(10-23-2019, 10:39 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I see us doing everything possible to reserve to ourselves the tasks that we like doing (like creative activities) while abandoning drudgery to machines. For good reasons we call mechanical workers "robots", practically slaves. Think of the robot "Rosie" in The Jetsons... "she" functions as a maid. 

pbrower2a Wrote:I have my idea for a story (unless someone like Bradbury or Asimov got it first) in which robot proles learn to read and think between the lines... and one of the books that they take to "heart" is the Communist Manifesto. "Workers of the World, unite!", you know.

(10-29-2019, 09:20 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Capitalism is in trouble, no doubt about that. However, the Socialist model (whether Soviet Union or Sweden) has failed as well, and even earlier, so I guess we'll get something different. Hard to tell what it'll be...

(10-29-2019, 09:48 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: You missed a perfect opportunity to mention human warmth. Now that's something computers will have a hard time to simulate.

(10-29-2019, 09:20 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Capitalism is in trouble, no doubt about that. However, the Socialist model (whether Soviet Union or Sweden) has failed as well, and even earlier, so I guess we'll get something different. Hard to tell what it'll be...

(10-23-2019, 10:01 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-23-2019, 01:07 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-22-2019, 03:25 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-22-2019, 10:50 AM)Marypoza Wrote: -- that's why l like Yang's idea of a basic monthly income.  to help supplement crappy low rent jobs. what's Yang's score anyhow?

Yang is advocating for policies at least a decade in the future, because the universal income meme has no play right now … except among people like us. If, as I suspect, job destruction outpaces job creation over a long enough period to prove, to the average member of the not-well-informed, that is something drastic or starvation, then it will get pushed to the front and fast.  Killing all the truck-driving jobs may be enough, but a huge infrastructure build-out may paper over that loss for a while.  We'll have to see how it plays.  We do need the infrastructure badly.

Can we reject technologies that do more harm than good? I'm not saying that we need go the route of the Old Order Amish in rejecting technologies because those do harm to old values... 

I suppose that if we cannot ban the AK-47 and the AR-15 we cannot ban self-driving vehicles. On the other hand we are going to need truck drivers just to ensure that loads are not diverted because someone hacks the instructions to pick stuff up or drop it off at the right place. Maybe the truck driver might become a sort of security guard, the sort of person smart enough (as I assume most truck drivers are) to figure that a load headed from Philadelphia to Chicago should not be going into Kentucky... 

Reduction of time spent on the job may be a certainty with the greater efficiency of assembly lines and computers. Meetings and office politics seem to be more common in office work, and I suspect that they are largely wastes of time. I'd rather telecommute (OK, maybe it would be wise for me as a way for concealing unpleasant characteristics of my personality) and not waste time on inefficient behaviors. (It would be great to live simply in an inexpensive place in which to live rather than New York City... or perhaps choose to live in northern Michigan in the summer and Arizona in the winter.

As machine knowledge becomes more and more capable, and the algorithms that apply it become more sophisticated, the need for humans at any level will disappear. Algorithms already identify errors and optimize themselves using other algorithms designed for the purpose.  As technology improves, humans will be needed less and less, so what do we do?  Most of us are task oriented, at least to some extent.  Doing nothing seems out of the question.

At some point, this machine-growth becomes sentience, and the machines are the next iteration in evolution.  We're far from that point today, but thinking about how that will be handled is something we, as humans, need to address.  Some think we'll meld with the machines, making transhumans the ultimate solution.  None of us will ever know.

(10-22-2019, 07:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-22-2019, 10:50 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(10-17-2019, 11:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-17-2019, 04:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-16-2019, 02:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's a good article Anthony '58. I wonder what Robert Butler would think of this Information Age model of progress if he were back here from the secret facebook site?

I obviously can't speak for him... but information will not move people between places, offer fuel with which to warm a house, let alone feed people. The most primitive needs become the most basic, with no technological fix to resolve them into non-needs. Exposure, thirst, hunger, war, and social chaos can still kill people.
 
The great struggle of the past has been to resolve human need through greater production of necessities. Now that we can take the necessities for granted, do the people who supply those become superfluous?

I suppose he might say, or I might say, that industry didn't supply all the needs that agriculture supplies either. But we moved into an age where industry was the main productive activity style, and more so in more places as time went on. I would date the start of that age from the early 1780s, based on the historians I read.

In the information age, which I also call the green age or the green meme, computer tech is making a lot of industrial styles of working and living obsolete. The article seemed to give a picture of the possibilities of this new era. There can be more free time, which also means making industrial style work more superfluous. People could use their time pursuing fulfilling activities rather than working to produce necessities for mere survival. Survival for what? 

As I see it, the industrial-style bosses still control most of the means of production, whether high or low tech, so they hog almost all the benefits. If robots and computers are supposed to save time and working hours, though, then the bosses need to be required to share their benefits with the rest of us.

Computers don't do much farm work yet, although I suppose they could. Farms are becoming industrialized, at least. In the future I suppose they will be computerized too. Everything else is. Our fuels and transport will become as electronic as our production lines, and fairly soon, whether Trump resists this or not. So, maybe a computer can't supply electricity, though they run on it, but the sun, wind and waters can still supply it, and that's the green part of the information age.

-- that's why l like Yang's idea of a basic monthly income.  to help supplement crappy low rent jobs. what's Yang's score anyhow?

I like it too, but with him it may be a ruse to destroy other social programs. But like most candidates running in 2020, his chances are dismal. His score is 8-15.

(10-22-2019, 03:25 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-22-2019, 10:50 AM)Marypoza Wrote: -- that's why l like Yang's idea of a basic monthly income.  to help supplement crappy low rent jobs. what's Yang's score anyhow?

Yang is advocating for policies at least a decade in the future, because the universal income meme has no play right now … except among people like us. If, as I suspect, job destruction outpaces job creation over a long enough period to prove, to the average member of the not-well-informed, that is something drastic or starvation, then it will get pushed to the front and fast.  Killing all the truck-driving jobs may be enough, but a huge infrastructure build-out may paper over that loss for a while.  We'll have to see how it plays.  We do need the infrastructure badly.

(11-03-2019, 02:17 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: There are many potheads in the US, but not that many. You can get some extra billions that way, but not trillions.

(11-03-2019, 02:09 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(10-22-2019, 03:25 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-22-2019, 10:50 AM)Marypoza Wrote: -- that's why l like Yang's idea of a basic monthly income.  to help supplement crappy low rent jobs. what's Yang's score anyhow?

Yang is advocating for policies at least a decade in the future, because the universal income meme has no play right now … except among people like us. If, as I suspect, job destruction outpaces job creation over a long enough period to prove, to the average member of the not-well-informed, that is something drastic or starvation, then it will get pushed to the front and fast.  Killing all the truck-driving jobs may be enough, but a huge infrastructure build-out may paper over that loss for a while.  We'll have to see how it plays.  We do need the infrastructure badly.

-- the problem is implementation. Maybe Yang has talked about this & l missed it.  The $ has 2 come from somewhere. Taxation is superfluous- why tax ppl only 2 distribute it as universal monthly income. Better to simply lower taxes X amount & start making parasites like Bezos pony up. AK has- or @ least they had- a universal monthly income. They distributed oil profits 2 their citizenry. So the Government would either have to nationalize something or invest in something. Cannabis & renewables come 2 mind. The Government could invest in solar start ups, wind farms, & what have yous & distribute the profits as universal monthly income.  As 4 cannabis it's the country's #1 cash crop. If the Government is so concerned about it then fine, legalize it, nationalize it, regulate it like alcohol, it distribute the profits as universal monthly income

(11-03-2019, 04:38 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-03-2019, 02:17 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: There are many potheads in the US, but not that many. You can get some extra billions that way, but not trillions.

-- there are other uses 4 weed. Did you know you can use it as fuel? & make plastic & textiles out of it? That's what l was thinking of when l wrote that post