The Zeitgeist Movement... why not?

[Prometheus]

Garbage. A law is a set of rules determined by society to force or to deter a behavior. If someone does not live by society's rules, you get punished. You have the option of "opting out" by emigrating or living in a forest somewhere.

Why does it seem so hard to enforce these laws, these behaviors? Why is it so hard to obey them? How many good people are "criminals" on a daily basis as a result of these attempts to enforce these behaviors? Whats the underlining issue there?

Okay, I'll bite: What is the underlying issue there?

I dont know

You asked the question first. I see three reasonable possibilities as to why you did so:

1. You intended it as a rhetorical question, in which case you must have been trying to make a point. If this is the case, then it would be helpful if you would just state your point in plain language.
2. You intended it as a sincere question that you would like to know the answer to. If this is the case, then you must have some reason to believe that knowing the answer to this question would be helpful in the context of this thread. If this is true then you might try explaining why you want to know the answer to this question. That way, one or more of us might be persuaded to try to help you answer your question, and the discussion might move forward on productive ground.
3. You were just being careless, and you don't actually have any reason for asking the question in the first place. This is, of course, a completely fogiveable discourse error -- provided, of course, that you explain that this is the case so that we don't waste each other's time any further.

Is there another reason that I'm not seeing? Your response of,

I don't know

has me leaning towards #3. Am I wrong?

**

A criminal is as much a failure of the individual as of the system.

Well we can agree that there is a failure of the system.

Ahh. The dreaded 'Devil System Made Me Do It' defense. TVP sounds more and more like a religion all the time. Are you sure Fresco isn't really a Raellian?

You chose not to respond to this. I hope that I did not inadvertantly offend you. Although I was being deliberately sarcastic, any tone of mockery you may have detected is aimed squarely at Fresco, not yourself. In fact, my point is a serious one. What I read on the TVP website and in discussions like this one really does remind me of the language used by apologists for various religions. Including an apparent willingness to believe a lot of fairly outrageous claims, presented in poorly formed arguments rife with logical fallacies, and without any verifiable supporting evidence. Of course, I can certainly understand if you're uncomfortable pursuing this point further, so unless you wish to revisit it, I'll let the matter drop.

**

Therefore you absolve yourself of any work or responsibility. Bravo.

Just stating the facts.

Out of curiousity, just what work/responsibilities do you see yourself undertaking in a TVP world? How/what will you contribute?

With the extra time on my hands I could contribute in many more meaningful ways than I do now. That goes for most of the population I suppose. The majority of the population does not need to do the work they do because machines could do that work right now. Many machines are doing the work now. I see it more and more. The replacement of human labor by machines will be a bigger problem as time goes on. How will we deal with that? What are the consequences of that?

Suppose the TVP Central Computer crunches numbers and resource lists and decides that, in order to get the magic robots to supply enough corndogs to the 'distribution center' at the Texas State Fair, they'll need you to put in a 40 hour work week for 50 weeks per year programming and maintaining their systems. Will you do it? Why?

Please DO NOT suggest that that amount of human labor won't be necessary unless you can show the calculations and verifiable data to back up the assertion.

**

No. There is an energy, resource, time, labor etc etc etc cost. It does not magically dissapear.

The labor costs would seem to magically disappear but it would be the technology that would make the labor deminish.

You previously said that humans would still be involved in designing, building, programming and maintaining the magic robots. That's labor.

Definitely maintaining and programming and yes its labor.

Well, who will be performing this labor? Why will they want to do so?

**

A nice little utopia that is self sustaining with...what exactly? Oh yeah, money from the outside world, resources from the outside world, etc. etc. etc. from the outside world.

A lot of what you would see in a demo city could be self sustaining but there would still be the current system that it would have to operate in. It could be a good example though. A lot of aspects of the demo city would run like it would in a RBE.

In which case it's not really demonstrating anything except for the present system's ability to provide for a city full of dependant hangers-on who aren't contributing anything back. Such a city would actually constitute proof that our present system is better than TVP could ever be.

I think the first city would be research so they would all be scientists.

What will this city of all scientists be studying? How will their efforts be organized and directed? How will they avoid the sorts of problems encountered by others who have already tried similar experiments? What if they end up proving that such a city cannot work after all?

**

Its not a threat to anything because it would be treated at the level of Disney World, a nice theme park.

It would be suggesting a new way of doing thing in society in general and Disney World is not doing that.

The decision not to compare TVP to a fantasy theme park is perhaps the most reasonable part of your entire argument. Fantasy theme parks actually have a working business model.

Yes but business does not exist in TVP.

Of course business would exist. Removing money and profit motive doesn't change the fact that stuff has to get done and someone or something has to organize and direct it. Non-profit corporations still need business plans. What's yours?

**

More vague statements that answer nothing and say absolutely nothing.

I'm saying your vote isn’t effective to make real change. Also, any changes are superficial and do not address underlining problems. If your agenda is to uphold the same values and power structures then why would you make real changes?

This sounds as if your primary complaint with democracy is that its democratic. Are you sure you're not a Marxist?

What’s a Marxist? I hear a lot of definitions lately but they don’t seem to relate to TVP. When people here about TVP there only frame of reference is Marxism but I don’t see the similarities.

If you can't see the obvious, there's not much I can do to help you. Have you actually read Marx or any subsequent Marxist philosophers? Eliminating money does not in any way mean that TVP's economy is not Marxist.

**

Sure it is. I consider that "statement" on par with the apathetic and lazy crowd. Not much relevance.

So people choose to not vote because they're lazy but never because they don't want to participate in a system they don't believe in?

Choosing not to participate for even a single day in the system that safeguards you and your belongings, that nourishes, shelters, clothes and entertains you, that makes it possible for you to sit around dreaming up all this nonsense in the first place and maintains the worldwide computer network on which you spout it, just because you don't 'believe in it? Yes, I would call that LAZY.

I guess my main complaint about the current system would be the monetary part and its propensity for corruption in all levels of society but I'm talking about voting for political candidates.

You think that corruption requires money as a motivating factor? Have you never witnessed anyone cheating at a game when there was no money at stake?

If its this guy or that guy is almost totally irrelevant. They will both run the country in very similar ways and the average person will not see a difference in their daily lives. Either one can win. They are there to uphold the current structures so why would they make change? I think it makes people feel like they a part of something but it doesn’t really mean they are participating in any meaningful ways. You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better though.

I don't need to tell myself anything to make myself feel better. When I feel down, I play with my daughter or I go out and help someone who needs assistance. Both strategies work fantastically well. As to the perceived futility of voting, I often feel the same way that you describe. Luckily, since 2000 I now have a ready example to help me keep my sense of perspective. Do you really believe things would be the same today had George Bush not been 'elected' by what amounted to only a few hundred votes and a bunch of technical glitches? Voting does make a difference--not necessarily consistently or predictably, but your participation does count. Yes, electoral systems have lot's of room for improvement, and change comes slowly. Compare the political system of today with that of Venice during the Renaissance, though, and you might not be so down on the current system.

I pay taxes so I participate regardless of if I vote or not. And I do vote BTW. I'm not sure it matters though. Not voting is not "not participating". I pay tax and live in society so I'm in it. Voting is irrelevant.

Tell that to the Iraqi's.

Also, if I’m lazy, why do I volunteer my time to the Cancer Society or ride bikes for miles every day. Define lazy. People have strange definitions of lazy it seems.

I didn't say that you are lazy. I said that not voting and otherwise participating in society is lazy. If you vote, and otherwise participate, then obviously this comment does not apply to you.

**

Looks like you've caught to the level of High School civics class. Congrats. Agreed so it changes NOT vanished into a puff of smoke to be replaced by an untried fantasy based system.

This system will not vanish and be replaced with fantasy but over decades it will evolve into a better system and that system might be "post scarcity".

LOL. So rather than actually change the system they despise, Venusians just want to sit around and wait for it to change all by itself, then they plan to take credit for the change!

Am I a Venusians? What is that exactly? Do they despise capitalism? Can I like Capitalism and be a "Venusian"? If I can't like Capitalism and be Venusian at the same time then I suppose I am not one. I reap the benefits of our current social structures on a daily basis and am happy doing so...it is getting pretty old though. Like I said before, it is showing its age. It has many problems and is downright scary in many respects yet I thrive in it. Not all people interested in the concept of a RBE are bitter at the world

I use the term 'Venusians' as shorthand for "Proponents of The Venus Project." I do not know if that's what you consider yourself to be or not, but it seems like a reasonable guess, so far.

**

How does your TVP deal with this problem where human nature(which you seem to ignore) contradicts hard facts?

I don’t ignore human nature. It doesn’t exist. It works pretty well as a cop-out excuse for many human's to keep doing what they are doing though. "I cant help killing, competing and destroying! Its human nature!" Please.

Is that what you think we mean when we say 'human nature'? No wonder you're confused! First of all, claiming that human nature doesn't exist is nonsensical. Humans have something which allows us to define them as human. Whatever that something turns out to be is our nature. Certainly, many people disagree about just what that nature is, but saying it doesn't exist at all is just irrational. As to the question of what that nature is, I suggest you might want to read up on some science. Particularly since you seem to think TVP will be science-based.

Can you briefly tell me what it is? Does it have something to do with competition and violence? Why am I not this way? Have I not been exposed to an environment that makes me show it? Am I not "human" enough?

For an extremely stimulating and in depth discussion of these questions, I'd recommend this book to you. Briefly, the capacity for violence and competition is important, but the same evolutionary principles that make this so, also make it likely that exceptions to the rule will sometimes arise.

**

Same thing, just dressed up in shiny clothes and robots. Do you realize how unoriginal this idea is?

Its not totally original. If it is or is not original is totally irrelevant.

Not as long as you wish to ignore the fact that the arguments/evidence against it need not be original either. In fact, both sides of this discussion have, thus far, been nothing but old hat. Add some more History to the reading list, when you get through with Science.

I'm aware it is old. I've had similar conversations a decade or two ago. This very subject has gone on for...probably hundreds of years now. I'm just not finished yet

Fair enough.

**

In YOUR OWN WORDS:" I don’t want a real democracy because I would need to vote 100 times a day on every decision and I don’t have the knowledge to vote on everything. I'm ignorant to many important subjects just like all of us are so why would I put my ignorant, worthless opinion on everything we need to do?"
Tell me what should I assume?

The longer I vote and remain involved in the current social system the more I become convinced that there are better ways we could do things in the future.

Do you actually think there's anybody on Earth who doesn't think that we could do things better in the future?

I love this question! So how might we do better? What would it look like and why? Would a medium of exchange such as money or barter be involved? Why? If so then how would there be any real change? What does the future look like?

Personally, I think that a far more fruitful avenue to explore is that of changing the electoral system to use something like either Approval Voting or Condorcet Voting, plus putting a lot more resources into education. Such change would help to empower the voting population to advocate for its own wants and needs a lot more effectively, and thus eliminate the sort of futility that you described above. That's a discussion for another thread, though.

**

That continues to be false no matter how often you repeat it. The problems are as much about human nature as much as technical problems. Wishing it away won't make it so.

I'm not wishing it away.

Well, then what are you doing about it?

I'm thinking about it, talking about it, even taking indirect action towards it. What are you doing?

I'm not directly trying to change the current system at all. I spend my time teaching illiterate adults to read, helping high school drop-outs get into college, and helping immigrants to become U.S. citizens, find jobs and start their own businesses. I get to see substantial positive results from my labors a lot faster than those who are out to change the world.

**

Really? How will your AI make actual decisions without such information? As have been mentioned by others, the only way for your AI to be even semi-reliable is to monitor everything.

The AI doesn’t need to worry about us. We do.

Well then why bother with AI in the first place?

The AI would be there for managment of our resources but not our personal lives. It would reduce the need for many aspects of our current government and corporate bodys as well.

Advancing technology has never much reduced the amount of labor people have to do. All it does is make it possible for them to achieve larger or substantially different effects for the same amount of labor, and it sometimes alters the type of labor required. I suspect that this will continue to be true in the future.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Actually, you know what? Let me guess:

You're relatively young...

<snip>

...and you'll be well on your way to making your own Better Tomorrow.

Very well written and very well put. Your post sums things up very well, and so I went ahead and nominated it.

You make a lot of good points here, and I think you summed up what I would have wanted to say.

 

[drkitten]

Advancing technology has never much reduced the amount of labor people have to do. All it does is make it possible for them to achieve larger or substantially different effects for the same amount of labor, and it sometimes alters the type of labor required. I suspect that this will continue to be true in the future.[/COLOR]

May I quibble with an otherwise well-written post?

Most farmers in the 17th century would have considered a sixty-hour work week to be a vacation. Similarly, most farmers in the 17th century considered it to be to be a necessity for their teenage children to help work the farm; school was an unnecessary luxury. Today farming is typically a "full-time" job, but no worse than any other shift-work, and farmer's children attend not only high school but college. Unless, of course, you still live in the third world and haven't had the benefit of technology.

The forty-hour work week in the USA, and thirty-five in many parts of Europe, is a lasting testament to how much technology has decreased the amount of labor required.

I also think that -- and anyone who has actually done farm work will almost certainly back me up on this -- calling the difference between farm work and selling insurance merely a difference in "type of labor" is understating the case. There's a huge difference in the sort of hard, physical work -- "labor" -- that used to be a matter of course for 90% of the human population and the sort of light office work that is now more common in the industrialized world.

I think the difference between the sort of "work" I do as a college professor and the sort of "labor" my grandfather did as a salmon fisherman is the biggest argument in favor of technology I could make.

 

[Prometheus]

May I quibble with an otherwise well-written post?

Most farmers in the 17th century would have considered a sixty-hour work week to be a vacation. Similarly, most farmers in the 17th century considered it to be to be a necessity for their teenage children to help work the farm; school was an unnecessary luxury. Today farming is typically a "full-time" job, but no worse than any other shift-work, and farmer's children attend not only high school but college. Unless, of course, you still live in the third world and haven't had the benefit of technology.

Point taken. Though I'm not sure I'd credit technology alone with all of that, as a lot can probably be traced to the economic system and probably some societal changes as well.

The forty-hour work week in the USA, and thirty-five in many parts of Europe, is a lasting testament to how much technology has decreased the amount of labor required.

I don't think so. At least not directly. If advancing technology were really the reason for the shorter work week, then we'd see a continuous (and accelerating!) decrease in length of the work week over history (wouldn't it be cool, though, if we all got a few more vacation days everytime Microsoft put out a new version of Office?). I think tech is being given credit it doesn't deserve.

I also think that -- and anyone who has actually done farm work will almost certainly back me up on this -- calling the difference between farm work and selling insurance merely a difference in "type of labor" is understating the case. There's a huge difference in the sort of hard, physical work -- "labor" -- that used to be a matter of course for 90% of the human population and the sort of light office work that is now more common in the industrialized world.

Well, I have actually done farm work, and I would, in fact, agree with you; I was understating the case, but I don't think that that affects my criticisms of TVP at all.

I think the difference between the sort of "work" I do as a college professor and the sort of "labor" my grandfather did as a salmon fisherman is the biggest argument in favor of technology I could make.

There were college professors around throughout your grandfather's life, and there are still salmon fisherman today. I don't see how you can give so much credit to technology as opposed to education, economics, and political/cultural changes. Again, however, even if you're right and I'm wrong, I don't see this affecting the feasibility of TVP in any way.

 

[Chaos]

I don't think so. At least not directly. If advancing technology were really the reason for the shorter work week, then we'd see a continuous (and accelerating!) decrease in length of the work week over history (wouldn't it be cool, though, if we all got a few more vacation days everytime Microsoft put out a new version of Office?). I think tech is being given credit it doesn't deserve.

Not quite.

First, the increase would be in intermittent steps, as major developments are introduced which increase productivity.

Second, even as work time per unit of goods decreases, the number of units of good which are part of the general standards of living increase, which might actually on occasion increase - momentarily - the work time per week. So, say, the introduction of personal computers in the office saves you one hour of work time per week, but you work two hours more (in total, one more than before the introduction of PCs) in order to be able to afford your own home PC.

So we´d expect to a general trend of a decrease of the work week, with its up and downs. Which is essentially what happens.

 

[Prometheus]

Not quite.

First, the increase would be in intermittent steps, as major developments are introduced which increase productivity.

Second, even as work time per unit of goods decreases, the number of units of good which are part of the general standards of living increase, which might actually on occasion increase - momentarily - the work time per week. So, say, the introduction of personal computers in the office saves you one hour of work time per week, but you work two hours more (in total, one more than before the introduction of PCs) in order to be able to afford your own home PC.

So we´d expect to a general trend of a decrease of the work week, with its up and downs. Which is essentially what happens.

To my mind, if this is true then it supports the point I was trying to make against TVP, you're just being a lot less careless than I was (I often become a 'misses the trees for the forest' sort when posting impatiently). Nevertheless, I'd like to see the math on this. Got a link?

 

[Chaos]

To my mind, if this is true then it supports the point I was trying to make against TVP, you're just being a lot less careless than I was (I often become a 'misses the trees for the forest' sort when posting impatiently). Nevertheless, I'd like to see the math on this. Got a link?

No link. Just common sense. Well, decidedly more sense than TVP, anyway, not that this is saying much.

 

[drkitten]

Point taken. Though I'm not sure I'd credit technology alone with all of that, as a lot can probably be traced to the economic system and probably some societal changes as well.

Technology increase is one of the major drivers of societal change. People in the 17th century weren't subsistence farmers because they wanted to be -- typically, they were subsistence farmers because that was the only way they could get enough food to eat.

There were college professors around throughout your grandfather's life, and there are still salmon fisherman today.

There are a lot more college professors and a lot fewer salmon fishermen, however. Despite the fact that the world consumption of salmon has gone up substantially. The primary reason for this is technological (in this specific case, some of the technologies are salmon farming, sonar/radar, refrigeration, and GPS). A single salmon boat can average substantially larger catches today than it could "back then," and of course it takes much less manpower to farm a hundred tons of salmon than it does to harvest it from the wild. Today Grandpa's little fishing village on the coast has maybe ten percent of the fishermen it did then, but the cannery (where he worked when he got too old for the boats) is doing just as much work or even more.

What this has done, of course, is freed up a huge supply of man- (and woman-)power to do other things than fish -- including get (and teach) further education. There are now two colleges in that same fishing village, a small county community college and a branch of Enormous State University, neither of which existed when Grandpa worked the boats. Ahd the students go out and get other jobs, secure in the knowledge that there will still be enough salmon for their salads and barbecues.

Of course, this is exactly what has happened over the longer historical period. Technology reduces labor requirements for any given job -- it takes fewer people to grow food once you've invented crop rotation, so now we can grow cash crops. It takes fewer people to weave fiber once you've invented the industrial loom, so now people can mine coal. It takes fewer people to mine coal once you've invented industrial mining equipment, so now people can sell insurance, or publish books, or optimize web sites for search engines --- or teach college.

 

[Prometheus]

Technology increase is one of the major drivers of societal change. People in the 17th century weren't subsistence farmers because they wanted to be -- typically, they were subsistence farmers because that was the only way they could get enough food to eat.

I agree. But the ability to produce more food with less labor has gone substantially more into supporting an increasing population than into decreasing the amount of time the average person spends at work. I would expect that most of any improved efficiency we got out of TVP's magic robots would likely get eaten up the same way. Without some seriously hardcore totalitarianism, faced with a get-all-you-want-without-having-to-work-for-it wonderland, a heck of a lot of people will just have more kids, and scarcity will always outpace increases in production--right up until the planet's carrying capacity is exceeded.

There are a lot more college professors and a lot fewer salmon fishermen, however. Despite the fact that the world consumption of salmon has gone up substantially. The primary reason for this is technological (in this specific case, some of the technologies are salmon farming, sonar/radar, refrigeration, and GPS). A single salmon boat can average substantially larger catches today than it could "back then," and of course it takes much less manpower to farm a hundred tons of salmon than it does to harvest it from the wild. Today Grandpa's little fishing village on the coast has maybe ten percent of the fishermen it did then, but the cannery (where he worked when he got too old for the boats) is doing just as much work or even more.

What this has done, of course, is freed up a huge supply of man- (and woman-)power to do other things than fish -- including get (and teach) further education. There are now two colleges in that same fishing village, a small county community college and a branch of Enormous State University, neither of which existed when Grandpa worked the boats. Ahd the students go out and get other jobs, secure in the knowledge that there will still be enough salmon for their salads and barbecues.

Of course, this is exactly what has happened over the longer historical period. Technology reduces labor requirements for any given job -- it takes fewer people to grow food once you've invented crop rotation, so now we can grow cash crops. It takes fewer people to weave fiber once you've invented the industrial loom, so now people can mine coal. It takes fewer people to mine coal once you've invented industrial mining equipment, so now people can sell insurance, or publish books, or optimize web sites for search engines --- or teach college.

Again, this really just supports my point, as a good many of those other things are actually necessary in order to support the degree of specialization which allows the efficiency and technological gains in the first place. The time/labor is not being 'freed up', it's being transferred--for the most part (there are outliers, but not in significant numbers for TVP's purposes).

Individuals have, here and there, seen their own labor requirements go up and down. Historically, the total amount of economic labor being performed per capita has mostly not changed.

 

[drkitten]

Individuals have, here and there, seen their own labor requirements go up and down. Historically, the total amount of economic labor being performed per capita has mostly not changed.

That's because "hours of labor per capita" is a bad model of labor in this context. Everyone is blessed -- or cursed -- with twenty-four hours per day, which they need to fill in one way or another. If they can fulfil their "needs" in four hours as opposed to eight, then they have another four hours in which to fulfill their "wants" (which are for all practical purposes unlimited).

My grandfather worked a full-time job to put food on the table. My father worked a full-time job to put food on the table, a washing machine and dryer in the laundry room, and books on the shelf. I work a full-time job to put food on the table, a washing machine and dryer in the laundry room, books on the shelf, a microwave on the kitchen counter, DVD's in the rack, plane tickets to the Caribbean in my pocket, and a set of scuba equipment in the basement. My daughter will probably work a full-time job to put food on the table, a self-actuating cleaning robot in the closet, Google Library on her cell phone, a flying robotic car to commute in from the Caribbean, an Earth-Mars transportation pass in her purse, and a full genetic screen to fix the genes for high blood pressure she inherited from Grandpa.

 

[Prometheus]

That's because "hours of labor per capita" is a bad model of labor in this context. Everyone is blessed -- or cursed -- with twenty-four hours per day, which they need to fill in one way or another. If they can fulfil their "needs" in four hours as opposed to eight, then they have another four hours in which to fulfill their "wants" (which are for all practical purposes unlimited).

My grandfather worked a full-time job to put food on the table. My father worked a full-time job to put food on the table, a washing machine and dryer in the laundry room, and books on the shelf. I work a full-time job to put food on the table, a washing machine and dryer in the laundry room, books on the shelf, a microwave on the kitchen counter, DVD's in the rack, plane tickets to the Caribbean in my pocket, and a set of scuba equipment in the basement. My daughter will probably work a full-time job to put food on the table, a self-actuating cleaning robot in the closet, Google Library on her cell phone, a flying robotic car to commute in from the Caribbean, an Earth-Mars transportation pass in her purse, and a full genetic screen to fix the genes for high blood pressure she inherited from Grandpa.

I don't see how it's a bad model at all. It's straight to the point of what's wrong with TVP's wishful thinking. Your daughter won't have that self-actuating cleaning robot in the closet, Google Library on her cell phone, a flying robotic car to commute in from the Caribbean, an Earth-Mars transportation pass in her purse, and a full genetic screen to fix the genes for high blood pressure she inherited from Grandpa, if everyone stops spending a third of most days working but just sits back and waits for the magic robots to take care of them.

 

[Zerror]

Profit system:

My grandfather worked a full-time job to put food on the table.

Grandfather worked on a boat as a fisherman and he directly brought fish on the table. Grandmother worked in a garden and puts vegetables on the table. They have 4 kids.
A 12yrs old boy in Asia works 16hrs shift for a survival.

My father worked a full-time job to put food on the table, a washing machine and dryer in the laundry room, and books on the shelf.

Boats need less manpower. Father and mother worked in a factory, food and appliances are bought, money is saved to educate oldest of their 3 kids.
A 12yrs old boy in Asia works 16hrs shift for a survival.

I work a full-time job to put food on the table, a washing machine and dryer in the laundry room, books on the shelf, a microwave on the kitchen counter, DVD's in the rack, plane tickets to the Caribbean in my pocket, and a set of scuba equipment in the basement.

You cant work in a factory because they are automated. You work as a cashier teller in the local bank, you live in advance via loans so you can buy more stuff. you have one or two kids.
A 12yrs old boy in Asia works 16hrs shift for a survival.

My daughter will probably work a full-time job to put food on the table, a self-actuating cleaning robot in the closet, Google Library on her cell phone, a flying robotic car to commute in from the Caribbean, an Earth-Mars transportation pass in her purse, and a full genetic screen to fix the genes for high blood pressure she inherited from Grandpa.

Your daughter will probably have no job because of automated industries, ATMs, etc., she will probably live in a poluted world we left to her, she will probably only dream to get to one of non-poluted part of the world
A 12yrs old boy in Asia starves to death as he has no more work.


I am sorry for my bad english (in my country called - "Tarzan-english")

 

[theprestige]

Your daughter will probably have no job because of automated industries, ATMs, etc.

Protip: Their daughter will probably have an extremely well-paying job designing, building, maintaining, repairing, and upgrading those automated workers.

Sixty years ago, I would have been a file clerk, working long hours every day to update records in a warehouse-archive.

Today, I maintain a warehouse full of robots that each do the work of ten thousand clerks, and there's still no shortage of clerking work to be done, and no slackening in the demand for for robot technicians.

Automation won't ever eliminate work; it'll just change the kinds of work we do.

A 12yrs old boy in Asia works 16hrs shift for a survival.

And yes, unskilled, inexperienced people in poor, developing nations, will always have to work hard just to survive.

 

[Zerror]

Protip: Their daughter will probably have an extremely well-paying job designing, building, maintaining, repairing, and upgrading those automated workers.

Sixty years ago, I would have been a file clerk, working long hours every day to update records in a warehouse-archive.

Today, I maintain a warehouse full of robots that each do the work of ten thousand clerks, and there's still no shortage of clerking work to be done, and no slackening in the demand for for robot technicians.

Automation won't ever eliminate work; it'll just change the kinds of work we do.

You are absolutely right, but you need high-end educated people. My experience is that you have just took away ten thousand jobs from people who need them to survive...

And yes, unskilled, inexperienced people in poor, developing nations, will always have to work hard just to survive.

Why is this so... are they less worthy?

 

[dudalb]

Ludditism never works. You cannot stop technology.

 

[drkitten]

You are absolutely right, but you need high-end educated people. My experience is that you have just took away ten thousand jobs from people who need them to survive...

And at the same time, created enough wealth to pay for educating fifteen thousand people to take high-end jobs.

Why is this so... are they less worthy?

No. They're unskilled and inexperienced, and don't have the opportunity to become so.

I wasn't born with a Ph.D.; I wasn't even born literate. I was, however, born into a society with enough wealth and infrastructure that I didn't have to work 16 hour days at age 12. In fact, I didn't have to "work" at all at age twelve, and instead I was in school, learning how to read and write and qualifying me for skilled labor.

 

[theprestige]

Why is this so... are they less worthy?

No... It's because at its core, survival is a hard, harsh task, for which nature affords no forgiveness or leeway at all.

Everything humans have ever done, ever since our remote ancestors made the first primitive tools, has been a long, hard struggle to not only survive, but survive longer, and better, and with less effort.

Any improvement over that primitive struggle is a miracle for which we should be grateful--to God if you like, or to our ancestors and our genes--but it is absolutely not an entitlement.

I'm not entitled to it. You're not entitled to it. And that unskilled, inexperienced laborer in a developing country isn't entitled to it.

Any good thing in your life is due to hard work and good luck--either yours or somebody else's. Someone may give you a piece of theirs, but you're never ever entitled to demand it for free. Nor is anyone else.

 

[Zerror]

No... It's because at its core, survival is a hard, harsh task, for which nature affords no forgiveness or leeway at all.

yep, nature is harsh... but humanity is something else, it is a leverage against nature

Everything humans have ever done, ever since our remote ancestors made the first primitive tools, has been a long, hard struggle to not only survive, but survive longer, and better, and with less effort.

Let me bring back that poor little boy in Asia, as far as we know, if he was given a proper education, he could become new Nikola Tesla. But, he doesn't have the time to study.

Any improvement over that primitive struggle is a miracle for which we should be grateful--to God if you like, or to our ancestors and our genes--but it is absolutely not an entitlement.

and you aprove that if someone is born in US is more entitled than an asian boy. I am sorry, but i think people aren`t better or worse then others comparing by place of origin. Like others might think. Find in wiki about Japanese American internment.

I'm not entitled to it. You're not entitled to it. And that unskilled, inexperienced laborer in a developing country isn't entitled to it.

but all of them should have equal opportunities, enough education, food, electricity, clean toilets for crying out loud.

Any good thing in your life is due to hard work and good luck--either yours or somebody else's. Someone may give you a piece of theirs, but you're never ever entitled to demand it for free. Nor is anyone else.

 

[theprestige]

and you aprove that if someone is born in US is more entitled than an asian boy.

Please re-read my post. I actually said exactly the opposite of this.

but all of them should have equal opportunities, enough education, food, electricity, clean toilets for crying out loud.

All of us should have these things? And who should provide them?

 

[Travis]

yep, nature is harsh... but humanity is something else, it is a leverage against nature

It's interesting that you see humanity as something apart from nature.

Let me bring back that poor little boy in Asia, as far as we know, if he was given a proper education, he could become new Nikola Tesla. But, he doesn't have the time to study.

The results of poverty which is usually linked to inadequate governance, crony capitalism but not to "profit systems." A profit system actually benefits if the new boy turns out to be a new Nikola Tesla.

and you aprove that if someone is born in US is more entitled than an asian boy. I am sorry, but i think people aren`t better or worse then others comparing by place of origin. Like others might think. Find in wiki about Japanese American internment.

I'm not sure where you are getting this argument about "entitlement." A boy born in America benefits from accident of birth to be in a mature, developed economy. The boy in the poor unnamed Asian country is, conversely, hobbled by not being born into such an environment.

What in the world do internment camps have to do with this discussion?