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.
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
You must know perfectly well that if i was able to present my thoughts in the visual presentation you prefer, i would do just that. But that I am ignorant to the many buttons and tabs available to me that would make your reading experience more convenient, does not, in any way, detract from the arguments contained within my admittedly noobish posts, which contain countless grammatical and spelling errors, Im sure.
That you did not previously object to my obvious lack of skill with browsers and syntax, but instead engaged me in a lengthy debate without mention of my obvious deficientcies, and now choose to highlight them as grounds for your withdraw from the exchange in ideas, leads me to question your grounds for validation, and when you choose to apply them. That is, I wonder why you didnt call me on all of this in my second post, as opposed to now, when you simply dont seem to have any response to my poorly written query?
Your excuse to disregard, while perhaps valid, was not present before, so I wonder, is it indeed how Im saying things that you find unacceptable, or perhaps instead, what Im saying?
On your critisism, I reread my responses. While admittedly they lacked the clear defenition of Q and A, the words, and their meaning, strangely did not change from your post to mine. The grace and eloquence of your responses were indeed more clear to me than mine might be to you, but, for some reason, the words themselves did not change.
Since youre smart enough to know what im driving at, ill state it plainly. Dismissing me, after such investment on both our sides, based on a mere technicality, is a dirty misdirection that hardly deserves my thoughtful reproach. Your misdirection is equivalent to someone on a cell phone faking loss of signal when engaged in an uncomfortable conversation with someone who expects respect, and to be heard.
Such misdirection is not that of a leader, but that of a con artist. Your inability or unwillingness to engage in a rational way marks the end of our conversation. Have fun in your blissful world, but know that the wise always see that which others strive for desperately as an admission of their own perceived shortcomings.
Enjoy.
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
*sigh*
Not "goodwill" and surely not "altruism." Bliss. There are many, many whose bliss it would be to tackle such a project as you describe. Even now on the web we see people casting their lines into its waters and finding total strangers offering to help - with nothing but sense of accomplishment and reputation as "payment." (Houses will be built by robots and any whose bliss it is to build houses - designed by those who love to design houses (no shortage there).) With materials and tools readily available, one is sure to find someone in the sea of billions who would offer, and likely a whole slough of them.
So you propose that money be replaced by 'bliss'. I'm not sure how to rationally respond to that.
But of course, every man will have an army of robots at his bidding to carry out mundane tasks like building his house or walking the dog. So in your world of abundance, I should be able to have as many robots as is necessary in order to build my flotilla of cyborg love, so I suppose theres no conflict there.
You see, you say scarcity will not exist,...
Gotcha. So under your system I could order a million billion robots to do my bidding. I can order more robots that the Earth has metal. Im sure the robots would build robot space ships to mine asteroids for more robot metals, all at my passing whim, since scarcity does not exist and I can have absolutely anything I want. Sounds great.
Scarcity of materials does not exist. Sorry I left that implied rather than stated outright.
So there is an infinite amount of salmon in the sea? An infinite amount of gold? How about plutonium? All I have to do is click a box on a computer, like adding a friend on facebook, and a crate full of plutonium will arrive at my door, delivered by (you guessed it) a robot in a funny hat? How much plutonium can I order under your system, exactly? If I cannot recieve my order as placed, who (or what) sets the limit? Robot (who is programmed by man) or man?
You see, if you stick to your premise that all will be provided as all is limitless, there should be no reason I cannot recieve my requested, highly radioactive material. If you impose limits (which would currently be imposed by the state ) youre infinite abundance platform instantly falls, as it would be clear that not all of mans infinite desires could be forfilled due to some limitation. (and this scarcity) If you are reasonable and acquiesce that some limiting factor exists that would disallow me from procuring my desired delivery of plutonium, you must explain to me by what mechanism that decision to disallow my order is made upon.
If you stick to your guns and irrationally pronouce that my delivery will indeed be at my door tomorrow, I'm certainly done talking to you, just as I wouldnt engage in a lenghty debate with a raving lunatic. If you accept that limitations will exist, now and forever, on certain items or goods, you simply *must* be clear by which standard, and by whos decision, I will be bound by.
No contradiction. Given materials will be available (no scarcity there), it is up to you to make them come together as you envision. Enticing others to assist is likely part of that. Each of us must make effort to bring our dreams to fruition if we are to have them.
How the hell would any human have the charm, charisma, or time in order to be able to personally convince thousands of people, who have their own lives and desires, to drop everything to come work on a project that they themselves will never personally gain from?
Oh right...bliss...
No... The hands and minds are in the billions. Like other raw "materials" you must put forth effort to refine and build with them. Frankly, there are people who would help you - and they may or may not want something in return, but it won't be money. It may be the chance to come along with you when you sail off into the sea of space. It may just be prominent mention when any reporting of your project is done. It may be already included, as in a sense of accomplishment.
I can offer a stranger nothing besides what he tangibly values, and that which I have a surplus of. But again, abundance...and laboring robots...two things that do not currently exist outside of your imagination.
If you doubt people would do such things as program or build just for the bliss of it and reputation, consider the phenomenon of Linux. It has grown, improved, and widened by people whose bliss it is to create such open-source perfection. No one made a dime off their contribution (though there have been efforts towards that end, there are in the peripheral software and not the system itself). They DID get sense of accomplishment, as well as reputation.
People who wish to offer their accumulated capital, in any form, are free to do so, with or without money. Without looking into the subject at all, though, I would think that the programmers of that system are not living the life of a pauper, and due to their great skill and knowlege (which is infinitely scarce) are now holding down jobs that pay them (in money, not bliss, which they may or may not have) extremely well.
Human labor will still exist - as the bliss of an individual drives them. Robots are great for all function in which no one takes bliss. That is why the focus will shift from preparing for a career to following One's bliss, with attention to betterment. People in their bliss are NEVER indifferent.
I suppose I must not be blissful then, as I am totally indifferent to 99.9999% of humans on Earth. (as I have never met them and thus are unable to judge if they deserve my compassion or not) And yet I have moments of bliss and am always mindful of betterment. My bliss and betterment simply does not rest on the fortune, or misfortune, of strangers.
Agreed. But in abundance, those whose bliss it is to assist in renovation will offer their skills on the web, and that guy whose house needs renovation can search for them and connect. Probably won't be you, though, I'm guessing.
If you meant the last sentence as some sort of slight, youve failed, as I take my unwillingness to submit to the selfish and unearned desires of others as a strength. So thanks!
There is no scarcity - only extremely bad distribution because of profit motive. I have no answers to these except to say that wherever it might go, if somehow there is an issue, it won't be worse than what we have now.
Hey youre the one proposing a universal salve to the human condition. You should have all the answers. If you are sane and admit you do not, like every other human, you should quit proposing universal solutions such as the abolition of money.
You say distribution is bad because of money. Im sorry, but before making bold claims about economics, I would request that you read a few books on the subject. Saying resources are inefficiently allocated due to their mode of transaction is exactly like saying that marriges are unsucessful because of sex, and therefore we should ban sex.
Pricing is actually the *only* method we currently know of that can allocate resources effeciently, for reasons I wont explain here, and simply state this as fact. The only alternative to aggragate demands (represented by money) is some group (or computers) *opinion*, which is always subject to massive failure. Agree with better world concept, disagree with throwing baby with bathwater.
This is all true in a scarcity paradigm. And I can prove that it is bad distribution that is the issue. Every month supermarkets throw out hundreds of thousands of tons of food. Every month, some people starve. They starve not because there is no food, but that the food that is produced is offered for sale until it spoils and must be thrown out. Distribution by profit, not need. In abundance - which includes free transportation - orders can be placed through the web, and where there is excess it can be moved to where there is demand. (Plenty of blissful problem-solvers out there who would coordinate this freely.)
I will ignore the many basic fallacies in your argument and just say this - man has no tool to decide where goods are needed most without the price discovery mechanism. Without it, we sink into the realm of centralized control and thus dictatorship.
No... Money itself is not to blame. The LOVE OF money is. It is not highly probable (vanishingly small probability) that we can remove the LOVE OF money and keep money. By removing money, the LOVE OF money is excised. As long as money and the love of it exist, we WILL see elite and poverty. Without it, we will see equity and freedom for all.
So you contradict your basic premise and admit that money, in and of itself, is not evil. It is just the importance we place on it.
So an enlightened man, by your admission, could use money to facilitate his trades without becoming a lover of money. Thus it is ignorance, and not dollar bills, that is the root of evil. On this we agree. But this has nothing to do with money itself.
And without money, and with the respect for Consciousness, the costs will be non-existent.
Wait. You just admitted that it is the love of money, and not money itself, that is the source of evil. So if one has 'a respect for conciousness' and also some paper in his wallet, is he incapable of moral behaviour?
As for costs...well some of your ideas are coming at the cost of my patience, which right now is becoming increasingly scarce. Yet no money has changed hands.
Look up Polyface Farms... Here, I did it for you: www.polyfacefarms.com... This is the vision I have of comfort for the Conscious beings (small "b" to differentiate from Beings, who are ones who ask for rights...) while maintaining harmony and high yield. If Humans did this, rather than the evil out of love for money, our planet would blossom and provide as needed. We could distribute based on need. "Pricing" would be moot.
To each according to their needs....hmmm...where have I heard that before.
Please, at least be honest with your potential constituents and rename your party the 'Blissful Abundant Communist Robot Party'. At least then the more naive might consider the implications of signing onto a program that has a higher killcount than Christianity.
Of course not. That isn't YOUR bliss. But there ARE people who would find that something they would LOVE to do, given all the tools, materials and time.
You, as sociopath, may hunker in your domicile and ignore the world at large - in abundance you would be no drain. Have a nice life then, I guess it would be. But Humans, by and large are social, caring, Beings - many of whom would do something for the bliss of it, even for strangers.
If your definition of sociopathic is one who does not base his self value on the bias and falsehood of strangers bigorty, then I guess Im a sociopath. The fact that you find my individualism to be problematic and anti social tells me all I need to know about you and your ideas. You seem to feel I owe my fellow man simply because they exist. I know I owe no man anything besides that which they have earned from me, be it through mutual benefit or worthy virtue. Money may or may not represent this transaction.
so·ci·o·path [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-]
–noun Psychiatry .
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
If it is selfish to demand resiprocity in every one of my binding relationships, I suppose Ive earned your intended slur.
Ah ah ah. That breaks one or more of the three Laws... You will be dealt with, methinks.
And who will punish me?
I beg to differ. First, I am not saying that everyone can eat lobster every meal. But I am saying that all will have the opportunity to do so occasionally. Yes, there will be scarcities of some specific items. First come first served on that. What I am saying is that there is easily enough food on this planet to feed all of us three times over (well, there would be if we didn't pay farmers to NOT produce...), and we can produce just as much organically and with higher nutrition than what's coming out of our fields and farms now. No one will go hungry. No one will have no place to live. No one will die of exposure because of inadequate clothing. And no one will be unloved (even in this scarcity paradigm, many care enough about the ones no body cares about to offer their time, money and ideas freely to help solve the problem of uncared for individuals). With the resources available in terms of food, clothing, shelter and transportation, the unloved will be given love.
Im sorry but this farce is reaching monty python level absurdity. Your entire premise is that scarcity of any kind will not exist. Then, not a few keystrokes later, you openly admit that *many* items, such as lobster, will be subject to scarcity. So my main citique stands (that scarcity will always exist in some form) and my main question remains unanswered, so ill ask again - in the absence of money, by what mechanism will we decide who gets to eat lobster, and when?
As for love, well, true love is the ultimate scarce resource. Has it occured to you that the unloved among actuallly *deserve no love*? In fact, one might say they deserve hatred and isolation?
Does the pedophile priest deserve your most precious resource? (love/bliss?)
Does Hitler, after exterminating millions of people who may have actually earned their loving devotion, deserve love?
How about the rapist? Does your heart truly go out to him? Or his innocent victim?
What about the Fed chairman, who embodies all that you see that is wrong with the world currently? Does he deserve your undying faithfulness and appriciation?
If you love these people, and do not hate them, I would submit you do not know what love really is. Love is an involuntary reaction to virtuous behaviour. None of the above examples are capable of real love, and cannot be truly loved beyond some sick devotion to all that is wrong with the world. Again, not money.
No fallacy. In a scarcity paradigm, it is the labor of Humans - their energy - that is represented in a company's profit. Money merely represents an accounting of energy expended.
Again, before making claims about a subject, you should actually educate yourself in it. Money does not represent the energy expended. Money represents the value others place on the energy/time/resources expended. Money has no intrinisic value - it just represents trade. Trade = good.
Yes. In a scarcity paradigm, where money is the goal, this is often the case. There is no motive but bliss from goodwill without money.
If this is TRUE, please explain to me the obviously blissless societies that tried to abandom the price mechanism. Shouldnt previous social experiement in communism have ended in bliss and not mass murder and collapse?
Agreed. In the moneyed scarcity paradigm, this has developed. In abundance, though no One will act without self interest, that self interest will be driven by bliss. And that means the motive will always be clear. And, as I have said, abundance is selfishness to the max - while also producing behavior that, under scarcity, might LOOK like altruism.
And when Jesus arrives all the faithful will be beamed away to the planet bliss. Have your bliss account information handy though.
Seriously. You cannot define self interest universally as you can only define self interest in your own self interested terms. Others self interest may be radically different from your own.
Of course you wouldn't. But I know many who would willingly do so - even for a stranger - if they could and it would save that stranger. It would be bliss to them to know they helped someone.
If Im in danger of death, the last thing I would rely upon is someone elses bliss. In that case I would offer him my fleet of pleasure yaughts...but he would not be incentivised, as his own army of robot builders could make him one by next week anyways.
Indeed, we owe each other nothing - but if there were none who cared, none whose bliss it is to solve problems, we would see NO altruism. We would see NO organizations to assist others. We would see NO self-sacrifice ever. And though money has been used - in fact is a requirement, in one form or another, be it barter, shells, beads, gold, whatever, in a scarcity paradigm - to account for energy expended, in abundance need and bliss will be matched on the Interweb with no money required
So being that we do see acts of seeming altruism in a monetary world, we can conclude that the altruistic will act in that way regardless of the presence of money.
Replacing shells, salt, gold, rice or bank notes with 'bliss' solves nothing, and indeed just adds to the confusion of our existence. Money is a tool, If it falls into disuse through neccessity, then so be it. But as for now, in the real world we inhabit, money as a tool can be regarded as the facilitator of almost every great achivement (like the internet, or robots) you can imagine.
I think your philosophy has identified the symptoms, but not the cause, of our current, agreeably catastrophic situation. I propose that violence, and especially centrally controlled, monopolized violence, is the root of our evils, and these evildoers tend to use money. It does not have to be so, as money can be a great servant to man, as apposed to the tool of enslavement that is today.
In short, it is not money that is evil, or even the love of money...but instead the love of violence that blights us as a species at every turn.
If you have an idea (blowing up Toronto, say) that no one will support. Oh well. Point is, good ideas will garner support, while bad ones won't.
Four years ago, a group of young Muslim men conspired to send Ottawa a deadly message. Enraged by Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan, and fuelled by violent jihadi videos, they plotted to storm Parliament Hill and detonate truck bombs in downtown Toronto. The goal was to cause catastrophic damage, cripple the economy and unleash mass carnage.
Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by boncho
What's your point, boncho? I had no idea anyone would want to blow up Toronto - it was supposed to be a joke. And in abundance, these boys would be doing other things.
Originally posted by boncho
Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by boncho
What's your point, boncho? I had no idea anyone would want to blow up Toronto - it was supposed to be a joke. And in abundance, these boys would be doing other things.
Why not?
Are religions going to be abolished too? How do we settle land disputes with the Israelis and the Arabs?
And anyway... I have suspicions about this whole story. It may have been just some crazed kids, high on propaganda and twisted views, but I sense a hand in this such that more "terrorist horror stories" can be told in an effort to get Humans to give up their freedoms.
Really, it's VERY fishy.
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
And anyway... I have suspicions about this whole story. It may have been just some crazed kids, high on propaganda and twisted views, but I sense a hand in this such that more "terrorist horror stories" can be told in an effort to get Humans to give up their freedoms.
Really, it's VERY fishy.
You are one hundred percent right about this. In fact, the second in command of this group was a Police agent. It seems like an operation that was put into place to bring about the security certificate in Canada.
But that is besides the point, why? Because of the very fact that the people involved were manipulated into believing something destructive was a good thing. How will all manipulation cease to exist? How will all idiots who are susceptible to manipulation cease to exist?
How do you account for racists, anarchists and general poo disturbers in your brave new world?
Do you assume to say that all racism will be abolished because people found bliss?
We are talking about irrational behavior that is hardwired into human beings. Not something that is brought on because there wasn't an abundance of resources.
For you idea to work you would need massive world-wide programming of all people. How do you expect to achieve this? Your basic stance is that individuals have no free will, and I say this because of your claim that money is the cause of all problems, and the 'power elite' are all manipulating the people for profit. That is not a rational viewpoint.
For your theory to be sound, you should be able to find a localized tribe somewhere in history (that had an abundance of resources) with none of the problems you have described existing in modern society.
Because you already stated in another thread, that certain groups don't have to take your new 'technologies'. Meaning that if people choose to live without the influence of your new system they should have the right to. However, if you new system does not apply to all, how do you expect for it to have a global impact?
First, what would the motivation be? Without money, what would these people be thinking as they pumped others with destructive ideas? They don't need money to have excellent food, clothing, shelter and tools - like everyone else. What would motivate them? Right now it is money/power/energy. And so, without that to motivate... I can't come up with anything.
As for racists... They can be racist all they want - but in abundance, they would seldom encounter those they were racists against - and if they did encounter them, as long as they break none of the three Laws - still not a problem. If they break any of the three Laws - we would deal with them as we deal with any of those who break Laws now.
No, but I do presume that when there is no competition for basic needs, racism will fade. When people do not feel others are taking from their own piece of a pie - when there are plenty of pies - such archaic behavior will dissipate.
No. We are talking about greed and money issues at the heart. When people don't feel threatened on these counts, they don't develop the behaviors. Greed has no meaning in abundance. Money motive will vanish. And people will be occupying themselves in their bliss to the point of not caring what others have or do as long as the Laws are not broken.
No I won't need a massive programming. True Human nature will emerge from the prison it is kept in because of money/power/energy. And if you have looked around this site, you will see a great number of indications that TPTB are INDEED manipulating Us for profit (money/power/energy). It is not rational to suggest there is no good evidence.
Besides, there have never been these factors - where robots were used for work we don't like to do, and the Interweb for global communication. So I guess you will never believe.
No... My theory (really my analysis) can be sound whether there are examples or not. Now, for you to believe my analysis is correct, YOU may require this. But that is irrelevant to whether I am correct in my analysis.
It still applies to everyone. Because it allows for any lifestyle one chooses within the three Laws, anyone may operate as they wish under it, individually and as groups. The only stipulation is that all must be approached with the three Laws in mind. If they want to grow their own food, they may. If they want to order it from the robotic system, they may. It's not so much living "without the influence of [this] new system;" it's that all peaceful ways of coexisting are acceptable.
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
First, what would the motivation be? Without money, what would these people be thinking as they pumped others with destructive ideas? They don't need money to have excellent food, clothing, shelter and tools - like everyone else. What would motivate them? Right now it is money/power/energy. And so, without that to motivate... I can't come up with anything.
You have marginalized human emotion in your analysis. There are many things more than money that play into peoples' personalities. Jealously, rage, grief, pity, indifference, etc. etc. These traits are not all brought on by money. What if someone is dating a girl that another wants to date? What if someone has a 'better', 'smarter' family than others? What about IQ? What about insecurities, that no matter what you tell them they only see their shortcomings? What about the rapists, child molesters, murderers? Sado-Masochistic people?
All these things are because of money? The Human Ego is dissolved how in your scenario?
Take the dating scenario, if a person loses his girlfriend to someone of a different race, this can breed a negative disposition towards that race. Birth of newfound racism, how do you stop that?
As for racists... They can be racist all they want - but in abundance, they would seldom encounter those they were racists against - and if they did encounter them, as long as they break none of the three Laws - still not a problem. If they break any of the three Laws - we would deal with them as we deal with any of those who break Laws now.
So nothing changes then... Hardly the definition of bliss. Radicals on every side still get to radicalize others, still can be subversive and call for the death of their opposition. How has anyone achieved bliss?
That you say "we would deal with them as we deal with any of those who break Laws now" means you wish to continue the justice system of the world as religious based in some of the ME, and financially/"morally" based as it is in the West, and Corruption based as it is in many third world countries?
No, but I do presume that when there is no competition for basic needs, racism will fade. When people do not feel others are taking from their own piece of a pie - when there are plenty of pies - such archaic behavior will dissipate.
You presume so much that this is all fiction. At least show some studies where there was no racism in a group that had an abundance of resources. Racism is more complicated than money and goods. And don't forget girls, intelligence or lack thereof, hate towards people lesser than you and/or better than you. Many teenagers live abundant lifestyles, wouldn't you agree?
No. We are talking about greed and money issues at the heart. When people don't feel threatened on these counts, they don't develop the behaviors. Greed has no meaning in abundance. Money motive will vanish. And people will be occupying themselves in their bliss to the point of not caring what others have or do as long as the Laws are not broken.
Not everything boils down to greed. Because you have a skewed perception of the world you feel it is. But life is more complex than you are making it to be.
How do you account for racists, anarchists and general poo disturbers in your brave new world?
Do you assume to say that all racism will be abolished because people found bliss?
We are talking about irrational behavior that is hardwired into human beings. Not something that is brought on because there wasn't an abundance of resources.
Who decides the laws? Do we keep Sharia law in Muslim states? Do women still get stoned to death, are they finding bliss that way?
There are so many tribal communities in the world that don't give a lick about money. Why don't you study them and try and support your position with the findings....
No I won't need a massive programming. True Human nature will emerge from the prison it is kept in because of money/power/energy. And if you have looked around this site, you will see a great number of indications that TPTB are INDEED manipulating Us for profit (money/power/energy). It is not rational to suggest there is no good evidence.
Of course people are being manipulating, and what you are calling for is the same thing. For everyone to be programed to find bliss.
What I am saying, is what the government says does not limit people to use their own free will. No matter the manipulation, people are still able to think for themselves if they choose to.
Besides, there have never been these factors - where robots were used for work we don't like to do, and the Interweb for global communication. So I guess you will never believe.
No... My theory (really my analysis) can be sound whether there are examples or not. Now, for you to believe my analysis is correct, YOU may require this. But that is irrelevant to whether I am correct in my analysis.
Your not correct in your analysis because simple comparisons completely void it.
It still applies to everyone. Because it allows for any lifestyle one chooses within the three Laws, anyone may operate as they wish under it, individually and as groups. The only stipulation is that all must be approached with the three Laws in mind. If they want to grow their own food, they may. If they want to order it from the robotic system, they may. It's not so much living "without the influence of [this] new system;" it's that all peaceful ways of coexisting are acceptable.
What happens if a fundamental religious group believes that your tools are the work of evil forces? And said group chooses to use violence and sabotage against the new world....
How do you enforce your three laws exactly?
Also, how do you plan to take control away of long standing family power groups...Banks, cartels, etc?
No motivation to sell snake oil, come to think of it. If it doesn't work, all it is is an embarrassment to hawk.
Anyway, onwards...
Nothing except that the woman on her knees washing floors can spend that time eating healthy, wholesome, organic, fresh foods in a place she loves with plenty of time to spend with her kids or visit the grandkids. If she wants to wash a floor - if that's her bliss - she is welcome to do it. Here's the brush and here's the pail of soapy water. Otherwise, a robot will do it.
You can't find bliss in any of that? You can't find bliss in writing music or a book or climbing a mountain or competing at tennis or hugging your child or any of that and want to haul your tail in to work every day? Or are you a lucky one who is off the "HAVE to go in to work because if I don't my world will fall apart" level? Either by being rich enough or doing your bliss?
If your job is your bliss, perhaps I can see why you might lack the focus on others' pain, but I might point out that what I offer takes nothing from you.
Think, yes. Do? For most - statistically all - of Humanity, We cannot do our days as we wish, richly and with purpose, and at our leisure. We can't spend enough time with the Ones We Love. We must make choices at the store based on money.
If you are trying to show me I am right about the level of robotics being up to snuff, cool. If you're trying to suggest that there is a society I can examine with all this installed everywhere...you're not going to convince me.
Blanket statement. Be specific. And it doesn't even address whether my statement that my analysis can be sound whether there are examples or not. (In fact, if we waited around for examples of everything, nothing would get done and Humans would not have survived. These are perilous moments and it's rather more like we need to grab the life preserver or drown as opposed to choosing whether to have blueberry jam or raspberry on our toast. I offer a solution, and going for it will place Humanity no worse off and it could be a whole hell of a lot better.
Post by YOU
Cute. Nice jigger-polkary. Food is important. Any specific food item is NOT. There is plenty of food for us on this planet. That's my point. Food is vastly abundant.
Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil)
And I will take my chances against lone gunmen. I mean, all I'm doing is solving problems secularly and with great respect for spirit - for Consciousness. Offering ideas. It will not be me that makes it work, but (statistically) all of Us. Such a group is unlikely to have too many convinced-and-willing-to-go-for-it members (though the possibility exists that something could be made to look like that and used to shut me up...).
Tribes use forms of subsistence such as horticulture and foraging which, though more efficient, cannot yield the same number of absolute calories as agriculture. This limits tribal populations significantly, especially when compared to agricultural populations.
1
Major Water Uses Agriculture Almost 70 per cent of all available freshwater is used for agriculture. Pumping of groundwater by the world's farmers exceeds natural replenishment by at least 160 billion cubic metres a year. It takes an enourmous amount of water to produce crops: one to three cubic metres to yeild just one kilo of rice, and 1,000 tons of water to produce on ton of grain. Land in agricultural use has increased by 12% since the 1960s to about 1.5 billion hectares. Pasture and crops take up 37 percent of the Earth's land area. Current global water withdrawals for irrigation are estimated at about 2,000 to 2,555 cubic kilometres per year.
The growth of desalination plants worldwide is on the increase as global warming and local drought conditions continue. In all 7,500 desalination plants are currently operating worldwide with 60% of these situated in the Middle East. Unfortunately, many desalination plants are adversely affecting the environment.
Exhaust chimneys on many desalination plants belch harmful chemical clouds, and waste brine containing concentrated salt is produced and pumped back into waterways and coastal water. Local marine habitats face pressure with micro-organisms dying as salinity and water temperature increases.Article Source: EzineArticles.com...
1
In thermal processes, mainly multistage flash (MSF) thermal pollution occurs. These pollutants increase the seawater temperature, salinity, water current and turbidity. They also harm the marine environment, causing fish to migrate while enhancing the presence of algae, nematods and tiny molluscus. Sometimes micro-elements and toxic materials appear in the discharged brine.
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
No motivation to sell snake oil, come to think of it. If it doesn't work, all it is is an embarrassment to hawk.
Anyway, onwards...
This philosophy is built on snake oil. In more than one way.
Nothing except that the woman on her knees washing floors can spend that time eating healthy, wholesome, organic, fresh foods in a place she loves with plenty of time to spend with her kids or visit the grandkids. If she wants to wash a floor - if that's her bliss - she is welcome to do it. Here's the brush and here's the pail of soapy water. Otherwise, a robot will do it.
A robot for 7 billion people? Each person gets a robot?
You can't find bliss in any of that? You can't find bliss in writing music or a book or climbing a mountain or competing at tennis or hugging your child or any of that and want to haul your tail in to work every day? Or are you a lucky one who is off the "HAVE to go in to work because if I don't my world will fall apart" level? Either by being rich enough or doing your bliss?
Who decides the person that has to fix robots is., or who has to be a doctor, or who gets to just piss around all day and play music?
Are people forced into being engineers or does everyone get to be anything they want, what if not enough people want to be engineers?
What about jobs the robots can't do? What about hazardous jobs... Why would anyone risk their lives if everyone else can sit around playing videos games and piano, after finger painting...?
If your job is your bliss, perhaps I can see why you might lack the focus on others' pain, but I might point out that what I offer takes nothing from you.
Everything is free... Why bother working?
Oh, right... bliss. Most teenagers find bliss in ps3 and xBox, hard to get them out of that thinking when they don't have to work.
Think, yes. Do? For most - statistically all - of Humanity, We cannot do our days as we wish, richly and with purpose, and at our leisure. We can't spend enough time with the Ones We Love. We must make choices at the store based on money.
If you are trying to show me I am right about the level of robotics being up to snuff, cool. If you're trying to suggest that there is a society I can examine with all this installed everywhere...you're not going to convince me.
You completely ignore facts that are presented to you. You just said and I quote: Besides, there have never been these factors - where robots were used for work we don't like to do, and the Interweb for global communication. So I guess you will never believe.
You wanted to install robotic factories factories in every country and every continent? Were you planning on eliminating trade routes as well.? Please address what I said above before answering these questions. And address your previous quote.
Blanket statement. Be specific. And it doesn't even address whether my statement that my analysis can be sound whether there are examples or not. (In fact, if we waited around for examples of everything, nothing would get done and Humans would not have survived. These are perilous moments and it's rather more like we need to grab the life preserver or drown as opposed to choosing whether to have blueberry jam or raspberry on our toast. I offer a solution, and going for it will place Humanity no worse off and it could be a whole hell of a lot better.
Posted in another thread to which you did not reply.
Post by YOU
Cute. Nice jigger-polkary. Food is important. Any specific food item is NOT. There is plenty of food for us on this planet. That's my point. Food is vastly abundant.
My reply
Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil)
So in your abundant food supply scheme, are you taking into account staying with GM foods that are highly dependent on petroleum products and produce bigger yields than organic or were you hoping to go back to older crops that produce less yields? Also, did you factor in natural disasters or were you planning to control the weather as well?
Like I said, no basis on reality.
And I will take my chances against lone gunmen. I mean, all I'm doing is solving problems secularly and with great respect for spirit - for Consciousness. Offering ideas. It will not be me that makes it work, but (statistically) all of Us. Such a group is unlikely to have too many convinced-and-willing-to-go-for-it members (though the possibility exists that something could be made to look like that and used to shut me up...).
Trust me, you can't be important enough to "shut up". And all it would take is rationality on your part. Anyone that follows your ideas as if they are based on reality I feel very sorry for. I still maintain that you should market your work as fiction and best of luck if you do. If not, and someone actually believes all this, then you are messing with their heads and are no better than a common day grifter.
Money represents more than energy...
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
You really don't address the issues because you do not research the problems. This is like saying "if there was magic, than the world would be perfect".
And any legitimate concerns raised to you is answered with proverbial magic. The water one I just can't believe that you would say a filter is going to solve the world's problems. ALL WATER PROBLEMS THAT IS. (Future and present)
You never talked about the oil use in your platform, but robots can do everyone's job?.... When was the last time you met a robotic roughneck?
Don't bother replying because I'm tired of the nonsense responses. You have made no attempt to research actual issues and offer actual solutions. This thing is based off fantasy and it's simple as that.
And the final reason it wouldn't work, is because I (and people like myself) wouldn't let it. Your idea creeps me out. I like hierarchy, so does everyone else. That is why humans always develop hierarchies, doesn't matter how abundant or scarce anything is...
It's ingrained into us. So are all the other things that make this a pointless argument.
Fiction or do some research, good luck with that.
I guess 50 years of study and research is way too little. Ok. Whatever, boncho. You're right.
Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
I guess 50 years of study and research is way too little. Ok. Whatever, boncho. You're right.
Citations? References? Projections? Statistical analysis? Mathematical models? Anything?....
Please.