Robotics Is Coming Faster Than You Think

[kneim]

The "go into the woods" can be regarded as a suggestion, to create human communities, for keeping the value of work in between the participants, and not to loose live energy to a greedy state or "capitalists".

(the state is not necassarily greedy, taxes could be distributed fairly, but in my opinion he is a mirror of the citizenship, so he represents the population in it's average behaviour)

[1714509025]

1714509025

[1714509025]

1714509025

[1714509025]

1714509025

[1714509025]

1714509025

[Gronthaing]

Can't afford the products or the machines to make them? Answer i got to that from some here was something like: go into the woods or wherever and start your own society. Crazy.

Although meant deprecatingly, the answer is right. Machines are specialized in making junk food. Other machines are specialized in making bitter pills, for trying to regain health. Defense is very simple: Buy Coca-Cola shares for offering services to "reasonable" people, but do not consume it or apply for it.

You realize most people can't make a living by investing money like that right? Many are already living pay check to pay check. It isn't 1 or 2 shares that are going to sustain them or pay their bills. Then not all machines are used to produce useless things you can do without. Not if you want to participate in society. Cars are a must in some places. Others can't work without access to a computer and internet. Etc. And that tendency isn't going to reverse.

My proposal is a double attack. But it works with one side alone, stop consuming waste (makes the enterprise collaps if everybody does it, sustains health, and creates some holdings, one can begin to buy shares or silver ounces with it), or maximise dividends until nobody can affort this trash (makes the enterprise collaps if every shareholder does it).

This would need too many people to stop consuming for it to work. And would need them to be able to overcome all the publicity and social pressure they are under. On the other hand it is true that if automation starts putting great numbers of people out of work that will happen by itself. But it won't be pretty.

On the other side in my world there is no such thing as private property (nobody can take my holdings as long as I not misuse them). These my holdings are for people that behave natural, and I have much trouble in finding them any more. The "Homo Oeconomicus" in our brain makes us a daft monster.

Not that I disagree with something like that. Maybe aiming for an access based economy as described in that zeitgeist movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w but maybe there are other steps that would be easier for most people to accept and could help with the transition when automation picks up. Something like promoting and buying what you need from cooperatives instead of normal businesses. Helping implement or strengthen codetermination laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination should help make current businesses more democratic and prevent many of the excesses. And maybe eventually implement some type of basic income for everyone.

The "go into the woods" can be regarded as a suggestion, to create human communities, for keeping the value of work in between the participants, and not to loose live energy to a greedy state or "capitalists".

(the state is not necassarily greedy, taxes could be distributed fairly, but in my opinion he is a mirror of the citizenship, so he represents the population in it's average behaviour)

Maybe something like that can be done for now in small enough numbers. But that life style probably won't support the amount of people that will become jobless in the not very distant future.

[kneim]

This would need too many people to stop consuming for it to work. And would need them to be able to overcome all the publicity and social pressure they are under. On the other hand it is true that if automation starts putting great numbers of people out of work that will happen by itself. But it won't be pretty.

Anybody is responsible for itself only (and perhaps it's children), and nobody else. If you should be the only one that behaves natural, you are not wrong, because all others do it wrong. Water is for live, not softdrinks. It is very simple, and everybody can understand this.

I need dividends also to compete rising insurance costs. A public health insurance can only work, if people do not destroy itself. This time is an escalation time, and price of health insurance will escalate too.

The pressure we see in the world is a pressure to become natural again. As soon as we are, no robot can replace us.

Basic income for everybody is one of my favorite recommendation for getting a better world. Not too high, for a very basic living only. It makes independant on inhuman pressure in ones jobs. Most high income nowadays is a conflict of interest only, and this conflict is escalating. The more ill the patient is, the more the medic is earning. The more inconsistent and complex the justice, the more the lawyer is earning. The more speculative the fondmanager is, the more he can earn. The more misfortune in this world, the more the aid organisation can gain.

In these times, every person, that does a really human job, makes itself needless, and is confronted with loss of one's livelihood.