There's a moral difference between CAUSING an abortion and ALLOWING one to happen naturally in the eyes of the religious.
To me, the line is more blurry. Is someone who could prevent something but allows it *completely* innocent, really? I mean, we as a society try to prevent deaths by cancer, why not deaths by natural abortion?
Also, some of the religious may argue that to cause an abortion that wouldn't have happened is to thwart God's Plan, but how do these yahoos know that the abortion wasn't God's plan?
And let's go back to the cancer deaths again. Are we not thwarting God's Plan by saving someone with cancer?
In the end, I think there is a fundamental point, the religious pick an arbitrary line between what they like and what they don't, and it doesn't always make rational sense.
I think the rational argument is that no one should be forced to risk their lives to provide life support to another person. My kidneys are MINE thank you very much, don't hook me up to another person as a dialysis machine against my will, even if it saves that person's life. It puts ME at risk and is a great imposition on me. And even if I agree to it at some point, I can change my mind about continuing to risk my life by providing dialysis.
If you're smart, it's mostly because you're lucky. You got the good genes. Then, you probably had a good upbringing and environment. Neither of which is anything else than luck.
Sure, to maximize your smarts, you have to work. But lots of people work hard.
So what makes high IQ people special, really? Luck.
What kind of asshole gets all hoity-toity because he was, mostly, lucky?
Taking money for blood might have the opposite effect on the supply. In the book from the title, Swiss were asked if their community would be willing to host a nuclear waste storage facility for the good of the country. Many Swiss were on board with it--for the good of their country. A subset of Swiss from the same community were asked if they'd store the waste for $. Those Swiss said NO WAY. The good of their country was far more motivating for the Swiss than $.
And take me for example. $5 is in no way compensation for the enduring the needle stick and the time involved. I doubt $20 would motivate me. Maybe not even $100. However, I've donated 2 gallons or more. I do it because of this thought: one small needle stick for me, and a bit of time, and maybe someone gets to live.
And I'm the least-risk group of donors, selected partly by my lack of $ motivation. I don't need money for drugs because I don't take them. D'you really want to give drug addicts motive to donate blood to get money? Sometimes there isn't time for blood to be exhaustively screened before use.
Also, recent experience shows that the most powerful motivator for blood donation is solidarity. Blood donation went through the roof after 9/11 and other disasters. They literally couldn't stick people with needles and drain 'em fast enough.
I really think that if we want more blood supply, we need to beat the solidarity drum, and make it really convenient for people to donate.
This reminds me of isostasy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy/ --as mountains erode, they rise again due to the buoyancy of the rock underneath them floating upon the magma below.
Pull out the mass of the water, and up go the mountains.
Unfortunately, slave labor and pirates aren't really rare. Everyone in North Korea except the ruling class is pretty much a slave.
How free are the poor worldwide? I mean really, how free are they? In how many regimes worldwide do people have a really good shot at changing who their masters are?
What chains are YOU wearing that you're not even aware of?
Humans might be stuck, but our intelligent solid state mechanized descendants might find it less inconvenient to travel between stars. Just go slow, go into energy saving mode, except for continuous self-repair operations required to maintain functionality during the trip.
I don't think these hypothesized descendants would have much requirement for planets, though. Asteroids would be far better habitats, much more available energy and no big inconvenient gravity well.
On the contrary, if we flatline our population at a low enough level, we can maintain a high tech society indefinitely on this planet. The only materials we are truly consuming are uranium and other materials that we transmute to other elements. With enough energy input, we can recycle *everything* else. We can even take CO2 out of the air and turn it back into coal if we want.
It's simply a question of managing our resources for the long term.
And humans can do this, there was an isolated island in the pacific which maintained a good standard of living for hundreds of years via limiting population and managing resources until they were interfered with by outsiders. Their means of population control wasn't pretty--infanticide. However, we have better ways now to control population and in principle we could do the same planetwide.
Another example, the Japanese have re-forested their island, another example where humans can maintain and improve their environment, perhaps indefinitely. There's no need for the "herd" to move on if the "herd" maintains a good environment.
Just because humans presently are mostly NOT doing this does not mean we cannot.
Though I would prefer that humans self-modify so that they are more suitable for space habitats and move off the planet. The planet is only sustainable so long as there's no really big cataclysm of whatever sort.
So I agree with your point about colonization, however, I do NOT agree that 'using up the local resources' is the driving reason for diversifying habitat.
Let me play Devil's Advocate on grade inflation at Harvard and other Ivy Leagues. Harvard is so selective that only the best of the best have a hope of getting in. So why would you handicap the best of the best with respect to community colleges and give them bad GPAs? They are *all* A-class students, right? So why not give them all A's?
Second: what's so inherently wrong with the idea of learning without pressure? Who might be more qualified than the best of the best to do that? I.e., those who can get into the Ivies? This also reduces the incentive to cheat, and might create a collaborative environment rather than a cut throat one.
Were I a Harvard professor, I might do this: everyone gets A's and B's at worst, but rank people within the class and never share that internal ranking out of the class. That way, students get REAL feedback, know where they stand relative to each other, and have some incentive, but if they screw up relatively to the other awesome people in there, they don't get branded with a B or a C (or worse). I'd also focus in delivering frank and very critical assessments to these students to help the best become better. But the externally seen grades? Yeah, I'd inflate 'em.
As to "lack of quality", when you have such a grade of material incoming, I doubt that most anyone else will notice a 'lack of quality' in the product. Being lucky enough to be born smart is just such an advantage it's really hard to screw that up.
What if the Billionaire WANTS a certain answer and lets the scientist know it, so that the "data" can be published for a huge return on investment for the billionaire? Tobacco industry did this.
Or maybe billionaire just has an answer he emotionally wants to hear and funds science to get that instead of sensible science? If Jenny McCarthy had billions what sort of research d'you think she might fund?
Or what if billionaire wants research on life extending treatments for him and him alone and screw publishing?
I don't see any compelling reason billionare science would be any better than publicly funded science. I'd rather everyone own the results, too, than a billionaire.
I mean, one thing a billionare is VERY good at is hoarding good things (money) for themselves AREN'T THEY.
Vaccines offer ~90% protection. So even if you're vaccinated, there's a ~10% chance you'll GET THE DISEASE if you're exposed.
When the vast majority of people are vaccinated, diseases don't spread, and the 10% of people who are vaccinated but for which the vaccine didn't work don't end up being exposed.
Vaccinated or not, someone unvaccinated is a personal threat to you and your children!
I get it that you can't ostracize your wife, but don't bring HER or YOUR KIDS anywhere near me or mine!
Yes, some people cannot get shots. My co-worker's child died of whooping cough. (Yes, in the US, the third world of the first world!) She was too young to get shots, not yet 3 months.
Reforms are being put in place, though are being partially ignored.
For example, in our Gov't organization, we are on a 'contribution based' system. In theory, low performers get pay decreases and if not remedied, get fired. In theory, high performers get raises.
In practice, it seems that high performers get raises and the only pay decreases handed out are due to inflation: (I know of only one outright pay cut) outright cuts rarely happen and no one is ever fired. This is argueably a misadminstration of how our system is supposed to work. But at least underperformers don't get automatic raises.
As to how money is managed, in our organization you (yearly) estimate how much money you need, and you either get it or part of it and adjust your schedule/goals accordingly. If you end up with extra money, or aren't using the money you have, you give it back and management finds another use for it. Management doesn't seem to keep a FIRM memory of what happened before: if you under-spent last year you can STILL get your FULL budget request if you argue for it effectively and your objective aligns with organizational goals. No one gets budget automatically.
Budgeting's actually pretty enlightened, not the automatic stupidity you describe.
Just curious, if you improved the insulation on your house, how much would that save you, potentially? Did you try that and how well did it work?
I think I invested a couple thousand on insulation for my roof and it cut my winter heating and summer cooling by 30% and the whole house just *feels* more comfortable. I think I made the investment back in two years--heating done with natural gas, cooling done with electricity.
I can't see this working out well. Probably only a small number of individuals could be resurrected, simply because of lack of good DNA samples, and I bet a lot of errors would be introduced in de-extinction given current tech.
Genetic diversity, therefore, in the de-extinct species would be incredibly poor and any second generation would likely be rather sickly and not resistant to diseases. Either that or a continuous and very difficult (impossible?) genetic engineering effort would have to be involved in restoring genetic diversity to the species.
Second, all of a species isn't exactly captured in just the DNA. DNA only gets expressed properly in the right cellular environment, it's a 'chicken and egg' problem. If you don't have a chicken egg, how do you raise a chicken with just the DNA and some other egg? Your other egg may not provide the right environment for correct genetic expression and you may end up with some sort of chimera of dubious viability and authenticity. Incompatible mitochondria are an obvious issue.
Third, given the first two, your de-extinct species is likely to simply go extinct again unless you correct the environmental issues that led to the first extinction. And given the rate at which we're screwing up the planet, is that really realistic?
I think it'd actually be better to devote resources to discovering and preserving as much as possible of DNA and related structures for future de-extinction attempts when technology is better and we've learned better planetary management.
Bacteria filtration is awesome for the wood filters. Also, one has to be very careful not to let the wood dry out, because drying out damages the ability of the wood to pull water through, and if dried wood DOES let water through, it isn't filtered.
The problem with smoking is it doesn't just shorten your life, it can make your life miserable.
Imagine how horrific it is to be SICK all the time, gasping for breath, always wondering if tomorrow will be your last and almost hoping so because living with a with pain, sickness and a struggle for breath is just so awful.
Smoking not only causes you to die, it causes you to die horribly in a lot of cases.
At least any I've come across. Yes, the Gov't has to pay for work already performed, but it's a recognized fact that one Congress can't bind future ones to financial deals, and money to finish a particular contract may never arrive.
So by and large, as someone else pointed out, the Government has a clause in contracts allowing it to terminate the contract for convenience.
--PM
How come you're not being paid 2x as much?
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Dear PhD AI worker,
How come you're not being paid 2x what you are now? Yes, 2x. Productivity of the worker has gone up 2x in real terms since 1973. Yet your pay is less than that, even YOURS, Dr. AI worker.
Suppose most jobs are automated, and the few remaining jobs have many highly qualified people who need that job. What happens to the price of labor? Market forces push wages down--people underbid you just to work. THAT is why your pay doesn't match your productivity. And the trend is accentuating.
Those high paid high level creative jobs you like to imagine? They ONLY exist if there is market for them, i.e., if the 1% (or whoever controls the resources) decides to allocate resources for them.
And they're not, hence the depressed wages ACROSS THE BOARD. I've got a PhD too, doing creative non-automatable work, and I SURE WOULD like to be getting paid 2x as much. But I'm not, and it's flatly because the rest of the labor market is depressed.
I'd sure love to keep doing creative non-automatable work, but I can only do that if it pays, which in turn depends on how many creative non-automatable jobs the 1% wants to devote resources for. And guess what: the 1% is apparently deciding that research and technology investment needs to drop because it is a "cost". Government investment is declining too. So capital (the 1%) thrives on productivity increases and everyone who must labor, is, frankly, slowly starving to death.
At least in the USA.
--PM
All that stuff you think people will move into?
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 1
Those jobs will ONLY exist if people who control the resources want them done. Suppose 1% of the people control the resources. How many hairdressers do the 1% need? With 99% of the people competing for the jobs that the 1% still needs done, how much d'you think with that much labor offered, labor will be worth?
I had the same plan, keep my car until it was dead. Problem was, the death of my car happened a lot sooner than I envisioned.
Someone on the freeway was inattentive and slammed into me during a traffic slowdown. Result? Car totalled (and very minor damage to me, which I guess is kudos for Toyota.)
I don't think my new "used" car has a GPS in it, but one might've got snuck in without me knowing.
Whose heads will roll? If the elite control all the most powerful means of destruction (robot planes, etc.) as well as the means of production, then the masses' heads will roll, not those of the elite.
Consider Detroit. What we see there is the disenfranchised class reverting to subsistence farming. Is that the wave of the future? The elite controlling all technology and everyone else growing their own food because they have no way of getting any money?
Is the future of technology (in the US anyway) the complete domination of the elite and everyone else living in 3rd world conditions?
Slashdot Mirror
There's a moral difference between CAUSING an abortion and ALLOWING one to happen naturally in the eyes of the religious.
To me, the line is more blurry. Is someone who could prevent something but allows it *completely* innocent, really? I mean, we as a society try to prevent deaths by cancer, why not deaths by natural abortion?
Also, some of the religious may argue that to cause an abortion that wouldn't have happened is to thwart God's Plan, but how do these yahoos know that the abortion wasn't God's plan?
And let's go back to the cancer deaths again. Are we not thwarting God's Plan by saving someone with cancer?
In the end, I think there is a fundamental point, the religious pick an arbitrary line between what they like and what they don't, and it doesn't always make rational sense.
I think the rational argument is that no one should be forced to risk their lives to provide life support to another person. My kidneys are MINE thank you very much, don't hook me up to another person as a dialysis machine against my will, even if it saves that person's life. It puts ME at risk and is a great imposition on me. And even if I agree to it at some point, I can change my mind about continuing to risk my life by providing dialysis.
Pregnancy is very much analogous.
--PM
Right you are!
If you're smart, it's mostly because you're lucky. You got the good genes. Then, you probably had a good upbringing and environment. Neither of which is anything else than luck.
Sure, to maximize your smarts, you have to work. But lots of people work hard.
So what makes high IQ people special, really? Luck.
What kind of asshole gets all hoity-toity because he was, mostly, lucky?
--PeterM
So, you realize that his person meant crony capitalists when he put free market capitalists in quotes, right?
--PM
You need to read that book.
Taking money for blood might have the opposite effect on the supply. In the book from the title, Swiss were asked if their community would be willing to host a nuclear waste storage facility for the good of the country. Many Swiss were on board with it--for the good of their country. A subset of Swiss from the same community were asked if they'd store the waste for $. Those Swiss said NO WAY. The good of their country was far more motivating for the Swiss than $.
And take me for example. $5 is in no way compensation for the enduring the needle stick and the time involved. I doubt $20 would motivate me. Maybe not even $100. However, I've donated 2 gallons or more. I do it because of this thought: one small needle stick for me, and a bit of time, and maybe someone gets to live.
And I'm the least-risk group of donors, selected partly by my lack of $ motivation. I don't need money for drugs because I don't take them. D'you really want to give drug addicts motive to donate blood to get money? Sometimes there isn't time for blood to be exhaustively screened before use.
Also, recent experience shows that the most powerful motivator for blood donation is solidarity. Blood donation went through the roof after 9/11 and other disasters. They literally couldn't stick people with needles and drain 'em fast enough.
I really think that if we want more blood supply, we need to beat the solidarity drum, and make it really convenient for people to donate.
Best,
--PeterM
This reminds me of isostasy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy/ --as mountains erode, they rise again due to the buoyancy of the rock underneath them floating upon the magma below.
Pull out the mass of the water, and up go the mountains.
--PeterM
Unfortunately, slave labor and pirates aren't really rare.
Everyone in North Korea except the ruling class is pretty much a slave.
How free are the poor worldwide? I mean really, how free are they? In how many regimes worldwide do people have a really good shot at changing who their masters are?
What chains are YOU wearing that you're not even aware of?
--PM
Humans might be stuck, but our intelligent solid state mechanized descendants might find it less inconvenient to travel between stars. Just go slow, go into energy saving mode, except for continuous self-repair operations required to maintain functionality during the trip.
I don't think these hypothesized descendants would have much requirement for planets, though. Asteroids would be far better habitats, much more available energy and no big inconvenient gravity well.
--PeterM
On the contrary, if we flatline our population at a low enough level, we can maintain a high tech society indefinitely on this planet. The only materials we are truly consuming are uranium and other materials that we transmute to other elements. With enough energy input, we can recycle *everything* else. We can even take CO2 out of the air and turn it back into coal if we want.
It's simply a question of managing our resources for the long term.
And humans can do this, there was an isolated island in the pacific which maintained a good standard of living for hundreds of years via limiting population and managing resources until they were interfered with by outsiders. Their means of population control wasn't pretty--infanticide. However, we have better ways now to control population and in principle we could do the same planetwide.
Another example, the Japanese have re-forested their island, another example where humans can maintain and improve their environment, perhaps indefinitely. There's no need for the "herd" to move on if the "herd" maintains a good environment.
Just because humans presently are mostly NOT doing this does not mean we cannot.
Though I would prefer that humans self-modify so that they are more suitable for space habitats and move off the planet. The planet is only sustainable so long as there's no really big cataclysm of whatever sort.
So I agree with your point about colonization, however, I do NOT agree that 'using up the local resources' is the driving reason for diversifying habitat.
--PM
Let me play Devil's Advocate on grade inflation at Harvard and other Ivy Leagues. Harvard is so selective that only the best of the best have a hope of getting in. So why would you handicap the best of the best with respect to community colleges and give them bad GPAs? They are *all* A-class students, right? So why not give them all A's?
Second: what's so inherently wrong with the idea of learning without pressure? Who might be more qualified than the best of the best to do that? I.e., those who can get into the Ivies? This also reduces the incentive to cheat, and might create a collaborative environment rather than a cut throat one.
Were I a Harvard professor, I might do this: everyone gets A's and B's at worst, but rank people within the class and never share that internal ranking out of the class. That way, students get REAL feedback, know where they stand relative to each other, and have some incentive, but if they screw up relatively to the other awesome people in there, they don't get branded with a B or a C (or worse). I'd also focus in delivering frank and very critical assessments to these students to help the best become better. But the externally seen grades? Yeah, I'd inflate 'em.
As to "lack of quality", when you have such a grade of material incoming, I doubt that most anyone else will notice a 'lack of quality' in the product. Being lucky enough to be born smart is just such an advantage it's really hard to screw that up.
--PeterM
What if the Billionaire WANTS a certain answer and lets the scientist know it, so that the "data" can be published for a huge return on investment for the billionaire? Tobacco industry did this.
Or maybe billionaire just has an answer he emotionally wants to hear and funds science to get that instead of sensible science? If Jenny McCarthy had billions what sort of research d'you think she might fund?
Or what if billionaire wants research on life extending treatments for him and him alone and screw publishing?
I don't see any compelling reason billionare science would be any better than publicly funded science. I'd rather everyone own the results, too, than a billionaire.
I mean, one thing a billionare is VERY good at is hoarding good things (money) for themselves AREN'T THEY.
--PeterM
My co-worker's child died of whooping cough. She was too young to be vaccinated, not even three months.
It's not really a tolerable prospect when it is REAL, is it?
Instead of having babies die, how about we make it PAINFUL to not be vaccinated?
No visits to doctors because you might spread disease, no health care coverage because you haven't done the MINIMUM to protect yourself?
Should society even allow anti-vaxxers to have parental rights at all?
--PM
Vaccines offer ~90% protection. So even if you're vaccinated, there's a ~10% chance you'll GET THE DISEASE if you're exposed.
When the vast majority of people are vaccinated, diseases don't spread, and the 10% of people who are vaccinated but for which the vaccine didn't work don't end up being exposed.
Vaccinated or not, someone unvaccinated is a personal threat to you and your children!
I get it that you can't ostracize your wife, but don't bring HER or YOUR KIDS anywhere near me or mine!
--PeterM
Sir,
Yes, some people cannot get shots. My co-worker's child died of whooping cough. (Yes, in the US, the third world of the first world!)
She was too young to get shots, not yet 3 months.
--PeterM
Reforms are being put in place, though are being partially ignored.
For example, in our Gov't organization, we are on a 'contribution based' system. In theory, low performers get pay decreases and if not remedied, get fired. In theory, high performers get raises.
In practice, it seems that high performers get raises and the only pay decreases handed out are due to inflation: (I know of only one outright pay cut) outright cuts rarely happen and no one is ever fired. This is argueably a misadminstration of how our system is supposed to work. But at least underperformers don't get automatic raises.
As to how money is managed, in our organization you (yearly) estimate how much money you need, and you either get it or part of it and adjust your schedule/goals accordingly. If you end up with extra money, or aren't using the money you have, you give it back and management finds another use for it. Management doesn't seem to keep a FIRM memory of what happened before: if you under-spent last year you can STILL get your FULL budget request if you argue for it effectively and your objective aligns with organizational goals. No one gets budget automatically.
Budgeting's actually pretty enlightened, not the automatic stupidity you describe.
--PM
Just curious, if you improved the insulation on your house, how much would that save you, potentially? Did you try that and how well did it work?
I think I invested a couple thousand on insulation for my roof and it cut my winter heating and summer cooling by 30% and the whole house just *feels* more comfortable. I think I made the investment back in two years--heating done with natural gas, cooling done with electricity.
--PeterM
I can't see this working out well. Probably only a small number of individuals could be resurrected, simply because of lack of good DNA samples, and I bet a lot of errors would be introduced in de-extinction given current tech.
Genetic diversity, therefore, in the de-extinct species would be incredibly poor and any second generation would likely be rather sickly and not resistant to diseases. Either that or a continuous and very difficult (impossible?) genetic engineering effort would have to be involved in restoring genetic diversity to the species.
Second, all of a species isn't exactly captured in just the DNA. DNA only gets expressed properly in the right cellular environment, it's a 'chicken and egg' problem. If you don't have a chicken egg, how do you raise a chicken with just the DNA and some other egg? Your other egg may not provide the right environment for correct genetic expression and you may end up with some sort of chimera of dubious viability and authenticity. Incompatible mitochondria are an obvious issue.
Third, given the first two, your de-extinct species is likely to simply go extinct again unless you correct the environmental issues that led to the first extinction. And given the rate at which we're screwing up the planet, is that really realistic?
I think it'd actually be better to devote resources to discovering and preserving as much as possible of DNA and related structures for future de-extinction attempts when technology is better and we've learned better planetary management.
--PeterM
Bacteria filtration is awesome for the wood filters.
Also, one has to be very careful not to let the wood dry out, because drying out damages the ability of the wood to pull water through, and if dried wood DOES let water through, it isn't filtered.
--PM
The problem with smoking is it doesn't just shorten your life, it can make your life miserable.
Imagine how horrific it is to be SICK all the time, gasping for breath, always wondering if tomorrow will be your last and almost hoping so because living with a with pain, sickness and a struggle for breath is just so awful.
Smoking not only causes you to die, it causes you to die horribly in a lot of cases.
--PM
than a pipeline. Not only does it cost more energy to ship oil via trains and trucks, the risk of accident seems much higher per barrel moved.
And right now, it's being trained and trucked around.
--PM
Seems to me that you should sell domestically produced items wherever it makes the most profit, as a general rule. (Yes, there are exceptions.)
Just make sure that it isn't just a few fat cats, but Canada and the US's general populace, who wins out on the higher revenues.
--PM
At least any I've come across. Yes, the Gov't has to pay for work already performed, but it's a recognized fact that one Congress can't bind future ones to financial deals, and money to finish a particular contract may never arrive.
So by and large, as someone else pointed out, the Government has a clause in contracts allowing it to terminate the contract for convenience.
--PM
Dear PhD AI worker,
How come you're not being paid 2x what you are now? Yes, 2x. Productivity of the worker has gone up 2x in real terms since 1973. Yet your pay is less than that, even YOURS, Dr. AI worker.
Suppose most jobs are automated, and the few remaining jobs have many highly qualified people who need that job. What happens to the price of labor? Market forces push wages down--people underbid you just to work. THAT is why your pay doesn't match your productivity. And the trend is accentuating.
Those high paid high level creative jobs you like to imagine? They ONLY exist if there is market for them, i.e., if the 1% (or whoever controls the resources) decides to allocate resources for them.
And they're not, hence the depressed wages ACROSS THE BOARD. I've got a PhD too, doing creative non-automatable work, and I SURE WOULD like to be getting paid 2x as much. But I'm not, and it's flatly because the rest of the labor market is depressed.
I'd sure love to keep doing creative non-automatable work, but I can only do that if it pays, which in turn depends on how many creative non-automatable jobs the 1% wants to devote resources for. And guess what: the 1% is apparently deciding that research and technology investment needs to drop because it is a "cost". Government investment is declining too. So capital (the 1%) thrives on productivity increases and everyone who must labor, is, frankly, slowly starving to death.
At least in the USA.
--PM
Those jobs will ONLY exist if people who control the resources want them done. Suppose 1% of the people control the resources. How many hairdressers do the 1% need? With 99% of the people competing for the jobs that the 1% still needs done, how much d'you think with that much labor offered, labor will be worth?
--PM
I had the same plan, keep my car until it was dead. Problem was, the death of my car happened a lot sooner than I envisioned.
Someone on the freeway was inattentive and slammed into me during a traffic slowdown. Result? Car totalled (and very minor damage to me, which I guess is kudos for Toyota.)
I don't think my new "used" car has a GPS in it, but one might've got snuck in without me knowing.
Good luck keeping your car "forever".
--PeterM
Whose heads will roll? If the elite control all the most powerful means of destruction (robot planes, etc.) as well as the means of production, then the masses' heads will roll, not those of the elite.
Consider Detroit. What we see there is the disenfranchised class reverting to subsistence farming. Is that the wave of the future? The elite controlling all technology and everyone else growing their own food because they have no way of getting any money?
Is the future of technology (in the US anyway) the complete domination of the elite and everyone else living in 3rd world conditions?
--PM