I whole heartedly support GMOs, genetic engineering is going to go a long ways towards solving the world's food supply problems. I merely think that we need proper testing of designed species that is more rigorous that that used for hybrids.
Actually yes, irradiation is more disturbing and I would put it in the same category as GMOs. Proof of safety required rather than assumption of safety until harm proven.
I patiently await your citation of pre-existing natural fish/tomato transgenics.
Engineering is great but engineers and scientists aren't gods, they can make mistakes, fail to fully consider consequences, lack complete knowledge or even get overridden by management. GMOs should of course be allowed, to deny them is stupid but they shouldn't automatically get GRAS status, proof of safety is required rather than assumption of safety until harm is proven.
So your argument is that you don't like economics?
Fine, let me put it a different way:
1) Machinery has replaced muscle, selling muscle is no longer viable
2) Automation is replacing ambulatory coordination, it's getting harder to sell that all the time and within the century you won't be able to
3) Weak AI is replacing routine intellectual work, pretty soon you won't be able to sell that either.
What sorts of work don't involve muscle, ambulatory coordination or routine intellectual work? Not much. Certain forms of entertainment, research & development, high end engineering, politics.
Will there continue to be people employed? Yes, lacking true strong AI humans will still be necessary in some quantities, but it's likely to look a lot like agriculture where a small percentage can take care of it for everyone else. Current trends will result in less than 10% total employment. This isn't going to happen next year, but it's going to be a lot faster than most people think.
Selecting breeding and genetic engineering are not the same thing. I'm not anti-gmo, but to suggest that putting Salmon genes in Tomato plants is the same as just selecting between different offspring is incorrect.
That's really, really not relevant to the discussion
It's central to my argument actually. Without knowing the difference you can't understand what I'm suggesting. The end of taxi cab drivers for example won't result in the sorts of problems I'm describing, people will just move to another business sector, some of which don't even exist yet. The decline of jobs in all three economic sectors on the other hand is a huge problem.
You don't need a law to make that true - The constitution makes that the truth by default.
In the absence of a constitutional amendment giving them the power to deny a legal US citizen entry to the US, they can't deny a legal US citizen entry to the US. Simple as that, really.
Sure, but there are a variety of vague clauses that could easily be extended to cover that situation.
You're confusing the idea of business sectors with economic sectors, two totally different things.
Telecommunications or Health Care are business sectors. Service or manufacturing are economic sectors.
Will new business sectors develop? Absolutely, and this is probably what you're arguing.
Will new economic sectors develop? No way.
Note: Some economists claim a four or five sector model is more descriptive, though sectors four and five are basically just subsectors of service. That's just arguing over categories though and doesn't change the main point.
Yes, I am asserting there will be no new sectors to the economy because that has never happened before.
Now, if you want to argue that some obscure portion of the service sector is going to become the main employer for the vast majority of humanity, I'd say it's unlikely but possible.
In general, any economy does three things:
1) It collects resources for direct use or to make stuff
2) It makes stuff
3) People do things for each other or have things done for them
You're arguing that we're going to add a fourth thing. That has indeed never happened before and I'm highly skeptical that it's even theoretically possible.
There is no reason to believe that this time will be different. Most likely it will be just like all the other times.
There is one reason: When we automated the resource sector people moved to manufacturing, when we automated manufacturing people moved to service, when we automate service where exactly do you expect them to go?
There is a reason education levels have progressed from virtually none, to grade school, to high school, to college, and now to graduate degrees. It's getting harder and harder for individuals to add value. Within this century we're going to see a situation in which the vast majority of workers cost more to employ than the value they would create. The market can't fix that because people have a price floor due to the fact that they have to be able to feed and house themselves. A labor market price floor above equilibrium means that there are plenty of laborers willing to offer labor at that price but few purchasers of labor willing to pay it.
Only because we foolishly allow the same company to own the cables and provide the service. Yes, the cabling is a natural monopoly, the service is not.
So you think it is far more appropriate for them to have to develop a nonstandard plug rather than trust in the honesty and decency of the citizens of the UK?
Yes. Appropriate behavior by design instead of by inspection, standard six sigma improvement. It wouldn't even have to be a "non-standard" plug, just one that doesn't match retail plugs. There are plenty of alternate plug designs already.
Clean nuclear, doesn't nuclear fuel have a pesky rather long term disposal issue?
Not really. It was radioactive when we dug it up, it's still radioactive when we're done with it, however it now fits in a smaller container. With reprocessing the amount of waste is incredibly small, but even without reprocessing it's really not that big a deal, especially when compared to other energy sources like coal which spews toxic waste in every direction.
People who want to get narcotics illegally already do so. We can't even stop prisoners in maximum security facilities from getting drugs. What this change would do is take the money out of the process for the gangs and drug cartels. It's a win for individual liberty, it's a win for reducing crime and it's a win for increasing tax revenues.
It should be legal to sell narcotics. Customers should be required to pass an educational course and get a certification proving they understand the effects of the narcotic they wish to purchase. Sellers should be required to check certificates. Independent auditors should verify sellers are complying, with sellers required to pay for the audits. Government should oversee the auditors. Other than that the government should get out of the way.
I'm sure the people suggesting this would like to see the minimum wage dropped to zero as well so they can make more cash exploiting people.
Which would be a great idea if we coupled it with a guaranteed basic income. Lose the threat of starvation and homelessness and you put the labor negotiation back on fair footing.
Yes, because no one should ever work for corporate America. I mean it's not like you're going to be homeless or starving if you don't have a steady paycheck right?
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit.
I whole heartedly support GMOs, genetic engineering is going to go a long ways towards solving the world's food supply problems. I merely think that we need proper testing of designed species that is more rigorous that that used for hybrids.
Actually yes, irradiation is more disturbing and I would put it in the same category as GMOs. Proof of safety required rather than assumption of safety until harm proven.
I patiently await your citation of pre-existing natural fish/tomato transgenics.
Engineering is great but engineers and scientists aren't gods, they can make mistakes, fail to fully consider consequences, lack complete knowledge or even get overridden by management. GMOs should of course be allowed, to deny them is stupid but they shouldn't automatically get GRAS status, proof of safety is required rather than assumption of safety until harm is proven.
So your argument is that you don't like economics?
Fine, let me put it a different way:
1) Machinery has replaced muscle, selling muscle is no longer viable
2) Automation is replacing ambulatory coordination, it's getting harder to sell that all the time and within the century you won't be able to
3) Weak AI is replacing routine intellectual work, pretty soon you won't be able to sell that either.
What sorts of work don't involve muscle, ambulatory coordination or routine intellectual work? Not much. Certain forms of entertainment, research & development, high end engineering, politics.
Will there continue to be people employed? Yes, lacking true strong AI humans will still be necessary in some quantities, but it's likely to look a lot like agriculture where a small percentage can take care of it for everyone else. Current trends will result in less than 10% total employment. This isn't going to happen next year, but it's going to be a lot faster than most people think.
Should we also do this with conventional hybrids?
Hybrids have a multi-thousand year safety track record, I think we can call the long term data in on that issue. GMOs do not.
Selecting breeding and genetic engineering are not the same thing. I'm not anti-gmo, but to suggest that putting Salmon genes in Tomato plants is the same as just selecting between different offspring is incorrect.
That's really, really not relevant to the discussion
It's central to my argument actually. Without knowing the difference you can't understand what I'm suggesting. The end of taxi cab drivers for example won't result in the sorts of problems I'm describing, people will just move to another business sector, some of which don't even exist yet. The decline of jobs in all three economic sectors on the other hand is a huge problem.
You don't need a law to make that true - The constitution makes that the truth by default. In the absence of a constitutional amendment giving them the power to deny a legal US citizen entry to the US, they can't deny a legal US citizen entry to the US. Simple as that, really.
Sure, but there are a variety of vague clauses that could easily be extended to cover that situation.
The word "arbitrarily" leaves a pretty big loop hole.
They can't deny her entry into the country, since she's a US citizen.
You'd think that and yet I can't point to any specific right or law that would make that true.
You're confusing the idea of business sectors with economic sectors, two totally different things.
Telecommunications or Health Care are business sectors. Service or manufacturing are economic sectors.
Will new business sectors develop? Absolutely, and this is probably what you're arguing.
Will new economic sectors develop? No way.
Note: Some economists claim a four or five sector model is more descriptive, though sectors four and five are basically just subsectors of service. That's just arguing over categories though and doesn't change the main point.
Yes, I am asserting there will be no new sectors to the economy because that has never happened before.
Now, if you want to argue that some obscure portion of the service sector is going to become the main employer for the vast majority of humanity, I'd say it's unlikely but possible.
In general, any economy does three things:
1) It collects resources for direct use or to make stuff
2) It makes stuff
3) People do things for each other or have things done for them
You're arguing that we're going to add a fourth thing. That has indeed never happened before and I'm highly skeptical that it's even theoretically possible.
More formally, yours is an argument from ignorance. You are ignorant of how the problem will be solved, therefore you say it can't be solved.
So you're suggesting that there are more than three sectors to the economy and that the jobs will magically appear in this new unknown sector?
There is no reason to believe that this time will be different. Most likely it will be just like all the other times.
There is one reason: When we automated the resource sector people moved to manufacturing, when we automated manufacturing people moved to service, when we automate service where exactly do you expect them to go?
There is a reason education levels have progressed from virtually none, to grade school, to high school, to college, and now to graduate degrees. It's getting harder and harder for individuals to add value. Within this century we're going to see a situation in which the vast majority of workers cost more to employ than the value they would create. The market can't fix that because people have a price floor due to the fact that they have to be able to feed and house themselves. A labor market price floor above equilibrium means that there are plenty of laborers willing to offer labor at that price but few purchasers of labor willing to pay it.
Only because we foolishly allow the same company to own the cables and provide the service. Yes, the cabling is a natural monopoly, the service is not.
Like Portland, they began their swing leftward in the 1980's-1990s.
It's not really that Portland swung left but that everyone else swung right.
So you think it is far more appropriate for them to have to develop a nonstandard plug rather than trust in the honesty and decency of the citizens of the UK?
Yes. Appropriate behavior by design instead of by inspection, standard six sigma improvement. It wouldn't even have to be a "non-standard" plug, just one that doesn't match retail plugs. There are plenty of alternate plug designs already.
Clean nuclear, doesn't nuclear fuel have a pesky rather long term disposal issue?
Not really. It was radioactive when we dug it up, it's still radioactive when we're done with it, however it now fits in a smaller container. With reprocessing the amount of waste is incredibly small, but even without reprocessing it's really not that big a deal, especially when compared to other energy sources like coal which spews toxic waste in every direction.
People who want to get narcotics illegally already do so. We can't even stop prisoners in maximum security facilities from getting drugs. What this change would do is take the money out of the process for the gangs and drug cartels. It's a win for individual liberty, it's a win for reducing crime and it's a win for increasing tax revenues.
It should be legal to sell narcotics. Customers should be required to pass an educational course and get a certification proving they understand the effects of the narcotic they wish to purchase. Sellers should be required to check certificates. Independent auditors should verify sellers are complying, with sellers required to pay for the audits. Government should oversee the auditors. Other than that the government should get out of the way.
I'm sure the people suggesting this would like to see the minimum wage dropped to zero as well so they can make more cash exploiting people.
Which would be a great idea if we coupled it with a guaranteed basic income. Lose the threat of starvation and homelessness and you put the labor negotiation back on fair footing.
Well, we can trust you to build trust, but you haven't built any trust with me yet so I don't trust you.
Yes, because no one should ever work for corporate America. I mean it's not like you're going to be homeless or starving if you don't have a steady paycheck right?
This approach assumes you have some sort of influence over HR.
That's even more stupid than filtering out everyone who doesn't have certificates.