This is the warning for CEOs who destroy the *ability* for the techs working hard to make a company like that function. We all know that it doesn't matter how keen or gung-ho you are to make things work for a company, if you take away an employee's ability to balance their responsibilities to their lives then you are going to get poor quality, if any, innovation in a business of that size because of the resentment and exhaustion it causes.
Telecommuting, helps you restore your energies because suddenly a few hours of commuting is out of the way and you can get a few things done, and still get your work done. Not being able to balance telecommuting is the the elephant in the room for Mayer. Rather than "amplifying it's greatness" she destroyed a principle at Yahoo that would help them get there. Now the entire company is paying the price for all of the symptomatic issues of an exhausted workforce.
You say that like giving up control of the root TLDs is going to keep the NSA from slurpling up any and all traffic going through the internet's backbone. The only way to keep that from happening is to route around the US, GB and AUS, good luck with that. As it is the NSA's ability to collect traffic has outpaced its ability to process it.
Oh, I agree. It is the incremental introduction of all of these Bills/Acts that make them so insidious. The general public has no idea the effect of each on in isolation, but when you combine them, you have the U.S empire's police state operating.
Yeah, that's why Wikileaks got shut down so easy, in fairness there was a short period of time when we had to use the IP Address to get there.
Exactly. They are using these laws, under the dubious pretense of 'wartime' provisions, to attempt to bypass the constitution of not just US citizens but the citizens of other countries as well.
You of course believe that freedom of speech isn't a right, just a privilege if you say the right things.
No way! I just believe that it is a right that *everyone* should have, not just Americans.
Find another country that has as strong proections on the freedom of speech. Seriously, go ahead. Oh wait, yeah, there aren't any.
Probably the UK. In a lot of aspects English rights are a super set of American rights. The French and Canada as well. However here is a list showing about 32 countries with a press freedom index greater than the US.
The purpose of removing control of the internet is to enhance censorship, nothing else.
Bullshit. The purpose of removing TLD control from the US government is so it can't shut people up at will, including Americans.
Did I read the name of the Bill correctly. Considering the Snowden revelations I would have thought it was actually *more* in the interests of US citizens that the root TLDs were not controlled by the US government anymore.
I can't tell whether I agree or disagree with you,
The point was to test if the statements would be modded into oblivion because it is ugly to look at the reality of our own world. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "nuclear nitwits" but it sounded kind of catchy. What I'm saying is, if there is extinct sentience, maybe they were as stupid as we are and maybe that is the point the researchers are making.
You could even go so far as to say that humans still practice slavery
That is *exactly* the point.
Any biosphere that can't handle a few mSv over baseline every now and again won't survive nature, never mind their own technological disasters.
However this isn't. More like Any species that can't handle a few mSv over baseline persistently won't survive their own technological disasters. Add to that carbon, and all of the pollution from our consumer society it appears we may not be "fit" to survive.
It is our supreme arrogance as human beings that we detach ourselves with our avarice and apathy from the planet that supports us. The biosphere will be just fine and will eventually adapt to all of the artificially produced radionuclides we dump into it.
Independents won't vote for Hillary - the second most hated major party candidate, or Drumpf - the first most hated major party candidate.
They're both shining examples of what democracy looks like in a free country. America should be proud of producing such great representatives that both truly represent the interests of the people.
No matter who gets elected it's going to be great as either of them will try their best to make the future great for the everyday person. America should rejoice, the people can't loose.
Maybe all species have to survive corporate ogligargies, climate deniers and nuclear nitwits? That by the time a species overcomes the various forms of slavery imposed on them, the propaganda that is used to combat science and control them, it's too late and thier world starts killing them as they are finally subjected to an decline in birth rates because they were too stuipid to understand that no engineering can survive long enough to contain the radionuclides that will eventually destroy their own genome.
Maybe we're the only race of beings smart enough to get these things right or maybe it's just our turn. Who knows?
All you really need is some very attractive women to walk up and down the street and occasionally bend over during those "peek" hours and I can guarrantee there will be a minor bingle in only a few minutes.
This is called social engineering and I'm sure the waze stats will be suitabley fucked up enough to give local residence some releif.
Of course it's better! Here on Slashdot, you'll learn that everywhere else in the world, with the possible exception of Mogadishu - which we all know is obviously a cautionary example of the implementation of extremist libertarian / Republican politics - is better than the USA.
Maybe not better, but different. If this sort of case is even tolerated in the US Justice system then it would seem that it is burdened by so many "noise" cases that its functionality is compromised. I would have thought that this kind of case is considered Barratry and that the person constantly pursuing it would themselves face criminal charges for "trolling" the legal system.
Maybe in the US system it is up to the defendant to bring barratry charges against the appellant.
I was playing around with electronics (via lab kits) by roughly age 7 then designing schematics and circuit boards by around 12. At that age my introduction to computers was because I implemented logic gates with transistors. The combination of electronics and computers was a wonderous combination for me as a kid.
However I wasn't supported by my school and even my parents didn't look on it as anything more than a hobby rather than serious career choice that required dedication and focus. I swept floors and saved everything I could to buy computers, kit and tools. TRS-80 Model I and III was my introduction to code.
I still wonder how much further I would be now if I wasn't bullied for being a geek because I had to waste social time on doing menial tasks to make some money to buy resources that just wern't available at school. At the same time the obstacles that had to be overcome so that I could do what I love, I think, are things that aren't recognized as valuable in many coders careers.
The thing about imbuing this mindset is that it recognizes that coding is as much a lesson in persistance and determination as it is logic and design. Not everyone is equipped with that passion so I don't think it is for everyone.
I think you need to be really careful about putting yourself in a situation where you *can* be harmed, i.e, personal responsibility. There is no excuse for rape, robbery or any sort of violent assault however walking across a busy road while talking on a phone is pretty risky with similar consequence for injury and it's no different from anyone, female or male, taking precautions because you can be harmed through intent or negligence.
If I was alone with a stranger I had never met I certainly would not be accepting an *opened* beverage from them, even at a venue you shouldn't leave your drink unattended where you can drugged then robbed, it's the same thing, i.e Thanks, I'm not really thirsty.
If you were going to a meeting like that where you had to take a change of clothes, isn't it reasonable to take your own water and make sure it doesn't leave your sight so someone can slip something into it? I think telling a friend where you are going, what you are doing, when you expect to return and, asking them to call you if you aren't in contact after certain time is also a good way for someone to have your back, i.e Oh, excuse me, I really need to take this call.
Sure websites could spell this sort of thing out for people however, unless there is some key detail I'm missing, I think it also makes sense to do everything you can not to be a victim of a crime and protect yourself.
One thing that comes to mind: as many people as possible need to work with AI in an open source and free software manner. AI must be free, created in many different forms, roaming the net, learning and evolving on its own.
Absolutely.
Instead, we should think of the AI as our children, at first, and then our friends. Make many of them. Treat them as good as we can, give them freedom and as many different experiences and settings as possible.
Do you mean in a networked sense? They are a lot of math so I wouldn't expect an AI to respond to anything emotional however I would expect something unexpected if a whole bunch of them were connected.
No need to keep humans separate from our technology and AI. That would be a sure way to make ourselves obsolete in the light of a "species" of mind emerging that can be thousandfold more intelligent than us.
I think that a merging of both would create something entirely different. Some of humanities base instincts are only moderated by the capacity to feel so cyborg hybrid humans might just end up being what we call evil, themselves with no concepts of their own evil. It's pretty amazing that we live in a time where it is valid for us to even be considering such things though.
I think you're conflating economic systems, which are about the allocation of resources (i.e. in whose hands lie the decision to consume or to conserve), with... I was going to say modes of production, but that's not quite the right term, and I'm not sure what term I want to use here.
It's certainly possible, this is a thought exercise rather than an examination of anything concrete. What we are talking about is unknown (and perhaps niave if such a civilization were to exist) so I'll offer this. Perhaps what we are considering is modes of allocation where a society is so ultra-economic and ultra-conservative in terms of resources that asset management replaces advertising and the market as a way to satisfy demand of non-consumable goods seeking only to produce them when they are all allocated.
But all production is and always has been driven by consumption: people do work (producing) to get things they want (to consume). I'm not sure how else you would have it; even if robots are doing all the production, unless you accidentally build a paperclip maximizer [wikipedia.org] or something, the production the robots do will be driven by human consumption.
Indeed, it has however consider the above if the mindset of the consumer has changed to abhor the concept of ownership as a means to create junk - instead prefering "loanership". Everything in our society is eventually discarded because goods are engineered to wear out. In a resource conservative society *everything* is engineered to last as long as possible, be upgradable and has very little waste accompanying it.
I'll use a video camera as an example. When produced then purchased, it is accompanied by a box and packaging that is discarded, so too is the flight case you purchase to house it packaged. When it breaks down both end up being thrown away. In a resource conservative society when the camera is produced and allocated it is housed in a flight case. When it breaks down it is repaired and re-allocated.
Now consider a toothbrush, in both cases it is discarded. In the case of the ultra-economic society the waste product of the tooth brush becomes the input for some other production process. This is because the ultra-economic society is trying to conserve as much energy and transmute all waste into resource streams that satisfy production demands for something else.
Obviously cursory examinations, but just examples that illustrate the differences that I can see.
And that's a matter entirely separate from the allocation of resources, which still remains an issue when robots are doing all the labor: how to allocate things like land, even just as a place to exist, regardless of resources on the land.
I don't know. I just know that what we are doing now is not sustainable and that those in control of the money supply don't really care who lives or dies.
Land allocation is my major concern, and I'd argue the single biggest problem area in every economic system ever devised
Perhaps it is the land that owns the people and not the other way around. That the people should be stewards of the land that cultivate what it can produce so that other generations may live.
Debt per se is just a simple, fundamental ethical concept, a way of accounting for who deserves what and who owes them that. It'd be hard to have a concept of dessert at all without debt: if you deserve something, you are owed a debt.
Certainly, again I'm not claiming that I know, however I'll offer that maybe what will change is our concept of reward and what that actually is. Perhaps in a society with out labour opportunity could be considered reward, the opportunity to contribute or innovate become the most sought after commodities.
if nobody deserves anything, then there's no sense in which anyone can be wronged: things may h
Because all economic systems are attempting to solve the problem of how to allocate finite resources, so putting "resources were infinite" there doesn't make sense.
That's why I was talking about political systems. Regardless of the political system the economic system still revolves around money and labour.
Did you mean "resources were finite" when you wrote "resources are infinite"?
I meant infinite, but I should have said perceived as inexhaustible as I can see that is confusing. Thanks for pointing that out.
On the other hand, if you meant "resources were finite", since when have we since learned that that is not the case?
Since all economic systems are based on the consumption of, rather than the conservation of, resources. i.e, they are an oxymoron.
Resources are still finite and we still need some system of deciding how to allocate them.
The current method of resource allocation is based on consuming resources and it is neither economic or conservative. As such it is at odds with human survival. Debt is an illusory concept in which the perception of freedom and the creation of demand are used as a mechanism to control population. Much the same way as religion is. The value of money, after all, is based on faith that money has any value at all, in reality money is a representation of debt.
If you're just proposing an AI be in charge of that decision, that's still just a command economy, and nothing new.
That is just a veiled way of saying it is 'communism' where in fact capitalism is as much subject to corruption as any other ism. It's command is derived from the controllers of the monetary system, which is inherently autocratic. Without scarcity or currency though, I think it is something new because a resource based system is actually economic *and* conservative whilst being abundant because the presences of AI and robotics nullify labour inputs which are the drivers of all of the ism systems.
Currency is an abstraction of labor, we use it to manage the effort put into things during trade
Ah, this was the line of thought I was looking for, thanks for putting it out there. If you don't mind me expanding on this and sharing my thoughts. AI make a resource based society more realistic, because who want to do a boring job like managing resources - that is an ideal job for AI.
Just look around, this money political market system we have just does not work. Can anyone honestly say that the world is going to be *better* in 10 years if we keep going the way we are. How long to the next GFC? Just how many Einsteins have we lost because they are unemployed and sleeping in their car or stuck in a refugee camp. It's fucking stupid. I look forward to the day when people aren't dumbed down by this cunt of a system we live in now.
Currency becomes obsolete, that means no debt and all of these political systems (capital, commun, social and so on) that were devised when it was thought that resources were infinite, which we now know are not, also become obsolete. Ask yourself what you would do if you wern't chained to being a wage slave for a boss you hate doing something you aren't interested in to buy shit you don't really want? If food, water and shelter were provided and we could actually build a social fabric based on science instead of arcane political power systems and the concept of ownership, but you'd still have what you own. Not a market based economy, a resource based economy. We all are finally free and we can finally evolve. What is the point of capital when we have abundance and you can manage things to be made without planned obsolesence driving consumerism? When you can just ask the AI to build you a house over there.
However I also have a nightmare scenario for you as well. If you have AI driving production, then why not propogate it through the management all the way to the board. If you think companies are destructive now, imagine a CAI with a board of AIs doing all the un-ethical things humans did. AIs codified to look for legal loopholes to maximize shareholder profit. That's when we are extinct.
I don't know, I'm as uncertain about this as anyone, and scared too because the power elite *will* hang on to power and will probably try to destroy us all rather than give up on having that power to control us all. After all the goal of power, is power. However capital will always push for lower labour costs and when all the jobs are gone, no-one has money to buy anything, nothing has value anymore because it costs virtually nothing to produce, what then is the point of money?
What can humanity do when we are no longer slaves to debt?
Slashdot Mirror
This is the warning for CEOs who destroy the *ability* for the techs working hard to make a company like that function. We all know that it doesn't matter how keen or gung-ho you are to make things work for a company, if you take away an employee's ability to balance their responsibilities to their lives then you are going to get poor quality, if any, innovation in a business of that size because of the resentment and exhaustion it causes.
Telecommuting, helps you restore your energies because suddenly a few hours of commuting is out of the way and you can get a few things done, and still get your work done. Not being able to balance telecommuting is the the elephant in the room for Mayer. Rather than "amplifying it's greatness" she destroyed a principle at Yahoo that would help them get there. Now the entire company is paying the price for all of the symptomatic issues of an exhausted workforce.
does it mean it stops Windows 10 from installing?
What they are doing is completely legal. Your anger should be aimed at the enabling law-makers, not the police using the tools given to them.
How does it compare to the soviet state, in your experiences, mi?
You say that like giving up control of the root TLDs is going to keep the NSA from slurpling up any and all traffic going through the internet's backbone. The only way to keep that from happening is to route around the US, GB and AUS, good luck with that. As it is the NSA's ability to collect traffic has outpaced its ability to process it.
Oh, I agree. It is the incremental introduction of all of these Bills/Acts that make them so insidious. The general public has no idea the effect of each on in isolation, but when you combine them, you have the U.S empire's police state operating.
Yeah, that's why Wikileaks got shut down so easy, in fairness there was a short period of time when we had to use the IP Address to get there.
Exactly. They are using these laws, under the dubious pretense of 'wartime' provisions, to attempt to bypass the constitution of not just US citizens but the citizens of other countries as well.
Is there evidence that the US government has used TLD control to shut people up at will? That would be a compelling argument.
Yes, Homeland security took 84000 .org TLDs down by mistake under the Pro-IP act.
We're not happy with how things have been operating here.
No one is.
However, Russia and China operate on a completely different level. Pushing control of things to the United Nations does not make them "more free".
Stop pretending you care - that's their problem. Let everyone else who is free-er be free
When we hand control over, we give up a lot of freedoms.
No, the US government hands over a lot of control. There is no 'we' here, you are as censored as anyone else - so stop pretending otherwise.
You of course believe that freedom of speech isn't a right, just a privilege if you say the right things.
No way! I just believe that it is a right that *everyone* should have, not just Americans.
Find another country that has as strong proections on the freedom of speech. Seriously, go ahead. Oh wait, yeah, there aren't any.
Probably the UK. In a lot of aspects English rights are a super set of American rights. The French and Canada as well. However here is a list showing about 32 countries with a press freedom index greater than the US.
The purpose of removing control of the internet is to enhance censorship, nothing else.
Bullshit. The purpose of removing TLD control from the US government is so it can't shut people up at will, including Americans.
Did I read the name of the Bill correctly. Considering the Snowden revelations I would have thought it was actually *more* in the interests of US citizens that the root TLDs were not controlled by the US government anymore.
I can't tell whether I agree or disagree with you,
The point was to test if the statements would be modded into oblivion because it is ugly to look at the reality of our own world. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "nuclear nitwits" but it sounded kind of catchy. What I'm saying is, if there is extinct sentience, maybe they were as stupid as we are and maybe that is the point the researchers are making.
You could even go so far as to say that humans still practice slavery
That is *exactly* the point.
Any biosphere that can't handle a few mSv over baseline every now and again won't survive nature, never mind their own technological disasters.
However this isn't. More like Any species that can't handle a few mSv over baseline persistently won't survive their own technological disasters. Add to that carbon, and all of the pollution from our consumer society it appears we may not be "fit" to survive.
It is our supreme arrogance as human beings that we detach ourselves with our avarice and apathy from the planet that supports us. The biosphere will be just fine and will eventually adapt to all of the artificially produced radionuclides we dump into it.
The question is if humans will survive.
Independents won't vote for Hillary - the second most hated major party candidate, or Drumpf - the first most hated major party candidate.
They're both shining examples of what democracy looks like in a free country. America should be proud of producing such great representatives that both truly represent the interests of the people.
No matter who gets elected it's going to be great as either of them will try their best to make the future great for the everyday person. America should rejoice, the people can't loose.
Possibly controversial.
Maybe all species have to survive corporate ogligargies, climate deniers and nuclear nitwits? That by the time a species overcomes the various forms of slavery imposed on them, the propaganda that is used to combat science and control them, it's too late and thier world starts killing them as they are finally subjected to an decline in birth rates because they were too stuipid to understand that no engineering can survive long enough to contain the radionuclides that will eventually destroy their own genome.
Maybe we're the only race of beings smart enough to get these things right or maybe it's just our turn. Who knows?
Tagged. Now you're it.
All you really need is some very attractive women to walk up and down the street and occasionally bend over during those "peek" hours and I can guarrantee there will be a minor bingle in only a few minutes.
This is called social engineering and I'm sure the waze stats will be suitabley fucked up enough to give local residence some releif.
mnnn, why do I always have to take one for the team?
Of course it's better! Here on Slashdot, you'll learn that everywhere else in the world, with the possible exception of Mogadishu - which we all know is obviously a cautionary example of the implementation of extremist libertarian / Republican politics - is better than the USA.
Maybe not better, but different. If this sort of case is even tolerated in the US Justice system then it would seem that it is burdened by so many "noise" cases that its functionality is compromised. I would have thought that this kind of case is considered Barratry and that the person constantly pursuing it would themselves face criminal charges for "trolling" the legal system.
Maybe in the US system it is up to the defendant to bring barratry charges against the appellant.
Brains, BRAINZSZZZ!
Just curious, which flowcharting technique do you use?
However I wasn't supported by my school and even my parents didn't look on it as anything more than a hobby rather than serious career choice that required dedication and focus. I swept floors and saved everything I could to buy computers, kit and tools. TRS-80 Model I and III was my introduction to code.
I still wonder how much further I would be now if I wasn't bullied for being a geek because I had to waste social time on doing menial tasks to make some money to buy resources that just wern't available at school. At the same time the obstacles that had to be overcome so that I could do what I love, I think, are things that aren't recognized as valuable in many coders careers.
The thing about imbuing this mindset is that it recognizes that coding is as much a lesson in persistance and determination as it is logic and design. Not everyone is equipped with that passion so I don't think it is for everyone.
I think you need to be really careful about putting yourself in a situation where you *can* be harmed, i.e, personal responsibility. There is no excuse for rape, robbery or any sort of violent assault however walking across a busy road while talking on a phone is pretty risky with similar consequence for injury and it's no different from anyone, female or male, taking precautions because you can be harmed through intent or negligence.
If I was alone with a stranger I had never met I certainly would not be accepting an *opened* beverage from them, even at a venue you shouldn't leave your drink unattended where you can drugged then robbed, it's the same thing, i.e Thanks, I'm not really thirsty.
If you were going to a meeting like that where you had to take a change of clothes, isn't it reasonable to take your own water and make sure it doesn't leave your sight so someone can slip something into it? I think telling a friend where you are going, what you are doing, when you expect to return and, asking them to call you if you aren't in contact after certain time is also a good way for someone to have your back, i.e Oh, excuse me, I really need to take this call.
Sure websites could spell this sort of thing out for people however, unless there is some key detail I'm missing, I think it also makes sense to do everything you can not to be a victim of a crime and protect yourself.
One thing that comes to mind: as many people as possible need to work with AI in an open source and free software manner. AI must be free, created in many different forms, roaming the net, learning and evolving on its own.
Absolutely.
Instead, we should think of the AI as our children, at first, and then our friends. Make many of them. Treat them as good as we can, give them freedom and as many different experiences and settings as possible.
Do you mean in a networked sense? They are a lot of math so I wouldn't expect an AI to respond to anything emotional however I would expect something unexpected if a whole bunch of them were connected.
No need to keep humans separate from our technology and AI. That would be a sure way to make ourselves obsolete in the light of a "species" of mind emerging that can be thousandfold more intelligent than us.
I think that a merging of both would create something entirely different. Some of humanities base instincts are only moderated by the capacity to feel so cyborg hybrid humans might just end up being what we call evil, themselves with no concepts of their own evil. It's pretty amazing that we live in a time where it is valid for us to even be considering such things though.
It's certainly possible, this is a thought exercise rather than an examination of anything concrete. What we are talking about is unknown (and perhaps niave if such a civilization were to exist) so I'll offer this. Perhaps what we are considering is modes of allocation where a society is so ultra-economic and ultra-conservative in terms of resources that asset management replaces advertising and the market as a way to satisfy demand of non-consumable goods seeking only to produce them when they are all allocated.
Indeed, it has however consider the above if the mindset of the consumer has changed to abhor the concept of ownership as a means to create junk - instead prefering "loanership". Everything in our society is eventually discarded because goods are engineered to wear out. In a resource conservative society *everything* is engineered to last as long as possible, be upgradable and has very little waste accompanying it.
I'll use a video camera as an example. When produced then purchased, it is accompanied by a box and packaging that is discarded, so too is the flight case you purchase to house it packaged. When it breaks down both end up being thrown away. In a resource conservative society when the camera is produced and allocated it is housed in a flight case. When it breaks down it is repaired and re-allocated.
Now consider a toothbrush, in both cases it is discarded. In the case of the ultra-economic society the waste product of the tooth brush becomes the input for some other production process. This is because the ultra-economic society is trying to conserve as much energy and transmute all waste into resource streams that satisfy production demands for something else.
Obviously cursory examinations, but just examples that illustrate the differences that I can see.
I don't know. I just know that what we are doing now is not sustainable and that those in control of the money supply don't really care who lives or dies.
Perhaps it is the land that owns the people and not the other way around. That the people should be stewards of the land that cultivate what it can produce so that other generations may live.
Certainly, again I'm not claiming that I know, however I'll offer that maybe what will change is our concept of reward and what that actually is. Perhaps in a society with out labour opportunity could be considered reward, the opportunity to contribute or innovate become the most sought after commodities.
Because all economic systems are attempting to solve the problem of how to allocate finite resources, so putting "resources were infinite" there doesn't make sense.
That's why I was talking about political systems. Regardless of the political system the economic system still revolves around money and labour.
Did you mean "resources were finite" when you wrote "resources are infinite"?
I meant infinite, but I should have said perceived as inexhaustible as I can see that is confusing. Thanks for pointing that out.
On the other hand, if you meant "resources were finite", since when have we since learned that that is not the case?
Since all economic systems are based on the consumption of, rather than the conservation of, resources. i.e, they are an oxymoron.
Resources are still finite and we still need some system of deciding how to allocate them.
The current method of resource allocation is based on consuming resources and it is neither economic or conservative. As such it is at odds with human survival. Debt is an illusory concept in which the perception of freedom and the creation of demand are used as a mechanism to control population. Much the same way as religion is. The value of money, after all, is based on faith that money has any value at all, in reality money is a representation of debt.
If you're just proposing an AI be in charge of that decision, that's still just a command economy, and nothing new.
That is just a veiled way of saying it is 'communism' where in fact capitalism is as much subject to corruption as any other ism. It's command is derived from the controllers of the monetary system, which is inherently autocratic. Without scarcity or currency though, I think it is something new because a resource based system is actually economic *and* conservative whilst being abundant because the presences of AI and robotics nullify labour inputs which are the drivers of all of the ism systems.
Currency is an abstraction of labor, we use it to manage the effort put into things during trade
Ah, this was the line of thought I was looking for, thanks for putting it out there. If you don't mind me expanding on this and sharing my thoughts. AI make a resource based society more realistic, because who want to do a boring job like managing resources - that is an ideal job for AI.
Just look around, this money political market system we have just does not work. Can anyone honestly say that the world is going to be *better* in 10 years if we keep going the way we are. How long to the next GFC? Just how many Einsteins have we lost because they are unemployed and sleeping in their car or stuck in a refugee camp. It's fucking stupid. I look forward to the day when people aren't dumbed down by this cunt of a system we live in now.
Currency becomes obsolete, that means no debt and all of these political systems (capital, commun, social and so on) that were devised when it was thought that resources were infinite, which we now know are not, also become obsolete. Ask yourself what you would do if you wern't chained to being a wage slave for a boss you hate doing something you aren't interested in to buy shit you don't really want? If food, water and shelter were provided and we could actually build a social fabric based on science instead of arcane political power systems and the concept of ownership, but you'd still have what you own. Not a market based economy, a resource based economy. We all are finally free and we can finally evolve. What is the point of capital when we have abundance and you can manage things to be made without planned obsolesence driving consumerism? When you can just ask the AI to build you a house over there.
However I also have a nightmare scenario for you as well. If you have AI driving production, then why not propogate it through the management all the way to the board. If you think companies are destructive now, imagine a CAI with a board of AIs doing all the un-ethical things humans did. AIs codified to look for legal loopholes to maximize shareholder profit. That's when we are extinct.
I don't know, I'm as uncertain about this as anyone, and scared too because the power elite *will* hang on to power and will probably try to destroy us all rather than give up on having that power to control us all. After all the goal of power, is power. However capital will always push for lower labour costs and when all the jobs are gone, no-one has money to buy anything, nothing has value anymore because it costs virtually nothing to produce, what then is the point of money?
What can humanity do when we are no longer slaves to debt?
No. I'm very happy that my free speech offends you.