Despite plenty of demand, high density housing still isn't getting built nearly as fast as it should. High building costs, zoning laws, and the ability to just suburban sprawl to infinity mostly prevents this.

Pretty much all vertical farming startups have gone bankrupt. There are endless benefits to vertical farms, but we don't do it because existing farms are cheap in comparison to the necessary investment to make this viable.

We don't build high speed rail because it's a multi-decade long project involving massive logistics, training programs, lots of land rights issues, and the fact that for short to medium distance trips people would probably still prefer to drive since once you get to your target destination, there's still no way to get around without a vehicle.

Imagine if we just paid people to coat their properties in solar panels - throw them on your roof, lawn, wherever you have the space. We could drive energy prices down to nothing. We could pay people to install ADUs. The resources are there, but the imagination and commitment are not.

Instead, I'm looking at a $40k+ solar install for my very small house and a breakeven on investment in maybe 10 years for a house I probably won't live in by then.

The only Google service I haven't been able to replace is YouTube - no real alternative. I still use Google Maps as well, but could probably switch to Apple maps without missing much. For hiking trails, Apple Maps has often been superior. I briefly tried OpenStreetMaps years ago, but the lack of traffic data and the fact that it gave me bad directions made it untenable.

Practical reasons to save:

a) What if it isn't? i) Maybe ASI takes a lot longer or the notion of exponential intelligence gains actually doesn't happen ii) Perhaps we wipe ourselves out via climate change/nuclear war/etc (in which case money still won't matter much)

b) Money might still matter in a post-scarcity economy i) Some resources will still be scarce - how do we allocate them?

c) Saving money is wise regardless of what happens i) People still saved during the cold war when nuclear war destruction seemed imminent

Arguments for lavish living a) A post ASI world would likely look radically different. Hopefully in a good way, but still different. Might as well experience the world as it is now. i) If life becomes much worse, then either we will be dead, which means money doesn't matter, or life is terrible, in which case we might wish we'd enjoyed the good years we had. ii) If life becomes much better, then our savings probably don't matter so much as we've figured out the scarcity problem.

b) Climate change might (and already has) result in the radical transformation of ecosystems, causing many experiences to possibly not exist in the future. i) Ideally ASI would help resolve climate change? Or at least greatly mitigate it.

I, myself, am a pretty frugal person. I pay debts as quickly as I can, save as much as I can for retirement, and spend as little as possible. I think ultimately my 401k savings might useless by the time I'm old, but I do it anyways. My actions certainly conflict with the premise of my question.

I have no clue if I should even believe in the concept of the singularity. Perhaps, in a lot of ways, it is like a religion. We've replaced the second coming of Christ with the arrival of AI.

I think, ultimately, the sanest take is to assume nothing and continue to be frugal even if it's just giving myself the illusion of control over my own life into the future.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39801006

Points: 20

# Comments: 26

If everyone switches to a physical job then the value of those jobs plummet as well, especially as robotics get better, we get better training via AI, etc.

UBI is proposed as a solution, but our resources are still scarce, so how would you even decide allocation if everyone has the same amount of cash?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38200969

Points: 9

# Comments: 23