Either way there is an exchange of value. You pay money as taxes, you get some services that you may or may not value as highly as the money you paid as taxes. As long as most of the populace feels they're getting a reasonable exchange society is stable, when they don't then pressure builds until eventually you get revolution and we start the whole thing over again. Humans are tribal, government is inevitable, all we can do is try to make it as least bad as possible.
The government has no inherent natural right to take money from anyone.
Unless you're an anarchist I don't think that's a supportable position. Even in a small government you still have to pay for things somehow, generally that means some kind of tax. At the very least you're going to have to fund a military or you're not going to be an independent state for very long.
Nonsense, anything that biology can do by random iteration we can duplicate through design. Obviously we're not there yet since I believe they're still finishing the mouse brain emulation model, but just a few years ago the best they could do was an insect brain. As long as we don't hit some sort of hard technology limit then increasing capabilities will eventually get us there. Emulation doesn't require us to invent AI from scratch, just reverse engineer a working product, much easier.
Easily perhaps, though humans have often proven annoying in that regard. Cheapness, now there is something that the brain in a box could probably deliver.
At some point in the next 20-40 years, we're going to have to marginalize the ignorant conservatives, and move to a more socialist system if we don't want everyone but the elites to starve to death.
Let's just hope we get around to making some changes prior to the widespread deployment of police and military robots otherwise it's going to be a pretty short revolution.
except that the only way we're likely to benefit from creating an AI is if it's vastly more intelligent than us
Actually artificially intelligent morons would be really handy. Imagine for a moment that you can create a machine brain with an IQ of 60, throw in some speech recognition, a robot body with a reasonable battery pack, and a decent set of sensors and you've just created the replacement for huge swaths of the working population. Sure, every group of robots would require a human supervisor but that's still vastly cheaper than an all human staff. Lots of jobs really don't require much in the way of deep thought or creativity, just some skills training and the ability to follow simple instructions.
I'm not suggesting that humans as a species will be unemployable any time soon since strong AI seems quite a ways off still. It does appear likely that we're going to have a large class of individuals though who have no marketable labor value. Our distribution system is based on "work or starve" so that could be a serious problem.
There is no "duty" to protect the weak as it were. There just isn't. Philosophically you can't get there.
You obviously haven't taken enough philosophy, given the right framework you can justify nearly any position. It all depends on the initial assumptions and chosen theory.
It's both really. The problem is that there is a high switching cost so the contract has to get pretty messed up before we're willing to scrap it and start over. In the mean time you have a situation where the contract is only partially voluntary and partially imposed. It's shades of grey not black and white.
Registered Libertarian and I agree completely. Much of the philosophy assumes a level playing field to start, inheritance breaks many of the principles espoused.
You're right of course, so far. The problem is that as one sector automated all the new jobs were found in a different sector. When agriculture automated everyone moved to manufacturing, as manufacturing has automated everyone has moved to service, as service is automating there isn't much left to move to though. We're now entering somewhat uncharted territory. It's true that in the past this has never proved to be a problem, but from our current vantage point it's hard to be certain that pattern will continue.
Go visit China for a while and tell me there are no jobs for low qualification workers.
Of course Foxconn and others have publicly stated that they intend to fix that problem now that wages are rising. The developed nations have already resolved that issue so the solutions are pre-made.
Go out to a farm and tell me there are no jobs for low qualification workers.
You realize that as an employer Agriculture now represents something like 1% of jobs right? Additionally, due to rising labor pressures among migrant workers there is a renewed push for automation that seems to be gaining traction.
reprocessing would not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste.
Completely false, though in context of the article it's correct. He's talking about removing the plutonium only. I was talking about Uranium reprocessing. A system of breeder reactors would be even better from a technical perspective.
How does reducing interest rates on debt increase college costs?
Now that college has become a requirement for the vast majority of middle class jobs it's not really an optional product for consumers. When you lower the cost of debt that means they have a larger capacity for debt and the schools will jack up tuition rates until that capacity is once again fully utilized. Pretty straightforward economics. Why do you think rates have been skyrocketing for the last 40 years?
As for food safety
I wasn't aware that bill had actually passed. That looks like a net benefit for all Americans but I don't think you can claim that's a specifically middle class stance. I'll go with 3/4 of a point.
Testing I don't know what you mean about so far it doesn't look good, major improvement.
At this point there isn't enough data for a conclusive analysis so I suppose we'll have to chalk that one up to difference of opinion for the moment.
Why wouldn't Obama get credit for gulf oil compensation?
The BP oil spill compensation was based on a desire to settle out of court. The laws were already on the books that would have required cleanup and compensation so the Democrats don't get any special mention for the time period we're discussing.
My point being yes they do stuff for the middle class.
Once in a while, mostly by accident, which is approximately the same record as the Republicans.
Slashdot Mirror
Either way there is an exchange of value. You pay money as taxes, you get some services that you may or may not value as highly as the money you paid as taxes. As long as most of the populace feels they're getting a reasonable exchange society is stable, when they don't then pressure builds until eventually you get revolution and we start the whole thing over again. Humans are tribal, government is inevitable, all we can do is try to make it as least bad as possible.
Sorry, no. Jobs are to a company a necessary evil.
Yes, from a corporate point of view the optimum number of employees is zero.
I'd be ok with that as long as the burden is shifted to the shareholders not the general public.
The government has no inherent natural right to take money from anyone.
Unless you're an anarchist I don't think that's a supportable position. Even in a small government you still have to pay for things somehow, generally that means some kind of tax. At the very least you're going to have to fund a military or you're not going to be an independent state for very long.
I have to admit, it would be nice if my fridge would automatically re-order things I'm running out of and want always stocked.
A full emulation is infeasible, just too complex.
Nonsense, anything that biology can do by random iteration we can duplicate through design. Obviously we're not there yet since I believe they're still finishing the mouse brain emulation model, but just a few years ago the best they could do was an insect brain. As long as we don't hit some sort of hard technology limit then increasing capabilities will eventually get us there. Emulation doesn't require us to invent AI from scratch, just reverse engineer a working product, much easier.
Easily perhaps, though humans have often proven annoying in that regard. Cheapness, now there is something that the brain in a box could probably deliver.
At some point in the next 20-40 years, we're going to have to marginalize the ignorant conservatives, and move to a more socialist system if we don't want everyone but the elites to starve to death.
Let's just hope we get around to making some changes prior to the widespread deployment of police and military robots otherwise it's going to be a pretty short revolution.
We can't create life, even the simplest of life
Your information appears to be out of date: http://www.jcvi.org/cms/resear...
There are not even any theoretical approaches that could make it possible in this universe.
That's not true. At the very least we have the full human brain emulation model.
If it can outhink the best human minds (and if it can't then what's the point in having it?)
There are plenty of uses for a brain in a box that don't require it to be a super-genius.
except that the only way we're likely to benefit from creating an AI is if it's vastly more intelligent than us
Actually artificially intelligent morons would be really handy. Imagine for a moment that you can create a machine brain with an IQ of 60, throw in some speech recognition, a robot body with a reasonable battery pack, and a decent set of sensors and you've just created the replacement for huge swaths of the working population. Sure, every group of robots would require a human supervisor but that's still vastly cheaper than an all human staff. Lots of jobs really don't require much in the way of deep thought or creativity, just some skills training and the ability to follow simple instructions.
Their ribbon interface is better than the deeply nested menus they used to have.
No it's not, the ribbon is much less usable for anything beyond the most trivial of tasks.
I'm not suggesting that humans as a species will be unemployable any time soon since strong AI seems quite a ways off still. It does appear likely that we're going to have a large class of individuals though who have no marketable labor value. Our distribution system is based on "work or starve" so that could be a serious problem.
There is no "duty" to protect the weak as it were. There just isn't. Philosophically you can't get there.
You obviously haven't taken enough philosophy, given the right framework you can justify nearly any position. It all depends on the initial assumptions and chosen theory.
It's both really. The problem is that there is a high switching cost so the contract has to get pretty messed up before we're willing to scrap it and start over. In the mean time you have a situation where the contract is only partially voluntary and partially imposed. It's shades of grey not black and white.
inheritance should be abolished
Registered Libertarian and I agree completely. Much of the philosophy assumes a level playing field to start, inheritance breaks many of the principles espoused.
I'm sorry but we only accept citations from peer reviewed sources.
You're right of course, so far. The problem is that as one sector automated all the new jobs were found in a different sector. When agriculture automated everyone moved to manufacturing, as manufacturing has automated everyone has moved to service, as service is automating there isn't much left to move to though. We're now entering somewhat uncharted territory. It's true that in the past this has never proved to be a problem, but from our current vantage point it's hard to be certain that pattern will continue.
Go visit China for a while and tell me there are no jobs for low qualification workers.
Of course Foxconn and others have publicly stated that they intend to fix that problem now that wages are rising. The developed nations have already resolved that issue so the solutions are pre-made.
Go out to a farm and tell me there are no jobs for low qualification workers.
You realize that as an employer Agriculture now represents something like 1% of jobs right? Additionally, due to rising labor pressures among migrant workers there is a renewed push for automation that seems to be gaining traction.
reprocessing would not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste.
Completely false, though in context of the article it's correct. He's talking about removing the plutonium only. I was talking about Uranium reprocessing. A system of breeder reactors would be even better from a technical perspective.
Gah, I can't believe you mentioned the words dream ticket and Palin in the same sentence.
Why do you keep creating straw man arguments?
Something being the correct technical solution is hardly sufficient for it to become actual public policy. There is this little thing called politics.
How does reducing interest rates on debt increase college costs?
Now that college has become a requirement for the vast majority of middle class jobs it's not really an optional product for consumers. When you lower the cost of debt that means they have a larger capacity for debt and the schools will jack up tuition rates until that capacity is once again fully utilized. Pretty straightforward economics. Why do you think rates have been skyrocketing for the last 40 years?
As for food safety
I wasn't aware that bill had actually passed. That looks like a net benefit for all Americans but I don't think you can claim that's a specifically middle class stance. I'll go with 3/4 of a point.
As for smoking I disagree with you.
Smoking rates decline as income goes up, with the highest rates among the working poor: http://media.gallup.com/poll/g...
Testing I don't know what you mean about so far it doesn't look good, major improvement.
At this point there isn't enough data for a conclusive analysis so I suppose we'll have to chalk that one up to difference of opinion for the moment.
Why wouldn't Obama get credit for gulf oil compensation?
The BP oil spill compensation was based on a desire to settle out of court. The laws were already on the books that would have required cleanup and compensation so the Democrats don't get any special mention for the time period we're discussing.
My point being yes they do stuff for the middle class.
Once in a while, mostly by accident, which is approximately the same record as the Republicans.