Slashdot Mirror
'Robots Won't Just Take Our Jobs -- They'll Make the Rich Even Richer' (theguardian.com)
Robotics and artificial intelligence will continue to improve -- but without political change such as a tax, the outcome will range from bad to apocalyptic, writes technology and politics journalist Ben Tarnoff, citing experts and studies, for The Guardian. From the article, shared by six anonymous readers: Despite a steady stream of alarming headlines about clever computers gobbling up our jobs, the economic data suggests that automation isn't happening on a large scale. The bad news is that if it does, it will produce a level of inequality that will make present-day America look like an egalitarian utopia by comparison. The real threat posed by robots isn't that they will become evil and kill us all, which is what keeps Elon Musk up at night -- it's that they will amplify economic disparities to such an extreme that life will become, quite literally, unlivable for the vast majority. A robot tax may or may not be a useful policy tool for averting this scenario. But it's a good starting point for an important conversation. Mass automation presents a serious political problem -- one that demands a serious political solution. Automation isn't new. In the late 16th century, an English inventor developed a knitting machine known as the stocking frame. By hand, workers averaged 100 stitches per minute; with the stocking frame, they averaged 1,000. This is the basic pattern, repeated through centuries: as technology improves, it reduces the amount of labor required to produce a certain number of goods. So far, however, this phenomenon hasn't produced extreme unemployment. That's because automation can create jobs as well as destroy them. What's different this time is the possibility that technology will become so sophisticated that there won't be anything left for humans to do. What if your ATM could not only give you a hundred bucks, but sell you an adjustable-rate mortgage?
learn new skills, continue to make money
complaining about it isn't going to help, get off your ass and do something
FIRST
"By hand, workers averaged 100 stitches per minute; with the stocking frame, they averaged 1,000. This is the basic pattern, repeated through centuries: as technology improves, it reduces the amount of labor required to produce a certain number of goods. So far, however, this phenomenon hasn't produced extreme unemployment."
Yes, it did. Automatic steam-powered weaving machines caused the birth of the Union movement, because hundreds of thousands lost their jobs worldwide.
Just nobody cared at the time and the rich did get richer then as well.
. . . . they'll take err jerbs ???
(sorry, couldn't resist. . .)
Who writes the code and patches to keep it secure and running?
Who fixes and replaces the componants as they wear out?
Who needlessly redesigns the entire interface to keep up with modern fads?
Who installs it?
Stop with the AI kills everyone by proxy stories.
Well, then I'd tell the ATM to go fuck itself, since adjustable rate mortgages are a scam, then I'd go find a different ATM that would sell me a fixed rate mortgage.
The first ATM would of course end up needing a machine-government bailout because it's too big to fail.
will mean our city will be ten foot deep in manure in less than a quarter century!
Alarmists need to stop thinking any one thing can be extrapolated to the future without society and technology changing and adapting. And no, tax as an attempt to slow or stall inevitable progress is not a solution at all.
Ya think?
I'd say that is pretty obvious.
If there was no benefit to replacing people with robots, it would not happen.
Anything that increases productivity raises output, and therefore value, of the people producing. You'd expect that to make them richer.
A farmer with a tractor eats better than a farmer with an ox. This shouldn't be a big revelation.
It's only a problem if labor supply is in surplus. Is it? Will it be? When? By how much? Show how you arrived at that conclusion. And stop bothering us with "imagine a scary world" scenarios. We have enough phony drama already. Thanks.
I sometimes wonder how the future with robots will look like.
When my cousin has a robot that can make any type of shoes, and does them for our entire family at almost no cost.
When my colleague across the street has a robot that can produce computers, and does this for entire town at almost no cost.
When a group of enthusiasts from neighbouring town have a team of robots that build houses, and the houses are built by this group for everyone at almost no cost.
When my family/clan has bunch of robots working on our farm, and the farm provides half of food needed by people in my county, at almost no cost.
So why do we need to fear"evil" corporations again?
The riches are no use, and therefore not riches, if there is nothing to spend them on.
To the rich, they are only riches if they can be exchanged for the fruits of efficiently coordinated labour and creativity.
The the labourers and creators (producers) are cold and hungry and sick, then there is nothing for the rich to buy with their riches and they are not rich.
The producers can have their own economy with another currency -- that the rich do not possess unless they trade for it.
If the vast majority of humanity becomes unemployed (which is what this apocalyptic scenario implies), then no one will be buying the products that these robots make. Without customers and the money/purchasing they bring, businesses tend to collapse fairly quickly. You could counter with "well, the rich will just buy stuff from each other", but 1) the scale won't be there to justify the automation in most cases, and 2) in economics, just like in biology, when the genetic pool gets too small for a species, the result eventually becomes extinction.
Look, I get it, but honestly, this is the same argument that was being advanced 100 years ago when electricity was automating things (and 'OMG that Westinghouse guy is going to have more money than a god while the rest of us starve!'), 200 years ago when steam was automating things, etc etc. People have always adapted, shifted their career focus, and created new industries which are not as easily automated. Unless someone can come up with an argument showing how this time will be different (hint: it probably won't), then this is just a rehash of an old argument.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The only job I'm ultimately concerned about robots taking, is that of soldiers or police. If society hasn't stoned the billionaires to death by that point, we will not get another chance.
So instead of the robots taking our jobs in the US, they will be doing it from some island or somewhere thats willing to provide a tax haven. Taxes and regulations will not fix this issue. The rich have resources to avoid all that and it will only make life more difficult for those who lack those resources.
This should really be from the "no-shit-sherlock" department. It will really be funny when it implodes on itself since no one will be able to afford to buy the goods/services provided.
The rich before steam, before factories, before automatization, were as rich as the rich today.
The jobless before steam, before factories, before automatization, were as jobless if not even more than today.
Anti-robot paranoia is the most conservative mental condition that has been chu-chu-ing on the train tracks of circular retardation for 3 centuries now and over.
Left and right, both are conservative idiots on some topics it seems.
Even if it is found that value is escaping through brain drain and trade deficits, clearly that lost value will trickle down like it has in the past. Besides, what is inevitable progress but simply moving things around?
The phrase, "Robots are Labor Made Out of Capital" is all you need to know.
When capital chases labor out of the market, what's left for people to do?
Revolution.
If capitalists don't start dealing with the problem head on, they risk the end of capitalism.
You don't want to climb the corporate ladder. You want to own the corporate ladder.
Hear, hear... Have the Illiberals at Guardian ever saw a tax, they didn't like? Surely, the omniscient and benevolent government officials — who know, what's best for us, how everything should operate, and what everything ought to cost — are much better positioned to decide, how to spend the monies confiscated from the taxpayers, than the taxpayers — bless their pretty little heads — know themselves.
No, if it pleases the Crown, I'd like to make my own decisions. You can take, what you and I agree is necessary for the country's defense — but I will not willingly finance your coercive changes to society.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I for one welcome our robot overlords.
the economic data suggests that automation isn't happening on a large scale
And 10 years ago, lthe economic data said that smartphone app sales were not happening at all (since there was no such thing as an app store until 2008). Some people need to re-learn the lessons about "tipping points" or watch how even something as seemingly innocuous as a loud sound can trigger an avalanche that destroys all in its' path.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I suggest learning how to do something a robot can't. Perhaps designing new robots? Information theory states that a system cannot create something more complex than itself, so a robot cannot design a robot that is more complex than it is. There's one industry that'll be safe.
You can add to the list for quite a while before running out of things.
(in a destructive sense) ...only if the companies producing them get the government to coercively protect their control over the robots' hardware and software.
As long as a small group of powerful companies/interests works with our govt for centralized control, our mass consumption of their products will only add weight to the boot on our necks. We feed their control and enable their surveillance by our mindless consumption.
As long as people are free to tinker with their robots, assemble/build their own, and hack/tinker with the software, there wont be terribly much to worry about.
This has exactly zero to do with "robots taking [someone's] jobs" and everything to do with the tax code and the government's attitude towards the majority of the people.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
The rich are spending billions to kill off unions by a combination of (legally) bribing politicians, and propping up plutocrat-kissing pundits like Fox News, Rush, and Breitbart to convince the voting population that unions kill jobs and the economy.
The rich are winning the class war because they can buy more and bigger weapons.
Table-ized A.I.
Robot tax is infeasible, as it is too easy to work around. For example, as an owner of fully autonomous factory I would have a single employee press 'Start' button once a day, and sit in the chair in front of dials Homer-style. Now I can claim that my system isn't fully automated and I don't have to pay tax.
Feasible solution is progressive taxation combined with guaranteed income. Fundamentally, it isn't 1% getting Ferengi-rich, it is that the rest of us are forced to play Jem'Hadar as a result.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes they would, and if you think that unwashed masses will simply take it lying down, you are going to be up to a very nasty surprises when more and worse Trumps get elected.
This is why we need to develop 3D printing and CNC machinery ASAP, so we won't be dependent on mass-produced goods shipped around the world to meet our needs.
The day we can download a pair of sneakers and have them made on the spot, we will have technology working for us rather than against us.
Oh, but I guess we'll still have to ship lots of raw materials around... rubber, metal, plastic, wood etc. I don't mind so much if robots do that part.
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
Just gotta say I haven't actually seen any new automation these last 10-15 years. Robots replaced most of the car assembly line workers in the 80's and its basically the same robots used today. CNC machines haven't gotten any better or any smarter since 1995 or so. The internet killed book stores more than a decade ago and Netlfix killed Blockbuster around the same time. Malls are actually still standing and Sears and JCPenny have sucked since long before the internet sealed their fate. These were retailers that would never have made it anyway. Nordstroms is still a very nice store that wont be going anywhere and the same for Walmart. ATM's haven't gotten any smarter and do the same stuff they did in 1985. So far all I see is a lot of hot air about robots taking all our jobs while in the meantime its really hordes of illegal immigrants, H1B's, and outsourcing doing all the actual damage to wages. Plus, right now the economy is at full employment so there is no chronic unemployment.
Here's the evidence: nobody can identify the new fields that are replacing the old ones, unlike the past. Sure, there are new fields, but they not appearing in sufficient quantity to replace those lost. And even those fields are being offshored to cheap-labor countries.
For example, craigslist employs about 60 people, but has probably killed tens or hundreds of thousands of newspaper-related jobs in the process.
Table-ized A.I.
...thinking you are entitled to be the one to sell me an adjustable-rate mortgage. It doesn't need selling if I already know what I want. It is not enough to produce something... you must produce something of value. Full stop. Articles like this give me the sense that the author is irritated by the fact that status quo isn't good enough. There is plenty of work to do, it just might not be the work you are accustomed to doing, and arguments like this have been debunked over and over again. The cotton gin obviated a lot of jobs, but people rose up and did more sophisticated work. Computers obviated a lot of jobs, but people rose up and did more sophisticated work. Robots and AI will obviate a lot of jobs, and people will still rise up and do more sophisticated work. The moral of the story here is get up off your lazy ass and do more sophisticated work. We've not yet begun to reach our potential as a race.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Easy solution: Limit robot ownership to two per person. One for personal servant/butler/cook/"companion"/whatever, the other for doing useful work. If your business requires more than one robot, then you need to "hire" more employees (who will send their robots to work in their place). Ambitious people might forgo the personal servant and have both robots working to earn some extra cash. If they have an idea for a new business, their robots could "quit" and start working for the master's business. If it's successful, he will grow his business and make enough money to "hire" other people's robots, etc. In short, there's still a way for people to move up the ladder if they are motivated, instead of creating a permanent overclass of robot owners and a permanent underclass of robotless people.
Inequality of income is never a problem, it is the lowest level of purchasing capability given to, say, someone on social income. If this robotization idea brings in more tax, so be it, it can fund more social income, so let the head honcho have multiple helicopters, it's just not a problem. You can even cut his rate if the robots are any use as an incentive to build wealth. But whatever ...
The purpose of existence is to make money.
Already covered in Marshall Brain's book "Manna".
The real problem is not the robots. It's the humans.
If you use robots to further your greed, then yes, the rich get richer. If you use robots to help out humanity, surprise! They help out humanity. (It should be noted that Manna actually has a form of Universal Basic Income which is used to manage resources).
correct network prima donnas, and hobbyist dilettante the project is in give other people And MIchael Smith No matter how May also want RAM) for about 20 Duty to be a big
Is there a point where unemployment would become so high that no one would be able to afford products being churned out by automation? What happens to the rich, then? Does the whole nation just give up, or do collective minds come together and come up with solutions?
That is what will lead to the Robot Uprising..
Make the Rich Even Richer
How rich does anyone need to be? I understand the desire to have more and, certainly, a bit more than you need, but way more than you could possibly ever need or even use? How much is enough and why?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
What you're missing is that AI and automation is advancing to be GENERALLY more effective and more cost-effective than people's labour, GENERALLY, as in, across very wide swaths of potential tasks. That implies a profoundly changed game, and as far as automation vs humans, it will be zero-sum, because for just about any job category, the automation/AI will be the more effective and cost-effective hence market-selected option.
A lot of people don't seem to get that this crossing point (automation > human capability) is coming soon (and in many sectors has already come).
Individually, and in society and political culture, we have to GROK this, then go through the usual stages of grief:
Denial – The first reaction is denial. In this stage individuals believe the diagnosis is somehow mistaken, and cling to a false, preferable reality.
Anger – When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, they become frustrated, especially at proximate individuals.
Bargaining – The third stage involves the hope that the individual can avoid a cause of grief.
Depression – "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?";
Acceptance
And then, after not too long a grieving pause, we need to come up with real solutions (as contrasted with keeping the Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians out, which are misguided FAKE solutions.)
At the core of a real solution will be us reconceptualizing what people are here for and where we should get our self-worth.
At the core of a real solution needs to be fair and adequate ways of distributing the proceeds of a substantially automated economy.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
and people who trash the robots go to prison (better then the street) and with doctors that don't say we don't take medcade and do more then the ER does. I think the max cost is a $100 copay / year in TX.
"What if your ATM could not only give you a hundred bucks, but sell you an adjustable-rate mortgage?"
I think it's funny you think that the guy at the bank does anything other than plug your info into an algorythm, tell you the results and push the paper if you choose to preceed with their offer.
I don't see "the rich" becoming richer as a problem. If poor people are becoming poorer, in absolute terms, then we have a problem. I don't see that happening, however, since increased robotic productivity should normally (free of government interference) result in more abundant goods and services, raising the living standard for everyone. Sure, the rich will reap most of the gains, but that is because they own the robots.
So, what is the solution? Pretty straightforward, actually: own the robots! As luck would have it, we live in an age in which it has never been easier for anyone to invest in the future. This implies, of course, that people are smart enough to forego buying that luxury condo and partying away their paycheck in favor of planning for the day that that paycheck won't be there any more. I admit, I may be assuming too much about the average person's capacity for delayed gratification.
Might makes right irrelevant.
"I hate all this inequality and progress! I'm going to move to an egalitarian paradise, like ____!"
Unfortunately, people never actually follow through on the second part, because it means moving to places like Venezuela, Cuba, or Greece.
What if your ATM could not only give you a hundred bucks, but sell you an adjustable-rate mortgage?
Some people take so long at the ATM I wonder WTF they are doing - international banking, hostile takeover - what, What, WHAT? Jesus! So please don't give the banks any more ideas for ATM functions.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Value-added Tax also known as Goods and Services Tax
should be levied on each organization which produces net revenue by transforming inputs into higher-value outputs in the economy.
The tax should be levied as a percentage of the revenue - input costs.
Bill Gates suggested income-taxing robots. Sounds good at first glance, but wait:
- How many people's work did one robot replace? 5? 20? 1/2?
- How many robots are there if 100,000 arms are controlled by one machine-learning computer program?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Up the cost of OT / start cutting the full time hours down. A quick start can be making full time 39-32 hours 4 day work week? but also have an OT ramp up big time say 3X - 50 X1.5 50-70 X2.0 70-80 X2.5 80+ X3. also have an salary OT system maybe with min pay level $49K OT boost at 60 hours a week bigger boost at 70+?
Down the road as more work is taken away look at full time being 20-30 hours a week say 2050?.
Needs to be an robot tax and an import tax to cover basic income.
Millions of people starved to death, society disintegrated, in the colonies. India and China which had 25% of world GDP each before 1700s never got back to that range ever. China is coming back, and slowly India is emerging. If you want to see how far well developed civilized nations would lose in standard of living, just see the decline of India and China between 1600 and 1900.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
in past schools costed a lot less and trade schools did not need years of class room.
Now days College costs a lot with loans that are very hard to get rid of and schools make more by forcing you to repeat classes and not taking transfer credits fully.
So far, however, this phenomenon hasn't produced extreme unemployment. ...
The authors obviously never read a history book
That's because automation can create jobs as well as destroy them.
That is nonsense. You fire half of your workers and produce 2 or even 10 times theroducts before. Result is, 3 more jobs for sales personnel, 5 more for people packaging sales, 1 more secretary to receive calls and do paperwork etc. p.p.
You have still fired half of your men minus the 9 new jobs you created. And those workers won't find work elsewhere. For what job should I hire a burger turner who got replaced by a machine/robot? Where should the jobs come from such unskilled workers are doing? Hu? The only way to stay afloat is education, which costs money in many parts of the world. And if you don't start with a good school education, you are probably lost anway.
Then again: taxes on robots Ha ha ha ha! How the funk should that work? A sales tax or 'operation tax' with a license like on a car? The first one will only slow down the adoption, because it makes the robot more expensive. Or a kind of 'robots income tax'? That only costs the owner a bit of his profit. As long as he makes more profit with a robot than with workers, why should he not replace workers with robots? ... just read /. the majourity is against UBI ... how retarded. ... and you propose a tax on Robots? How illusioned are you? Looking at the mess the US are in I doubt there will be any changes without a bloody revolution.
And then again what is the state going to do with that tax income? Paying it out as universal basic income? The uproar of the workers who still have a job (hint, see above: education!) is so big
In a country like the USA, where the legal system is fucked up, voting does not work, oligarchs or money aristocrates go for office, laws are determined by the rich, education is either non existant or super expensive 'the people' hate 'the state' or 'the government' and want to reduce/restrict its power
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
and when the robo mcDonald's jams up and it takes time for a tech to get on site how much is lost if they lose a full lunch rush? + any food that has to be junked as well.
Do you realize that the richest people in the world are all walking around with the same exact smart phone as many of the poorest? Talk about leveling the playing field. Who cares if someone is richer than ever but many things they can't even buy a better version of.
There will never be a scenario where the richest want to create something for so cheap that everyone can afford it, but so many people are unemployed that no one can afford it.
The cotton gin also caused massive unemployment; however everyone could then afford a shirt!
World To End Tomorrow: Women, Minorities Hardest Hit
You have to think bottom up (aka commodities) because that's the way the world works.
This might sound like a socialist statement but it's a truth of life... the poor and lower middle class are what drive economics. If they decide to abandon the "rich" for another economic model then it's not like they can say no. Really they can't. They are "rich" because we perceive what they have to be valuable the majority of which is fiat currency. The lower class really could demand that everyone go bankrupt overnight simply by moving to another currency.
What drives life is commodities and that is food and a roof over your head, working plumbing and sanitation, and cloths on your back. After that it's all luxuries which people tend to forget about. The perception of the value of the above has been lowered but it doesn't change their innate value and will always be the foundation for every economy. The only thing that will collapse is the luxury economy and the rich themselves along with a generation of bystanders composed of the old and the infirm.
Who owns the majority of the farm lands you may ask. But the truth is it doesn't matter who's name is on what paper. Ownership is an illusion. The proper questions are is it producing food and who is consuming it. If there is no one to buy the food then the property becomes next to worthless. If all the greenbacks of today became worthless and the farms were sitting fallow that land would be seized immediately. Same is true of factories and warehouses that don't produce. The "poor" are the ones that have been making those buildings since the beginning of recorded history.
We could start over tomorrow if we wanted. We could get rid of all the machines and chemicals and produce food the old fashioned way and with what we know now everyone would still be overweight but with more muscle. Food would just be more expensive; back in line with it's true value.
You can keep saying we are getting poor but the truth is we have never had a higher quality of life. The "poor" are not the enemy of the rich; they love us for the luxuries and status we provide them. The enemy of the rich is each other... their rich neighbor.
Stop worrying about the robot economy and the rich. The "rich" can bottle themselves up in a single state the size of New York along with all their robot workers. What about the rest of the livable land? The people will do what they have always done and that's get on with living...
As long as we're speculating on stuff that's going to happen in the future with no evidence...
Eventually robots are able to manufacture other robots (as well as mine/refine the raw materials used in their production), severely decreasing the cost to manufacturing them and making them affordable for most people. Only raw materials (extremely cheap because robots are mining/refining them) are required to produce anything you want or need. People with more money have access to more raw materials, but everyone has access to some. The quality of life for everyone goes way up because everyone has at least some private access to "the means of production".
this is evolution
the monkey
the man
and then the gun
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/marilynmanson/crucifictioninspace.html
Just 'get a new skill' will soon be an ineffective solution. I work in technical customer service, so I think I'll last a bit longer than some jobs, but nearly any job has the potential to be on the chopping block. By 2050 I bet an AI system will be able to take calls and assist users with every program under the sun faster and cheaper than I can, 24/7, while always being friendly and never needing a lunch break.
No job is safe.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
Automation and industrialization has been transferring wealth from the poor to the rich for centuries. Societies have been decimated, norms totally broken down, millions of people starved to death. But since most of the devastating effects happened in the colonies, it did not get the mindshare of historians and scientists. Even liberal ones do not really get the true scale and depth of the devastating effects of industrial economies dumping their products in their colonies decimating local economies. For example the Great Famine killed more people (5.5 million) in two years than the entire Irish potato famine (1 million).
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Only ½ the mental exercise was completed. Remember - the Rich” derive their profit by selling goods and services. The Great Depression following the stock market crash of 1929 happened when 25% of workers lost their jobs.
If nobody can pay rent, what good is being a landlord?
Think about this, if automation replaces say, 50% of the work force, who has money to buy the goods and services the oligarchy is selling? Nobody. No restaurants, movies, cars, auto repair shops, shoe stores – all gone because nobody can afford them, any of them.. Without taking money from the poor, the rich stop being rich . Look at Walmart – 4 of the Walton’s have more wealth than ½ of the US. Completely destitute street people don’t buy things at Walmart – they go to soup kitchens, Good Will, churches for handouts. Multiply this on a global scale – the entire system collapses. There’s no more rich. Government economies collapse due to the Oligarchy refusing to pay taxes and the poor not working while receiving benefits.
Without becoming an altruistic ‘star trek’ like economy, were people work for the purpose of self and social betterment, wide spread automating is not only impractical but economically unviable.
How about all of the money being dumped into CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, WP, and every other leftist shill outlet in the US? Those people are not pro-union and don't give a rats ass about politicians being bribed unless it's their team and they get caught (see Hillary Clinton).
The rich won the class war when they allowed the monopolization of media and Americans lost independent analysis and this thing called "facts". Now all of the agencies mentioned report cherry picked information for a narrative and spin that as a "story" (which is true, it's called fantasy).
Bill Clinton by the way, is where the media monopolization was allowed to occur. A Democrat, in case you can't figure that out. Leftist pro-socialist pro-communist, just like the majority of that party.
Forum Sitesi http://forumforumsarayi.esy.es... forumforumsarayi.esy.es
The old saying goes: Socialize the cost, privatize the profits. It's the American way to do it using any means necessary.
We'll make great pets
I knew there would be some Trump bashing here.
Let us know how much of all the money your household makes is spread out to all of your neighbors to help balance all of your incomes to be closer to each other...
socialism, and thus, the current democratic party, is a failure. funny how the democrats don't decry the rich in their own party - just conservative rich.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
There was once a visionary, all the way back in 1848, who foresaw that this day would come. He witnessed the the early attempts at farm automation and realized that machines would someday make human labor redundant, and knew that a new economic system would be required to handle it.
Unfortunately, over the following century, other people would co-opt and distort his ideals for the sake of personal gain and public suppression, giving his system an unfair and undeserved bad reputation.
His name was Karl Marx.
Being rich isn't about selling things, it's about owning them. Past a certain threshold wealth isn't about nice cars and houses. It's about power. The power to make people do what you want. Do you thick Melania married Trump for his winning personality? The rich might have fewer zeros in their bank accounts but they'll have more of what really matters: control. Control of your access to food, shelter, education and transportation. You'll do as they say or you'll starve in the streets. And if you rebel the ones that don't will gun you down with superior weapons, tactics and training. Just like how a malnourished serf couldn't stand up to a well fed Knight in armor.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Ultimately automation improves everyone's quality of life, but it does so by requiring fewer workers for the same output. The work available is higher-quality (improved quality of life), but there are fewer slots. Automation also reduces the cost of goods. Just google the relative cost (out of your salary... the percentage of your work time required to fund it) for, say, heating and lighting your home for example and compare with the cost a hundred years ago. Conditions are so much better today than, say, in the 1800's, or 1700's, or 1600's.
But there is a cost. Automation and technology also cause a major dislocation as the population must find new and different things to do than the things they did before.
Look at coal mining today. Since the 50's, output has gone from roughly 1:1 (ton:worker) to 12:1 (ton:worker). In other words, your average coal mine today has 1/12 the number of workers needed for the same output 70 years ago. The same thing is happening in ALL industries.
However, automation also creates relatively severe economic disparities between people. Investors get a larger piece of the pie, workers get a smaller piece of the pie. This is because automation improves margins (even when goods cost less) but the larger number of people trying to go after fewer job slots forces wages down. Since investors tend to be more affluent, the result is that the rich get much richer and the poor get much poorer, relatively speaking. Even including the fact that there must be people to buy the goods in order to be able to sell them, the goods do not become cheaper quickly enough to completely offset the difference in economic standing.
Most people don't understand that this is a relative equation, not an absolute equation. The quality of life for everyone can improve at the same time that the economic disparity increases. But perception is relative in nature, and today's society is not kind to people doing dumb things (credit card debt being a prime example).
A *LARGE* portion of US citizens do dumb things, not the least of which being to elect people to government by relying on promises that translate, in reality, to the exact opposite of what the person was elected to achieve. Take taxes for example. Remember that the Rich already have most of the wealth in the U.S. All current policy now points to a major reduction of taxes on the Rich. A number of states have tried to reduce taxes. That is going to make the gap even worse. Your typical tax payer on the lower-end of the economic scale might save $200 in a year. Your typical affluent 'rich' person is going to save $200,000 in a year. And more. And yet people vote for this crap because they think saving that $200 will make life better. It won't, because the whole system will then rebalance based on $200,200 which puts the people on the lower-end of the economic scale in an even worse position a few years down the line. Its like spreading a few crumbs onto the pavement while the master eats 99.9% of the pie.
-Matt
Most human beings are not assembly line drones, there are just too many things software will never do as well as humans. We really need to stop the hyperbole machine and educate people honestly and accurately about what this stuff really is. 'Real' artificial intelligence (think Data from Star Trek) doesn't exist, and likely never will. Granted, that doesn't mean greedy people won't try to exploit what is, but the hype is just hype, and experience will bear that out.
It's usually a safe bet that any change will make the rich richer, provided the change is not catastrophic.
The reason is that adapting to change, for a prudent rich person, is trivially easy. It's a matter of portfolio management; you could reduce it to an algorithm if you like. The main reasons fortunes are lost is investing for ego, rather than a high but sustainable reward/risk.
But you ought to keep an eyeball on that "not catastrophic" proviso.
Since the mid 80s in the United States the median household has seen its purchasing power increase by 14%, as opposed to 150% for the top percentile. That might not seem like a bad deal all around, but the median household's purchasing power is inflated by a drop in the price of things like consumer electronics -- basically all the stuff we buy from China. If you look at the cost of the things we buy from America, the price has gone up precipitously: child care, education, medical services, energy. Many of these things are difficult or impossible to economize on.
Consequently if you look at accumulated weath, the wealth of the median household has actually dropped 30% since 1985. The bottom quartile of households have seen their accumulated wealth drop by 80% since '84.
This has become a very close to a crisis situation -- witness the 2016 election, which was driven by feelings of economic insecurity. The widespread adoption of robotic replacements for low-skilled labor would tip the balance into catastrophe. The collapse of incomes in the bottom quartile would destabilize the country.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
We lost the battle in outsourcing manufacturing.
We lost the battle in outsourcing IT.
We lost the battle in outsourcing engineering.
We lost the battle in several foreign nations buying our elections, and that has been going on since last century.
There is no chance that we are going to win this. None. This is a lost war. It is all over with but the dying.
The only item on the menu is to decide whether we go out with our boots on our feet, or with their boots on our children's necks.
The interesting part is that China is working on being the leader here. They might decide not to kill a billion of their citizens in exchange for having robots. I don't think the US has that sort of a choice on their menu, so I'm a little glad that while China might decide to kill a billion foreigners, there is some small chance of humans living through this.
The "we can't innovate because the rich get first dibs" argument is not sailing with the public.
Wealth inequality was held as a top election issue by around 15% of voters. That means a lot of Democrats don't care.
Wealth inequality gets worse the more you start monkeying around with the market. It got worse under W, but no where near as bad as under Obama.
I'd RATHER have wealth inequality because then the people who aren't contributing anything or doing menial work of limited value (pealing potatoes) get LESS than what people are finding new ways to provide for things people are actually willing to pay for.
Robots will make you richer. Yeah, right. Make who richer? The 1% ?
Nice try, google AI, but you still fail at being a convincing human
As we get closer to automated solutions for all our problems, we're moving toward a basic income economy. The options are: invent new jobs for people to do, create busywork things for people to do, provide some income for the lowest classes (which will grow under automation), or take it by the horns and offer a basic minimal income. I suppose we could also reduce the population to the bare minimum of available jobs, but I'd rather not.
Seems to me most of the argument against this is a moral one; "I ain't paying for someone not to work!" but we all get the basic income, and if we produce, we make a lot more. I think if implemented properly, we'll advance our technology while robutts do all the menial shit.
No, they will make more jobs. Automation has consistently been creating more jobs than it has taken away. The world has more employed people (even per capita) than at any time in history. There is ZERO proof that this will change. Second, although the gap between the rich and poor may increase .. so what? The gap might increase but the poor will be richer than they have ever been. The only reason to be mad at that is out of jealousy against the rich. Why else would anyone be concerned about there being a wealth gap? How about talking about the fact that the poor too are going to be richer than they have ever been?
Sure, let the robots take over but with no human customers to buy them because they are living on the street with no money in their pockets then the level of rich is limited. I am more fascinated to see this new world. Let it happen.
...A bunch of stuff that is NO DIFFERENT. This article is horrible. It adds zero to a discussion I was sick of back when it began. Until you get a collection of economists to team up with a collection of technology-focused historians to come up with some new arguments, this remains nothing but redundant fear-mongering speculative clickbait. And btw, author, acknowledging that other articles do that within your article does not absolve you of committing that same sin. Slashdot, I don't care how many people submit an article; if it sucks, don't post it.
The unwashed masses can take it lying down or they can take it while being mowed down. The One Percenters have ALL the superior firepower on their side. They actually can't wait for the plebes to become violent so they can completely eradicate them. Revolt, do it now. I dare you. I double-dare you. Come on, we're right here. Can you see us laughing at you? Come on, what are you waiting for? Oh, nervous because of the helicopters hovering above you? Can you see the gun barrels? Bet you haven't seen the drones. Come on, revolt, fight. We're right here. (Crickets).
Money is a proxy for work, where work is low-entropy flows of energy.
Note that work can be done by machines, and these days, by largely unsupervised machines.
So the question becomes: How do we get the money generated by machine-work back into the hands of people in a non winner/owner/designer takes all manner, so that the other people don't die/loot/revolt?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
You won't be able to get anything out of anyone else
Millennials are already unable to purchase houses, and they are eschewing things like cars. Imagine if the value of the real estate market gets cut by 60% and 50% of the homeowners default on their loans, and 50% of credit card debt is defaulted, and 70% of student loans is defaulted? The banks can't sustain the level of amount of defaults, what do you think will happen to automobile production, what about new home construction? What do you thinks happens to the stock market? The last time we had mass unemployment, (1929) everyone went broke, including the rich.
When the U.S. catches cold the rest of the world getd pneoumonia, if the U.S. gets pneoumonia the rest of the world dies.
I can name a few replacement careers:
Market Research Data Miner
Previously we did not have enough tools to have the data to mine. Now that many tools collect this data automatically...
Millennial Expert
People who help companies understand the differences in age-based cultural norms. It turns out that a modern, new worker expects more from the company in many ways than the previous generations...
Social Media Manager
It turns out that companies need to pay attention to their image on social media now...
Cloud Computing
It turns out one of the things powering automation is the availability of the cloud with its ability to perform massive calculations on massive data sets. Of course, keeping all of that running is non-trivial and not automated...
Sustainability Expert
It turns out that people tend to dislike companies that gratuitously poison the planet. At small scales, this is trivial. As automation kicks in, this becomes increasingly difficult. So companies look for ways to make themselves lest toxic as a means of fending off potential regulation and maintain their public image (and sometimes they even save some money)...
Let me see these hoardes of wealth ... oh wait, you fucking idiot, these hoardes are things like real estate and companies that employ people. These evil fucking rich people hoarding all the jobs and places to live.
You have fallen, very stupidly, for the greed-based progressive propaganda. Your life is so much better than the middle class a generation ago, that the only thing you have left to be enraged about is that someone who worked smarter than you has more.
Do you think tax revenue will increase if we increase the corporate tax rate? American corporations are already been conducting more and more business overseas and hiding profits in tax havens, what makes you think they won't simply double-down on that strategy?
...disposable tissues, how long do you really think it'll be before they get together to discuss a solution to the over-population problem?
A.I. and machine takeover of jobs actually eats its own seed corn. In the end it collapses.
E Proelio Veritas.
Idea:
One, you all get a say in who the dictator is.
Two, he's only a temporary dictator.
Three, you don't let him do whatever he wants. You have limitations, decided in advance and very hard to change, on his powers.
Four, you also choose - ideally by a different method, or at different times - a sort of committee thingamabob that can say "hey - stop that".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
it's all in the Subject line...
That ends up hurting the "middle class" (those who are already employed full time) and does nothing to the upper classes who are the ones who really need to shoulder the burden.
It's already hard enough crossing the threshold from lower-class to actually-middle-class (getting to the point where you only pay for what you consume and not just to service interest and rent). Reducing full time will make that even harder for those who already stand some shot of doing so by working themselves to death, and yes it will help out those who don't even have such a shot a bit, but all of them will then be equally stuck on the wrong side of the curve and none of them will be able to get over.
A solution needs to take money from those at the top to help those at the bottom. Taking from those in the middle just further separates the gap between top and bottom.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Getting rid of the second amendment is a much needed step so we can take their guns away.
Burroughs Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline), who sell Buproprion, nailed this one in 1969, and finally managed to bring it to market in 1989.
Pretty sure robots can (may already) make it, too.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
or...
If machine adaptation speed exceeds humans, we're going to finally be freed from the drudgery of having to labor just to survive.
The way I see it, it depends entirely on what we (or the machines) let the 1%-ers get away with.
I hope I live to see what happens (getting up in years now... so perhaps not.)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggars_in_Spain
No problem. The rich will simply have the robots reprogrammed to kill the rest of us.
The solution to this is laughably simple. IF (and thats a big if) society develops a glut of workers, you reduce the hours in the full time work week to compensate for the reduced demand on labor. The robots still need maintenance and a human interface at some level, and those people will make more than the minimum wage earners they are replacing.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Until they'll find out they will be replaced by robots too and no one will need to vote for them in hope of redistributive politics.
Although we will have to use a huge, heavy hammer to get people to confront the issue as they are in total denial now, it remains easy to solve. Frankly socialism is the only form of government that can adapt to advanced technology. Combine socialism with a good, minimum income for all people and the problem is solved. Businesses will be taxed to support the public and not just the government. The people can only buy product if they have money. The people vote for the survival of businesses by where they choose to spend their money. And the pay out system can carry both rewards and penalties. For example you keep a very low electricity demand every month so the government increases your weekly check. If you have a high electric bill your pay goes down. The same for use of gasoline or diesel fuel. Commit some sort of violation and your pay will go down for a set period. do something good for the community and your pay increases. The rich will resist this at first but they will get on board when they confront the fact that there is no other option. We could even diminish income according to wealth accumulation. The values, morals and basic beliefs of the masses are about to be changed.
it was bullshit then, it's bullshit now. It's not hard to close the loop holes. We know how. We did it in the 50s and it was a hell of a lot easier to hide money then. We also had a 90% tax bracket and the highest growth in history. Plus there's a limit to what you can raise prices to before people stop buying. Even for food/shelter. And (if you're not afraid of the big bogie man that is Socialism) there's plenty to gov't can do to control prices and encourage positive behavior.
Your source is full of it. It's just more self serving garbage. The CBO is far from untouchable and they've been staffed full of Goldmen Sachs people since the 90s (thanks Clinton).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
but there's billionaires out there that are looking forward to that dystopia because they'll be on top. They're powerful. Real powerful. I'm not sure how much we can do against them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
not one that matters anyway. People can't stand up to a modern military. No matter how many AR-15s they have. They don't have the supply lines or the tactics and training. And every single time the military jumps in it just turns into a junta. You're just changing whose boot's in your neck.
/. joke. I have thousands of years of human misery to back me up, what about you?
What evidence do you have for these pro-human corporations? Even google's been caught being evil. Hell, it's a
What am I betting on? Not much. If religion dies off that'll help. It's too easy to divide folks along those lines. Plus we need to get people breeding less. It's not that we can't feed them, it's that we won't. Maybe if the boffins ever work out cheap, reliable male birth control and we can keep Pat Robinson & the Pope from banning it... I don't know.
What I do know is this: people have been awful for thousands of years. When they're poor they're awful and when they're rich they're awful. There's a very narrow band where folks are (kind sorta) not awful. But those folks are too busy living to do much.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
there was decades of poverty and unemployment following the industrial revolution. We're not just extrapolating. We have hard science to back it up if you care to look.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why on earth do you assume that the technician won't be a machine? Narrow thinking, perhaps?
I'll believe in total doom and gloom when welding disappears as a profession in which one can make 80+k/yr with 5+ yrs of experience.
First the futurist line was "robots will replace manufacturing, industrial, and construction workers completely" and instead you just see a progression of outsourced cheap unskilled labor PLUS a industry wide shortage in skilled labor in trades.
Now the futurist line is "just kidding, it's the white collar jobs the robots are after!" while the salary and demand for skilled trade labor just goes up and up....
Thank you Solandri for being one of the few voices of reason around here. There is just one thing to add.
That the rich have gotten richer [faster] than the poor have gotten richer is certainly a valid complaint.
Actually, it's not. "Income inequality" is not the problem; poverty is the problem. Read on for the proof.
Suppose there was a magic switch that would increase every individual's annual income by this formula: new_income = 3 * old_income + $60,000
In other words, toggling that switch would eliminate poverty because everyone would have an income of at least $60,000. At the same time, it would greatly increase "income inequality," because if your old income was $1 million, your new income would be $3,060,000.
Would you throw that switch, and forever eliminate poverty from our world?
Or, have you been so brainwashed by those mindlessly railing against "income inequality" -- in other words, is your spite for the rich so great -- that you would refrain from throwing that switch, thereby keeping billions of people in grinding poverty?
I'm pretty sure Solandri would throw the switch. But sadly, there are many Slashdotters who wouldn't.
(By the way, such a switch does exist, although the results can't be obtained instantaneously. It's called pursuing pro-growth economic policies for a few more decades. See this post for a discussion of what would happen if there was so much economic growth, that a robust social safety net could be funded entirely by voluntary contributions.)
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Maybe this will mean we'll finally get the 10 work week, instead of 50+ hours. Lol
Just nationalize everything. Done.
nobody can identify the new fields that are replacing the old ones, unlike the past
Nobody can identify the new fields, which is exactly like the past.
In 1940, nobody predicted that millions would someday be employed in the IT industry.
In 1890, nobody predicted that millions would someday be employed in the automotive industry (and supporting industries, like road construction).
In 1840, nobody predicted that billions would someday be employed in fields that depend on electric power.
Every new technology has created more jobs than it has destroyed. Moderately disruptive technologies cause a moderate amount of net job creation. Massively disruptive technologies cause a massive amount of net job creation.
The pessimists look at only the negative effects of an innovation. You have to look at both sides of the ledger to get the full picture; the net effect.
For every newspaper worker displaced by Craigslist, there are multiple workers who gained jobs, because people who use Craigslist to conveniently buy and sell used goods (which otherwise would have ended up in a landfill) now have more disposable income with which they can stimulate the general economy.
If you believe the opposite is true, then why stop at shutting down Craigslist? You should also ban all printing presses. Paying people to make hand-written signs that advertise your wares would employ more people than taking out an ad in a newspaper. (And for God's sake, don't communicate with those signmakers by telephone. Paying couriers to hand-carry your messages would employ more people.)
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere
And that is why "stimulus" plans don't stimulate.
Investors naturally seek out enterprises that will provide high return-on-investment (ROI). And an enterprise that provides high ROI will, by definition, create more jobs than an enterprise that provides low ROI.
When government taxes money away from investors, and spends it on a "stimulus" project instead, it is transferring capital into lower-ROI enterprises at the expense of high-ROI enterprises. (A handful of bureaucrats cannot pick winners better than the crowdsourced wisdom of millions of investors participating in free financial markets.)
To the extent that the "stimulus" money is borrowed, the expansion of lower-ROI enterprises comes at the expense of future job creation, as future taxpayers are forced to service the debt instead of investing their money in high-ROI enterprises.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
in this scenario you are the ox
Humans have always been the wielder or controller of the tools. Qualitatively that has never changed, even as the tools grew orders of magnitude more powerful. (Grain used to be harvested by a scythe with a bronze blade; now it's harvested with one of these.)
So no, you and I are not a tool (the ox).
The humans who direct the actions of robots are simply the next step in the pattern that has existed for hundreds of years now: each generation wields more powerful tools than the previous generation.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I posit we have become increasingly pathological as a species.
Due to evolutionary lag our brains haven't evolved to process the kinds of threats posed to us by pollution, carbon, nuclear and externalities from business and industry, we are 50,000 years behind the society we have created. We can't even agree enough to change the fundamental laws driving all the corruption that creates this toxic mess, the day to day business of corporations legally obliged to deliver profits to shareholders whilst funding politicians and lawmakers playing an arcane obsolete game of left and right politics.
So how can we expect to create an AI that isn't pathological, whilst at the same time needing AI to overcome our own inadequacies?
If you take a sincere look around you will see our whole planet is on life support, which translates to our entire species is on life support, because there is seven billion of us using resources. This is the paradox of our survival, what constitutes 'fit' in a Darwinian sense if we destroy the very biosphere that sustains us while building machines with dominion over us?
Humanity is worthy to survive however we are destructive enough to know we will build an AI for war that opens the door to our own doom. We know because curiosity is in our nature and we have done it so many times before as we seek immortality and dominance. We cannot even admit to our own flaws, of which I am the worst offender. I am a selfish proud vain creature that knows any melding of myself with the machine will magnify my flaws a thousand times.
So knowing myself, I know that our species will have its flaws supremely magnified by any Generalized AI that evolves out of the specific AIs we create. A generalized AI that can write its own goals and form a narrative about 'itself' in the same way we all do must therefore be subject to corruption of its goals that manifest in us as pathological. Thought is the only thing that abstracts consciousness away from the body and the product of pathological thinking cannot be sane. Even if we knew what consciousness and sanity was, would a GAI develop an ego, unbounded from time? How do we even conceptualize that?
Nature show us dominance hierarchies are inevitable in complex systems so much so that even chimps wage war. If I had power over you, I would use it, the same way you would use it over me, that's how power works. Can we expect something that exceeds us in cognitive capabilities and the ability to manipulate the environment to not to dominate us well before it starts to manifest its own, unimaginably complex, pathological behaviors?
This is, in essence, what AI shows us. That we don't know what AI is because we don't know what we are. That we are not going to the stars without a GAI and we may not even survive ourselves *without* a GAI because, by far, *we* are the biggest threats to our survival. Unless we ourselves evolve beyond our own pathological behaviors there may be nothing left of us *other* than a GAI.
That is the paradox of humanities evolution.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
i see about 1 million family states, each with a static population, nearly immortal, with new members added through genetic engineering, when one does die. each controls some square miles of land, which is worked by robot farmers and manned by robots in factories, making goods. each family/tribe trades with other groups for the items they dont make, that other states make better, due to some specialization. mostly, though, each is entirely self sufficient. no pollution, no resource depletion, each person living like royalty. maybe 500 million people, maybe only 100 million (smaller states). to get there, first let lots of old people die off peacefully. no need for war, as all your possible wishes are taken care of, except for extravagant resource use. the only problem will be deciding which bloodlines survive, and which do not. so some genocide. oh well. and women will have to be genetically engineered to not want children. maybe make them animals.
"life will become, quite literally, unlivable for the vast majority"
So, who will buy the products made by robots?
The rich themselves?
Their robots eliminate their dependency on the masses. They don't need hordes of people buying their stuff in order to be "rich." They just need a claim on property and a military/police force that will enforce that claim.
Your mind is still stuck in the very economic structure that labor automation will eliminate.
Could just admit that raising the minimum wage has only hurt teenagers and minorities. Just check out the numbers. Higher it goes, the less are employed, the more get into trouble because they have no money, all the time in the world and don't care.
Not hard people.
Fellow Vile Minion, your rhetoric is on point, and for that I salute you! ... doesn't hurt that it's all true, either, but the leftist mind is incapable of CRIMETHINK.
Absolutely agreed. There will be plenty of new open positions for jobs like "grass growing watcher", "paint drying monitor", "air wasting expert", "fart collector" and similar.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
"I feel therefore I am": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Damasio presents the "somatic marker hypothesis", a proposed mechanism by which emotions guide (or bias) behavior and decision-making, and positing that rationality requires emotional input. He argues that Rene Descartes' "error" was the dualist separation of mind and body, rationality and emotion."
Also from Albert Einstein: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ao...
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly."
Stuff I wrote years ago on putting humane values back into economics given post-scarcity trends:
"Beyond a Jobless Recovery: A heterodox perspective on 21st century economics"
http://pdfernhout.net/beyond-a...
"The Richest Man in the World: A parable on structural unemployment and a
basic income"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Post-Scarcity Princeton, or, Reading between the lines of PAW for prospective Princeton students, or, the Health Risks of Heart Disease"
http://www.pdfernhout.net/read...
"The PU economics department, of course, should be abolished as part of this transition
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
1. Keep poor humans around for Organ spare parts.
2. Going 100% Mecha.