Don't worry, the US doesn't have "copyright" either. The phrase in the Constitution, "exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries", means exactly the same as you describe. The issue is basically that there are few instances in which "copying" is done for other than profitable ends.
And, on top of all that, I even forgot my most important point: the entire fake economy is subsidized by government money printing. The Federal Reserve's inflation target is nothing more than forced wealth redistribution.
Over half of the population doesn't work already. Most people, even those with jobs, contribute little or nothing. The unemployment statistics are so cooked it takes a degree in economics just to understand. The "labor force" only includes people who are actively looking for work. That's only half the population. Wikipedia:
People not counted include students, retired people, stay-at-home parents, people in prisons or similar institutions... as well as discouraged workers who cannot find work.
When you consider that most of those people are state-subsidized, then we reached the point of "untenable position" a long time ago. In fact, probably it was around the time that Ayn Rand was pointing this out. And even within the limited "labor force", there's still 10% unemployment. Sorry buddy, but "first they came for the child workers". There's simply no one left to speak up for the manual laborers. If anything, now they're even coming for the robot builders. I personally could care less, because I'm not trapped in an archaic 16th century economic paradigm like those pleading for more ditch-digging jobs.
That is an untenable position (think civil war style untenable, not Occupy).
If the robots have guns, it will be untenable not to own one.
Sorry I wasn't more clear. The central bank has an interest in controlling capital. They do so by, basically, money printing. Centralization is really just a side effect.
More likely it was a "cost of capital" problem. As in, the artificial cost of capital is manipulated by the US central bank in order to prevent small-scale automation. Not knowing this is a surefire way to invest in a dishwashing robot right before the borders are opened, a war is started, and interest rates lowered in order to consolidate the control of productive capital in the hands of the central bankers. Good luck paying off your business loan when Mexicans willing to work for $2/hr are knocking down your door looking for work and all the trained Americans are either dying in some third world dirt farm or making twice as much doing nothing on Wall St.
Humans consume resources. If you're concerned about limited resources, you should be concerned with limiting human population growth. Hiring immigrants does exactly the opposite -- it subsidizes population growth and provides a "relief valve" for failed governments.
I'll repeat that for you in case you missed it. Welcoming immigrants simply perpetuates the poverty and the oppressive governments you seem to be so concerned about.
Walling most of them out would absolutely make us more prosperous, because we have more resources per capita than anywhere on Earth. In the long run it would make them more prosperous as well.
15 minutes, twice a day, for nine years, is 100,000 hours of human labor. How long do you think it takes to birth a new cow?
That isn't the problem. The problem is that our goddamn government and banking system SUBSIDIZES HUMANS SO THAT THEY CAN DO SHITTY JOBS FOR SLAVE WAGES.
Right, it's little comfort to me as I watch fifty years of topsoil dry up and blow away as a plague of locusts and beetles devour my crops, knowing that somewhere in Canada, timberland with no roads or civilization within 100 miles is now suitable for human food production.
if that same car can be built in 30 mins by robots, using resources mined by robots, should anyone really have to go without a car?
Depends. Did you help to build that robot, or did you join a union and vote for "progressive" taxes and have five kids and do all the things that the most ignorant class in America enjoys doing in order to thwart true progress?
Do you realize that resources are finite, but that human population grows exponentially? Do you recognize the coming clusterfuck we will have to deal with as a civilization when medical technology doubles our effective lifespan and old people still own 99% of the Earth while the young can't find jobs?
No, it wouldn't be cheaper. When they come here, they don't leave. They vote illegally in our fraudulent elections. They take jobs building unnecessary houses stolen from middle-class savers by the Federal Reserve's inflation tax. They send all of their earnings back to their home countries. They have five kids who are educated for free in our public schools. And they get all of their medical care from emergency rooms.
I'm a bit concerned about all of this advancement to support extended population growth.
Then you should be building these and using them yourself, and making them open source, instead of letting places like MIT perfect them only to throw them down the memory hole in sacrifice to the risk-aggregating monster that is the Federal Reserve system.
That's exactly what automatic grape harvesters look like, but I don't think it's the most economical design. Land is cheap. Good wine land is unbelievably expensive. When you're replacing the most expensive part of the production process, human labor, you can afford to spread out a little.
The problem is, no matter how efficient or clever your system is, you simply cannot compete with the cost of human labor at the very bottom of the skills spectrum.
Completely true. When the "cost" of a human is perhaps a few hundred dollars, beneficial technologies wither on the vine as our living standards fall trying to "compete". That is exactly what we are witnessing right now -- a race to the bottom.
in a market based economy, is simply isn't, well, economical.
A market economy can't exist without sensible government regulation of negative externalities. Immigrants are a negative externality. The US government has completely failed to regulate it.
There has been credible evidence that "point of no return" comes when oceans are warm enough to start releasing methane stored on the seabed.
Yeah but the "point of no return" for that was when per capita energy consumption rose high enough to produce the CO2 required to trigger it. And the "point of no return" for that was when the west began outsourcing jobs to the developing world. And the "point of no return" for that was when American car manufacturers started making crappy gas guzzlers. And the "point of no return" for that was when the Allies won WWII. And the "point of no return" for that was when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. And the "point of no return" for that was when Hitler invaded Poland. And the "point of no return" for that was the Treaty of Versailles. ad infinitum...
So, ultimately, as Zeno pointed out, the only real question is whether the future is determined, or whether we are free to change it. And there is at least reason to believe that simply denying the possibility of an event is enough to prevent it from happening. So which is it -- is the cat dead or alive?
It does, actually. Do you still not understand what a derivative is? Do you not understand non-linear systems, and the fact that the economy is one? Do you grok the concept of leverage? How do you pretend to be a programmer and not get this? If your program encounters a bug, it crashes and is useless. It's not "largely operating".
Based on morphological and behavioral criteria and on comparisons with other primates, Portmann (1941,1945) suggested that human gestation should really last 21 months instead of 9. However, no woman could deliver a 21-month-old fetus because the head would not pass through the birth canal; thus, humans give birth at the end of 9 months. Montagu (1962) and Gould (1977) have suggested that during our first year of life, we are essentially extrauterine fetuses, and they speculate that much of human intelligence comes from the stimulation of the nervous system as it is forming during that first year.*
Portmann A. Die Tragzeiten der Primaten und die Dauer der Schwangerschaft beim Menschen: Ein Problem der vergleichen Biologie. Rev. Suisse Zool. 1941;48:511–518. Portmann A. Die Ontogenese des Menschen als Problem der Evolutionsfor-schung. Verh. Schweiz. Naturf. Ges. 1945;125:44–53. Montagu, M. F. A. 1962. Time, morphology, and neoteny in the evolution of man. In M. F. A. Montagu (ed.), Culture and Evolution of Man. Oxford University Press, New York. Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Roman life expectancy had little to do with their medicine. They had a cultural practice of infant exposure. They would kill unhealthy (born) children. Naturally this affected the statistics for life expectancy at birth. Roman life expectancy at age 5 was 48, higher than almost anywhere else at the time. It was deliberate. And it produced the most dominant military force the world has ever seen.
They also had a cultural practice of cutting unborn children from mothers who died in childbirth. This produced people with unnaturally large heads. Again, deliberate. And today known as Caesarian section. Roman surgeons were excellent, as a result of, again, warfare.
In short, Romans were the world's preeminent genetic engineers. They probably affected your life expectancy for the better, and may even be responsible for you being able to type on magic computing boxes to people halfway around the globe right now.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that your entire premise is complete nonsense, and that given adequate resources and moderately high standard of living, the vast majority of people would tend to live long and healthy lives even without modern medicine.
It says modern comforts, not civilization. That generally includes things like fresh food, shelter and indoor plumbing, not pharmaceuticals, strip-mines and iPads. They only want to be able to support a village of a couple hundred people.
Is this whole tirade really just caused by your inability to comprehend what you read and perform the critical thinking necessary to realize that, no, in fact this group of a dozen or so people has not set out to replicate downtown New York or the interstate highway system?
a way of providing power when the wind isn't blowing.
Well in that case they have a steam engine which is mentioned right in the list of 50 tools which you, once again, have obviously not even read.
They have a pelletizer. Which could easily be a screw-type. And which could also be used as an expeller to press soy oil, with a few modifications.
Regardless, we're talking about a few tens of gallons of hydraulic oil. It's simply not a fundamental limiting factor of human civilization for an entire village of people to have to import a single barrel of oil in order to bootstrap it's existence.
Slashdot Mirror
It has current value and can be easily used as a medium of exchange. It is a currency by definition.
Don't worry, the US doesn't have "copyright" either. The phrase in the Constitution, "exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries", means exactly the same as you describe. The issue is basically that there are few instances in which "copying" is done for other than profitable ends.
And, on top of all that, I even forgot my most important point: the entire fake economy is subsidized by government money printing. The Federal Reserve's inflation target is nothing more than forced wealth redistribution.
Over half of the population doesn't work already. Most people, even those with jobs, contribute little or nothing. The unemployment statistics are so cooked it takes a degree in economics just to understand. The "labor force" only includes people who are actively looking for work. That's only half the population. Wikipedia:
People not counted include students, retired people, stay-at-home parents, people in prisons or similar institutions... as well as discouraged workers who cannot find work.
When you consider that most of those people are state-subsidized, then we reached the point of "untenable position" a long time ago. In fact, probably it was around the time that Ayn Rand was pointing this out. And even within the limited "labor force", there's still 10% unemployment. Sorry buddy, but "first they came for the child workers". There's simply no one left to speak up for the manual laborers. If anything, now they're even coming for the robot builders. I personally could care less, because I'm not trapped in an archaic 16th century economic paradigm like those pleading for more ditch-digging jobs.
That is an untenable position (think civil war style untenable, not Occupy).
If the robots have guns, it will be untenable not to own one.
Sorry I wasn't more clear. The central bank has an interest in controlling capital. They do so by, basically, money printing. Centralization is really just a side effect.
off the Canary Island of El Hierro
I would guess one of the large undersea ranges to the South.
I tend to think required death panels would put a different perspective in the heads of the geezers...
More likely it was a "cost of capital" problem. As in, the artificial cost of capital is manipulated by the US central bank in order to prevent small-scale automation. Not knowing this is a surefire way to invest in a dishwashing robot right before the borders are opened, a war is started, and interest rates lowered in order to consolidate the control of productive capital in the hands of the central bankers. Good luck paying off your business loan when Mexicans willing to work for $2/hr are knocking down your door looking for work and all the trained Americans are either dying in some third world dirt farm or making twice as much doing nothing on Wall St.
Humans consume resources. If you're concerned about limited resources, you should be concerned with limiting human population growth. Hiring immigrants does exactly the opposite -- it subsidizes population growth and provides a "relief valve" for failed governments.
I'll repeat that for you in case you missed it. Welcoming immigrants simply perpetuates the poverty and the oppressive governments you seem to be so concerned about.
Walling most of them out would absolutely make us more prosperous, because we have more resources per capita than anywhere on Earth. In the long run it would make them more prosperous as well.
15 minutes, twice a day, for nine years, is 100,000 hours of human labor. How long do you think it takes to birth a new cow?
That isn't the problem. The problem is that our goddamn government and banking system SUBSIDIZES HUMANS SO THAT THEY CAN DO SHITTY JOBS FOR SLAVE WAGES.
Right, it's little comfort to me as I watch fifty years of topsoil dry up and blow away as a plague of locusts and beetles devour my crops, knowing that somewhere in Canada, timberland with no roads or civilization within 100 miles is now suitable for human food production.
if that same car can be built in 30 mins by robots, using resources mined by robots, should anyone really have to go without a car?
Depends. Did you help to build that robot, or did you join a union and vote for "progressive" taxes and have five kids and do all the things that the most ignorant class in America enjoys doing in order to thwart true progress?
Do you realize that resources are finite, but that human population grows exponentially? Do you recognize the coming clusterfuck we will have to deal with as a civilization when medical technology doubles our effective lifespan and old people still own 99% of the Earth while the young can't find jobs?
Oh and I forgot the most important part -- our criminal government uses them as an excuse to turn the US into an Orwellian nightmare.
No, it wouldn't be cheaper. When they come here, they don't leave. They vote illegally in our fraudulent elections. They take jobs building unnecessary houses stolen from middle-class savers by the Federal Reserve's inflation tax. They send all of their earnings back to their home countries. They have five kids who are educated for free in our public schools. And they get all of their medical care from emergency rooms.
It's not fucking cheaper at all.
I'm a bit concerned about all of this advancement to support extended population growth.
Then you should be building these and using them yourself, and making them open source, instead of letting places like MIT perfect them only to throw them down the memory hole in sacrifice to the risk-aggregating monster that is the Federal Reserve system.
That's exactly what automatic grape harvesters look like, but I don't think it's the most economical design. Land is cheap. Good wine land is unbelievably expensive. When you're replacing the most expensive part of the production process, human labor, you can afford to spread out a little.
The problem is, no matter how efficient or clever your system is, you simply cannot compete with the cost of human labor at the very bottom of the skills spectrum.
Completely true. When the "cost" of a human is perhaps a few hundred dollars, beneficial technologies wither on the vine as our living standards fall trying to "compete". That is exactly what we are witnessing right now -- a race to the bottom.
in a market based economy, is simply isn't, well, economical.
A market economy can't exist without sensible government regulation of negative externalities. Immigrants are a negative externality. The US government has completely failed to regulate it.
There has been credible evidence that "point of no return" comes when oceans are warm enough to start releasing methane stored on the seabed.
Yeah but the "point of no return" for that was when per capita energy consumption rose high enough to produce the CO2 required to trigger it. And the "point of no return" for that was when the west began outsourcing jobs to the developing world. And the "point of no return" for that was when American car manufacturers started making crappy gas guzzlers. And the "point of no return" for that was when the Allies won WWII. And the "point of no return" for that was when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. And the "point of no return" for that was when Hitler invaded Poland. And the "point of no return" for that was the Treaty of Versailles. ad infinitum...
So, ultimately, as Zeno pointed out, the only real question is whether the future is determined, or whether we are free to change it. And there is at least reason to believe that simply denying the possibility of an event is enough to prevent it from happening. So which is it -- is the cat dead or alive?
It does, actually. Do you still not understand what a derivative is? Do you not understand non-linear systems, and the fact that the economy is one? Do you grok the concept of leverage? How do you pretend to be a programmer and not get this? If your program encounters a bug, it crashes and is useless. It's not "largely operating".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3093169/
The cesarean delivery group had significantly higher IQ test scores.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10047/
Based on morphological and behavioral criteria and on comparisons with other primates, Portmann (1941,1945) suggested that human gestation should really last 21 months instead of 9. However, no woman could deliver a 21-month-old fetus because the head would not pass through the birth canal; thus, humans give birth at the end of 9 months. Montagu (1962) and Gould (1977) have suggested that during our first year of life, we are essentially extrauterine fetuses, and they speculate that much of human intelligence comes from the stimulation of the nervous system as it is forming during that first year.*
Portmann A. Die Tragzeiten der Primaten und die Dauer der Schwangerschaft beim Menschen: Ein Problem der vergleichen Biologie. Rev. Suisse Zool. 1941;48:511–518.
Portmann A. Die Ontogenese des Menschen als Problem der Evolutionsfor-schung. Verh. Schweiz. Naturf. Ges. 1945;125:44–53.
Montagu, M. F. A. 1962. Time, morphology, and neoteny in the evolution of man. In M. F. A. Montagu (ed.), Culture and Evolution of Man. Oxford University Press, New York.
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Roman life expectancy had little to do with their medicine. They had a cultural practice of infant exposure. They would kill unhealthy (born) children. Naturally this affected the statistics for life expectancy at birth. Roman life expectancy at age 5 was 48, higher than almost anywhere else at the time. It was deliberate. And it produced the most dominant military force the world has ever seen.
They also had a cultural practice of cutting unborn children from mothers who died in childbirth. This produced people with unnaturally large heads. Again, deliberate. And today known as Caesarian section. Roman surgeons were excellent, as a result of, again, warfare.
In short, Romans were the world's preeminent genetic engineers. They probably affected your life expectancy for the better, and may even be responsible for you being able to type on magic computing boxes to people halfway around the globe right now.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that your entire premise is complete nonsense, and that given adequate resources and moderately high standard of living, the vast majority of people would tend to live long and healthy lives even without modern medicine.
And this did say MODERN civilization.
It says modern comforts, not civilization. That generally includes things like fresh food, shelter and indoor plumbing, not pharmaceuticals, strip-mines and iPads. They only want to be able to support a village of a couple hundred people.
Is this whole tirade really just caused by your inability to comprehend what you read and perform the critical thinking necessary to realize that, no, in fact this group of a dozen or so people has not set out to replicate downtown New York or the interstate highway system?
a way of providing power when the wind isn't blowing.
Well in that case they have a steam engine which is mentioned right in the list of 50 tools which you, once again, have obviously not even read.
Oh look, here's a 50 kW electric-arc furnace capable of smelting steel. I imagine that would work well with a 50 kW windmill...
They have a pelletizer. Which could easily be a screw-type. And which could also be used as an expeller to press soy oil, with a few modifications.
Regardless, we're talking about a few tens of gallons of hydraulic oil. It's simply not a fundamental limiting factor of human civilization for an entire village of people to have to import a single barrel of oil in order to bootstrap it's existence.
magic fairy's produce the... quality Hydraulic oil that is needed
http://www.soyclean.biz/household_products/biosoy-food-grade-hydraulic-fluid.html