same opportunity. The greeks invented and rejected democracy as unworkable because the power elites would buy the votes of the great unwashed with their own money. Perhaps socialism (France) works better then. Or perhaps there is another way? Unlike modern teaching, mankind will repeat the lesson until we get it or die in the attempt. This is not the end of the world, but possibly the end of this particular attempt.
Google "lump of labour fallacy". The short answer is that your fears won't come to pass. The long answer is that your suggested 'cure' is far more likely to bring about disastrous impoverishment of the majority of the working and middle class than anything else; and that western-style capitalism with a moderate social safety net has achieved by far the closest to economic utopia for the masses out of any other system adopted by any other society in human history. You think the working class and middle class are suffering now? Move to Latin America, Africa, most of Asia or most of Eastern Europe for a year or two and live there - there IS no middle class, only the downtrodden poor and the corrupt rich. The West's system is the best, by far. Only Japan, Singapore, and Hong Kong - all who adopted the western approach, either by choice (Singapore) or force by the west (Japan, Hong Kong) - now have comparable living standards. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This is wrong too - western and northern Europe did not collapse as Hayek predicted. The welfare state did get somewhat excessive in places like 1970s USA & UK, 1980s Scandinavia & France, but was then pared back in 1980s UK/USA, and 1990s Scandinavia. N American and W Europe (+ Australia/NZ) did not descend into serfdom, Hayek and the hardcore libertarians were proven totally wrong by reality. Middling socialism as seen in the welfare states of W Europe and Scandinavia, and the pared-down socialism in the USA (medicaid, food stamps, welfare, state retirement plans, state-owned fire departments, emergency A&E medical treatment free at point of delivery, state education for those who can't afford to go private) has not led to collapse of economic growth so long as the proportion of state spending stayed at or below a certain level (35-40% of GDP generally is an upper limit). It is only when state spending got way too high, and socialism become too pervasive, that economic stagnation started to set in e.g. Sweden in the 80s, UK in the 70s, Japan in the last decade or two. Moderate levels of socialism seem to allow the deserving poor to have a better chance at becoming productive - this makes economic sense, as a smart but broke student can't get a decent education, any poor person might die or become an unemployed cripple because of lack of funds for healthcare, and broke retired people are less productive and more of a drain on society than ones who were forced to save at least moderate amounts for their old age. The problem is that a bare bones safety net seems to inexorably expand as vested interest groups elect politicians to grab a bigger and bigger share of the pie, so you get waves of unsustainable entitlement spending booms which only end once the country gets to the brink of economic disaster (i.e. extreme debt, or the spending cuts after a financial crisis). There should therefore be some kind of constitutional limit on the % of GDP allowed for welfare spending, maybe 10-15% would be a good cap, then another 10-15% for police, military, courts etc. You'd then have a society spending 20-30% of GDP on state services. This would allow for sufficient social justice to offset random luck at birth or during life, whilst also probably optimising economic growth due to greater productivity of those who would otherwise not be able to afford education, healthcare, law & order, and other essentials. The only real objection would be the hardcore libertarian rejection of any kind of redistributive taxation.
Name one successful society from history that did not have government control over at least part of the economy. There has never been a prosperous society that did not at least have a state military, and there has never been any remotely just society that did not have state-provided law & order, and at least a moderate amount of state medical and education and retirement provision for those too broke to afford the necessities. A society with no state at all will quickly be taken over by the first psychopath or foreign power to amass a moderate army and bully the majority into submission. So the question is not whether there should be any socialism, but merely how much. Should it be limited to the bare bones - national defense, courts, law enforcement; should there be a modest safety net for education, healthcare, retirement; or should it be a French-style life-long provision for all society, at the expense of high taxes and stifling entrepreneurship.
Your argument is that the more people, time, and labour it takes to produce something, the better off we are. That is in direct opposition to common sense. Are you richer if you can make a car and a house in 1 second by lifting your finger, or if it takes 10,000 men a whole year to make them for you? Imagine if all material needs could be satisfied by pressing a button. No one would have a job, but everyone would be richer than Bill Gates. Would we be worse off or better off? It should be obvious that the cheaper, easier, and quicker it is to make things, the better off we all are (assuming avoidance of planet-killing pollution and waste output etc). Another point to consider is that the bigger the population, the greater the probability of outlier super-producers like Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein, Ghandi/Mandela etc being born and having a huge beneficial impact on society.
Well yes that's my issue with the Venus project as with all collectivist ideas, best of intentions but who gets to administer the robot economy? I don't think their have ever been free markets, I don't think there ever will be, but what we have will seem pretty free in comparison to what's coming. I don't advocate Libertarianism, not in the Rothbard or Friedman sense, I think Ron Paul is away with the fairies. I suppose I just believe that people should be self-sufficient as far as possible and people are responsible for their actions, which are not very popular ideas these days.
I am not suggesting State Socialism as a cure, I just see it as inevitable, I would love for somebody to convince me I am wrong. Western-style capitalism has worked wonders I know, but I think Capitalism is outgrowing it social benefts, i.e. Capitalism is exists with the consent of the people who don't mind the bunsiness class getting rich if it means jobs and cheap goods and services, but once their labour is no longer needed there's not jobs and no money for the goods and services and they will decide they don't consent to Capitalism after all and on goes themarch towards Social Democracy. This is all nonsense if the lump of labour fallacy is true and I will look into it more seriously.
Of course a certain amount of "socialism" is necessary, I have no problem with that. When I talk about socialism I mean the final destination, complete collectivasation of the means of production. I just don't see the majority of manual jobs existing in 20 years, I work in software and I am pretty convinced a machine will be able to do my job better than me in 20 years. And I am quite a moderate compared to my colleagues, I work with guys who think in the not too distant future we will be uploading human consciousness into computers. Personally I think Hayek's predicition just needs more time to come to be. I live in Europe where there has been a massive swing to the left, maybe it's more obvious over here. Also I think you might have objections not only from Right Libertarians but from the far left too, wage slavery and all that. Not that there are enough of them to take seriously but the same could be said of Right Libertarians