Metanet Forums

I was thinking about this in the car.

In my eyes, if we are going to approach anything close to a utopia society, we have three problems that science inherently has to deal with:
1) The finite number of resources (including space) needed to maintain the ever expanding population.
2) Alternatives to manual labour so that more people can simply do whatever the hell they want (or nothing!)
3) Solutions to diseases/health problems, which may or may not include mortality.

Now, if we look at a place like, say, Michigan, we see that a lot of people are out of a job because of the automation of their industry, which, in Michigan's case, was car production. This makes sense; as technology moves forward, we don't need people to do simple things that require no level of human ingenuity.

Unfortunately, that puts a lot of people in a bad position. They are out of jobs and unable to feed their families.

My proposition is thus:

These people are currently sacrifices in what can be viewed as a transitional period in humankind; one where we move from doing what society requires to subsist to doing what we want within society. It sucks for them, but perhaps the fact that they can no longer find work indicates to me that they would not really have a place in the future of our society, and moreover, that they might serve as indicators that we are at the cusp of our future.

What do you guys think? Do you think we are indeed on the cusp of moving forward a one prong of our movement for a better society, or is this level of technological implementation not really indicative of what we have in the near future?

What do you guys think about our progress within the other two highlighted prongs? Did I forget any?

And finally, if these people leave relatively unhappy for the rest of their lives because of their unemployed status', was that a necessary sacrifice to make for the future?

Supplemental question: genocide all the retards?

T̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư wrote:Supplemental question: genocide all the retards?

Point for Tsuki!

T̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư wrote:Supplemental question: genocide all the retards?

Maybe just the rhino horn poachers?

Why not just eliminate all people once robots are the only important members of society? We'll just be using up resources and producing very little, comparatively. Better to let the robots advance themselves independently at a much faster rate than we could ever accomplish, without us clumsy stupid humans getting in their way.

The future will be a robocommunist utopia, according to a guy who I was discussing this with last year.

SłappyMcGee wrote: Now, if we look at a place like, say, Michigan, we see that a lot of people are out of a job because of the automation of their industry, which, in Michigan's case, was car production. This makes sense; as technology moves forward, we don't need people to do simple things that require no level of human ingenuity.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that's the reason that Michiganians are out of a job. This is something called the luddite fallacy, the idea that with increased output per worker, there will be less demand for workers. On the contrary, increased output per worker means that each worker is more valuable, and if wages stay the same, we should expect to see an increase in demand. This is related, ultimately, to the Jevons paradox.

What is actually happening is, if it requires less people for society to maintain a certain standard of living, society will respond by raising that standard of living. It's not as if Americans are largely sitting around, unable to find something to spend money on, because their life is already so awesome.

There is a small bit of truth in what you're saying, related to this point in the article:

However, the Luddite fallacy is fallacious only at the macroeconomic level: overall employment in the economy will not decrease, but individual workers who do not possess the skills to utilize new technologies may become unemployed.

To some degree, the current most desired jobs do not perfectly match the skills of the populace. Actually, a lot of the jobs that need to be done really suck (well, personally, I think taking care of the elderly sucks, because I had to do it once and it sucked. I mean, I like helping people, but have you ever smelled the inside of a hospital?).

A bigger part of the reason we're seeing so much job loss in Detroit is that all of the car building jobs have moved out of Detroit, because all the Detroit automakers decided 15 years ago that, screw what people want to buy, we're going to make giant pieces of shit (They were then rewarded with a $25 billion check from the government). Except Ford, who somehow started making decent cars.

Also, the steel industry here has been screwed for a while by all the cheap steel coming out of countries that artificially devalue their currency. This is kind of like what Nixon's corn subsidy did to Mexico. For a while, the dollar's value had dropped so much that people were talking about the return of the steel industry, but I don't know if that ever got anywhere.

Unfortunately, that puts a lot of people in a bad position. They are out of jobs and unable to feed their families.

Surviving, not living, right?

These people are currently sacrifices in what can be viewed as a transitional period in humankind; one where we move from doing what society requires to subsist to doing what we want within society.

I don't know that we're likely to see anything stop changing anytime soon. If history is any indicator, we'll keep going at this pace; we've got a very, very long way to go before we look anything like most people's conception of "the future". I assume the next 50 years will see a number of dot-com-bubble-like events.

It sucks for them, but perhaps the fact that they can no longer find work indicates to me that they would not really have a place in the future of our society, and moreover, that they might serve as indicators that we are at the cusp of our future.

It's easy to conclude that, based on the fact that they can't find a place in the present of our society, that they won't factor into it's future. But people can adapt, and I think that many of the currently unemployed will find their way into other industries.

tl;dr: I got a B in freshman econ.

Wait. I don't understand how a robot that can do a job in the place of a worker applies to the Luddite Fallacy. The people at GM do not need more employees with this new technology, they need fewer. With the cost of vehicles going down and the supply going up, that just means excess wealth for the people whom the company still needs.

Maybe I am misunderstanding this, but the fallacy applied here essentially means

If there is a robot and a human,
and one can do the job perfectly and for free,
and the other is stupid and makes errors,
then the human will become more valuable.

what.

But who builds the robots?

scythe wrote:But who builds the robots?

More robots?

To answer your next question, God.

SłappyMcGee wrote:

scythe wrote:But who builds the robots?

More robots?

To answer your next question, God.

Right, right.

My friends and I are totally skilled car-builders. We can build 5 cars a day. However, we can also build a machine that will build twenty cars a day.

Does the existence of this machine, which we have built, make us more or less valuable? I'd say it makes us more valuable. Keep in mind that we are not anywhere near having autonomous, self-maintaining machines. For that matter, we are not ourselves self-maintaining machines; just look at the health industry.

scythe wrote:

SłappyMcGee wrote:

scythe wrote:But who builds the robots?

More robots?

To answer your next question, God.

Right, right.

My friends and I are totally skilled car-builders. We can build 5 cars a day. However, we can also build a machine that will build twenty cars a day.

Does the existence of this machine, which we have built, make us more or less valuable? I'd say it makes us more valuable. Keep in mind that we are not anywhere near having autonomous, self-maintaining machines. For that matter, we are not ourselves self-maintaining machines; just look at the health industry.

MY FRIENDS AND I ARE SKILLED CAR BUILDERS. SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT US BUILDS ROBOTS TO DO OUR JOB. WE DO NOT HAVE JOBS ANYMORE.

SłappyMcGee wrote:MY FRIENDS AND I ARE SKILLED CAR BUILDERS. SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT US BUILDS ROBOTS TO DO OUR JOB. WE DO NOT HAVE JOBS ANYMORE.

I think you are missing the entire point of his post. Which was more something along the lines of:

MY FRIENDS AND I ARE SKILLED CAR BUILDERS. NEW ROBOTS ARE MORE SKILLED AND CHEAPER. WE DON'T HAVE JOBS BUILDING CARS ANYMORE. INSTEAD WE ARE BUILDING A NEW HOVER CAR BECAUSE, FUCK IT, PEOPLE WANT HOVER CARS.

Unfortunately, most people are too lazy/stupid to go build hover cars.

And in case you also missed that, hover cars = innovation.

smartalco wrote:Unfortunately, most people are too lazy/stupid to go build hover cars.

http://www.moller.com/index.php?option= ... &Itemid=57

smartalco wrote:

SłappyMcGee wrote:MY FRIENDS AND I ARE SKILLED CAR BUILDERS. SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT US BUILDS ROBOTS TO DO OUR JOB. WE DO NOT HAVE JOBS ANYMORE.

I think you are missing the entire point of his post. Which was more something along the lines of:

MY FRIENDS AND I ARE SKILLED CAR BUILDERS. NEW ROBOTS ARE MORE SKILLED AND CHEAPER. WE DON'T HAVE JOBS BUILDING CARS ANYMORE. INSTEAD WE ARE BUILDING A NEW HOVER CAR BECAUSE, FUCK IT, PEOPLE WANT HOVER CARS.

Unfortunately, most people are too lazy/stupid to go build hover cars.

And in case you also missed that, hover cars = innovation.

why can't the robots build hover cars?

Scrivener wrote:Why not just eliminate all people once robots are the only important members of society? We'll just be using up resources and producing very little, comparatively. Better to let the robots advance themselves independently at a much faster rate than we could ever accomplish, without us clumsy stupid humans getting in their way.

Someone been reading Phillip Dick?

Curse Of The Colonel wrote:

Scrivener wrote:Why not just eliminate all people once robots are the only important members of society? We'll just be using up resources and producing very little, comparatively. Better to let the robots advance themselves independently at a much faster rate than we could ever accomplish, without us clumsy stupid humans getting in their way.

Someone been reading Phillip Dick?

or -any- -science fiction- -writer- -ever-.

SłappyMcGee wrote:why can't the robots build hover cars?

I'm undecided if the point of my post floated by you, or if you are just mocking this thread.

SłappyMcGee wrote:why can't the robots build hover cars?

Robots can't invent shit. That's why it's our job to invent robots that can invent robots.

smartalco wrote:

SłappyMcGee wrote:why can't the robots build hover cars?

I'm undecided if the point of my post floated by you, or if you are just mocking this thread.

The floating one.

SłappyMcGee wrote:The floating one.

If you lose your job because robots are now better equipped, go create a job. Just because there isn't currently someone making product X doesn't mean no one wants. Figure out what people (this could be people in your neighborhood, city, state, country, the entire world, etc) want/need and get to work on making it. If you can't think of anything, make something and make people think they need it; ex: anything marketed "as seen on TV!".

Basically I want people to stop bitching to the government because they can't make themselves useful.

SłappyMcGee wrote:

Curse Of The Colonel wrote:

Scrivener wrote:Why not just eliminate all people once robots are the only important members of society? We'll just be using up resources and producing very little, comparatively. Better to let the robots advance themselves independently at a much faster rate than we could ever accomplish, without us clumsy stupid humans getting in their way.

Someone been reading Phillip Dick?

or -any- -science fiction- -writer- -ever-.

Obviously, but it's more that Dick wrote one with that exact plot.

Why do you space out your posts so much. :/

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:Once technology is better than people at thinking, then human beings will be obsolete. Provided that's possible, of course.

I think before robots become "human", humans will become robots.
((Transhumanism!))

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:

Manus Australis wrote:

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:Once technology is better than people at thinking, then human beings will be obsolete. Provided that's possible, of course.

I think before robots become "human", humans will become robots.
((Transhumanism!))

I don't really see the distinction between those two. I think a better way of phrasing it is that the line between technology and humans will be blurred to such an extent that no one can tell where one stops and the other begins.

He means before robots gain true AI and try to take over the world etc. We'll be putting our own minds in to robots.

Something like that anyways.

I think the distinction between human and robot will be quite obvious. One has a literal brain, the other has a microchip at its core. Every organ we have is really just there to keep our brain alive, or make new brains.