Відео

This is some Issac Arthur level stuff (in a good way)….

The books and videos rethinking transportation would benefit from an updated version with current status. The content is great but way too early. What if you give it an update in 2024 or maybe more appropriate is 2025 with new costs, more accurate robotaxi data etc. maybe it just needs a short paper. Include Aramco’s 2 ipo’s, bo sales of expensive assets, how oil companies are selling expensive how toyota is doubling down on gas engines all reminders of the items mentioned in the book and videos.

i use that analogy a lot too..and this one..fools fighting in a burning house.....cos...it's kinda..rampant, actually...

With energy, less is not better on a grid scale. That’s my takeaway.

3 years later the braindead and/or captured New South Wales government has just thrown a taxpayer-funded bail out to one of the state's largest coal fired generators, Eraring. It is an absolute disgrace.

I struggle not to despair.

What will robots do to unemployment and how will people find a new sense of life?

Thank you for explaining in such clear terms why we can and should be optimistic!

Thank you so much for sharing this important insight!

This is so important kvowledge to understand and spread. Thank you!

Thank you! Leaving a comment to help the algo!

Thank you!

Not sold. Nuclear energy has long been proven to be more efficient where so called renewables have a long time to catch up in both in efficiency and replacement costs.

Unfortunately the corporate oligarchs running the world only see robots as a means to consolidate power by replacing soldiers and police forces. We need a disruption in politics to bring back government for the people.

Gosh. Perhaps well intentioned, but ultimately a failure in production and / or messaging. I have in the past had the greatest respect for the careful thought and meticulous framing in Rethink X work. This piece has to be one of the most disappointing Rethink X productions I think I've seen. There are so many problems with this piece it's hard to find anything good about it. 1) It strikes me that Adam may have misunderstood a lot in his reading on degrowth, or that perhaps he's a pendulum-thinking extremist rather than a systems thinker: at any rate, this presentation appears to imply that he's an absolutist unable to hold conflicting ideas such as fallible rules of thumb concurrently (see 5:23), 2) to gain support, it would have arguably been a better approach for this critique to have been expressed in a measured, neutral, objective and unemotive way backed by solid facts to enable the viewer to make an informed decision for themselves. Instead, Adam's delivery sadly appears to echo some of his specific critiques about degrowth rhetoric: he leans on emotive repetition of words and poorly framed analogies in an attempt to bolster his point of view without providing any supporting evidence to back the claims he makes - see 4:36 as an example of unnecessarily emotive repetition, 3) Adam is using poorly constructed straw man fallacies to attack degrowth - for example that degrowth is essentially as a single solution that must solve all problems and therefore that it must attain and be measured by targets that have been set as ideas external to degrowth such as at 4:36 degrowth solving Net Zero Emissions. This is arguably preposterous and at best disingenuous: it severely weakens the points Adam is trying to make. 4) Adam appears to be cherry-picking a selection of points to amplify to attack degrowth, contrasting those points in odd and extreme ways, while at the same time making very small passing references to equally key degrowth points which he claims he agrees with: for example, degrowth's fundamental critique of GDP as one of the core philosophical economic problems we need to escape from he claims he agrees with, yet he fails to explore this in any depth. 5) If you understand that our current trajectory has industry EXPANDING use of fossil fuel use, including EXPANSION of plastic production, then degrowth become a self-evident necessity as A PART OF a range of solutions needed to address climate transition - economic activity continuing AS IT IS TODAY based on GDP GROWTH *IS* part of the problem: this point alone makes it clear to me Adam is spouting opinion here with little deep objective thought, 6) If you understand anything about the economic impact of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic, you'll understand that our current GDP GROWTH / profit-first based economic system was a major contributor to the pandemic outcomes: it was the gasoline fire that fueled so much of the impact we experienced. Again ... I'm at a loss to find much positive in this poorly curated piece. Perhaps as positive critique, consider pulling this and taking another stab at it?

There is a fly in the ointment that you are removing from the equation. The world is currently run by global corporate oligarchs who above all else want to stay in power. They are behind the successful climate denialism. They are behind the forever wars. Think 100% tarrifs on electric vehicles and solar panels. Think the proxy war in Ukraine and Tiawan and genocide in Gaza. Your entire theory hinges on these oligarchs relinquishing their power. History has proven it is not going to happen. How can they charge us a monthly bill if we are allowed to generate our own power? They want robots not to replace human labor but to replace soldiers and police to consolidate power. We need to address this real problem first. We need a return to real government for the people and in order to do that we need to remove the oligarchs from the seat of power.

Will Wall Street allow companies to make things less expensive when companies have to exceed quarterly expectations?

I can see the direction of the future but I have concerns and wish to discuss how we will deal with them. Innovation will be driven by prosperity but my concern is that this will further the inequity in the world where a very small portion of the population has the wealth. This will heighten the dispair of the poorer people. This will be amplified by our use of AI which will displace the jobs that the vast portion of this group depends on. Will we need to embrace a guaranteed annual income?

Enviro damage, biodiversity loss, the energy & climate breakdown (interconnected crises intersects with other social challenges) have an underlying cause - our view & relationship with nature (nature & natural resources is to be exploited for profit; it has no inherent value) - tech & machines can't / won't fix that. The underlying solution to the climate crisis is to respect nature, and consider nature in ALL human activities, such as reducing consumption & eliminating polluting & destructive activities and / or minimising their impact. Tech can assist alter how humans interact with nature, eg deploying renewable tech & switching to e-transit can decarbonise 90% of the economy. Using new agri techniques (restorative agri) & incorporating agrivoltaics is also critical. Tech could possibly also help with climate adaptation, but it must be remembered that climate mitigation is far more urgent & critical, and should be prioritised. Returning to a more mechanical tech (not requiring electricity) is also required, eg active transit (walking & cycling), passive housing, bioluminescence & solar tunnels instead of electrical lighting etc. The less energy we need, the less we need to generate, store, transmit & distribute etc. It must also be noted that in areas where the greatest population increases are expected, eg Asia & Africa (and where the impacts of cc will be more keenly felt), the robot / AI revolution may not be as significant as in more advanced countries. Otoh, the G20 countries are responsible for 80% emissions; if tech can help reduce emissions here that WOULD help a lot). Tech has a place, but if we are going to "solve" the climate breakdown we need to "fix" our relationship with nature. We should not be regarding tech as any kind of silver bullet... a tool is only as good as the one who wields it (for good & evil).

You argue like Socrates.

Love your videos and content 😅😊

Who are 'they'; where is your 'data'?. Lots of loose telling going on here...not so much showing.

How are we going to mine all these resources need to build this eutopia? Diesel and fossil fuels. Airplanes need jet fuel to fly and battery powered planes are a pipe dream. So we need more petroleum to meet a future needs not less.

The North Star is Christ, focus on Him who saves, not the god of the new age.

Nuclear power is a disaster. No nuclear plant has ever been built under budget or on schedule. One reason for this is the builders of nuclear plants are part of the military industrial complex. . GE, Westinghouse, etc. These companies are accustomed to Govt contracts that are usually........cost plus based. This means the companies are reimbursed their cost to manufacture and are given a agreed upon profit margin over the cost. This system does not produce fast paced execution of the work as the longer it takes to build ......the longer the company will get reimbursed.......plus be paid their profit. Traditionally there are charges of corruption, graft and kick backs, feather bedding by the unions, etc. Rarely do any of these investigation s recover any stolen funds.......and the accused never to to jail.........just like Congress 's investigation of malphesious in office!!!!!....Then since these projects are closely monitored by the govt......much time is wasted waiting for govt studies to be done. I remember a nuclear plant was considered for long island New York. This was fiercely opposed by the residents as long island is just that.......an island 120 miles long and just 5-10 miles wide. Three bridges connect it to mainland of new york state. Critics said if the plant sprung a radiation leak u could not evacuate the 7 million residents off the island in a timely manner. This debate continued while the plant was being built in stormville, on long island. By the time the plant was ready to eat the reactors at 10 per cent power, it was decided it was too risky to operate. One billion dollars had been spent up to this time. When the decision was made to terminate the program, it cost another billion to deactivate the plant. Communities that get their power from nuclear plants pay the highest electricity bills in the nation. This is due to the projects costing way over budget. Read the book.....Atomic Accidents. This book actually is PRO nuclear plants. The author listed every nuclear accident, up to the date of the books publishing and compared the safety record of nuclear plants to other industries. His claim was nuclear plants have fewer accidents than other industries. This may be true but nuclear accidents...... .when they occur........effect a broader area and more people than say a transportation accident or industrial accident. Also the author does not mention the contamination caused by a leaking reactor!!!!!....The book was written before the nuclear accidents of,: three mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.......the last accident is still leaking radiation in the Pacific... No we don't need more nukes......No more nukes!!!!!

It never has been a question that we can but we will not , why $$$$$$$$$$ and time is best spent worshiping the bottom line and power. Remove that from our DNA and you may have something to discuss. There are three wars going on in the Middle East and one in Europe. What takes priority , unfortunately not the planet . Love you optimism not your reality

Excellent - all these positive outcomes can't come too soon. And ....same for our oceans!

The big question is: will we develop these technologies before destroying the planet's life supporting system?

I found the video on disruption by Adam Dorr very insightful, particularly the discussion on how technological advancements like robotics could drive labor costs to near zero. The metrics he used to illustrate this were eye-opening. It's fascinating to consider how such changes could tackle major issues like climate change by making solutions more affordable. While this will undoubtedly cause significant disruption in job markets, it also opens up opportunities for humanity to focus on solving more complex problems. Leadership from politicians and thought leaders will be crucial in guiding this transition and ensuring that we can harness these advancements for the betterment of society. Empathy and clear communication about the benefits, while addressing concerns, will be key to navigating this change effectively.

Great summary. Consider making a short with your key point. Easier to share and get attention.

Swell robotics, and, Ai jobloss is the only thing I worry about anymore. Anyone else feel the same?

the only way to point the economy toward environmentalism is to TAX all forms of pollution. and also tax the upper level rich who go their wealth by exploiting the publics natural resourses. if we do that we won't see many "robots" but thats good- wealth needs to be dispursted to the people.

I didnt hear a reasonable argument against degrowth. "it wont work" is not an argument. The house on fire analogy is not a fitting one. Unlike a house nature forests and oceans can restore themselves. We dont have to go to net zero. There is not enough logic and reasoning in this story to hear it out I am sorry

That's Incredible, Keep Going!

While I see the importance of moving towards labor superabundance asap, I am a bit concerned about the social and economic effects of millions of people out of work without any means of support. Without very strong governmental action supporting unemployed people, there will be mass homelessness and riots not to mention political chaos. The problem is that the government is basically broken and cannot get anything done in a timely way unless the corporate donors are demanding it.

Usually I am getting a lot of knowledge and inspirations from RethinkX. And I rarely push the 'dislike' button for UA-cam videos, but in this case I do. The reason being that some major problems are completed left out, and I wonder how they can be solved by the 'abundance' and 'cheapness' of robotic labor that you forecast. In short, these problems are overpopulation, biodiversity loss, material and recycling thereof, and entropy production. The underlying problem of all major problems we are having today is 'overpopulation'. If instead of today’s 8 billion humans on the globe we were only 80 million people, none of the major problems would be as big as they are today. And we would have much more time to solve them. So how can in your view robotics solve the overpopulation problem, or at least substantially contribute to its solution? I consider not discussing the problem to not be acceptable. The next problem left out in this video is the substantial biodiversity loss we are experiencing nowadays. If you think robots are or could be the answer, you need to at least mention the topic and give the viewers an idea of how they could alleviate the problem. Also, in your discussion you are neglecting the material question. Life was based on recycling. Then the 'intelligent' human, the 'crown of evolution' appeared on the scene. And after the industrial revolution recycling was lost. Building robots requires a lot of exquisite material. Where should that come from? The robots will not be biological entities, but electro-mechanical ones. Or did I miss a point? First they need the material to be built. Then, after they are decommissioned, the materiel needs to be recycled. Do you really think the material that goes into these robots will be recycled 100%? If not, what is your estimate about the recycling percentage? The last point is related to entropy production. On our plante life cannot exist on our planet without the constant influx of negentropy from the sun in form of radiation. Living beings transform low entropy items (food) into higher entropy items (excrements). But with the help of negentropy (light) low entropy biochemical molecules can be synthesised, for instance in the leaves of trees, and life can continue. With the industrial revolution humanity stepped out of the biological processes and started to produce entropy (read waste) in insurmountable quantities. Do you really think that building, maintaining and recycling these billions (?) of robots does not massively contribute to entropy (read waste) production? I’d appreciate a reply to my points.

Thank you for this excellent series! My friends and family think I'm insane when I say the technology will save us - so I'm sharing your videos to Facebook. Maybe I can help a few more people understand what's coming and have a better outlook on the future.

Its 51C in Mexico, we've had a year over 1.6C, the world's corals are dying, we're going to add another 50Gt Co2e per year for a while yet, but infinite-earther in chief AD, thinks adding millions of robots over the next 20 years is the answer. Lets destroy the world further in the name of saving it. Just make sure you have a positive attitude and a smile as you do it. With his "house analogy", he does realise we are in the burning house, Right?

Post Labor Economics: How will the economy work after AGI? Recent though... The future businesses balance with AI and robotics There is a balance between lowering cost of production and maintaining a customer base, who can afford to purchase your products You could lower your cost of production by one of two methods, lower wages and their benefits or in the near future replace workers with artificial intelligence and robots, your employees there is a problem for business because 70% of any country's GDP is consumer spending. In today's economics if consumer spending drops by a few percentage points over two quarters that means your economy goes into a recession or even woorse a depression. So if every company does this that means that employees which are also your customers will not have the money to buy your products and then taken to the extreme, you too will also join the ranks of the poor. So the question is, how do you lower your cost of production while still paying Fair wages for your employees can buy your products? The answer lies in the fact that the number one cause of inflation is the cost of energy and fortunately this metric which has been driving up the cost of living for the last several decades may now have a solution. Apparently Sunshine is cheaper than gasoline or diesel and almost everywhere in the world if solar, wind and storage are combined, with electric transport, the cost of living drops dramatically and increases security since most conflicts around the world have been over access to sources of energy. Very low cost of energy, especially if it's widely distributed in households as well as businesses and transport, will vastly reduce or eliminate conflict to obtain these resources if they are all locally available, could result in a golden age of universal lowering the cost of energy and reducing conflicts. The above is not a bad outcome and would pretend that much safer future for everyone. The problem is, well this would greatly benefit people and businesses, it would interfere with the profits of monopolies such as, oil companies, centrally generated and distributed electricity, an outcome that consumers would appreciate and businesses with a stranglehold on raising prices would not be supportive of. So the question comes in what is more important business profits for the well-being of a country? Now businesses should be allowed to focus on profits for their investors, however this should not be based on taking advantages of citizens. There is a model, with business and consumers can both benefit and the environment as well. Implement a universal basic income or a moncome, or a similar mixed of the two, this would be financed by taxing the robots, shift to a mixed economy, which combines the best of capitalism together with the best of socialism so people enjoy the best of both worlds. With other than the cost of energy basically being free for everybody and full self-driving becoming vastly safer than driving by humans, a fleet of robo taxis with a cost is well below that of current day transportation, the cost of living drops dramatically, people will have a higher quality of life, with more time and less stress business and society can still grow and improve and considering removing most of the reasons for conflict and wars to secure resources will be vastly reduced. In effect several factors make this possible, free or extremely low cost energy, lower cost of living, savings ftom military spending and with artificial intelligence and robots, comes free medical care, free education individually tailored for the student, more time to return to our evolutionary roots of, enjoying family and friends and other activities as well as an incredible reduction in stress leading to disease. The dangerous propaganda and disinformation will make it difficult for the average person to understand what's going on and thus will have the wool pulled over their eyes. Scientia Habet Non Domus, (Knowledge Has No Home) antiguajohn We are GMT-4

There's many a twixt between cup and lip..The same argument here applies to exploitation of the planet-it will be amped up by robotic destruction-of forests,deep sea mining,fossil fuel and mineral extraction

If labor costs close to nothing, then demand (workers with money) approaches zero and production stops. UBI- universal “basic” income is insufficient. The income of labor is demand, and demand creates supply, so we could either guarantee everyone a huge paycheck (not a “basic” paycheck) - or - we could socialize ownership of robots and make everything free. Neither of those scenarios are capitalism. They’re different forms of socialism.

Thanks Adam - nice summary!!

When talking about costs, don't focus only on the investment, think about interest rates and all kind of opex too (energy, maintainance, task creation, design...)

Ok, yes but when? Is it another 10 years? Is it tomorrow? I see a lot of promises but yet to see anything of real substance. I agree it will come. I just wonder what hurdles are left to solve and how quickly will those be solved. Not sure many folks know.

My biggest question is who is going to buy all the stuff robots can produce when we get redundent? robots dont buy stuff.

I think there should be a health based income on top of a UBI. Something that would incentivise people to get physically and mentally healthy with individual goals managed by a custom AI. This would include rewards for sticking to a healthy diet and exercise program. People could sell selective of their medical data to governments and corporations for. People who did not want to take part would still avail of a standard basic income.

In a time when free access to information has never been easier it is staggering that the general public are so deaf and blind to the changes that are just around the corner. If governments don't start informing citizens of the positive changes there will be anguish and rioting.

So the corporations driven by profit, that are building this tech, worse the governments that will take that tech, are purposefully building robots/ai that will allow them the ability to pay us humans welfare, and solve all of the environmental problems? You don't think they're going to want maximal profit to go to their investors? Your logic does not compute. It sounds nice, almost too good to be true. I wonder if they sold slavery to people the same way? Imagine all the amazing things we could do, and all of the people we could save, if we just had someone else do it for us? hahahahahahaahahahahahahhaahhahahaha good luck, buddy.

We don't need to end animal agriculture, on the contrary we need to increase it using regenerative models such as thse employed by Joel Salatan of Polyface farms. We need to do so in order to allow all humans on this planet to eat a species appropriate species specific diet consisting of the flesh and fat of ruminant animals. Glucose and Fructose are deadly metabolic poisons and the criminal misanthropic advice to consume plant based diets causes chronic diseases as a result off the oxidation and glycation caused by these toxins. As a result health care produces twice the so called green house gas as animal agriculture.

We need a good system for distribution of income so all people will gain from this.