FFS, learn what a serf is. There is no-one on the planet that is bound to the land by a feudal lord. There may be slaves, but they are vanishingly small in number, as opposed to, you know, 200 years ago.
Calling hard working people slaves just shows ignorance on your part. Those people are working to develop their industrial base, something that will improve the lives of their children. But you don't want to hear about that, because you want to return to the world as it was prior to industrialism. You know, where 99% of people were serfs or slaves, rather than 0.001%.
That is, unless you have some EVIDENCE that people are being held in bondage and forced to work on a massive scale somewhere. But you don't, because you act solely based on your feelings, which are more important to you than reality. It's disgusting.
Just because the robots took the productive jobs doesn't mean people won't have jobs. There will still be actors, writers, artisans, chefs, athletes, etc. There will be plenty of jobs. They just won't produce so many critical things.
Your argument is nothing but a rehash of Luddism. Industrialization destroyed vast swaths of unskilled labor, but it also allowed increased specialization that lead to an explosion in the number of people not directly involved in farming.
Increased production has never once in history lead to a war. Never.
If that were the case, we would have exactly one mathematician, and we would pay him nothing. He'd be out of a job after he wrote down all the knowledge of the universe that flooded into his head in an instant.
Fact is we DO pay mathematicians, and they DO make progress. But if we paid them MORE, then more intelligent and talented people would become mathematicians. Why are mathematicians so special that the basic laws of economics don't apply to them? Seems to me that you are just justifying a personal choice of yours, and don't like the implication that yours is not the greatest and most sublime profession in Earth or Heaven. Get over yourself.
You could have said the same thing about mass production, and predicted that the world would still be full of serfs and slaves 200 years in the future, but you would have been wrong.
Star Trek isn't real? So what? Twenty years ago pocket communicators weren't real. Today they are common to the point of being free. We just call them cell phones. You saying that economics doesn't work? Reality isn't real? Technology can't advance?
Seems to me you are just being fatalistic. Understandable, since we are living in the early to middle stages of a dystopia. But that doesn't mean there isn't a bright future.
If the government got out of the way, we could have practically unlimited energy from LFTR technology in five years. Unlimited energy makes all the other problems you present trivial.
We are NOT better off than we were back then. The technological advances we have seen hardly make up for the drop in average worker production due to increasing numbers of non-productive workers (ie government workers, and those who must deal with them to keep businesses running). Even with the radical advances we have seen, the average family does, in fact, work 60-80 hours, and is only just getting by, if that, as they now have huge amounts of debt to pay off that they accumulated while trying to maintain their standard of living.
The group that saw the greatest amount of growth was government. They went from ~20% of GDP to greater than 40. That is why your pay is stagnating, and why there are so few jobs. Governments don't create goods that you can buy. They aren't PRODUCTIVE. Cut the government back down to 20% of GDP, and the purchasing power that was previously being distributed to people who didn't produce anything will largely find its way back to productive pursuits, and we will start to grow again.
Note also that 42 years ago we went off the gold standard. Wages were rising up until that point, and stagnated immediately after. Leaving the gold standard allowed money printing. Money printing to fill budgets has exactly ONE endpoint. That is something that few people want to talk about.
How do you pay for the content you use on the internet? You don't, because the marginal cost for the content you consume is so close to zero that it's not worth it to charge for it. The same will be true of items produced by robots.
There will be resistance to this at first, but then home 3d printers will improve to the point that you can print many of the things you want or need easily. Things that need to be assembled from printed and commodity parts will be assembled locally, while still being very low price. Like, cheaper than shit from China.
It is if you want talent and progress in a given field, yes. But I guess you would rather we have all the top brains become lawyers, politicians, and CEOs.
You mean that they had the ability to expose massive, economy breaking fraud!? Can't have that.
Give Bloomberg a medal for this. I say they should be able to put video and audio bugs on their terminals. After all, these banks have nothing to hide, right? Except, you know, for LIBOR manipulation, municipal bond market manipulation, commodity price manipulation, VIX manipulation, currency manipulation, monetary policy manipulation, collusion with central banks, bribing public officials, money laundering for drug cartels, money laundering for everyone else, and child sex tourism.
I think you should learn about the concept of "equilibria" before you spout off about how you can't force more water vapor into the air. Might as well tell me that you can't flood a house because water evaporates.
Further, I think YOU haven't been paying attention, as the amount of alarmism in media is staggering (or did you not see "The Day After Tomorrow"?), and practically none of it talks about ocean acidification.
Although it is nice to know that there are believers of AGW that aren't running around with their hair on fire.
Interesting, I was unaware that humidity was always 100% everywhere, and as a result there could be no temperature forcing by increasing the continuous output of water vapor into the atmosphere.
You're right. We are totally special. Feels good, man.
Also, the law of large numbers does not exist.
I mean, Crhist, it's like you guys don't understand that there are a shitload of planets out there (like, more planets than grains of sand on our planet), and probably a tenth of those are in the habitable zone, and have been for BILLIONS of years. Yes, rare things will happen, lots and lots of times.
Again, telling me there is exactly one planet with life is like telling me there are exactly three planets with life. It's asinine.
I like how the chart at the end actually looks a lot more like a peaking temperature. They set up a strawman to make "skeptics" look ridiculous by having them "believe" that temperature was flat while it was rising. That ridiculous fake argument masks the fact that they are doing a linear extrapolation, and that that extrapolation is pulling away from the moving average. And we all know how linear extrapolation always works as a predictor, right? That's why the DOW is now at 72,000 and Pets.com is the powerhouse of the world economy. Also why my Dad has 11,300 wives.
Of note is that that temperature chart looks a LOT like a log chart of planetary industrial output, which has leveled off in recent years. Almost as if the warming hasn't come from a persistent gas who's concentration continues to rise even as production falls, but by a transitory gas that is forced into higher concentrations by continuous industrial output, but which falls quickly with falling production and actually works as a significant greenhouse gas. You know, water vapor. The other product of combustion.
But that doesn't mean that CO2 isn't a problem. It is a world-killing problem, but not because of some stupid idea like global warming. It is OCEAN ACIDIFICATION that will destroy us all, not balmy temperatures and poorly defined "increases in violent weather". Might want to stock up on canned tuna.
You are the only person I have ever met that plays that way, then. I never even knew that such a rule existed until I played it on SNES or some other console. I've played it that way a couple of times since then.
Slashdot Mirror
FFS, learn what a serf is. There is no-one on the planet that is bound to the land by a feudal lord. There may be slaves, but they are vanishingly small in number, as opposed to, you know, 200 years ago.
Calling hard working people slaves just shows ignorance on your part. Those people are working to develop their industrial base, something that will improve the lives of their children. But you don't want to hear about that, because you want to return to the world as it was prior to industrialism. You know, where 99% of people were serfs or slaves, rather than 0.001%.
That is, unless you have some EVIDENCE that people are being held in bondage and forced to work on a massive scale somewhere. But you don't, because you act solely based on your feelings, which are more important to you than reality. It's disgusting.
Just because the robots took the productive jobs doesn't mean people won't have jobs. There will still be actors, writers, artisans, chefs, athletes, etc. There will be plenty of jobs. They just won't produce so many critical things.
Your argument is nothing but a rehash of Luddism. Industrialization destroyed vast swaths of unskilled labor, but it also allowed increased specialization that lead to an explosion in the number of people not directly involved in farming.
Increased production has never once in history lead to a war. Never.
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
If that were the case, we would have exactly one mathematician, and we would pay him nothing. He'd be out of a job after he wrote down all the knowledge of the universe that flooded into his head in an instant.
Fact is we DO pay mathematicians, and they DO make progress. But if we paid them MORE, then more intelligent and talented people would become mathematicians. Why are mathematicians so special that the basic laws of economics don't apply to them? Seems to me that you are just justifying a personal choice of yours, and don't like the implication that yours is not the greatest and most sublime profession in Earth or Heaven. Get over yourself.
You could have said the same thing about mass production, and predicted that the world would still be full of serfs and slaves 200 years in the future, but you would have been wrong.
Star Trek isn't real? So what? Twenty years ago pocket communicators weren't real. Today they are common to the point of being free. We just call them cell phones. You saying that economics doesn't work? Reality isn't real? Technology can't advance?
Seems to me you are just being fatalistic. Understandable, since we are living in the early to middle stages of a dystopia. But that doesn't mean there isn't a bright future.
If the government got out of the way, we could have practically unlimited energy from LFTR technology in five years. Unlimited energy makes all the other problems you present trivial.
We are NOT better off than we were back then. The technological advances we have seen hardly make up for the drop in average worker production due to increasing numbers of non-productive workers (ie government workers, and those who must deal with them to keep businesses running). Even with the radical advances we have seen, the average family does, in fact, work 60-80 hours, and is only just getting by, if that, as they now have huge amounts of debt to pay off that they accumulated while trying to maintain their standard of living.
The group that saw the greatest amount of growth was government. They went from ~20% of GDP to greater than 40. That is why your pay is stagnating, and why there are so few jobs. Governments don't create goods that you can buy. They aren't PRODUCTIVE. Cut the government back down to 20% of GDP, and the purchasing power that was previously being distributed to people who didn't produce anything will largely find its way back to productive pursuits, and we will start to grow again.
Note also that 42 years ago we went off the gold standard. Wages were rising up until that point, and stagnated immediately after. Leaving the gold standard allowed money printing. Money printing to fill budgets has exactly ONE endpoint. That is something that few people want to talk about.
How do you pay for the content you use on the internet? You don't, because the marginal cost for the content you consume is so close to zero that it's not worth it to charge for it. The same will be true of items produced by robots.
There will be resistance to this at first, but then home 3d printers will improve to the point that you can print many of the things you want or need easily. Things that need to be assembled from printed and commodity parts will be assembled locally, while still being very low price. Like, cheaper than shit from China.
Eudaimonia.
You can patent the process that makes the calculation, not the calculation itself. But IANAPA (patent attorney).
But money is all you think about when you don't have any. People who are well paid don't have to worry.
It is if you want talent and progress in a given field, yes. But I guess you would rather we have all the top brains become lawyers, politicians, and CEOs.
They don't call them Grammar Nazis for nothing.
Double negative to fight intolerance.
You mean that they had the ability to expose massive, economy breaking fraud!? Can't have that.
Give Bloomberg a medal for this. I say they should be able to put video and audio bugs on their terminals. After all, these banks have nothing to hide, right? Except, you know, for LIBOR manipulation, municipal bond market manipulation, commodity price manipulation, VIX manipulation, currency manipulation, monetary policy manipulation, collusion with central banks, bribing public officials, money laundering for drug cartels, money laundering for everyone else, and child sex tourism.
Amazing. So equal protection under the law no longer applies?
I guess America is really hard up for toilet paper these days. They have to use the Constitution now.
I'll take Synonyms for 2000, Alex.
I think you should learn about the concept of "equilibria" before you spout off about how you can't force more water vapor into the air. Might as well tell me that you can't flood a house because water evaporates.
Further, I think YOU haven't been paying attention, as the amount of alarmism in media is staggering (or did you not see "The Day After Tomorrow"?), and practically none of it talks about ocean acidification.
Although it is nice to know that there are believers of AGW that aren't running around with their hair on fire.
Interesting, I was unaware that humidity was always 100% everywhere, and as a result there could be no temperature forcing by increasing the continuous output of water vapor into the atmosphere.
That is so incorrect its moon cheese.
Acceptance.
You're right. We are totally special. Feels good, man.
Also, the law of large numbers does not exist.
I mean, Crhist, it's like you guys don't understand that there are a shitload of planets out there (like, more planets than grains of sand on our planet), and probably a tenth of those are in the habitable zone, and have been for BILLIONS of years. Yes, rare things will happen, lots and lots of times.
Again, telling me there is exactly one planet with life is like telling me there are exactly three planets with life. It's asinine.
"Common" and "disposable" are not synonyms.
Well damn. foreveralone.jpg :(
I like how the chart at the end actually looks a lot more like a peaking temperature. They set up a strawman to make "skeptics" look ridiculous by having them "believe" that temperature was flat while it was rising. That ridiculous fake argument masks the fact that they are doing a linear extrapolation, and that that extrapolation is pulling away from the moving average. And we all know how linear extrapolation always works as a predictor, right? That's why the DOW is now at 72,000 and Pets.com is the powerhouse of the world economy. Also why my Dad has 11,300 wives.
Of note is that that temperature chart looks a LOT like a log chart of planetary industrial output, which has leveled off in recent years. Almost as if the warming hasn't come from a persistent gas who's concentration continues to rise even as production falls, but by a transitory gas that is forced into higher concentrations by continuous industrial output, but which falls quickly with falling production and actually works as a significant greenhouse gas. You know, water vapor. The other product of combustion.
But that doesn't mean that CO2 isn't a problem. It is a world-killing problem, but not because of some stupid idea like global warming. It is OCEAN ACIDIFICATION that will destroy us all, not balmy temperatures and poorly defined "increases in violent weather". Might want to stock up on canned tuna.
That's a strange game, the only way to win is to KILL ALL HUMANS.
You are the only person I have ever met that plays that way, then. I never even knew that such a rule existed until I played it on SNES or some other console. I've played it that way a couple of times since then.