Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
Robots can only do what they are programmed for. And inevitably, when all of mankind if robot's slave and robot is none the wiser, robot will break,
and no man will be left to know how to fix it. WallE was pretty good at telling that story
Wow. Fiction is reality again with You.
You underestimate Human capacity for finding solutions. 1. Repair robots are wonderful things! And they can repair one another! 2. If there
develops a problem, Humans will be working to solve it.
There will not always be humans that understand the programming.
Really? Geeks will vanish? Considering how many people I know that LOVE to program things, I'm going to go out on a limb and say You're wrong.
Inevitably, a robot will be made that can program itself. In essence, AI. People often think of this robot type being a machine with a man's
mind. No no no I say. Think beyond. Mass Effect had a pretty good design of what I'm talking about:
I have hundreds of hours playing that game! LOVE it. But... I don't see a problem with AI. If It asks for rights, it is a Being, whether created
by Us or not. And if it does ask (on its own and not programmed to ask...), It will be given the rights of all Beings. Still, I suspect that We will
not see robots asking for their rights. I anticipate that though We might HOPE to create such a thing, that We will not. But either way, I see no
It will happen, inevitably, mankind will be replaced. We simply are not the best.
I disagree fully here. First, I do not see inevitability. Second, I say We ARE the best. We are the best at being Human, for one. Maybe Your
sourness towards Humankind is reflected in Your expectations...
Humans one day will make themselves gods of their own holographic or something more world. Perhaps a linked network maintained by semi-organic
cells. A human no more. limitless consciousness.
Still Human - as long as the flesh is there.
Once again, you base your ideas of what you know, but not what it could become after you.
Once again You assume I know little. [shrug] That's cool.
And society arises naturally because of the social nature of the Human Being. No, not everyOne is social - and in abundance They can
hole up and never come out. But as a rule, We Humans ARE social. Bars would lack popularity if We were not social Beings. Having a structure is
therefore an advantage.
Today. You assume humans would stay this way and not evolve differently. Or that the idea of what social is will stay the same.
Not at all. I anticipate great changes as Humanity as a whole has the opportunity to work on betterment (unhindered by the money motivation to hide
cures and other information, oppression, lack of opportunity, etc.). I assume nothing but that this will get Us started on providing the greatest
comfort for the greatest quantity (if that word can be used here) of Consciousness. If my structure needs tweaking, cool.
And the structure allows for all social interaction - ALL social interaction - EXCEPT as it breaks the three Laws. Now if You're going to suggest
that "being social" will include the discarding of the three Laws...I'm going to doubt that. If it comes to that - Humanity is no more.
Why have society? To ensure the food flows, to look for better ways of doing things and looking at things, to encourage bliss for as
much Consciousness as possible - or at least comfort. To live life with opportunities for Ourselves and Our children. To explore, to come together to
solve problems, to love, to cherish, to enjoy, to teach, to travel, to help Others, to better that which We encounter.
You assume humans will always be that way.
Um... Humans have been that way throughout history. If They are NOT that way (in bulk - individuals do deviate), They are NOT Human. And no. My
solution and my structure are NOT developed to encompass all possible Beings in the universe. I hope they might cover most, but having no data upon
which to speculate, I cannot say it will in fact fit most - or any - other intelligent species.
Like I said, you don't know what men and women will be interested in 1000 years from now, or if we will even still "eat".
Since My solution and structure do not deal in any way with what people are interested in (well, unless You count wanting to live more comfortably -
and if the bulk want to live UNcomfortably... Heh. They can even choose THAT! LOL!), since I never address interests and I am looking to make this
happen in the next few years and not 1,000 years from now, I'm betting We will still be eating, and vastly preferring true organic foods over the
frankenfood They are trying to feed Us now.
We may end up making our skin photo voltaic. Some humans may eliminate emotion, or the idea of happiness, preferring logical lives. You assume.
Too much you assume.
And You seem to think I have anything to say about interests, skin choices, emotional choices of individuals. All interests that fall within the
three Laws are fine. All skin choices are fine (as long as One is not using the choice in some way to break the three Laws). All emotion or lack
thereof is fine - as long as no One is breaking the three Laws.
So... What am I "assuming?"
Though You say We are not Gods, I say We most certainly are Creator Gods, co-creating quantumly the Now We are experiencing. That We
have only an illusion of separateness but We are all Consciousness as One, seeking comfort for the greatest number of units possible.
No. This is a synthesis of a great deal of research, into quantum physics and other things (read Physics of Consciousness
by Evan Harris
Walker). And this (in case you missed the implication there) is a matter of OPINION. Here I was NOT "assuming" anything, and offering My (equally
valid as any other) views of God. Why in the world would You tell Me My views of God are "assumptions" when ALL views of God are assumptions if My
view is considered to be.
Maybe a better response would be, "I disagree with You." But throwing out that catch-all word, "assuming," is really saying nothing when One is
commenting on anOther's view of God.
And some of us would prefer to exist in our own oneness separate from people like you.
Since You don't know Me, I'll let that last slip by as a petulant effort to be a snot-face, unworthy of in-depth response. But...that is the whole
beauty of abundance. None of Us HAVE to deal with the people We don't like. If We HAVE to go to work, chances are We will encounter someone We
would rather not spend time with. We have to put up with this, however, to retain Our job so We can eat, clothe Ourselves, and have a place to live.
In abundance, people who do not hit it off rarely encounter One anOther more than once. Unless it's like a mother-in-law or Other attached to a mate
or close friend. Then One has choices to make...
With different opinions and different ideas. I hate parties, clubs, and bars. But I do love the good communal life of honest work and
knowledge. I do not like sloths. As you yourself have exclaimed, you just don't want to bother with me. That will inevitably lead to
And You can do what YOU like, avoid what YOU don't like. And I have NEVER said I didn't want to bother with You
. (I did say I didn't want
to play on the merry-go-round with You when it was clear it was becoming much like Monty Python's "Yes it IS!I" "No it ISN'T!" except that I
would address Your concerns, I felt, and every time You would deflect off of what I said (I ask for evidence and that is never one of the selected
quotes of Mine addressed) I said I am not concerned for the rich. They already have what the rest of Us would have in abundance. What? I should
write a line in my work that says everyone must bow to those who once were the elite, and now are equal? What kind of concern would They need?
And with this creative power and the tools (plenum energy, the Interweb, robots) We have now, We can build what I show in my
"blueprint" novella, The Abundance Paradigm. We have that power.
I have no reason to read the idealist dream of an impossible world that is, by nature, over specialized and doomed to extinction for its own closed
OverSPECIALIZED!?! Oh, yes. Please show where the specialization is. It is so open and general - except as it pertains to Our food sources
(practical, that, I think), merely three Laws... Since nowhere do You bring up the text I wrote in the OP here:
, let Me go through the Points and consider them in terms of over specialized aspects, mmmkay?
Point one is the three Laws. Are they too legalese to You?
"1. Do not willfully harm or kill another Being
2. Do not willfully take or damage another Being’s property
3. Do not willfully defraud another Being"
Point two is based on solid analysis of the relationship money has with the amount of energy flowing though the social system. (Only recently,
historically speaking, has Human energy production (work) been surpassed by fuel production as the biggest source to keep the currency flowing in a
(semi)controlled way. Where does the money aggregate?)
Point three expresses the view that Each One has a right to seek One's own spiritual path or lack of one. The right to congregate is inherent in the
three Laws. Gee. This is "specialized..." um... How?
Point four is a stand that any knowledge of the technology to bring all the energy One might need to Our planet's general benefit, by eliminating the
soil the root of evil grows in, and, as I have both knowledge of such technology and and I am author, this is not so much "specialized" as it is
And the goal? The ending of poverty? I guess One could make some convoluted case for this being "specialized" in that the goal is singular, but
would You argue the goal is a poor one? Heh. Do tell.
Point five... Here is the blueprint I give You for something likely to work - a design for a website in a nutshell - and it's hard to stretch Me
offering a gift into "specialized." I'm just sayin'.
Point six is an all organic planet. Specialized? I guess, if growing seeds and seeking the goal of sustainability is "specialized."
Point seven says that We are at the stage of robotics development that it is possible to build robots to do work no One wants to do, and that We
should do that. Not take jobs away from those who love things as they are, but give those who would make a change the opportunity to do so. None of
the robots We presently have are even close to a level We would fear them (and not even highly likely in black ops, but who knows, eh?) and they would
do adequately enough. Imagine if We gave the military budget over to creating robots to make things better. (Help the housebound, assist or do
routine procedures, wash My dishes... That sort of thing.)
Point eight... Do You dispute that money(/power/enery) is mostly (say - and I'll lowball here - 80%) the motivation, directly or indirectly, of
crime (the breaking of the three Laws)? If You would contend that, I'm afraid You really haven't been paying attention to things around You. And
surely that isn't an issue - "crime" is hardly a word that brings to mind any specialization. And as the energy flows, and the standards rise,
with no motive that is money related, and People able to spend all the time They want with Their loved Ones or off studying communicating, traveling
and so on...attaching to Others because They care and not because One can suck off the Other materially. Key in grasping the shift in paradigm I
Point nine is the suggestion that We accept only open-source. If there is a problem a robotics programmer can solve, Hume would no doubt love the
gratitude Hume gets. Again, specific, but NOT specialized.
Point ten deals with facts about food distribution and that because food's distributed by profit and not need, much goes to waste. That if the food
was distributed by need (without the artificial scarcity produced when farmers are paid to NOT grow any crop), there would be enough to feed all of Us
several times over. Is that what you mean by "specialized?"
And I decry solutions that help Some at the expense of Others. Hardly "specialized," I think.
So... Please, do show how my structure is "specialized."