Like the Titanic, capitalism is sinking, but few passengers are wondering yet if there are enough lifeboats.
Between now and the end of Donald Trump’s first term in 2020, it’s likely millions of jobs in America will be lost to automation, software and robots. Depending on how fast technology evolves, that human job-loss number might even rival that of the Great Recession of 2007, where more than eight million people were put out of work , and America’s banking system nearly collapsed.
By 2030, the job losses will likely be in the tens of millions. McDonald’s will flip burgers with machines, Amazon will deliver packages with drones and taxis will all be self-driving. Even white-collars jobs, like those on Wall Street, will be replaced by artificial intelligence — the world’s largest hedge fund has already set plans in motion for this.
Like the Titanic, capitalism is sinking, but few passengers are wondering yet if there are enough lifeboats.
I recently declared my run as a Libertarian for California governor in 2018, and I gently support the idea of a state-funded basic income to offset the effects of ubiquitous automation. A basic income would give every Californian some money — and it makes sense to start such a dramatic program here in the Golden State, since this is where much of the human-job-replacing-tech is created.
My Libertarian friends are skeptical of my support for a basic income. They insist the only way to pay for such a program is via higher taxes. This is not true; other ways exist. California could potentially cut deals with the federal government to lease its empty land and natural resources to help pay for a basic income.
After all, state and federal resources belong to the people, and 45 percent of California (more than 45 million acres) is government-controlled land, leaving vast areas idle and mostly undeveloped.
Environmentalists go bonkers at this idea, but they fail to understand modern science and how fast it’s evolving. Take for example: wood — one of the most commonly used natural resources in the world.
Everything from homes to furniture to Starbucks coffee cups are made from it. But that’s unlikely to continue. In 20 years’ time or less, dozens of stronger materials are likely to be constructed in laboratories that require far less money to mass produce than it takes to grow and harvest timber — in fact, various companies are already working on this right now. Using forests for building materials is way too laborious to survive in the 21st century.
And even if it did, it would only be because genetic engineering and nanotechnology would allow us to grow trees at many times the current natural rate — something scientists are also already tinkering with.
The story of the timber industry’s future is not unique. Other major Californian natural resource businesses — such as fossil fuels, agriculture and fisheries — will suffer the same extinction or complete technological transformation of its industry.
The world is changing. Nature will no longer be what the Earth gives us, but what we create of Earth with our radical new tools.
Despite opposition by environmentalists and Luddites, we should consider focusing more on humanitarian possibilities from use of California’s natural resources. We can do that by distributing those resources directly back to the people — in a monthly monetary form the average citizen can use for healthcare, food and opportunity.
The Federal government’s net worth of natural resources is at least $130 trillion dollars. California is the third largest state in the U. S., and its 45 million federal acres of land could be worth $10 to $20 trillion dollars.
As a potential governor, I wouldn’t advocate for actually selling off California — nor destroying its natural beauty — but rather leasing it out.
