Congratulations! You win the award for most incorrect obnoxious pedantry of the day.
I won't enter the debate, but I must say that I find it extremely distressing to see how lightly you treat the topic.
There are people who spend long hours and enormous efforts to achieve that award. I demand a fair and accountable judging panel to take the decision in such matters.
I wanted to use the LHC to open a wormhole through which unlimited amounts of antimatter would be extracted. The electricity cost of that one use would be recovered.
I think you're excessively optimist in what regards the limits to humanity's demand. There is very little limit to what we can grow accustomed to consume.
The current needs of a single human being in the civilized world would require the services of an astonishingly large number of workers who produced at a middle ages rhythm. And yet I don't think there are many human being who can't think of any unfulfilled needs..
Antimatter engines are no energy source because there is no antimatter to be mined
...That we know of.
For all we know, the LHC could create micro worm holes to a different place in the universe; too small to use for any kind of transport but just large enough to bring antimatter through them.
For example.
Re:Isn't this the ultimate goal?
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
And you think it would be a huge problem for society if half the population didn't work, taking into account that maintaining them would be essentially free? (as no salaries have to be paid to produce food, shelter, etc...
The arguments are similar to saying that the modern world is impossible because the feudal lords wouldn't allow it to exist and the farmer populace wouldn't know how to do anything other than farming.
Sky scrapers are impossible because they wouldn't fit in the cave.
Re:Isn't this the ultimate goal?
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
True, but as AI gets better and better, it is a possibility that machines will be able to do nearly everything, and there just won't be enough jobs. Not everyone can be artists, actors, or musicians.
As another example, how is it not demanded by society that any paralyzed person has one person close by, ready to do any task?
I don't see anything wrong with the job of simply spending four hours a day watching movies chatting online and playing videogames while staying with a paralyzed person and doing for that person anything they need.
There would have to be almost zero need for productivity in the world for such a job to exist, but it's clearly the current needs that stop all kinds of such "jobs" to exist, not the unwillingness to do them or the belief that they are not valuable jobs for society.
Robots will remove those needs. Maybe they'll then replace also those other new jobs, but I don't see any reason to believe in that "job limit".
Coal also wasn't forever, not wood cut from the outskirts of the village, nor the fire that had started with a lightning and had to be cared for through the night.
And when fossil fuels die we'll have fusion, or antimatter engines, or whatever else.
Re:Isn't this the ultimate goal?
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
They already do 90% of the jobs that were done by humans 150 years ago.
There is no limit on the work that could be done. Even if machines did 100% of the work done by humans 150 years ago, we'd still have plenty to do.
Why don't we have 95% of the population exploring one branch of science or another? Why can't more books be written? More movies be done? More people help those who need help?
Would it be so bad to live in a world where there is 0% NEED to work and everyone just decides whether they want to be a medic, or an astrophysicist, or a script writer, or...
Only amazingly lazy people believe everyone would stop "working" if it was voluntary. Even if the only payment was respect by the society, joy, or simply to fight boredom, most people would do something.
Some people need to dedicate a second to imagine a world where one person's work can support a hundred thousand. Centuries ago, the end of the era where 90% of the population had to work in the fields to feed everyone didn't create 80% of unemployment.
There is no limit to the total amount of possible "work" to be done. Just as we went from production to services, we'll go maybe to science, or to entertainment, or to space exploration. Most of the proletariat will also probably reduce their daily working hours, increasing the demand for entertainment and other services.
France had been around long enough for a couple thousands years one form or the other. Controlling revolts was something they had dealt with before.
And yet the king's head rolled.
Even to the eyes of the most cynical, society evolves in one sense only. Maybe with ups and downs, but at the end, no form of government has achieved total control with optimal advance. Once China reaches the still more powerful countries, sooner or later, it will have to deal with the same problems they live with nowadays.
There will never again be an emperor, nor a feudal king, and dictators are already sad figures condemned to disappear in a big lack of interest.
Not in my personal experience, while I admit never having asked others.
When I was a kid I couldn't read in a car. After some decades I learned how to avoid the sickness (for me, it has to do with keeping a fraction of my focus on the movement of the car).
I effectively learned how to... "focus only 80% on the text", to be able to read in a car.
Maintaining control while having a relaxed attitude towards human rights and no social equality isn't trivial. If it was easy, every other country would be doing that.
Or you believe that power abides by human rights (more or less, and only when it's not convenient to forget them) because of the goodness of its heart.
Eventually, China will have to deal with revolting masses just like everyone else; and it will probably use a mix of some tiny rights, lies, misdirection and propaganda, just like everyone else. Because, after all, all countries are forced to use human beings as their main work force.
Fortunately for them, Capitalism doesn't care. If it can be sold, it doesn't matter where it was created, how poorly made it is or how much was the idea stolen.
What does it matter how it is called? Morals have no impact in the confrontation between nations. It's not the rightest country that wins wars, it's the one with the mightiest military.
If China can reach the technology level of competing countries by stealing it, that's how it will happen. Once the play field is level, other strategies will have to be applied.
So, essentially, Dr. Haider Javed Warraichis is suggesting patients to lie, because doctors are more prone to misdiagnose if they have more information?
Slashdot Mirror
I almost modded that as Troll, but maybe it's insightful if decoded with a different key.
In Russia, birds fly in a Tse formation. Because they don't have 'V's.
Congratulations! You win the award for most incorrect obnoxious pedantry of the day.
I won't enter the debate, but I must say that I find it extremely distressing to see how lightly you treat the topic.
There are people who spend long hours and enormous efforts to achieve that award. I demand a fair and accountable judging panel to take the decision in such matters.
I wanted to use the LHC to open a wormhole through which unlimited amounts of antimatter would be extracted. The electricity cost of that one use would be recovered.
Even if that pipedream of yours would be true, it would be far cheaper to make the anti matter yourself.
So you can know that making anti matter is far cheaper than extracting it by a method that I just invented?
That's a pretty interesting superpower. I'd rather be able to fly, or have super strength, but I guess any superpower is better than none.
What can humans do that robots can't?
What's the difference between a robot who can do everything a human can and a human?
Either humans can still do something robots can't or we're just creating more humans.
And I don't think that the ability to create a new human will be revolutionary. We already had that technology before the wheel and fire.
I think you're excessively optimist in what regards the limits to humanity's demand. There is very little limit to what we can grow accustomed to consume.
The current needs of a single human being in the civilized world would require the services of an astonishingly large number of workers who produced at a middle ages rhythm. And yet I don't think there are many human being who can't think of any unfulfilled needs..
Antimatter engines are no energy source because there is no antimatter to be mined
...That we know of.
For all we know, the LHC could create micro worm holes to a different place in the universe; too small to use for any kind of transport but just large enough to bring antimatter through them.
For example.
And you think it would be a huge problem for society if half the population didn't work, taking into account that maintaining them would be essentially free? (as no salaries have to be paid to produce food, shelter, etc...
The arguments are similar to saying that the modern world is impossible because the feudal lords wouldn't allow it to exist and the farmer populace wouldn't know how to do anything other than farming.
Sky scrapers are impossible because they wouldn't fit in the cave.
True, but as AI gets better and better, it is a possibility that machines will be able to do nearly everything, and there just won't be enough jobs. Not everyone can be artists, actors, or musicians.
Artists, actors, musicians, psychologists, physicists, biologists, writers, ...
Not only art gives unlimited jobs, also science, management, services (there will still be cooks, stylists, hairdressers, ...).
As another example, how is it not demanded by society that any paralyzed person has one person close by, ready to do any task?
I don't see anything wrong with the job of simply spending four hours a day watching movies chatting online and playing videogames while staying with a paralyzed person and doing for that person anything they need.
There would have to be almost zero need for productivity in the world for such a job to exist, but it's clearly the current needs that stop all kinds of such "jobs" to exist, not the unwillingness to do them or the belief that they are not valuable jobs for society.
Robots will remove those needs. Maybe they'll then replace also those other new jobs, but I don't see any reason to believe in that "job limit".
Coal also wasn't forever, not wood cut from the outskirts of the village, nor the fire that had started with a lightning and had to be cared for through the night.
And when fossil fuels die we'll have fusion, or antimatter engines, or whatever else.
They already do 90% of the jobs that were done by humans 150 years ago.
There is no limit on the work that could be done. Even if machines did 100% of the work done by humans 150 years ago, we'd still have plenty to do.
Why don't we have 95% of the population exploring one branch of science or another? Why can't more books be written? More movies be done? More people help those who need help?
Would it be so bad to live in a world where there is 0% NEED to work and everyone just decides whether they want to be a medic, or an astrophysicist, or a script writer, or...
Only amazingly lazy people believe everyone would stop "working" if it was voluntary. Even if the only payment was respect by the society, joy, or simply to fight boredom, most people would do something.
Sometimes it's not bad to be considered a fucking tool.
Some people need to dedicate a second to imagine a world where one person's work can support a hundred thousand. Centuries ago, the end of the era where 90% of the population had to work in the fields to feed everyone didn't create 80% of unemployment.
There is no limit to the total amount of possible "work" to be done. Just as we went from production to services, we'll go maybe to science, or to entertainment, or to space exploration. Most of the proletariat will also probably reduce their daily working hours, increasing the demand for entertainment and other services.
I don't think your message will be endorsed by the ASEV (American Society for Enology and Viticulture).
In journalism, as in Jazz, it's the words you don't say that matter.
"Spoiler: It's gray." - Dr. C.Nohues, President of the National Colorblindness Association.
France had been around long enough for a couple thousands years one form or the other. Controlling revolts was something they had dealt with before.
And yet the king's head rolled.
Even to the eyes of the most cynical, society evolves in one sense only. Maybe with ups and downs, but at the end, no form of government has achieved total control with optimal advance. Once China reaches the still more powerful countries, sooner or later, it will have to deal with the same problems they live with nowadays.
There will never again be an emperor, nor a feudal king, and dictators are already sad figures condemned to disappear in a big lack of interest.
Not in my personal experience, while I admit never having asked others.
When I was a kid I couldn't read in a car. After some decades I learned how to avoid the sickness (for me, it has to do with keeping a fraction of my focus on the movement of the car).
I effectively learned how to... "focus only 80% on the text", to be able to read in a car.
So it is hard.
Maintaining control while having a relaxed attitude towards human rights and no social equality isn't trivial. If it was easy, every other country would be doing that.
Or you believe that power abides by human rights (more or less, and only when it's not convenient to forget them) because of the goodness of its heart.
Eventually, China will have to deal with revolting masses just like everyone else; and it will probably use a mix of some tiny rights, lies, misdirection and propaganda, just like everyone else. Because, after all, all countries are forced to use human beings as their main work force.
Fortunately for them, Capitalism doesn't care. If it can be sold, it doesn't matter where it was created, how poorly made it is or how much was the idea stolen.
What does it matter how it is called? Morals have no impact in the confrontation between nations. It's not the rightest country that wins wars, it's the one with the mightiest military.
If China can reach the technology level of competing countries by stealing it, that's how it will happen. Once the play field is level, other strategies will have to be applied.
So, essentially, Dr. Haider Javed Warraichis is suggesting patients to lie, because doctors are more prone to misdiagnose if they have more information?
Michel! ffs man! I've been trying to contact you since your accident!
Your password is "LargeAndInCharge69". I hope you recover all your data.