According to Ashbys Law of Requiste Variety systems that survive a wide range of ever changing issues must display a wide range of responses. If variety in response is low system becomes fragile.
Variety not simplicity or efficiency or optimization is what saves the chimp troupe from every growing complexity in an ever changing environment.
"greed" and "crime" are moral and legal transgressions, respectfully. These two exist, because some brains are wired for pushing boundaries beyond present and projected need - "risk-taking". Self-gratification at the expense of others. Very much needed, when stakes need to be put down and held - against nature, animals, other humans - but redundant, when a "satisfying" level of "civilisation" is achieved.
Your question contains a lot of "what do we do with those paving the way through chaos for monetary rewards, requiring low empathy or an unreasonably high degree of anthropocentricity?" - once a mechanistic level of civilisations is achieved? Eg. "where do the warriors go, when the was is over?" And now it is becoming: "where do workers go, when autonomous systems take over management, and workers still need to eat?
Generally speaking we are standing on a cusp. We are very close to technological "heaven", but most of the world's economy is geared towards competition and power rather than fulfilling everyone's needs. Economy here means "distribution of value as exchange". There is no "we", when it comes to tradable value - there is only "I" - I, country against countries, I, company against companies, I, individual against individuals. The WE is presently NON-extensive beyond personal identification, because our present mode of wrestling necessities out of chaos requires "profit maximisation": "raising worth to the max level of interest". There is no WE HUMANS in that. There is only me and them.
When plan economy nations tried the WE in those clothes - giving value only to that satisfying human basic needs - they forgot that greed and crime arise in the same people, who plow through the jungle to find gold or aspire to power. Not in people, who look at sunsets and enjoy tranquility in a safe, predictable environment. This resulted in the direct murder of lots of citizens with brains, that did not fit into submission, and as a by-product killed off millions needing the energy and non-submissiveness of people not fitting into the system.
In an "autonomous world", where ideals for feeding the masses can easily be programmed into autonomous machines, there would be no one to pay for the machines (as the economy we know toil under), and no place to go for the the more restless and non-submissive brains. Machine logic would displace state logic, and programmed rules of behaviour would result in various kinds of enforced "law keeping" to stop or prevent "illegal" or "disruptive" behaviour not befitting the WE. Meaning humans, not the machines. You can easily have all the things humans need - but you cannot give purpose to human brains, which are wired for risk-taking and exploration and questioning the "order of things". You need "un-programmable variety" - which is basically chaos.
Only the plasticity of mind understands the plasticity of existence. Plastic mind to constantly evolving existence.
Your "ideal" is by doing away with chotic minds (once they have proven chaotic"), once the collective mind has programmed autonomous machines with a desired, future behaviour and desired variety. Many great philosophical scifi novels have explored this theme: What is actually a stable society?
Personally I believe much would be achieved by disallowing destructive competition. Competition should ALWAYS benefit the "losers" as well, ie. be "moral wins". This IS possible - but not by letting autonomous systems run the world. Human brains regarded as a collective mind are amazing - that require the respect of the WE to not deflate into submission and inefficiency from lack of fight.
Machine autonomy is presently on track to kill us off by reducing us to recipients or regularly starve us from all kinds of deficiencies: feelings of necessity and worth, loss of abilities to maintain stable homes and sources of food, education, experience, non-economic/religious/political role models.
So, IMO the best world is achieved by reigning in those selling standardised killing devices and building autonomic systems taking people's purpose in life.
(Sorry for the rambly bit - but I am out of time to clean it up.)
According to Ashbys Law of Requiste Variety systems that survive a wide range of ever changing issues must display a wide range of responses. If variety in response is low system becomes fragile.
Variety not simplicity or efficiency or optimization is what saves the chimp troupe from every growing complexity in an ever changing environment.
You need to take into account Different Brains:
"greed" and "crime" are moral and legal transgressions, respectfully. These two exist, because some brains are wired for pushing boundaries beyond present and projected need - "risk-taking". Self-gratification at the expense of others. Very much needed, when stakes need to be put down and held - against nature, animals, other humans - but redundant, when a "satisfying" level of "civilisation" is achieved.
Your question contains a lot of "what do we do with those paving the way through chaos for monetary rewards, requiring low empathy or an unreasonably high degree of anthropocentricity?" - once a mechanistic level of civilisations is achieved? Eg. "where do the warriors go, when the was is over?" And now it is becoming: "where do workers go, when autonomous systems take over management, and workers still need to eat?
Generally speaking we are standing on a cusp. We are very close to technological "heaven", but most of the world's economy is geared towards competition and power rather than fulfilling everyone's needs. Economy here means "distribution of value as exchange". There is no "we", when it comes to tradable value - there is only "I" - I, country against countries, I, company against companies, I, individual against individuals. The WE is presently NON-extensive beyond personal identification, because our present mode of wrestling necessities out of chaos requires "profit maximisation": "raising worth to the max level of interest". There is no WE HUMANS in that. There is only me and them.
When plan economy nations tried the WE in those clothes - giving value only to that satisfying human basic needs - they forgot that greed and crime arise in the same people, who plow through the jungle to find gold or aspire to power. Not in people, who look at sunsets and enjoy tranquility in a safe, predictable environment. This resulted in the direct murder of lots of citizens with brains, that did not fit into submission, and as a by-product killed off millions needing the energy and non-submissiveness of people not fitting into the system.
In an "autonomous world", where ideals for feeding the masses can easily be programmed into autonomous machines, there would be no one to pay for the machines (as the economy we know toil under), and no place to go for the the more restless and non-submissive brains. Machine logic would displace state logic, and programmed rules of behaviour would result in various kinds of enforced "law keeping" to stop or prevent "illegal" or "disruptive" behaviour not befitting the WE. Meaning humans, not the machines. You can easily have all the things humans need - but you cannot give purpose to human brains, which are wired for risk-taking and exploration and questioning the "order of things". You need "un-programmable variety" - which is basically chaos.
Only the plasticity of mind understands the plasticity of existence. Plastic mind to constantly evolving existence.
Your "ideal" is by doing away with chotic minds (once they have proven chaotic"), once the collective mind has programmed autonomous machines with a desired, future behaviour and desired variety. Many great philosophical scifi novels have explored this theme: What is actually a stable society?
Personally I believe much would be achieved by disallowing destructive competition. Competition should ALWAYS benefit the "losers" as well, ie. be "moral wins". This IS possible - but not by letting autonomous systems run the world. Human brains regarded as a collective mind are amazing - that require the respect of the WE to not deflate into submission and inefficiency from lack of fight.
Machine autonomy is presently on track to kill us off by reducing us to recipients or regularly starve us from all kinds of deficiencies: feelings of necessity and worth, loss of abilities to maintain stable homes and sources of food, education, experience, non-economic/religious/political role models.
So, IMO the best world is achieved by reigning in those selling standardised killing devices and building autonomic systems taking people's purpose in life.
(Sorry for the rambly bit - but I am out of time to clean it up.)