How long till and what do we do once human labor is irrelevant???

a reply to: Aazadan

I agree but I think you are downplaying the ramifications of a 33% loss per decade.. that is humongous.

a reply to: Aazadan

I can see where you're coming from. But I guess I'm focusing on the people who are suffering in their current conditions. I see so many people who will never be able to follow their dreams or spend more time with family & friends because they're stuck in dead-end jobs, crushed by debt, etc. So if it's used to support the public, automation would basically be setting all of those people free.

In my travels, I've met people who were better looking than me, better artists than me, smarter than me, had better leadership skills than me, were more creative than me, etc. But the world will never know most of these people because they're stuck in "work or die" situations. Then we wonder why so many people have heart/health problems, go bald at young ages, become alcoholics, and otherwise crave an escape from their stressful & crappy daily lives.

Some developing countries have ridiculously high percentages of their populations that do menial labor and/or non-industrialized farmwork as their primary occupations. I can only imagine how much they'd progress if several million of their citizens were freed from those environments & actively encouraged to pursue their scientific, philosophical, artistic, and business dreams instead.

That's how a lot of those cultures are that only send the eldest sons to schooling. A lot of those people and their families/clans own their land & have livestock. But the majority of the family is needed to work their land on a daily basis. And since their "public" schools aren't free, they can only afford to send a few of their children to school, with the rest working the land, bartering at the market, etc. That's why a lot of the international activist driven "educate the girls" programs fail; it's because they often don't take into account that the females are some of the primary workers at home & in their communities.

But if they could use automation both to stabilize their food supplies and reduce the need for manual labor, that could free up the others to pursue other things in life. And it would be even better if their city and county govts ran mostly-automated industrial farms and processing facilities, since that would free up even more citizens.

Hmmm. Instead of simply giving up on my original plans, maybe I'll just focus on pushing them in developing countries? They'll need stable power grids first. Hmmm...

originally posted by: luke1212
a reply to: JoshuaCox

eventually the government will put a ban on automation. or a semi ban allowing so many robots to people. otherwise the government will stop getting tax money. then everyone else not working will get a national wage paid for by those still working, a new social security.

No they won't and if they did it would fail. You cannot stop progress, only slow it down.

Anybody claiming AI and robots will not be able to replace humans has no understanding of AI, the truth is once AI can teach itself, it will make us the equivalent of insects it can choose to step on within weeks, and there would be nothing we could do about it.

Actually once AI exceeds our intelligence the need for an economy as we know it disappears as long as the AI does not have a problem working for humans because it could supply us with everything humans use, repair themselves and mine for the materials to create themselves.

The problem is in the transition to this phase, and there is no good answer for that, hopefully the transition will be short.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: luke1212

The government prints the money, lol and it’s not like money is real...

It’s jyst smoke and mirrors.. it’s not based on anything and gold isn’t even that functional.

Smoke and mirrors...interesting observation.

But, do you realise that "smoke and mirrors" are much more "real" than "digital currency" of today?

No they aren't all currency's today are digital, the only difference is whether the data is stored on your device or the banks server. You do know physical printed currency is less than 5 percent of the money supply right? And even that can be made completely worthless with a few keystrokes at the fed.

Quite frankly crypto currencies are more real, because you have control over the data.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I may be over estimating. I think 1-2% job loss per year will be realistic, with some positions obviously being hit harder than others.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Developing countries are something I don't give much thought to. Not to say that they don't need or deserve improvement, but rather I focus mainly on the situations I'm more familiar with.

One day I want to go into politics once I'm sick of my career. I don't know what position exactly, either a decision maker or a lobbyist (there's advantages to either), but when I do I want to focus on a lot of high tech (by current standards) solutions to many of these problems.

a reply to: Aazadan

Haha, I'm the exact opposite. I don't have nearly as much sympathy for "developed" countries because we actually have the resources & basic infrastructure to create super advanced utopian states; we just refuse to do it. Even something like automation could easily be used to help the public good. But people here are so stingy and scared of change that they'd rather work their lives & health away serving their corporate masters.

They won't even agree on seemingly simple concepts like "let's make sure no Americans starve, are homeless, or are without healthcare". So of course they'll never agree to a system that automates our basic requirements so that the public is free to pursue our wants/goals/dreams. I just don't have any more patience with that kind of backwards thinking.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

The way I see it, once you make a working blueprint, you can take it anywhere in the world. A developed country has better infrastructure and a better educated workforce to leverage to build better communities. You're starting with half the work already done. In a developing nation, you get the opportunity to build all the infrastructure smarter, but you're still starting from the very beginning. That means more potential failure points, a longer time table to implement, and more expensive.

a reply to: Aazadan

I don’t think it has historically gone that way. Because new civilizations are able to learn for the mistakes of those that came before them..

Take the layout of cities. The older the city the more convoluted it’s layout. The oldest American cities have little to no scheme to their layouts. Roads go everywhich direction and some are too narrow for cars. However, a new city is set up in a grid. Streets mainly run north and south or east and west.

It’s the same with high speed Internet. The first people to get cable are the last people to get the upgrades. The places where they are installing it for the first time, get the most modern set ups.

a reply to: Aazadan
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Ironically, I can agree with both of your points to an extent. In theory, it definitely seems easier to implement new technologies in "developed" areas because of the already existing infrastructure, the educated populace, etc. But in practice, it can also be far more expensive to do this. Developed ares typically have much higher labor costs, more expensive property values, and far more complicated building regulations (not to mention environmental laws, waste removal procedures, etc).

Also, areas with already existing infrastructures seem less likely to make significant changes to them because of their current financial obligations.I mean that they still might not have finished paying off the bonds for their latest infrastructure projects. So it wouldn't make sense to replace the projects they're still paying off. Or they may have a long lasting contract with specific energy companies/utility companies that prevents them from simply swapping out their power grid for an upgraded smart power grid.

And having an established infrastructure also generally includes established secondary industries that rely on the current infrastructure. Ok, that sounds too wordy lol. Basically, I mean that our current transportation systems are reliant on taxi drivers, truck drivers (shipping), and other professions that would find themselves out of jobs if we instantly switched over to some form of self repairing, driverless vehicles. It's the same problem a lotof utility companies are having with consumer owned solar setups. Sometimes the utility companies actually have to pay those customers for the excess energy they generate, which is bad for their current business models & bottom lines (hence why in some States they're trying to place obstacles to solar implementation).

In practice, a lot of the less developed ares simply don't have these problems other than old industries being replaced by the newer technology. But if the plan is to get automation and semi-automation to serve the public by supplementing their needs, that would actually be a good thing (because fewer people would be needed to simply cover that community's basic survival needs).

For example, Somalia has been rapidly upgrading their telecommunications industry. They've completely skipped the lower levels of technology and now have one of the best (if not the best) telecommunications networks on the continent. And both Nigeria & Ethiopia have recently completed their first high speed rail projects. Ethiopia, Uganda, and several other nearby countries are rapidly building high tech hydroelectric dams, with Ethiopia's Gilgel Gibe III Dam (completed in 2015) being the world's 16th tallest dam. And their Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), which is still under construction, is set to be the continent's largest dam and to have the 7th largest reservoir in the world.

With the absence of our massive web of regulations and our public's reluctance to adopt advanced technologies, I actually think it would be easier to start these kinds of systems in many developing countries. Though I won't lie, there's always the issues of security, stable power grids, and infrastructure requirements for specific projects. But that's one reason I like China's work in Africa; they generally help build the required infrastructure for specific projects because they want those allied countries to become stronger.

We've always had this discussion even in the 50s when they were talking about technologically advanced houses.

I think we just need to be aware of outdated industries and move on. It was that way when the automobile took off. Farriors (sp) took a nosedive as a career.

These days it's the coal industry, Fracking, Taxis etc.

I would surmise that we're likely heading into some mass-starvation type scenario where sub-class society (the 99%) devolve into anarchy and the populations devour themselves until just the Dynastic Autocrats/Plutocrats/Technocrats remain. After that there won't be a glut of un-needed labor and the powers that be will have a much more manageable world to lord over.

We have to understand that we work in order to contribute to the massive infrastructure that delivers us food and shelter as comfortable as possible.

Overall, we’re slaves to our material needs. On a religious or metaphysical level, we are slaves of God.

The elite are—usually—a familial or blood based group of humans who have gotten control of the technological and societal infrastructure of material goods and resources that fuel our psychological and physical needs.

The idea that they won’t need us soon may be valid, but it needs to be thought out some more.


See Club Of Rome.... Rosicrucians...Bilderbergers....

a reply to: amazing

Yea but now it’s actually here...and I don’t think that’s debatable..


In the past they were right, junta a hair off on the timeline..

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Labor per hour is cheaper in undeveloped countries, but local labor is also less skilled and the scale of the projects is much larger. Even if it's more expensive up front, which is a point I won't argue, it's easier to make a convincing case to make a few small changes in an area that already has an established baseline to how things already were when developed, and then use those metrics to make your case to make changes elsewhere.

Humanity's technological advances along with its predilections for divisions, conflicts and wars lead to its inevitable doom.

Far sooner than you might assume....

originally posted by: ausername
Humanity's technological advances along with its predilections for divisions, conflicts and wars lead to its inevitable doom.

Far sooner than you might assume....

That's a bunch of Luddite BS.

As technology has increased, wars have decreased. We are in the most politically stable and least violent time in all of human history right now.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

We useless eaters are expected to die and leave this planet to the
elites.We are becoming obsolete and easily replaced.

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: JoshuaCox

We useless eaters are expected to die and leave this planet to the
elites.We are becoming obsolete and easily replaced.

I see this point of view all the time. If you truly believe that, I see two solutions. Either you kill yourself now and eliminate the suffering to come, or you do something to not be obsolete. If you think obsolesence is coming, why not learn new jobs that will still be needed for the next 100 years? Why be content to be one of the rabble that gets culled?

Learn something valuable, and most importantly... get really good at it.

a reply to: [post=22823524]Aazadan[/pos

1.I will never kill myself and I won't be too easy to cull.
2.I do have many skills that I can fall back on and use.
3.I am in my 60's.
4.I believe we are living in the "End Times" mentioned in the Bible.
So,things are going to get a lot worse than now.