Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Is this really the best we can do?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 forsaken_
Joined: 7/17/2011
Msg: 51
Is this really the best we can do?Page 3 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Again stated rich people are more environmentally friendly you have no base for this. Hummers and jets are not fuel efficent even the brand new ones and generally people get rich by ignoring the environment as much as they can without being caught because being environmentally friendly is more expensive. The term hybred is pretty well a marketing joke for 99 % of the cars except a few such as the Prius. The Honda civic had cars from the early 90s that get the same milage as the hybred civics or better. Why you ask because the oil company's goverment and car company's share the same bed of making each other rich because right now we are in a facist society. You keep saying a resource based economy has been done before with technology we have avilable but have yet to give any examples. I agree sucess does limit population growth but would you say the majority will ever be sucesfull under capitalism which works on scarcity therefore the majority can never be sucessful if there has to be scarcity for the system to work. If we changed to resource based society with free education I think you would see a lot less people struggling and more sucess as in people perusing what they want therefore less kids. Also less kids would not effect anything because it wouldn't rely on growth like the capitalism any other isms rely on.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/18/2012 3:05:43 PM

Hummers and jets are not fuel efficient even the brand new ones and generally people get rich by ignoring the environment as much as they can without being caught because being environmentally friendly is more expensive


See... this is the problem with your concept of 'resource based' society. You took what I said and discounted it because Jets and Hummers are not 'fuel efficient'. Fuel efficiency is not the only component of ‘environmental impact’

They run clean as they can and the newer models are much more 'clean' then the older ones but that is only another part of environmental impact. The factories they come from. The materials. How they are shipped to destinations. The impact of the manufacturing. The higher end products tend to have a higher quality chain of manufacturing also. I don't consider hybrids environmentally good because the battery manufacturing is worse for the environment then fossil fuels. Same as CF light bulbs contain more poisons the standard light bulbs.

The point is that people that have a higher standard of living give a crap about these things more than people that are concerned if the next paycheck is going to be enough.



If we changed to resource based society with free education I think you would see a lot less people struggling and more success as in people perusing what they want therefore less kids. Also less kids would not affect anything because it wouldn't rely on growth like the capitalism any other isms rely on.


First off... We already do 'free education' up until 12th grade. If you want to be educated beyond that it requires motivation and drive to continue. Prior to that it is totally free, unless your parents choose private education. So what you see now with under 18 today is what you get with 'free education.' You can pretend other outcomes exist but the reality is right outside. Also, there are things with the 'free education' that could be better but for the most part it is pretty good. At least judging from my own child’s education. Her science, history, language, and arts studies are more advanced than what I had. The advanced placement classes and honors classes have very decent standards and do not reward being a flake.

What do you think happens to people when they 'stop perusing what they want'? I'm sure you have met someone that has little drive or necessity to improve. Maybe some examples are small town people that are resigned to their life. Give 'em a six pack and a hunting rifle and it's a good day. How exactly does that life style which is very 'resource based' lead to a fulfilled life, education, and less children?

There is also a down side to fewer children. For the comedic outrageous impact watch the movie "Idiocracy." Remove the outrageousness and the point of it is pretty valid. Another problem with slowed rates of childbirth are that the average population age increases and that has its own issues. China is seeing this now. The population is on average older and there are less youthful people to pick up and maintain where the elderly are dropping out of productivity.

Again, the point is engineering society is so much more complicated than cool architecture, cool technology, and little groups of happy people singing in harmony. A change in one area can have large impacts on seemingly unrelated aspects of another area.
 forsaken_
Joined: 7/17/2011
Msg: 53
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/18/2012 4:23:00 PM
Hmm still no examples of a resource based economy that failed? And as for the hummer burning the gas cleaner who really cares when it is using up 3 times more gas so any Efficency is off put by the amount it uses plus it is using up resources quicker. The current education system is a joke of you think the education being taught is of use than why are people becoming dumber with more debt. The only thing school teaches it to memorize useless facts and to listen to and do what other people say with out questioning anything. It doesn't teach you how to think for yourself and it doesn't teach youths basic fundamentals that are actually useful such as changing a tire doing your taxes investing. Advance education is a even bigger joke it's a bunch of teachers riddled with debt from student loans underpaid who believe In socialism. The only advanced education that are worth while are specialized fields like doctors and engineers everything else is a joke a big money grab by the goverment and buisness. It's all about getting drunk going to dorm party's and coming out with a useless degree that will never pay off the amount of student loan debt. If we didn't have the money system we could utilizes automation 100% without worrying about unemployment and the aging population would be taking care of. Comparing small town living to resource based society again is comparing apples and oranges your making the assumption people will have lower education when intact they would have higher education avilable to all ages and your makin the assumption that we would go back in time to basic living before technology instead of utilizing technology to free up people from labor to learn and advance technology quicker also to persue things that make them happy. Right now the goverment is happy with are poor education system they would like to keep people distracted and make them dumber so they can take more advantage and push their agenda.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 54
view profile
History
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/18/2012 5:46:41 PM
haha. There isn't one single complaint that you had about the entire system that isn't resolved by, 'just not doing that' by an individual participant in the system.

For those that are motivated, have drive and discipline most things are available.

only thing school teaches it to memorize useless facts and to listen to and do what other people say without questioning anything. It doesn't teach you how to think for yourself and it doesn't teach youths basic fundamentals that are actually useful such as changing a tire doing your taxes investing.


That is what school is for some students. Remarkably there are also many good students, many smart students. Students that are able to take things learned and apply them to real life if they see a need. BTW... my school had auto shop and taught how to change tires. Math classes teach the basics of accounting. Taxes and investing is rather capitalist and the basics are taught in high school and advanced classes in college exist.


The only advanced education that are worth while are specialized fields like doctors and engineers everything else is a joke a big money grab by the goverment and buisness. It's all about getting drunk going to dorm party's and coming out with a useless degree that will never pay off the amount of student loan debt.

That is the students choice now isn’t it. What college can't do is force someone who wants to screw off not to. If you want discipline to that level join the armed forces. Even then it is just more about the person. Yes, schools are taking advantage of the general societal desire for higher education through the government approving every loan regardless of cost. That is institutions taking advantage. But advanced education is worth what the student takes from it.


If we didn't have the money system we could utilizes automation 100% without worrying about unemployment and the aging population would be taking care of.

One does not cause the other. There is nothing about not having a monetary system that would cause automation to exist. There is a massively huge flaw in logic there. Let me help you with that... I think what you are saying is that with today's technology we could use automation to remove the monetary system. So, now we are into Skynet territory. IOW another movie reference.


comparing small town living to resource based society again is comparing apples and oranges your making the assumption people will have lower education when intact they would have higher education avilable to all ages and your makin the assumption that we would go back in time to basic living before technology instead of utilizing technology to free up people from labor to learn and advance technology quicker also to persue things that make them happy.


Comparing small town living to resource based society is comparing apples to apples. A resource based society has a fixed amount of resources that can be utilized for that society and the basis of utilization of those resources is preservation which means rationing. Small towns cannot just build a sky scraper. They do not have the resources. The do not have the need so they do not get one. Skyscrapers are rationed from small towns because resources do not justify it. Everything else you added about the impact of education wasn't part of my comparison. We already have free education and if you could see a small town as being similar to a resource based society with free education than your judgment of that education was already stated. It is possible that if people did not have to work and did not have to generate income then maybe they would pursue an intellectual pursuit that makes them happy. Can only guess on the possible things they would really do.


Right now the government is happy with are poor education system they would like to keep people distracted and make them dumber so they can take more advantage and push their agenda.

Another misleading thought. Government is made up of people. For the most part those people are not sadistic and evil. They, however misguided, are trying to do what they think is right and best for the people they represent. That assumes the lack of outright corruption. "Government" is not happy with poor education. I think poor quality of education comes from centrally controlled government but that doesn't make their education necessarily evil in intent.


they would like to keep people distracted and make them dumber so they can take more advantage and push their agenda.

This is now a conspiracy theory and one I have issues with all the time myself. It's easy to believe it but if you think about the reality it isn't all that easy to pull off. You cannot make people dumber. It would require a systematic dumbing down of education over many generations and in small amounts that people wouldn't notice. You would be required to subscribe to a theory that there was t a hidden controlling government behind the government that was just pulling the strings of all public leaders to their own ends. Things start falling apart rather quickly at that point. So... you can easily label 'the government' as doing what you described. It just requires a multigenerational coordinated conspiracy to pull off.

The other big thing you left out of all of this is parents. Parents are the primary source for discipline where the child goes to school and gains from that education then moves up to college and gains from that education. Parents are where the motivations for life outside of 'partying' initially come from and are reinforced. Parents have a pretty big impact on the little humans they release into the world. Can't blame the government and the system for everything.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/18/2012 6:28:49 PM


If we didn't have the money system we could utilizes automation 100% without worrying about unemployment and the aging population would be taking care of.

(Aries)
One does not cause the other. There is nothing about not having a monetary system that would cause automation to exist. There is a massively huge flaw in logic there. Let me help you with that... I think what you are saying is that with today's technology we could use automation to remove the monetary system. So, now we are into Skynet territory. IOW another movie reference.


Not to mention the fact that automation systems are extremely complicated and need regular maintenance. Who's going to design them? Maintain them? Improve them? Especially for no pay... while there's a hundred guys sitting on their respective asses with no work.... but we all get the same benefits. Sounds like a fantastic system, where do I sign up?
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 56
view profile
History
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/18/2012 6:30:24 PM
And all this talk of making less kids? WTF kind of world are you trying to make anyways?
Sounds like a big pile of $hit to me.
 forsaken_
Joined: 7/17/2011
Msg: 57
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/18/2012 6:45:41 PM
As for Aries will just have to agree to disagree I could go on for years and we would still have a different views of the current system the next 10 years should be pretty interesting and the truth will come out. Than we will see whos view is valid anyways as for kohomela I never said we wouldn't have to work at all but it would free up a lot of our time and would have to work a lot less. Also with the robots that can talk and do humans emotions i'm sure they could devolpe a robot capable of doing that in the near future and what kind of system ? Well one where we don't overpopulated everything like china where it's like smoking two packs of cigarettes a day in some city's just breathing the air. I guess you would prefer overpopulation and stepping in each others fecies?
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/18/2012 6:56:47 PM

I guess you would prefer overpopulation and stepping in each others fecies?


You make a great point. While I was designing the robot that fixes the automation system you're dreaming of... you were sitting on your ass... AGAIN.
So I got to thinking... this IS a RESOURCE BASED SOCIETY....and I WOULD PREFER NOT TO BE STEPPING IN YOUR FECES. Why do we need you? You're not a resource. You're redundant. And now I have something else to... uhhhh... fix :D
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 59
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/18/2012 8:25:10 PM
@ Nr 61 ...


" ... Also with the robots that can talk and do humans emotions i'm sure they could devolpe a robot capable of doing that in the near future and what kind of system ? Well one where we don't overpopulated everything like china where it's like smoking two packs of cigarettes a day in some city's just breathing the air. I guess you would prefer overpopulation and stepping in each others fecies? ... "


What is this preoccupation with things 'robotic' ... ? Anyone with that kind of fetish might find buying a personal blow-up doll cheaper ... and they wouldn't need to worry about battery life, either.

But I digress ... we're back, I see, to your favorite (although repeatedly denied) 'talking point': Overpopulation and POPULATION CONTROL. See? It always leaks through. Even with repeated denials, there's no mistaking your embracing of the 'solution' advocated by the Club of Rome and other population control / population elimination advocates. Want a bit o' the old proof? Here's a link and an abstract, although I fully realize in advance your 'response' will be further denial - which is fine, as it's your right. I, however, am done with your endless repeating that you're only stating 'different views of the current system'. Others can pick it up from here ... I'm tired of smelling what you're stepping in.

And before you say it: Yes, I know that none of the things listed in the abstract have yet taken place ... key word: 'yet'. The intent is there - for those who advocate 'solutions' like this, it's only a matter of 'when', not 'if'.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=8.5

Howard T. Odum, a marine biologist at the University of Florida, who is a member of the Club of Rome, was quoted in the August, 1980 edition of Fusion magazine, as saying: "It is necessary that the United States cut its population by two-thirds within the next 50 years." He didn't say how this would be accomplished.

About six months later, the Council on Environmental Quality made recommendations based on the Report, called "Global Future: A Time to Act." They suggested an aggressive program of population control which included sterilization, contraception and abortion. In August, 1982, the Executive Intelligence Review published a report called "Global 2000: Blueprint for Genocide" which said that the two aforementioned Presidential reports:

"... are correctly understood as political statements of intent - the intent on the part of such policy centers as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the International Monetary Fund, to pursue policies that will result not only in the death of the 120 million cited in the reports, but in the death of upwards of two billion people by the year 2000."

Throughout the world, the Club of Rome has indicated that genocide should be used to eliminate people who they refer to as "useless eaters." This would be accomplished by using limited wars in advanced countries, and even a limited nuclear strike at a strategic location; as well as starvation through created famines and diseases in Third World countries.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 60
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/18/2012 8:28:40 PM
Good Lord you go to some loopy websites.

So.....32 years ago a marine biologist said something kind of crazy. Then some other organization I've never heard of said something else kind of crazy. Load the guns Martha, they're coming to get us!
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 61
view profile
History
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/18/2012 8:47:27 PM
the op has a good point.

It's 'funny', I'll bet many of the people who support our capitalism are the same ones who ''believe'' we have man-made climate warming problems.

I know of no other quick solution to the perceived climate problem then to drastically cut back our consumption.

It makes sense to seek happiness with much less material stuff, which then goes hand in hand with there NOT existing a population problem.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 62
view profile
History
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/18/2012 9:33:46 PM
the op has a good point.

It's 'funny', I'll bet many of the people who support our capitalism are the same ones who ''believe'' we have man-made climate warming problems.
I know of no other quick solution to the perceived climate problem then to drastically cut back our consumption.

It makes sense to seek happiness with much less material stuff, which then goes hand in hand with there NOT existing a population problem.


The OP may have somewhat of a valid point but it is not 'good' and the conclusions drawn from the point are not entirely valid. If there wasn't some bit of thruth to it there wouldn't be so many people attracted to the idea.

Also, your bet would most likely be incorrect. That would be those who support our capitalism are the same ones who 'deny' we have man-mad climate warming problems.

If you look at the climate change people they say it is already too late. There is no solution. There is only a slight delay of the inevitable. So cutting back our consumption will be good for the long term and will have zero impact on any measured warming or cooling. The bowl is already full.


The making sense about seeking happiness with less material stuff is what just about every religion and spirtual group have been preaching for a few thousand years now. That concept has been taught for generations although apparently not very successfully as it seems like a new concept to some.

I do not think I have ever heard of a direct relationship with material possessions and population density so one most likely does not directly influence the other.

I still like idiocracy the best for the logical outcome of education related impacts on population :)
 Nasztea
Joined: 4/11/2012
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/18/2012 10:20:59 PM
The Industrial Prison Complex Hasnt Been Figured Into This Equation...
 lagoda
Joined: 11/20/2009
Msg: 64
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/18/2012 10:37:43 PM

As for Aries will just have to agree to disagree I could go on for years and we would still have a different views of the current system the next 10 years should be pretty interesting and the truth will come out. Than we will see whos view is valid anyways as for kohomela I never said we wouldn't have to work at all but it would free up a lot of our time and would have to work a lot less. Also with the robots that can talk and do humans emotions i'm sure they could devolpe a robot capable of doing that in the near future and what kind of system ? Well one where we don't overpopulated everything like china where it's like smoking two packs of cigarettes a day in some city's just breathing the air. I guess you would prefer overpopulation and stepping in each others fecies?


There have been many well educated and credible people who have suggested the need and/or programs to control population. It started long ago in Europe with Malthus in the late 1700's and has continued through to the present to include key political persons. Some of the eugenics programs are actually beneficial and program's like China's one child policy are applauded by many of the most oppressed of the masses as well as world leaders. But the fact is, so much influence has yet to achieve the goal of eliminating vast portions of peoples. That speaks to the unlikelihood that any organized conspiracy of all the institutions necessary to carry out such a sinister goal is soon going to be successful. So why within 10 years or even within your lifetime?

I don't understand your conclusion that robots would be the desired replacement for a viable working force. If we are to give any credence to the possibility of a covert movement to reduce and exploit the masses fully, we should consider the motives of power and greed as well as the wisdom of maintaining the most valuable resource. That would be human, along with its voracious capacity to consume, not robotic.
 Kohavah
Joined: 4/15/2012
Msg: 65
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/18/2012 10:39:03 PM
The original post questions, "Is This The Best We Can Do"?

It is my opinion, that in general all of the beings in this atmosphere are on a massive course of catastrophic destruction. The only things that could begin to stop the wheels of this demise are practical morality, and pragmatic justice, which many are not in a possition to have a mind that is allowed to be free to see and comprehend. Therefore there is no acceptable standard, jurisdiction or governance alive and active in this world. This leaves nothing but the various levels of anarchy and gang law that dominates individuals and the inhabitants. There is very little left to sustain life here in this world, at it's present level of darkness.
 forsaken_
Joined: 7/17/2011
Msg: 66
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/19/2012 10:13:51 AM
Why would you keep humans doing jobs that can be done by robots? All the things that have made your life easier has been technology so doesn't it make sense to harness technology to make abundance and a easier life for everyone? It might not make sense under capitalism because that would make unployment too high and the system wouldn't work anymore so we should needlessly make everyone's life harder to keep the system going that everyone thinks is perfect or the best we will ever do. Mc donalds and grocery store have the technology to cut most of there workers only reason they dont is there trying to keep a friendly public image but it will happen anyways. Why do I think we will find out in 10 years? I don't know for sure within 10 years but sounds like a good timeline. I know it will happen in my lifetime because we have the energy crisis the debt crisis way worse than the 30s, the crisis of the way people think and raise children, the job crisis from technology putting people out of work, and the environment crisis all coming to a head at once. There really is no crisis just a crisis of the way we think that is destroying everything. People need to stop thinking it's everyone for themselfs and thinking in there own interest that's what is destroying everything with greed because the humans are one cingular species and what each of us does has a effect on the rest. I don't really take it too seriously now days I just enjoy the time I have and if we hit a evolutionary dead end oh well.

Also if you don't think the goverment is crazy enough to do evil things to the people than what about hitler and now the states where you have this endless war on terror? Jp Rockefeller told Arron Russo before 911 there was going to be a incident that would happen than they were going to send troops over to secure the oil but they were going to hide it under the ploy of people looking for someone that they will never find In caves and there going to take everyone rights away under the purpose of fighting a never ending war on terror that has really killed many people at all in the states. If you don't think the goverment would kill you if you got in the way than why are they willing to go over to another country and kill a bunch of people they don't know (the goverment doesn't know you) when there was no weapons of mass destruction in the first place? Why is the goverment trying to pass sopa and the patriot act in the states to take people's rights away to keep a stupid system going next your going to see martial law.
 OutofControlMan
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 67
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/19/2012 10:16:30 AM

As a kid I attended a seminar at the first Earth Day, circa 1969. I recall that is was suggested that ideal USA population would be held a 200 million. Now it's 308 million many of which are the low-IQ scouring of the world.


I'm sure you'd agree that hose over65, and/or retired should be eliminated- no longer contributing members of society..
 forsaken_
Joined: 7/17/2011
Msg: 68
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/19/2012 10:22:42 AM
People need to stop putting me into the category with those wanting to kill the population off I never said anything about wanting that I just said we need to start limiting the amount of population growth.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/19/2012 11:41:00 AM
All the things that have made your life easier has been technology so doesn't it make sense to harness technology to make abundance and a easier life for everyone?


Now this one I can really laugh at. My job is keeping some of this technology crap running. Let’s just say that I haven't slept like a human for over 15 years because of it. You have no idea how amazing it is that any of this stuff even functions. It is so incredibly brittle and requires so much babysitting just to keep it 'seeming inly functional' for the end user. I really do mean 'seemingly functional'.

We are nowhere near anything close to a robot that can make a thoughtful decision. The last close 'appearance' of that was IBM's Watson and it really is nothing more than appearances. The only reason any of that works is because the processors and data storage improvements. The reason it looks 'impressive' is because of algorithms that can sort through a ton of data very quickly.

But the reality of it is that it is not anything new. It is the same technology, same hardware concepts, and some creative programming that has been on the table for the past 30 years. The advancements were in making it smaller, faster, and higher capacities. In the last recent years we have hit a ceiling with those capacities and speed. We have reached a 'good enough' point and the entire technology industry is in danger because of it.

This will not change in 10 years. In 10 years maybe IBM will have the machine that is close to the abilities of Watson the size of a server closet rather than a server room as a self-contained unit. But that will only be due to even higher densities of data and not because of a breakthroughs in technology. Just the progression of our current path. It is also highly likely that it will not occur because there really is no need for it. Good enough would be having simple cheap systems accessing the services of a server room where size is less of a restraint and that is fully available now. Just ask Siri. Because it is available there is no real incentive to break through our current ‘good enough’ technology levels because there won’t be a market for it and with no market there is no demand. Capitalism will be working and it will scare the hell out of people.

Technology is doing a reversal right now that people may not be aware of. It is topping out. Computer manufacturers are hitting ceilings. Software designers are stagnating. It has been years since anything really innovative has occurred. The entire iphone and apple innovation is misleading since it was really just existing technology shoved into a neat design. There really were few hi-tech innovations with it. Even Siri, which is pretty cool, is a trick to make it appear advanced. The process of how it works is pretty simple and the advancements were in algorithms to make it work and the only reason it is usable is because speeds of mobile data have increased to a usable level now. Most of what you will be seeing for the some time now will be window dressing.

Hardware/software manufacturers are stuck because we are at a usable point. You do not need more than 6mbps data to your phone. It has topped out usability so they are now resorting to false scarcity to charge for what is highly available. Computer processors, memory, hard disks are 'fast enough'. My current home computer has the equivalent of 8 processors. Under most circumstances I can't utilize my processors to their extent so there is zero motivation to look for faster or better. In the server world the cost of faster/more processors no longer makes sense. Instead what we are doing is using cheaper 'good enough' systems. This scares the crap out of the hardware manufacturers that no longer have a market for those super-fast enterprise class systems other them limited research applications. Computer programs are disappearing. It is now incredibly difficult to find an actual computer programmer. However web developers are less than a dime a dozen and that entire industry is in for a major collapse of talent as web programming turns to standardized 'apps' that just require a few bits of simplified coding to complete the necessary transactions. The people that maintain the systems are being consolidated to mega hardware provider companies through 'cloud services' and their role is not much different than an assembly line worker pulling out a bad blade and replacing with a new one which then has the base virtual operating system applied and workloads moved to it as necessary... There is no longer a need for 'faster' or more 'powerful' systems. What exists is 'good enough'.

This is a danger to how things are and not a good thing but it was bound to happen. From my perspective no one mentions this. The primary growth industry has been technology. That growth is pretty much over. We moved from the industrial age to the service age to the information age... no one mentioned what comes after. I don't remember any predictions that the information age would be this short.
 lagoda
Joined: 11/20/2009
Msg: 70
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/19/2012 1:26:07 PM
Good post aries.

I recall participating in a forum thread about the viability of funding CERN when there would be few immediate practical applications coming out of the research. The only benefit listed would be the mind boggling improvement in the storage and speed of microprocessors. Oh, it would be great just to have my computer operate as efficiently as it should, even with its present capacities.

The marketing of redundancies. That's where the true genius lies.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 71
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/19/2012 1:53:51 PM

This is a danger to how things are and not a good thing but it was bound to happen. From my perspective no one mentions this. The primary growth industry has been technology. That growth is pretty much over. We moved from the industrial age to the service age to the information age... no one mentioned what comes after. I don't remember any predictions that the information age would be this short.

and when the governments stops funding to programs like NASA, reduces education funding in science programs you stop innovating, as most innovations happen because they where failures of their intended design purpose but happened to be able to do something else that was not intended.

Look at pretty much any machine in a hospital and they where not developed my medical people, but by physics and scientists.

The cut backs to social programs, educations programs and any scientific funding has a much greater impact than just the cost of the program.


Basically it would be like trying to develop talent for a pro sports franchise with a very small feeder system.

Talent does not have any boundary other than exposure and the more kids that you can expose to the greater amount of things the more talent you will find.

Austerity measure that are happening now and that have no real impact on the budgets are going to cost countries big dollars in the long run.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/19/2012 6:53:33 PM


Why would you keep humans doing jobs that can be done by robots?


Good question. Big business has been working on this for years and there's a few factories that have succeeded
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_%28manufacturing%29.

However, there a many, many processes where you simply cannot remove the human element. Your example was a grocery store...
Nevermind that it doesn't make sense to even have a grocery store in a resource based society, what jobs are you going to eliminate? The cashiers? K. that's easy. How about the guy that collects the rotten meat off the shelf? Sure, you could add an rfid tag and create an indexing system for a robot to come around and check the meat - but what about the fruit? how you going to handle that? You going to add an rfid tag to each one of those?
How are the robots going to clean the floors? Do they recognize insects? Will they know when teenagers come in and switch everything around? Can the find and reshelf the beans I left at the cash because I decided I didn't want them?
My son just threw up on the floor. ROBOTS! CLEAN! SPEW! NOW!!
Yeah. Sorry but in 10 years there will still be people working in grocery stores. Not because those problems are unsolvable, but because there is no potential financial benefit. If you think that this supports your idea, well it doesn't. Grocery store don't do this because it's a complete waste.... and that's what you were ****ing about in the first place...
Now look at the auto companies. They would LOVE to automate out the need for workers.. and with workers costing about $75/hr, who wouldn't? The reason they don't? Well they have eliminated many jobs with automation, but for the rest it's not economically viable. In most cases it's still cheaper to pay $75/hr for a person than it is to automate.

Now, you're idea is to automate. If it costs more to automate then I can assure you it will take more labour and more effort, even if the materials are free.
Oh, and to get free materials, you better start by automating mining, farming, oil rigs, lumbering and all the other ways we gain resources from the earth. You best get started now.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 73
view profile
History
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/19/2012 7:31:11 PM
^^^^Have you noticed that the retail industry has pretty much already gone this route. They only hire the min requirements to fulfill tasks that can't easily be automated.

I never thought I would miss sales people but I do.... Sometimes I want to be talked to about different options and lead in a certain direction and all that stuff that it use to drive me crazy about before and would avoid stores with commission sales. But it kind of sucks now. Ever not been able to find something in the grocery store lately? You have to walk around for 5 minutes or longer until you even see an employee on the floor and sometimes there just are none. I went and looked at a car at 'carmax' a while ago with a friend. Always dreaded going to car lots because the sales pressure was very high and it was just annoying. Going to carmax the world felt wrong. Saw a car... asked how much... "Price is on the window." No really, what about this much $... "No, price is as marked." It just isn’t the same...

the resource society would be minimum necessary for operation. It is happening now. It really kind of sucks and is impersonal.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 74
view profile
History
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/19/2012 11:50:55 PM

response to mess 66;


the op says capitalism/consumerism is destroying the planet......PRETTY GOOD


POINT I say, aries.

many who like north america and its capitalistic system also agree with the present idea that we have some runaway man made global warming going on. something wrong with that statement, aries?

I heard what ''they'' say about climate warming, and the timing of the fixing of it, but, if we would all stop 'spending' resources like the end of the world is on our doorstep, the world could support more people.

we are spending resources like there is no tomorrow.

the argument is also made that the ecosystem can't handle that rush. [hence global warming].

just so I know, you think there is happiness in material stuff? aries?
it's hard to learn even the obvious when it seems to go against some ingrained blockage in humans.

that obvious thing being happiness doe's not come from material stuff.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Is this really the best we can do?
Posted: 4/20/2012 8:18:26 AM
There is no way I'm stepping into an AGW debate.

The capitalist system is good and bad like any system and as I was pointing out loosely in my last few points was that it also acts like a resource driven society. If the resources are scarce they are highly valuable leading to less use. If the resources are highly available and there is low value then there is less use.

If there is a high demand and production has issues with demand value is high. If there is low demand then production is lessoned to try to maintain some value.

It is a natural resource based system. It is misleading to think that because there is money to be had that it becomes somehow more corruptible then a system not based on money. If there was no money corruption would be found in other ways. It would just move to something else. The best locations, the best quality, the rare resources. It isn't stoppable and if people try to pretend that scarce resources are not highly desired regardless of monetary systems they are not thinking things through.

Capitalism also provides for a mechanism of manipulation of population and resources much like what the OP would suggest for his moneyless system. It is more effective in capitalism because it is targeted at the resource rather than at the individual. It makes the manipulation inherently global across the population. Paying farmers to produce more corn to make supply greater to keep prices down works much more effectively than telling all food manufacturers to use more corn.

Capitalism as a natural resource moderator is what I was also trying to show in the current problem of today’s technology. A highly valued and sought after commodity such as technology was highly driven to advance and that advancement has rather quickly approached a state that is now 'good enough' for everyday use and the brakes on advancement are now being placed on the entire industry because there really isn't much need for more. You can't manipulate that on purpose. It is an organic system. It isn’t targeted like direct manipulation. No one has to tell processor manufacturers to change their production standards to lesson advancements. It is entirely natural and only those parts that start to lose value in advancing are slowed while others that are naturally found to be more valuable, “higher quality flexible screens” increase in value and get the attention of advancements. No person could manipulate this so effectively.

The problem seen with resource depletion and environmental concerns is also an interesting one from a capitalist system viewpoint. This is where liberalism and the promoting of things like global warming and things like that do good. Because their passion for it was so great it tripped the trigger on general consumers to care. People want to buy things that are good for the environment or help lesson impact. They want to by organic. They want these things. The problem is that these goods and products are typically inferior in value despite demand. This is where things start getting difficult. It then shifts to people are greedy and evil pigs that are mindless consumers and they should be ashamed. Well... screw you, make a damn product that doesn't suck and stop trying to force everyone to buy your crapware that costs 3x more than value. And there we have our current situation.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Is this really the best we can do?