It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disruptive Change - Humans Need Not Apply.

page: 6
30
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
This thread is about the looming transition we face as humans - the predicted "disruptive change" triggered by automation and robotics taking most humans' jobs.

The transition WILL be "disruptive." Read painful.

We can come together to identify our choices, or we can stick our heads up our butts and pretend everything is wonderful, nothing to see here, as daskakik recommends.




posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that there is nothing to see here, literally or figuratively. I just disagree with your conclusion.

What I'm saying is that the idea that this transition is the trigger to slaughter 7 billion people because some rock somewhere has a line carved into it is illogical.

You are also arguing both sides. On one hand you say corporations only care about profits and on the other you claim that they are somehow fine with killing 94% of their customers, the source of their profits, and thereby slashing profits by that much.

The control exercised over populations by governments has to do with providing them with security from foreign invasion, law and order and a sense of belonging. It's a racket and, like any corporation, it makes more higher profits based on the number of customers it has.

If the puppet masters profit from taxes and from selling things to humans then it is in their best interest to adapt the system to one where they can keep their customer base alive and contributing. The need for people to wake up and loosen the chains will remain the same even in the face of automation.

If the hammer comes down it won't be because the owners of this world need to do away with their customers, it would be because these customers have become self sufficient and stopped being customers anyway. This type of global anarchism is purely academic and since that the world's owners play 10 steps ahead and see that the human workforce will lose importance they have already started moving into position the control of resources.

Just to cover all CT bases, if the disappearance of huge numbers of humans is based on the rapture or the archons sowing their crops then AI and automation has nothing to do with it.



edit on 3-2-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
This thread is about the looming transition we face as humans - the predicted "disruptive change" triggered by automation and robotics taking most humans' jobs.

The transition WILL be "disruptive." Read painful.

We can come together to identify our choices, or we can stick our heads up our butts and pretend everything is wonderful.

















posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

And your identification of the choices is debatable. I love all the info about up-to-date tech, really gets one thinking but the fearmongering part of this thread also needs to be seen for what it is.

Repeating the same thing over and over isn't going to change that.

Do you have something to actually back up your claim?

ETA: And the false dichotomy that we can only come together or pretend everything is wonderful is BS as well.
edit on 3-2-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



Do you have something to actually back up your claim?



You have not posted one single reference. You obviously are here to:

1. Distract, deflect and obstruct discussion;

2. Convince the public that there is no problem; or

3. Bully me into doing your research for you.


I do not tolerate trolls. I do not provide free services to lazy researchers.

Please piss off.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Actually I have refuted your claim about population reduction being currently in effect and brought up legit arguments.

I don't need and have not asked you to do any research for me. I have done my own and have come to my own conclusions which, apparently, contradict yours. You don't want to hear it though, you would rather just ask me to piss off because you can't refute what I have brought up.

Fine by me but that doesn't mean that I won't call BS out when I see it.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: soficrow

Actually I have refuted your claim


You haven't refuted anything. Nor have you answered the many questions I asked in my OP and later.



...billions of unemployable people just might establish a functioning underground global economy separate from the mainstream financial system, similar to Japan’s arrangement.

Doable? Or not?







snip





edit on 2/3/2017 by Blaine91555 because: disallowed word removed



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   


You haven't refuted anything. Nor have you answered the many questions I asked in my OP and latter.

I have, you just refuse to accept it, which is fine.


...billions of unemployable people just might establish a functioning underground global economy separate from the mainstream financial system, similar to Japan’s arrangement.

Doable? Or not?

You are conflating things. Whether this can happen or not doesn't depend and isn't exclusive to the topic of the thread but in the spirit of offering an answer anyway, informal economies are pretty normal around the world but they exist under the umbrella of the official system.

That would be an auto-refute to the claim that people need to be killed.

ETA: Many of the questions in the OP are based on the premise that supporting "useless eaters" is not an option. Refuting that premise answers those answers, although not directly.
edit on 3-2-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
There are 7.5 billion people in the world. About 80% live in poverty.
NOTE: Poor people do not participate in the global economy or buy anything from corporations because they do not have money.

This means that about 6 Billion people do not participate in the global corporate economy. At best, in corporate terms, they are irrelevant. At worst: an obstruction.

The remaining 1.5 Billion people currently participate in the global economy, and most live in developed nations. However, most of their jobs are about to disappear. If only 50% of the jobs disappear, that means 750,000,000 people will still have jobs, while 750,000,000 will be out of work and unemployable.

Like the poor in developing nations, unemployed people in developed countries will no longer be able to participate in the global economy. They too will be considered either irrelevant or an obstruction.

Consequently, I started this thread to discuss the looming transition we face as humans - the predicted "disruptive change" triggered by automation and robotics taking most humans' jobs.

The transition WILL be "disruptive." Read painful.

If we do not recognize the problem, and plan now, we will be left with no choice in how to handle the situation.

Remember: TPTB work to keep people ignorant to maintain maximum flexibility and maneuverability for themselves. They even hire trolls to prevent people from having fruitful discussions.




***Snip***





edit on 2/3/2017 by Blaine91555 because: Insult not allowed removed.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Living in Guatemala and seeing the informal economy use the official currency and those involved in it having tributary numbers and using bank services I just have to call BS on that info.

Poverty is an arbitrary term. I know people, despite being in the system and using its services who might appear poor on paper but they do pretty well.

I had someone tell my to take my head out of the sand and appreciate the info that some fearmongers where spreading about the coming global economic collapse about 3 or 4 years ago and yet here we are.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


As you say. Poverty? What poverty? Problem? What problem?

Nothing to see here. Move along now.









posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
As you say.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Real problems exist. The Sally Struther's spiel used to pluck at the heartstrings of first world citizens trying to get the price of a cup of coffee out of them to help the throngs of starving children is marketing.

I guess your only up for a discussion that suits your slant.

Have at it. I have said my part. I will now bow out.


edit on 3-2-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
RE: "Living in Guatemala and seeing the informal economy use the official currency and those involved in it having tributary numbers and using bank services I just have to call BS on that info.

Poverty is an arbitrary term. I know people, despite being in the system and using its services who might appear poor on paper but they do pretty well."



If there is anyone left on ATS who is at all interested in anything other than anecdotal evidence and totally unsubstantiated claims:


2014: Guatemala's poor getting poorer

In Latin America, only Guatemala's poor are getting even poorer. A new World Bank study says a key reason is that the government collects too few taxes. Low spending leads to poor infrastructure and slow growth.

…A basic problem was inadequate public investment and decaying infrastructure, connected to very low levels of tax collection - at 11.9 percent, the share of GDP collected and spent by ranks 204th of 215 countries, according to the CIA World Fact Book. Public investment stands at just three percent of GDP.

The problem isn't that income tax or value-added tax rates are too low. It's that government is not effective at actually collecting taxes owed - in part because a large proportion of the citizenry lives entirely in the "informal economy", the report shows, meaning people don't have formal jobs or businesses and aren't registered with tax authorities. Tax evasion by registered businesses is also a big problem.

The World Bank Report: Guatemala Economic DNA pointed to several factors that have kept more than half Guatemala's population in deep poverty.

…Both public and private investment have been decreasing year-on-year, resulting in stagnant productivity, the report said. Crime and insecurity as well as a failure to adopt new technologies are obstacles to creating more and better jobs, as are high levels of crime, corruption and insecurity.

The report pointed to "perverse incentives" that prevent people active in the 'informal" economy from registering firms and entering the formal economy - and hence from paying taxes.

Pro-poor policies could yield marginal improvements, the report said, but higher growth rates and improved productivity would be necessary to significantly improve living standards.








edit on 3/2/17 by soficrow because: clarity



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
In Latin America, only Guatemala's poor are getting even poorer. A new World Bank study says a key reason is that the government collects too few taxes. Low spending leads to poor infrastructure and slow growth.

First off it's the World Bank but, I guess their numbers are better than none.

They point out one half are in poverty. Why not 80%? That is the amount that you stated earlier and here we are the poorest in Latin america so we must be near that but they don't really go that high.

The text I quoted clearly pinpoints the problem as one of tax collection. This isn't even a argument in your favor because they want as many taxable movements as possible and when they don't think they are getting that, they push for a resolution to that "problem".

Yes, in the past few years the push by the government in Guatemala has been to raise tax collection. The informal economy will only be allowed to exist under the umbrella of the official system. That is what I said before and this info doesn't change anything.

Here you are making my argument for me because you are arguing both sides again. Yes my neighbor's chickens are not included in the World Banks calculation of the GDP. Still make a fine meal though.

This should answer your question about the informal economy, doable, with permission from the puppet masters.

ETA: Also according to the World Bank we have 59% poverty despite:

Guatemala, the biggest economy in Central America, has one of the highest inequality rates in Latin America, with some of the worst poverty, malnutrition and maternal-child mortality rates in the region, especially in rural and indigenous areas.


So, the worst, yet not the 80% posted above and I'm pretty sure it isn't the robots.



edit on 3-2-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Time to go Amish and ban electricity all together?
That or get a job as a banker?

edit on (2/3/1717 by loveguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy
a reply to: soficrow

Time to go Amish and ban electricity all together?
That or get a job as a banker?


lol. But going Amish probably won't work - you need land. Which is prohibitively expensive. Especially if you're already in debt or otherwise poor. From the nationsencyclopedia:



Land, just like monetary wealth, is concentrated in the hands of the few, making it very difficult for poor rural workers to improve their financial situation, as the amount of land they own or have access to is minimal.



Incidentally, although the World Bank pegs Guatamala's poverty rate at around 50%, other sources claim it's much higher. Again from nationsencyclopedia: "More than 75 percent of the national population lives below the poverty line, and the extent of poverty is even more severe among the rural and indigenous populations."



PS. You might want to read this before you jump into banking.


Technology is disrupting the financial services industry — here's how








edit on 3/2/17 by soficrow because: add ps



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Sources cited on that page are from 2000.

Obviously there is conflicting info and while we can each present whatever bolsters our arguments, it really makes no difference to the topic at hand.

Robots are not making Guatemalans poor.

Tax evasion, according to what you posted, is making Guatemalan infrastructure poor. Seems like that government, at least, really needs that tax "money" coming in.



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Back to the program.

“Disruptive change” is the technical term for “no more jobs” aka the “Fourth Industrial Revolution.” Calling for immediate “urgent adaptive action” in January of 2016, the World Economic Forum (WEF) gave the revolution until 2020 to come to a head.

Much of the world already lives in extreme poverty. Many more are just garden-variety poor. Most poor currently live in developing nations.

Soon, the ranks of the poor will skyrocket - in both developing AND developed nations. People will not have enough money to buy food and water - certainly not enough to buy land where they can provide for themselves.

From any angle, the future looks bleak, and all the re-training and re-skilling in the world ("adaptive actions" recommended by the WEF) will not put the majority back to work.

Tough times ahead.




edit on 3/2/17 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/2/17 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   
UPDATE

I love it when ATS hits the MSM, even if we're not credited. CBC in Canada ran a TV segment titled "White Collar, Black Future."

Here's the print version.


'As well or better than humans': Automation set for big promotions in white-collar job market

Expert says millions of Canadian jobs could be at risk over next decade

...Sunil Johal, policy director at the Mowat Centre think-tank at the University of Toronto, says millions more Canadians — between 1.5 million and 7.5 million, many of them highly skilled workers — could (lose their jobs) over the next decade because of rapid technological advances, including in artificial intelligence and robotics, and the potential for automating increasingly sophisticated tasks.

Johal says, at this point, nobody should consider their job "safe."

"We are starting to see in fields like medicine, law, investment banking, dramatic increases in the ability of computers to think as well or better than humans. And that's really the game-changer here. Because that's something that we have never seen before."




new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join