Life is fundamentally about getting resources to sustain yourself. In that regard, humanity is, more and more dependent on the industry. At the same time, the industry is less and less dependent on humanity, since it is deriving more and more of its power and intelligence from machines.

We will probably reach a point the industry doesn't improve its survival ability by feeding and serving people. If that happens we will have reached a point where we do not have the ability to extract resources on our own since machines do all the critical parts of the job and we won't have the know how/or the access to resources.

Specifically:

- mining, farming and transportation is in the process of being automated away, as is manufacturing.

- in a world dominated by renewable energy, the cost of energy will depend on local weather. To optimize the logistic operations, we'll have to integrate weather predictions and adapt the flux of goods. Humans won't be able to compete with machines for that task, and logistics will also be automated away.

Once that part of the industry can work without human input, we'll be in deep trouble. The rest of the human economy is the result of accidental complexity due to the fact that meatware stems from biology.

This is the natural consequence of optimization and growth seeking. The only way to optimize human labor fast enough to be competitive is to optimize it away. If we're not economically competitive we will not survive. We are in the process of making ourselves redundant, and magic thinking makes us believe that it will end nicely.

Very interesting thoughts. It does seem we're heading towards some kind of technological dystopia, but there is an increasing minority of people who are aware of it. I can see it leading to some kind of schism.

Only if its paired with concurrent wide scale changes to society. That seems unlikely given the worldwide political order.

People still fear the "robots will take all of our jobs!" dialogue. Many societies still have work as a core component of personal value, so the idea of people having to work less doesn't translate to "Great, I can let these robots do the work and I can enjoy myself" but to "I can't find work and so I'm a worthless disgrace."

It's more that most societies have "doing work" as a core component of obtaining money, and requiring money for things like food, housing, ...

That is also true, but that is something that can be mitigated and resolved with government policies. However, that is unlikely to happen effectively in societies that have a work as a core component of personal value as they will say "they're not working? Why should we help them?" At some point the policy changes will NEED to happen, but the societies with that core value will have a very difficult time adjusting as value systems can't be changed overnight like laws can.

It can be mitigated but it isn't being mitigated.

At some point those changes will need to happen, as you say, but it would be better if we didn't reach the point of needing a revolution to get there.

I'm sitting in a McDonald's right now in the Netherlands. There are about 30 unfilled orders on the TV and only 1 cashier. How is that possible? The other cashiers were replaced by touchscreen ordering kiosks, which there are 4 of in this restaurant. This has happened in McDonalds worldwide, easily eliminating hundreds or thousands of jobs. It is only a matter of time before these ordering kiosks become commoditized. I'm surprised I can't already order on a tablet at restaurants.

I hate those tablets, they play ads. Microeconomics states that prices will always fall right down to the edge where it's barely worth manufacturing the product. Maybe there's another rule that says that the user experience in a restaurant will always fall right to the edge of it barely being worth going there.