> This isn't really a political problem

What you're saying in this comment sounds _very much_ like politics, at least modern politics. There's been a few studies that suggest that people's position on the political spectrum is very correlated to their capacity for empathy for others (and in particular, strangers). First example I found on google: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10281241/ (note: I do not vouch for scientific rigorousness, I'm saying "some studies suggest that" not "it's proven that").

So:

> you and I rather take our family to Disney Land than feed starving kids

Speaking for myself, it's more true than false (although not that clear-cut). However:

> We don't vote for a political system which taxes us significantly more to try to stop people starving around the world

I sure do vote for that, as do a very significant portion of people. It's absolutely what I want, I am aware of my own biases (and other people's) to prioritise myself, and taxes are a good way to force this redistribution of wealth to happen despite these individual biases. That's kind of the whole point of the left, which is a very strong power in many countries (note: I'm not american and the "american left" is very different from other countries').

So "what humans want" is very much a political question: a very-much-reducted observation of the political spectrum is that it seems that right-leaning people want the best for themselves and their immediate social circle, whereas left-leaning people want the best for everyone.

There are lots of problems in today's world that are not resource problems (extreme poverty, for example).

You are obviously right in some sense that they are therefore political "problems", but politics is in the business of giving what people who have political power what they want.

Is extreme poverty in Mozambique a top 10 issue in any wealthy country? No, obviously not. Because politics barely registers this as a problem. If it did it could solve it, but like you I'm more concerned about the cost of eggs and being able to afford to take my family on holiday.

This is what I mean when I say it's not a political problem.

I of course would agree all of the negative social and economic impacts of AI could be solved with political solutions, but I also think most negative social and economic problems could be solved with communism.

Humans are kind and compassionate for those who share some sense of communion with, but struggle with even the most basic level of empathy for the people and animals for which they do not.

I don't trust people to implement communism and I don't trust trillionaire AI CEOs to redistribute their wealth. The people who put forward these ideas in my opinion are promoting a dangerous idea. At a minimum those advocating for these ideas should at least be implementing the empathy they require of their political preferences in their own lives. Most people pushing these ideas probably don't even acknowledge the existence of those begging them for cash in their own city streets, yet for some reason they think trillionaires will take sympathy on their own economically pointless existence.

On your second point, that rather assumes those 'unless' people will willing to just 'go away'.

That's typically not what happens - you either get bloody revolution or people just ignore the rules that aren't giving them a fair shot ( ie turn to crime - ie state disapproved activities ).

This is what has traditionally held back the elite from their worse excesses - they don't want to live in a world where either of those things happen.

ie what's the point of being rich if you are constantly worried about yourself or a member of your family is going to be violently kidnapped etc.

As to your first point - it's a bit like the first - if there is no social safety net, then it you could happen to you - you could get ill, lose your job etc. Even if you believe the system is created by total self-interest - then the past has shown that the equilibrium involves looking after everyone to some extent as:

1. It could be you one day.

2. Having lots of desperate people, even if it isn't you, is in no-ones self interest.

I agree historically, but your points break down when the threat of revolutions no longer have the physical or economic power they once did.

Good luck violently kidnapping the family members of a AI CEO in a world of flock cameras and humanoid robot patrol units.

And good luck withholding your labour when 80% of people can't even find paid employment.

Also, arguably if the unemployed masses are going to try to overthrow those provide them with at least the basics to survive and part take in a revolution, then those involved in the revolution shouldn't be surprised if what little they have is withdrawn. Strategically this sounds a lot of like punching your boss and demanding he pays you more or you'll punch him again. This isn't a reasonable negotiation tactic unless you hold some of the cards. The only reason threatening to quit a job can sometimes work is when it's a real threat of economic harm, absent that, it's just annoying and they'll probably be happy to see you off the payroll.

There are too many people in the world currently that think that security is through absolute technical/military dominance, when the reality the thing you really need for security is other people or countries not wanting to harm you.

In fact the rise of things like cheap killer drones or robots makes that truth more real, not less.

> And good luck withholding your labour when 80% of people can't even find paid employment.

So those 80% are either being supported somehow to live a life at a level where they don't resort to violence or crime or they aren't. ie you keep them happy at some level or you fight. Note if you let them die/kill them, then you will likely lose the support of the 20% as they can see which way it's going.

It's not about what we want, it's about what we believe. All you describe is enabled by beliefs systems, it's above rationalization. What you're describing is just learned helplessness.

You seem to believe getting taxed is a choice people make. However, on the one hand economists like Zucman and news stories like the Panama Papers have proven the ultra-wealthy and politicians ("economically useful people") pay way less tax than regular people. And on the other, basically most people disagree with at least some of the uses of taxation, such as a war spending in the US. In fact, sometimes people get taxed without getting any benefits at all in return, such as during government shutdowns.

I think this all calls into question your basic premise that "politics is downstream of what we humans want", ie that the state is an emanation of the collective will of the people, which it serves. The facts fit equally well, if not better, an interpretation in which the state is independent of society and seeks to extract resources from it. This is also consistent with the Weberian state conception in which the state starts as the "stationary bandit" that collects taxes from a village to protect it from other bandits.

Your conception of "economically useless people" is also incoherent. Economic science is about how to distribute rare resources to maximize utility. These people are no less able to work and no less able to benefit from utility and are therefore not "useless" from an economic standpoint. I think you would benefit from just using words like "rich & powerful" and "poor & weak" which if I understand correctly is what you actually mean.

> I think this all calls into question your basic premise that "politics is downstream of what we humans want"

It only questions "the government is downstream of what we humans want". politics != government.