PDA

View Full Version : What would people do when robots produce everything?



LeBrok
27-05-16, 03:06
The time is coming, within 50-100 years when cheap and ubiquitous robots and automatic production machines will virtually produce everything. Robots will produce all the food we need, clothes, cars, homes, toys, etc; they will clean our homes, cook our food, repair roads, shovel snow and tend gardens, driverless cars will drive us around, driverless trucks, ships and planes will bring goods from around the globe. Our wearable devices will diagnose our health, dispense medication and hospital robots do operations. People won't need to work in manufacturing and service anymore. Perhaps there will be some jobs in politics, creative engineering and justice system for 1% smart and willing, but this is it.

This will be a colossal paradigm shift in our society. Will people get used to this new radically different environment? Will it be good for people and society? Can people fill a day with unimportant things? Will it be healthy for our psyche? Will humanity end in countless pleasuring ourselves with drugs and sex to fill the void?

After all, from don of humankind, we always did work, produced useful stuff for everyday life. As hunter gatherers we gathered firewood, mushrooms, roots and berries. We hunted animals all day long, then cut meat and organs, and fixed skins for clothing. In mean time we had to feed, teach and guard tens of our children in a tribe. We made our weapons to fight other tribes to protect fire and women.
As farmers we had even more long repetitive work around fields, herds and villages, raising even more kids and build fords and castles to fight countless enemies.
It got even busier for us during industrial revolution when we started producing thousands of new things.

Now, this busy production lifestyle, that we got used to in thousands of years, is going to end. End rather abruptly, I might add. People will become completely "useless". At least they would think and feel so.

However, perhaps, maybe, it won't be the end of the world yet? There is a big percentage of population, let's say 50%, who doesn't work already; the kids, people on welfare, retirees, and just the lazy. So, will it be such a drastic change if the rest of society joins in, doing "nothing"? Hell, I'm working many long hours myself, but I have so many hobbies and interest that I could fill more than a day with it. For a change, I would do only the stuff I enjoy all day long. Would it be so bad? Would it psychologically destroy me and kill me? Me and others alike.
Wouldn't it be like having a life of rich people born into the money? We all could enjoy the life they already have. The dream of many comes true.

Perhaps we can get used to it rather quickly, and life will go for thousands of years in constant joy and pleasure like nothing happened? After all, the pursuit of happiness is our natural law guaranteed by many modern constitutions.

Perhaps people will be stubborn and they will keep working along robots, for nothing more but keeping busy and feeling satisfaction from work done?

What will it be?

Will humankind survive?

mani
27-05-16, 13:58
The balance between offer and demand will change dramatically.

The combination of IT and robotic will change all current jobs.

Most of the jobs will disappear and replaced by robotics (production, service).

There will be a lot of people whithout a job. No job, no money.

No money, no customers.

The Business World will loose a lot of consumers - it will cut his own arms and legs.

The problem is: IT and robos can only produce but not consume.

arvistro
29-05-16, 19:23
Yeah, that is true. If you dont produce anything useful, you can live only on system benefits. So, this pretty much sounds like Socialism utopia. If done properly.
Or capitalist nightmare, if not done properly. Because - who would enjoy and how much they would be eligible to enjoy of this paradise? Today it is about how useful you are in "adding value" (or screwing someone else's brain into buying not really necessary stuff), tomorrow? Who is closer to party? Or all get equal share of global currency?

Maciamo
29-05-16, 19:58
The problem is: IT and robos can only produce but not consume.

That is not really true, at least not in the future. Robots also require spare parts, which in turn require raw materials, to be produced. So robots makers will be consuming to make and maintain robots. Even when robots become independent from humans, they will need to repair and maintain themselves and create new robots to replace broken ones or expand their numbers. There is actually a risk of going into overdrive and producing too many robots. Humans are prone to excesses, and the bigger the human population grows, the more robots we will need. If we decide to colonise many other planets, the need for robots will become so huge that it could put our planet at serious risk of overproduction and overexploitation.

ElHorsto
29-05-16, 23:40
That is not really true, at least not in the future. Robots also require spare parts, which in turn require raw materials, to be produced. So robots makers will be consuming to make and maintain robots. Even when robots become independent from humans, they will need to repair and maintain themselves and create new robots to replace broken ones or expand their numbers. There is actually a risk of going into overdrive and producing too many robots.

If robot production would consume so many resources then it probably won't happen because it would be economically inefficient - from a human perspective, unless it is economic from the robots perspective. The human perspective is the only one that should count for us humans.
Steven Hawking and friends recently warned about dangers of AI. Kurzweil and friends are optimists and are expecting soon the singularity to come. Both concerns self-procreation and self-improvement of robots. It is obvious that this is prone to exponential explosion, both quantitatively and qualitatively. If this happens, it would represent consumption, but detached from human economy. Robots would develop their own "economy" where human consumers have no space anymore. That would be malignant robot explosion. One might develop constraints to enforce benign procreation, but the more I think of it the more doubts I have, because the complexity of the constraints is too high. I don't know how it could be designed without highly dangerous experiments. Perhaps in a sufficiently realistic Virtual Reality. But how realistic would be sufficient? I don't know.

ElHorsto
30-05-16, 00:10
Now, this busy production lifestyle, that we got used to in thousands of years, is going to end. End rather abruptly, I might add. People will become completely "useless". At least they would think and feel so.


A pessimistic but relevant article coining the term "unnecessariat (https://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/unnecessariat/)".



However, perhaps, maybe, it won't be the end of the world yet? There is a big percentage of population, let's say 50%, who doesn't work already; the kids, people on welfare, retirees, and just the lazy. So, will it be such a drastic change if the rest of society joins in, doing "nothing"? Hell, I'm working many long hours myself, but I have so many hobbies and interest that I could fill more than a day with it. For a change, I would do only the stuff I enjoy all they long. Would it be so bad? Would it psychologically destroy me and kill me? Me and others alike.
Wouldn't it be like having a life of rich people born into the money? We all could enjoy the life they already have. The dream of many comes true.

Perhaps we can get used to it rather quickly, and life will go for thousands of years in constant joy and pleasure like nothing happened? After all, the pursuit of happiness is our natural law guaranteed by many modern constitutions.

Perhaps people will be stubborn and they will keep working along robots, for nothing more but keeping busy and feeling satisfaction from work done?

What will it be?


On the phenomenon of Bullshit jobs: (http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/)



In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would have advanced sufficiently by century’s end that countries like Great Britain or the United States would achieve a 15-hour work week. There’s every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen. Instead, technology has been marshaled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. ...

For the moment and for a while there will be problems. It was not long ago when most humans believed that getting rid of physical and monotonous work would make us all happy. They thought sitting comfortably while eating excess carbohydrates in order to become big and fat would enable everyone to get through the winter and most problems are gone. Now that we achieved that, diabetes, obesity, back pain and mental illnesses increased instead. Today people are desperate to excercise and to do sports in order to get rid of those carbohydrates and to regain endorphine - they try to artificially restore the environment they just got rid of.
These bullshit jobs seem to be the same, but they are subtly economically driven. In socialism/communism there was no unemployment, because everyone got a task, even it was totally uneconomic and superfluous. In capitalism it used to be the opposite, but something is changing. Currently people are increasingly doing bullshit jobs.

ElHorsto
30-05-16, 00:40
The balance between offer and demand will change dramatically.

The combination of IT and robotic will change all current jobs.

Most of the jobs will disappear and replaced by robotics (production, service).

There will be a lot of people whithout a job. No job, no money.

No money, no customers.

The Business World will loose a lot of consumers - it will cut his own arms and legs.

The problem is: IT and robos can only produce but not consume.

This is how I see it too. Actually the world economy is suffering already now from oversupply and deflation (evidenced by negative interest rates). People don't need yet another 30 styles of strawberry marmalade. Even consumption of cool new tech gimmicks is increasingly driven by hype and status. These things are merely nice-to-haves, but what people increasingly prefer is a secure, independent and healthy future and spare time. This is exactly what strangles the economy, because it can be purchased only by hoarding, which is a kind of consumption that behaves like "negative consumption" --> more deflation. Maybe a small number of sectors can still grow naturally, for instance medicine, pharma, biotech, surveillance and arms industry, but these are interestingly sectors of violence (medicine = "money or die") rather than consumer products.

Here is a possible way out:

1. "Unconditional Helicopter Money" (Unconditional Basic Income (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income)), where my emphasis is on unconditional. This is necessary, but not sufficient, because people will hoard it, which is fine. They should hoard it if they want. Conformism and communism is not required. Individual independence and benign inequality must be enabled. As for tackling the hoarding problem, see here:

2. Reducing supply instead of increasing consumption: To be achieved by official reduction of working time. In most developed countries there is an approx. 8 hour limit per day. It should be officially and slowly reduced. Those who exceed the monthly or yearly work time, should pay high extra tax. There should be no taxation of productivity per work time, only taxation of work time, in order to encourage efficiency/technological progress and to discourage labour dumping. Excess productivity should be compensated by reduced work time in the long run by political decisions. In addition to controlling only the money supply (as an attempt to control consumption), this is a necessary tool for controlling product supply, which was missing so far.

Increasing consumption by increasing consumers (=population) is not a good idea for obvious reasons.

No worries about inflation because this is what the economy currently is lacking. If inflation gets too high, the Basic Income increase can be halted as long as necessary. Also don't confuse inflation with currency devaluation.

I'm confident this could be a starting point for solving most of the immediate economic issues, but I don't know what to do about human nature, e.g. the desire to work, to be societal contributor, or yet unknown medical/psychological implications, decadence, .... Probably humans must learn to be entirely self-motivated and self-sufficient (ultimate individualism?). But this won't happen soon, it will take much time until we drop working time from 8 to 4 hours per day, and scientists believe that 4 hours/day are optimal for human psyche anyways, so no problem expected here soon.

Fire Haired14
30-05-16, 06:01
Get fat, lazy, and boring.

mani
30-05-16, 14:09
Get fat, lazy, and boring.


Rather meagre because no possibillites for surviving.

mani
30-05-16, 14:15
" Robots also require spare parts, which in turn require raw materials, to be produced. So robots makers will be consuming to make and maintain robots."

And from where will the robots take the money to buy their robots-consumption?


Oh, I see, in the future the robots will also get all money for their works. But robots

are too stupid, so the money will land to the few human owners of those robots-firms.

Basically, that is not a problem, but which money do they need? From the majority of humans, who will lose their work because of robots?



I think they will not have (enough) money for purchase anything, because the haven’t got any work. In the future the works are made by robots and we do not need human workers.

No work, no money for 99 % of humans.

Ok, there are some few rich people. But they do not need all the robots they produce.

Current civilization do not work if only 1 % of humans get the money for consuming.

Robots in combination with IT will accelerate destruction of current money civilization if we do not change this „getting money only by working“-system.

Dagne
30-05-16, 14:41
I am an optimist, I think energy will come for free soon and then robots will do all the boring jobs and humans will be creators and able to develop themselves where they want as we do our hobbies now. I also think that working for an employer will be soon die out and everyone will cooperate as freelancers by sharing our knowledge and skills. Food growing, with free energy and robots, will be mostly local thing, too, and people will grow into eating more green foods.

LeBrok
30-05-16, 16:50
The balance between offer and demand will change dramatically.How so? People will stop buying what we buy now? Will robots not produce what people require?


The combination of IT and robotic will change all current jobs. Yes. Job market was changing every generation anyway.


Most of the jobs will disappear and replaced by robotics (production, service). Actually they will not disappear, but will be done by robots instead.


There will be a lot of people whithout a job. No job, no money.This is not true even now. Unemployed and handicapped people receive social assistance, money from government. Money without working.
Switzerland is thinking about introducing giving money to everybody.

The Swiss ballot initiative, which isn’t scheduled yet, doesn’t state how big the unconditional stipend would be, but supporters have mentioned 2,500 Swiss francs a month, which is a little under $2,800.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-18/swiss-initiative-would-give-2-800-a-month-to-everyone-no-strings-attached

In a grand scheme of things money is not needed. By your mobile phone, you can sand a list of what you need to the "supplier", and your things will be made and delivered. Made and delivered by robots of course.
I'm not saying it is the right way, but one of possible ways nevertheless.

LeBrok
30-05-16, 16:57
Yeah, that is true. If you dont produce anything useful, you can live only on system benefits. So, this pretty much sounds like Socialism utopia.
It will be pretty much communism. Not by means of revolution or religious communs, but by way of robots. Communism didn't work because people needed to work, jobs were guaranteed by government and bureaucrats were running businesses, no incentives. At the end nobody cared. Nothing works if people don't care.
This time robots will work harder than people for no money and they will not complain. A perfect slaves people always wanted.


If done properly.
Or capitalist nightmare, if not done properly. Because - who would enjoy and how much they would be eligible to enjoy of this paradise? Yes, this might be only problem in the future. People arguing, ho will get what for free, and if this is fair.




Today it is about how useful you are in "adding value" (or screwing someone else's brain into buying not really necessary stuff), tomorrow? Who will care what you want and get? Obviously not robots.

I would like to notice that I'm not saying it will be better or worse than what we have today, but I see it coming soon, by a way of extrapolation of current trends into the future. I just hope it is for better. But who knows?

LeBrok
30-05-16, 17:12
That is not really true, at least not in the future. Robots also require spare parts, which in turn require raw materials, to be produced. So robots makers will be consuming to make and maintain robots. Even when robots become independent from humans, they will need to repair and maintain themselves and create new robots to replace broken ones or expand their numbers. There is actually a risk of going into overdrive and producing too many robots. Humans are prone to excesses, and the bigger the human population grows, the more robots we will need. If we decide to colonise many other planets, the need for robots will become so huge that it could put our planet at serious risk of overproduction and overexploitation.


If robot production would consume so many resources then it probably won't happen because it would be economically inefficient - from a human perspective, unless it is economic from the robots perspective. The human perspective is the only one that should count for us humans.
Steven Hawking and friends recently warned about dangers of AI. Kurzweil and friends are optimists and are expecting soon the singularity to come. Both concerns self-procreation and self-improvement of robots. It is obvious that this is prone to exponential explosion, both quantitatively and qualitatively. If this happens, it would represent consumption, but detached from human economy. Robots would develop their own "economy" where human consumers have no space anymore. That would be malignant robot explosion. One might develop constraints to enforce benign procreation, but the more I think of it the more doubts I have, because the complexity of the constraints is too high. I don't know how it could be designed without highly dangerous experiments. Perhaps in a sufficiently realistic Virtual Reality. But how realistic would be sufficient? I don't know.


Keep in mind that robots will be able to recycle every little thing we will throw away. Robots will not only produce but also recycle and clean our old garbage. Robots have time and patience to do that. Everything will be recycled and reused. Actually thanks to robots will avoid running out of resources.

In 100 or 200 years will will send army of cheap robots to open old garbage pits, recycle our today's garbage and clean up the ground. World with robots will be much cleaner.


Robots are also perfect to travel the space to other planets and solar system bodies. They don't need life support, to carry food with them and oxigen. They can work on Mars or an asteroid as efficiently as on Earth. Natural resources of our solar system will be readily accessible.

LeBrok
30-05-16, 17:45
A pessimistic but relevant article coining the term "unnecessariat (https://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/unnecessariat/)".



On the phenomenon of Bullshit jobs: (http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/)

Movie "Office Space" cators to this idea too.

For the moment and for a while there will be problems. It was not long ago when most humans believed that getting rid of physical and monotonous work would make us all happy. Actually I know few people who love monotonous, repetitive, no thinking, no stress job. Well "love" is said too much lol, these people would prefer watching and sleeping in front of TV instead of working at any time. But if they have to work they go for the boring, mindless jobs.


They thought sitting comfortably while eating excess carbohydrates in order to become big and fat would enable everyone to get through the winter and most problems are gone. Now that we achieved that, diabetes, obesity, back pain and mental illnesses increased instead. Today people are desperate to excercise and to do sports in order to get rid of those carbohydrates and to regain endorphine - they try to artificially restore the environment they just got rid of. I think half of education in future schools will be how to take care of oneself, how to organize your time, how to protect your body and mind against overeating, overusing of drugs, etc. People might go to school for first 30 years to "kill time", or acquire vast amount of new knowledge.
On other hand if there is something wrong with your body, the army of robots in close by hospital will fix you well. Or with new technologies we will pop a pill to burn fat and build muscle even without exercise. Like a hibernating bear.

Remember that there also will be a robot or two in every house. They will cook for you, healthy/low calorie food if you desire. Be your motivator and personal trainer. They can fix and renovate your house, without hiring a contractor. They can manufacture many things for you on a spot together with 3D printers. They will constantly monitor your health, and do medical procedures if needed. No family doctor required. As I said, a perfect slave.





These bullshit jobs seem to be the same, but they are subtly economically driven. In socialism/communism there was no unemployment, because everyone got a task, even it was totally uneconomic and superfluous. In capitalism it used to be the opposite, but something is changing. Currently people are increasingly doing bullshit jobs. Cetrainly more bulshit jobs will be available in the future just to keep people busy and sane.
Nothing will stop you from growing your own food, building your own house, or your private pyramid, just don't expect making money on it. Surely, robots could do it more efficiently and much faster, but who cares. It will make you happy and give you purpose.

LeBrok
30-05-16, 17:58
1. "Unconditional Helicopter Money" (Unconditional Basic Income (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income)), where my emphasis is on unconditional. This is necessary, but not sufficient, because people will hoard it, which is fine. They should hoard it if they want. Conformism and communism is not required. Individual independence and benign inequality must be enabled. As for tackling the hoarding problem, see here:
This is one way to insure people have money to buy goods done by robots and service.
Other way could be insuring that all citizens are the shareholders of all the companies and receive income as dividends.


2. Reducing supply instead of increasing consumption: To be achieved by official reduction of working time. In most developed countries there is an approx. 8 hour limit per day. It should be officially and slowly reduced. Those who exceed the monthly or yearly work time, should pay high extra tax. There should be no taxation of productivity per work time, only taxation of work time, in order to encourage efficiency/technological progress and to discourage labour dumping. Excess productivity should be compensated by reduced work time in the long run by political decisions. In addition to controlling only the money supply (as an attempt to control consumption), this is a necessary tool for controlling product supply, which was missing so far.
"Overconsumption" shouldn't be a problem in the future, as robot will recycle everything. No waste.



I'm confident this could be a starting point for solving most of the immediate economic issues, but I don't know what to do about human nature, e.g.I agree, humane factor is the least predictable part of this equation.


Probably humans must learn to be entirely self-motivated and self-sufficient (ultimate individualism?). I think we are already lacking good self motivation, self improvement teaching.
We can always go for designer babies to change human character fitting and in tune with new, post work, reality. It could be the easy way.



But this won't happen soon, it will take much time until we drop working time from 8 to 4 hours per day, and scientists believe that 4 hours/day are optimal for human psyche anyways, so no problem expected here soon. Not needed. The "helicopter money" will give people option not to work for anyone who desire so. Leave jobs for people who wants to work, be busy, if nothing more than just for psychological health. In this case who cares how long should be the work week. Leave the choice to the interested in it people.

LeBrok
30-05-16, 18:02
I am an optimist, I think energy will come for free soon and then robots will do all the boring jobs and humans will be creators and able to develop themselves where they want as we do our hobbies now. I like your optimism. I would mind enjoying my hobbies all they long.



I also think that working for an employer will be soon die out and everyone will cooperate as freelancers by sharing our knowledge and skills. This happens by means of social media platforms.




Food growing, with free energy and robots, will be mostly local thing, too, and people will grow into eating more green foods.Now, this is matter of taste rather than supply.

mani
30-05-16, 22:24
How so? People will stop buying what we buy now?

A majority of humans will stop buying what we buy now, because they will lose their jobs. You think humans could do then another job or create a new job ? Not everybody can do it and if there will be new jobs they will be replaced by robots again. There will be no jobs for everybody who has lost his job, because robots destroy more jobs than they will create.



Will robots not produce what people require?

Yes, but there will be not so many people who can buy it.



Yes. Job market was changing every generation anyway.

Yes, but this time there will change to no job market. There will be a very small number of jobs. These jobs probably you will get if you are not married, you live in a poor country (small wages) and you are between 20 and 25 years old. For other humans there are no job market because there will be not enough jobs for all.



Actually they will not disappear, but will be done by robots instead.

Actually they will disappear for humans.


This is not true even now. Unemployed and handicapped people receive social assistance, money from government. Money without working.
Switzerland is thinking about introducing giving money to everybody.

Yes, unemployed Swiss people receive social assistance from goverment and also they have to pay it back (if they find any job). The goverment get this money from taxes. Who pay taxes? I think the working SWISS people (but many of them will lose their jobs to robots, too).


And how will Switzerland pay this money without working if in the future there will be less tax incomes? The rich people? No income. No taxes. No money without working.



In a grand scheme of things money is not needed. By your mobile phone, you can sand a list of what you need to the "supplier", and your things will be made and delivered. Made and delivered by robots of course. I'm not saying it is the right way, but one of possible ways nevertheless.

And you think we can get it all for free? If there is no money, there will be replaced with another value system and the problem will be the same.
How do you think humans get value without working?


Robots are only ok if they help us in our work, but not if they replace all possible works.

mani
30-05-16, 23:35
If robots will replace all our works then they should be our personal slaves.

Everybody will own two robots. The start capital for purchasing the robots we will get by our goverment.


One robot goes working outside for earning money, the other one do the housework. If a robot is damaged the other robot repear it automatically.

The humans use then the earned money for hobbies, paying taxes and other things.

ElHorsto
31-05-16, 00:06
Actually I know few people who love monotonous, repetitive, no thinking, no stress job. Well "love" is said too much lol, these people would prefer watching and sleeping in front of TV instead of working at any time. But if they have to work they go for the boring, mindless jobs.


Absolutely! But unfortunately these are exactly those jobs which disappear first, because they can be automatized and robotized most easily. More jobs become increasingly brainy, social and exhausting, on the other side, there are ever more status-bloated overpaid bullshit jobs.



I think half of education in future schools will be how to take care of oneself, how to organize your time, how to protect your body and mind against overeating, overusing of drugs, etc. People might go to school for first 30 years to "kill time", or acquire vast amount of new knowledge.
On other hand if there is something wrong with your body, the army of robots in close by hospital will fix you well. Or with new technologies we will pop a pill to burn fat and build muscle even without exercise. Like a hibernating bear.


But the leading AI and Robot tech companies currently prefer Transhumanism to solve these problems. I would ask them what is the point of being a human then, or what's the point of being at all. Google seriously plans to advance in AI that much that a human mind can be transferred and become immortal. This is no joke. Don't they understand that it is pointless if our artificial copies enjoy superpowers and immortality? Even a 100% exact copy of myself is still someone else.

ElHorsto
31-05-16, 00:23
Keep in mind that robots will be able to recycle every little thing we will throw away. Robots will not only produce but also recycle and clean our old garbage. Robots have time and patience to do that. Everything will be recycled and reused. Actually thanks to robots will avoid running out of resources.

In 100 or 200 years will will send army of cheap robots to open old garbage pits, recycle our today's garbage and clean up the ground. World with robots will be much cleaner.


Robots are also perfect to travel the space to other planets and solar system bodies. They don't need life support, to carry food with them and oxigen. They can work on Mars or an asteroid as efficiently as on Earth. Natural resources of our solar system will be readily accessible.

Possible, but I'm not so sure. Even if they are programmed to always serve us, recycle all best and care about the planet they will soon face the typical philosophical and moral dilemmas: Which goal justifies which means? How much sacrifices are worth for achieving something? Which risks are acceptable in order to achieve a certain goal? Risks most often can not be assessed reliably, not even by the most intelligent animals. Take for example nano-robots or bio-robots that have to find a way to cleanse the oceans from oil or radioactivity. They have to procreate fast in order to achieve enough power, but a small error, mistake or software bug can appear when it is already too late. Effect can be like a deadly virus. Human intelligence has led to a success which had a huge environmental price and we keep adding damage. Then how can we be sure that robots with even higher intelligence won't be even more efficient in destroying the planet while more efficiently striving for the same noble human goals? I think the higher the intelligence, the higher the potential for devastating mistakes. And you know ... Murphy's Law ... This is just some food for thought, neither being pessimistic or optimistic.

ElHorsto
31-05-16, 01:06
This is one way to insure people have money to buy goods done by robots and service.
Other way could be insuring that all citizens are the shareholders of all the companies and receive income as dividends.


I'd vote for a tax-based income rather than individual shareholding-based income, because of simple risk considerations. Dividing and mixing of risks should be done as much as possible in order to minimize victimization of random individuals. I think every individual would benefit most if all risks are socialized and all chances remain individualized. Sounds like a free lunch, but it isn't. The swiss basic income would smooth-out/socialize the individual existential risks, while preserving the individual opportunities. The finnish model is different, btw.



"Overconsumption" shouldn't be a problem in the future, as robot will recycle everything. No waste.


You made this comment below my item 2). Well, item 2) which is meant to reduce/control supply is not meant to prevent "Overconsumption". I meant it to be a neccessary second tool for fighting deflation. Central banks are "printing money" and doing Quantitative Easing for many years already and still had no success in fighting deflation and stimulating consumption. I believe that the reason for that failure is oversupply (~excess work) rather than low consumption, which no money in the world can change, also no basic income, unless 2) is included.



Not needed. The "helicopter money" will give people option not to work for anyone who desire so. Leave jobs for people who wants to work, be busy, if nothing more than just for psychological health. In this case who cares how long should be the work week. Leave the choice to the interested in it people.

Good point, I also thought that way initially. But I think it doesn't work because employers immediately would use the basic income as an excuse to drop wages. With official work time limits, the wage dropping is much more limited because the difference between the working and non-working people is lower. Let's take for example 4 hours official work time per day. My idea is to directly reward the idling during the rest of the day. Those who do not idle enough and work more than 4 hours (**) should be penalized for doing so because they produce harmful excess supply, without being actually more efficient. If the upper limit of work time remains constantly high as today, then the economic pressure on everybody to work maximum amount of time will increase during deflation, which in turn increases deflation even more like a race to the bottom --> vicious circle. It is important to understand that too much productivity and too efficient productivity increases deflation, thus effectively worsens economic crisis. It sounds paradoxical, but it is truth.

I see it as a double-sided coin:

1. so far we penalized only excess idling,

but the other forgotten side of the coin is that

2. excess work should be penalized too, because it is as harmful as too much idling (*).

If only excess work is penalized (2), then demand overwhelms supply, which is bad obviously and leads to inflation and shortage of goods. But everybody thinks this is good ("idling is a sin, work is holy").
If only excess idling is penalized (1), then supply overwhelms demand, which is also bad and leads to deflation. This is the unknown side of the coin which is the cause of the current deflation, where everybody wonders why printing money and working harder doesn't help.

* By "idling" I mean idling in terms of real labour work. Of course everyones idle time remains an option to work for personal hobbies.
** The 4 hours per day is an example only, and is meant to be an average. Of course everyone is free to work 12 hours per day for a couple of weeks or months, but he has to go in vacation eventually for as much as he accumulated overtime work. Else he has to pay penalty tax, which will be used to reduce work and supply somewhere else instead.

LeBrok
31-05-16, 03:44
Yes, unemployed Swiss people receive social assistance from goverment and also they have to pay it back (if they find any job). The goverment get this money from taxes. Who pay taxes? I think the working SWISS people (but many of them will lose their jobs to robots, too).


And how will Switzerland pay this money without working if in the future there will be less tax incomes? The rich people? No income. No taxes. No money without working.Just forget about money. There is no money. Robots produce the goods (the countries GDP), all the time, every day and month. They pack what you ordered by phone in a container and ship it to your house on weekly bases. How is that for you, can work?





And you think we can get it all for free? If there is no money, there will be replaced with another value system and the problem will be the same.
How do you think humans get value without working?
The Value, the products, are made by robots. People are given the value. It is like today's parents work, make money, buy goods, and give them to kids. I'm sure you experienced that, right? As a kid you didn't need to work for first 20 years, and yet you had food, home and rest of the stuff. In a future, robots will act like working parents, and we all will benefit like kids today. Benefiting without working.

Another example:
Imagine you are a rich kid. You were born into money that your grandfather made. You never worked a day of your life, and yet you can buy goods and services all your life, even though you never created the Value. Now imagine, every citizen in the future when robots produce the Value, is living like this rich kid from the past. The government will be "your rich grandfather" and will give you money, points or just allowance how much you can buy.
Plus you are going to have robots producing and working in your house. You won't need to give them money to get stuff.

LeBrok
31-05-16, 03:53
But the leading AI and Robot tech companies currently prefer Transhumanism to solve these problems. I would ask them what is the point of being a human then, or what's the point of being at all. Google seriously plans to advance in AI that much that a human mind can be transferred and become immortal. This is no joke. Don't they understand that it is pointless if our artificial copies enjoy superpowers and immortality? Even a 100% exact copy of myself is still someone else.Don't put much thought into it. From technological point of view we have no idea how even start acting on this downloading mind process. Just because somebody have this "dream" it doesn't mean much now.

LeBrok
31-05-16, 04:02
Possible, but I'm not so sure. Even if they are programmed to always serve us, recycle all best and care about the planet they will soon face the typical philosophical and moral dilemmas: Which goal justifies which means?There is a solution for it. Robots can't have feelings. Without feelings they will only act on our orders and not on their feelings or will. Fortunately, we don't know how to create an electronic emotion chip, and we have no idea how to go about this. And in future if it happened that accidently we create a robot who feels something, we should destroy it immediately and related piece of technology. No feelings, no emotions, no free will, no moral dilemmas. Without feelings they won't care if they exist or not, if people exist or not, if they only serve humans or die for humans. Morality will be simply programed: robots will not harm humans, robots will serve humans, robots will die for humans, etc. No feelings, no pain, no dilemma.

LeBrok
31-05-16, 07:50
I'd vote for a tax-based income rather than individual shareholding-based income, because of simple risk considerations. Dividing and mixing of risks should be done as much as possible in order to minimize victimization of random individuals.No victimization. Actually a government would be an owner of shares in all companies (Though without voting rights.). The monetary value of all dividends is split equally among all citizens. Well, either way it would be a form of taxation of corporations. Dividends or corporate taxes, whatever a name we use for this.
The idea is that this would fix the cash flow in society.
Now it goes like this: People work in factories, they make money their, they spend money to buy stuff they produced, money from stores go to factory, factory pays employees, etc, etc. The cash flow is a closed loop. Well, generally speaking.
Now, with more automatization and robotics in the future, this cash flow circle is destroyed. This might be happening already in top industrial countries and keeps them in constant recession like Japan, or explains stagnation of wages in US middle class.
Machines and robots work in factory, people don't work or work less and don't make enough money to buy products made in factories. Money stays in factory, doesn't flow to society, the circle is broken. People are not making money, can't buy factory products, factory produces less and less. This might be a new form of recession. People might borrow a lot of money to keep buying, but this have its limits.
I have a feeling that Switzerland is going the right way with "helicopter money". They will need to tax corporations more to make money flow again.
It's used to be factories-people-stores-factories, new model must be factories-government-people-stores-factories.


You made this comment below my item 2). Well, item 2) which is meant to reduce/control supply is not meant to prevent "Overconsumption". I meant it to be a neccessary second tool for fighting deflation. Central banks are "printing money" and doing Quantitative Easing for many years already and still had no success in fighting deflation and stimulating consumption. I believe that the reason for that failure is oversupply (~excess work) rather than low consumption, which no money in the world can change, also no basic income, unless 2) is included. I think it could be the problem of broken cash flow circle rather than overproduction. Overproduction will happen very often due to saturation of the market with some products. However when new products are invented people readily buy them. For example when computers and smartphones were invented it opened new market for new products and increase of GDP. Likewise when new TVs or new car models come around many people change old for new, and not only one item per family but market expended to one car and TV set per person. "Overproduction" is very fluent beast. Can you imagine how many robots per person people could have in the future? I'm sure, thanks to them, everybody can live in a mansion thanks to cheap construction cost thanks to robots building houses.




Good point, I also thought that way initially. But I think it doesn't work because employers immediately would use the basic income as an excuse to drop wages. With official work time limits, the wage dropping is much more limited because the difference between the working and non-working people is lower. Let's take for example 4 hours official work time per day. My idea is to directly reward the idling during the rest of the day. Those who do not idle enough and work more than 4 hours (**) should be penalized for doing so because they produce harmful excess supply, without being actually more efficient. If the upper limit of work time remains constantly high as today, then the economic pressure on everybody to work maximum amount of time will increase during deflation, which in turn increases deflation even more like a race to the bottom --> vicious circle. It is important to understand that too much productivity and too efficient productivity increases deflation, thus effectively worsens economic crisis. It sounds paradoxical, but it is truth.Cure for this is to unleash human creativity and entrepreneurship to invent and produce new items, and not the same and more old items. Otherwise, as I mentioned above, automatization of production line, meaning factory workers working fewer hours and for less money, causing interruption of money circulation between business and consumer and back, could be the main culprit of today's prolonged recessions in many countries. This is a new phenomenon and possibly it can't be fixed by traditional market mechanisms and stimuli.



I see it as a double-sided coin:

1. so far we penalized only excess idling,

but the other forgotten side of the coin is that

2. excess work should be penalized too, because it is as harmful as too much idling (*).

If only excess work is penalized (2), then demand overwhelms supply, which is bad obviously and leads to inflation and shortage of goods. But everybody thinks this is good ("idling is a sin, work is holy").
If only excess idling is penalized (1), then supply overwhelms demand, which is also bad and leads to deflation. This is the unknown side of the coin which is the cause of the current deflation, where everybody wonders why printing money and working harder doesn't help.

* By "idling" I mean idling in terms of real labour work. Of course everyones idle time remains an option to work for personal hobbies.
** The 4 hours per day is an example only, and is meant to be an average. Of course everyone is free to work 12 hours per day for a couple of weeks or months, but he has to go in vacation eventually for as much as he accumulated overtime work. Else he has to pay penalty tax, which will be used to reduce work and supply somewhere else instead.Well, the strict control of time worked by employees might be too artificial to be of any service to society. Likewise, how can we calculate when the overproduction exists and of what products? I would let market forces to determine this.

In the future it might be easier to figure things out, you can give people certain amount of money but let them chose what and how much they will buy. Consumer likes to have choices and factories will have input what to produce. Even in moneyless society, people could place orders in advance for some major products through smart devices, this way factories will know how much to produce. However, such simplification of the market, might lead to production inefficiencies, lack of new investments and humper creativity of new products. There might be a solution in the future for this that escapes my imagination, and surely will be, giving a genius of human brain. Not mentioning smart supercomputers of the future.

ElHorsto
31-05-16, 08:15
Don't put much thought into it. From technological point of view we have no idea how even start acting on this downloading mind process. Just because somebody have this "dream" it doesn't mean much now.

Right, but yet they waste efforts for this silly god complex rather than something useful like finding a cure for cancer.

mani
31-05-16, 09:04
Just forget about money.

It is not a good idea if it will be no money. We will lose our freedom and all our life will be manipulated more than now. Robots shout be our property, work for us and we decide then what we want purchase with money or/and equivalent (IBAN transfer).




Robots produce the goods (the countries GDP), all the time, every day and month. They pack what you ordered by phone in a container and ship it to your house on weekly bases. How is that for you, can work?

Yes, that sounds good but each human should decide when his order should be delivered at home and how he want pay fort it.


The Value, the products, are made by robots. People are given the value. It is like today's parents work, make money, buy goods, and give them to kids. I'm sure you experienced that, right? As a kid you didn't need to work for first 20 years, and yet you had food, home and rest of the stuff. In a future, robots will act like working parents, and we all will benefit like kids today. Benefiting without working.


Yes, our parents will be also replaced by robots. In the future humans do not need parents. Robots can reproduce kids in test tubes and look after them. We must pay attention what politicians and current business world decide for us.


The government will be "your rich grandfather" and will give you money, points or just allowance how much you can buy.

That is not a good idea for freedom. It is better, my robot will give me the money, because he works for me and not a government.

In the case that a goverment will be „my rich grandfather“ then only should it be a goverment with direct democracy (like Switzerland) which people themselves decide how their life should be in the future. Swiss People also can change decisions at any time if they are wrong.

The only problem of direct democracy is that a country should be small. EU or even Germany is too big for it. Regions and direct democracy with basic EU rights and our personal robots which work for us could be a good way.


Plus you are going to have robots producing and working in your house. You won't need to give them money to get stuff.

I think, we have to give them something for paying resources like metals, wood etc.

mani
31-05-16, 09:42
There is a solution for it. Robots can't have feelings. Without feelings they will only act on our orders and not on their feelings or will. Fortunately, we don't know how to create an electronic emotion chip, and we have no idea how to go about this. And in future if it happened that accidently we create a robot who feels something, we should destroy it immediately and related piece of technology. No feelings, no emotions, no free will, no moral dilemmas. Without feelings they won't care if they exist or not, if people exist or not, if they only serve humans or die for humans. Morality will be simply programed: robots will not harm humans, robots will serve humans, robots will die for humans, etc. No feelings, no pain, no dilemma.

I agree. No emotions and free will for robots or we will get huge problems.

ElHorsto
31-05-16, 09:51
No victimization. Actually a government would be an owner of shares in all companies (Though without voting rights.). The monetary value of all dividends is split equally among all citizens. Well, either way it would be a form of taxation of corporations. Dividends or corporate taxes, whatever a name we use for this.
The idea is that this would fix the cash flow in society.
Now it goes like this: People work in factories, they make money their, they spend money to buy stuff they produced, money from stores go to factory, factory pays employees, etc, etc. The cash flow is a closed loop. Well, generally speaking.
Now, with more automatization and robotics in the future, this cash flow circle is destroyed. This might be happening already in top industrial countries and keeps them in constant recession like Japan, or explains stagnation of wages in US middle class.
Machines and robots work in factory, people don't work or work less and don't make enough money to buy products made in factories. Money stays in factory, doesn't flow to society, the circle is broken. People are not making money, can't buy factory products, factory produces less and less. This might be a new form of recession. People might borrow a lot of money to keep buying, but this have its limits.
I have a feeling that Switzerland is going the right way with "helicopter money". They will need to tax corporations more to make money flow again.
It's used to be factories-people-stores-factories, new model must be factories-government-people-stores-factories.


Exactly.



I think it could be the problem of broken cash flow circle rather than overproduction. Overproduction will happen very often due to saturation of the market with some products. However when new products are invented people readily buy them. For example when computers and smartphones were invented it opened new market for new products and increase of GDP. Likewise when new TVs or new car models come around many people change old for new, and not only one item per family but market expended to one car and TV set per person. "Overproduction" is very fluent beast. Can you imagine how many robots per person people could have in the future? I'm sure, thanks to them, everybody can live in a mansion thanks to cheap construction cost thanks to robots building houses.


I disagree. Innovativeness of consumer products can be saturated too. As I said, eventually people will prefer to hoard their money rather than spending them for luxury like multiple slave robots, which become cheaper over time anyways, even if luxury price drops to slightly above zero. Prices may even become negative, which already is happening now, for instance Germany rewarded the destruction of your old car with thousands of EUR back in 2009, if you buy a new car. Currently the government plans to reward purchase of electric cars with several thousands of EUR. Did I mention negative interest rates already?
Another problem is that innovation rarely affects only consumer goods (e.g. personal robots in mansion for everybody and for low price) but also productivity in general.



Cure for this is to unleash human creativity and entrepreneurship to invent and produce new items, and not the same and more old items.


Right, but currently this creativity and entrepreneurship primarily increases productivity, resulting in layoffs, unemployment, "unneccessariat" and bullshit jobs. All these are the symptoms of depression/recession/deflation. The nice thing about reducing the maximum work time country wide by law is that the depression is transformed into equal distribution of work load and increased living standard (by increased basic income and excess work time taxation). Even more, creativity and entrepreneurship is unleashed much more than now, because there would be no cheap escape for inefficient companies anymore. They won't simply layoff people and drop wages that much, instead they will be more innovative.



Otherwise, as I mentioned above, automatization of production line, meaning factory workers working fewer hours and for less money, causing interruption of money circulation between business and consumer and back, could be the main culprit of today's prolonged recessions in many countries. This is a new phenomenon and possibly it can't be fixed by traditional market mechanisms and stimuli.


Well, the strict control of time worked by employees might be too artificial to be of any service to society.


Strict control of time worked doesn't have to be more strict than it is already now (currently ~8 hours limit, in various flexible variants). Excess work time is also punished already to some meaningful extent, else we would still work like in Manchester of the 19th century. Recently it was mainly China's cheap labour which contributed most to stagnation of living standards, less innovation and more deflation. But other countries like Bangladesh too of course. If basic income and oversupply penalization is introduced everywhere, then robot's cheap labour wouldn't be harmful but beneficial, except for the robot slaves. This is what we want.



Likewise, how can we calculate when the overproduction exists and of what products?.


Just take the typical crisis symptoms as indicator: unemployment, wage decreases, price decreases. One might also consider the GINI coefficient.



I would let market forces to determine this.


Market forces already do this: they create crisis, manifested by layoffs and price reductions. The goal of basic income + oversupply taxation is to merely transform these destructive market reactions into raising living standards. Nice thing is that also entrepreneurship and creativity are boosted by these measures.



In the future it might be easier to figure things out, you can give people certain amount of money but let them chose what and how much they will buy. Consumer likes to have choices and factories will have input what to produce. Even in moneyless society, people could place orders in advance for some major products through smart devices, this way factories will know how much to produce. However, such simplification of the market, might lead to production inefficiencies, lack of new investments and humper creativity of new products. There might be a solution in the future for this that escapes my imagination, and surely will be, giving a genius of human brain. Not mentioning smart supercomputers of the future.

I don't see that simplification of the market, at least not more than it is already the case now, principally.


It is interesting that in Germany there is already a law called "Kurzarbeit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_time)" (Short time) since many decades. It is an opportunity for struggling companies to essentially receive a basic income for each employee if working time is reduced. If employees exceed this reduced working time, they and their employer will be penalized harshly. It was a great success during the 2008 credit crunch. It is time to introduce "Kurzarbeit" everywhere!


...
In 2009, the German (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) government had budgeted 5.1 billion euros on the program, which replaced some of the lost income of over 1.4 million workers. The program was favorably cited in a 2009 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_Economic_Co-operation_and_Development) (OECD) report, which stated that it had saved nearly 500,000 jobs during the recession.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_time#cite_note-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_time#cite_note-GermanInfo1-4)[original research? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research)] Besides helping to avoid mass layoffs, proponents of the program also cite its keeping skilled work groups together and avoiding the atrophy of their skills during extended layoffs, while critics have expressed concerns about its expense and that it might prop up non-viable firms.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_time#cite_note-GermanInfo2-5)[original research? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research)]
...

mani
31-05-16, 10:29
No victimization. Actually a government would be an owner of shares in all companies (Though without voting rights.). The monetary value of all dividends is split equally among all citizens. Well, either way it would be a form of taxation of corporations. Dividends or corporate taxes, whatever a name we use for this.
The idea is that this would fix the cash flow in society.
Now it goes like this: People work in factories, they make money their, they spend money to buy stuff they produced, money from stores go to factory, factory pays employees, etc, etc. The cash flow is a closed loop. Well, generally speaking.
Now, with more automatization and robotics in the future, this cash flow circle is destroyed. This might be happening already in top industrial countries and keeps them in constant recession like Japan, or explains stagnation of wages in US middle class.
Machines and robots work in factory, people don't work or work less and don't make enough money to buy products made in factories. Money stays in factory, doesn't flow to society, the circle is broken. People are not making money, can't buy factory products, factory produces less and less. This might be a new form of recession. People might borrow a lot of money to keep buying, but this have its limits.
I have a feeling that Switzerland is going the right way with "helicopter money". They will need to tax corporations more to make money flow again.
It's used to be factories-people-stores-factories, new model must be factories-government-people-stores-factories.


I think this „helicopter money“ is too new for the majority of Swiss people and they will not vote positive for it at the moment. But I saw a discussion in the Swiss TV „Arena“. They discussed about the three biggest Swiss firms (Die Post, Swisscom and SBB). The biggest owner of these firms is the Swiss government and Swiss people always can decide what the goverment must change.


The people at that discussion were talking about that these firms should be for humans a not only for making money. Better work situations and better services for clients.


That is also the best way to integrate our robots in human civilization.

bicicleur
31-05-16, 11:11
when robots produce everything there will be even a lot more useless people then there are allready today
they don't have to fight for survival as our ancestors did and they don't find any sense in their life
people will be heavily influenced by the amusement industry and social media, even more so then it is allready today

ElHorsto
31-05-16, 11:35
when robots produce everything there will be even a lot more useless people then there are allready today


Yes, but the discussed idea (essentially a global Short Time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_time) of the german model which is without much wage cut) aims to distribute uselessness more equally and to turn it into an advantage.



they don't have to fight for survival as our ancestors did and they don't find any sense in their life
people will be heavily influenced by the amusement industry and social media, even more so then it is allready today

Yes, humans remain the problematic unknown beings.

ElHorsto
31-05-16, 11:37
I think this „helicopter money“ is too new for the majority of Swiss people and they will not vote positive for it at the moment.

That's what I'm expecting too. But if they reject it this time, then the same question will become more pressing later and they will eventually reconsider. Eventually it will come, else there will be violent destruction in some form. Switzerland is more deflationary than EU, btw.

EDIT: I have to correct myself here. I don't know whether Switzerland is really more deflationary than EU, but it struggles with Swiss Franc vs. EUR appreciation, making swiss exports more expensive. In any case, living standard in Switzerland is much higher than in EU average, and wages are up to twice a high as in Germany.

mani
31-05-16, 12:08
when robots produce everything there will be even a lot more useless people then there are allready today
they don't have to fight for survival as our ancestors did and they don't find any sense in their life
people will be heavily influenced by the amusement industry and social media, even more so then it is allready today

Is surviving really the sense of our life ? We could do things that are more useful for society: Spend our time with our children and help our parents, conserve the nature. Then we have our hobbies and friends etc. I’m sure you also will find a better sense of life than working as slave for the current society and getting sick and unhappy because you aren’t free and can’t decide yourself how to spend your short life.

But this is only possible if the robots work for you (for humans) and not for future global players. It will be better if governments could be the owner of global firms and human society the boss of these goverments.

Or our goverments tax all global players so that they can pay all unemployed people.

But I think, this will be not possible because high taxes destroy firms.

mani
31-05-16, 12:24
That's what I'm expecting too. But if they reject it this time, then the same question will become more pressing later and they will eventually reconsider. Eventually it will come, else there will be violent destruction in some form. Switzerland is more deflationary than EU, btw.

I agree.

I think it will help if they see the problem in combination with the future robotic market.

I hope some of Swiss people will read our thoughts and discuss it on TV soon.

Angela
31-05-16, 13:56
when robots produce everything there will be even a lot more useless people then there are allready today
they don't have to fight for survival as our ancestors did and they don't find any sense in their life
people will be heavily influenced by the amusement industry and social media, even more so then it is allready today

That's how I see it as well. Yes, there's a certain segment of the population who would love to have lots of time to devote to music, reading, studying multiple disciplines, various sports, cooking, photography, and on and on. For people like that, life is too short for all they want to learn and experience.

How many people are like that, though? Even if the economics of it all would work out, the majority would just watch or listen to mindless media, the more violent and overtly and gratuitously sexual the better, and spend their days either drunk or high. It's already the norm for a lot of people who are on public assistance, and becoming increasingly the norm among young people in general. Just as an example, I've been paying a monthly fee for Netflix. I'm seriously considering cancelling it. Most of the new shows are just disgusting, celebrating the worst of human nature.

I was fed a lot of nonsense in university about how if you just "free" children to learn on their own, they'll explore so many things. The contrary is the case, as educators have finally started to admit. Without discipline and consequences, a lot of children will diligently study absolutely nothing. That's why they're increasingly ignorant.

mani
31-05-16, 15:14
I was fed a lot of nonsense in university about how if you just "free" children to learn on their own, they'll explore so many things. The contrary is the case, as educators have finally started to admit. Without discipline and consequences, a lot of children will diligently study absolutely nothing. That's why they're increasingly ignorant.

Ignorants are good for business. You can sell them every bullshit. You can manipulate them if you like, but they are not so easy to conserve like a robot.

ElHorsto
31-05-16, 17:45
There is a solution for it. Robots can't have feelings. Without feelings they will only act on our orders and not on their feelings or will. Fortunately, we don't know how to create an electronic emotion chip, and we have no idea how to go about this. And in future if it happened that accidently we create a robot who feels something, we should destroy it immediately and related piece of technology. No feelings, no emotions, no free will, no moral dilemmas. Without feelings they won't care if they exist or not, if people exist or not, if they only serve humans or die for humans. Morality will be simply programed: robots will not harm humans, robots will serve humans, robots will die for humans, etc. No feelings, no pain, no dilemma.

I doubt this has anything to do with emotion. It is a technical optimization problem which robots will face all the time, because most of the time there are no 100% optimal solutions. That means they have to decide which compromises are good for humans (which humans? All humans? Or only a sufficient majority? The "valuable" ones? The high performers only? Or the weakest low performers only? Long-term or short-term?...). Now looking at human history and cultures, we can see how many different moral values and bloody rituals have evolved within the same one human species. I wouldn't be surprised if robots will require constant moral supervision by humans, which might turn out to be a fulltime job. Else they might come-up with a morals where sacrificing of 10 humans is OK if 11 humans can be saved, or they start to develop radical eugenics for a "better future" and "our own good", or something like that.
In tech industry there is a phenomenon which tells us that many new things that were introduced to make things easier tend to create actually more problems later that there were before. That is because if you hide one layer of complexity (e.g. our current state of development) by another layer with less complexity (robots doing the work for us), not the lesser complexity wins, but instead both get multiplied in a very nasty way, and fixing this is multiple times harder than dealing with the first complexity layer only. Even robots themselves will eventually struggle with this problem. If this happens with robots, humans will have much more work than before. In worst case a system can collapse due to it's own complexity.
Another similar phenomenon is, that the more we learn and know, the more questions get answered, but even more new questions appear.
Just some food for thought, being neither pessimistic nor optimistic.

LeBrok
01-06-16, 16:18
Right, but yet they waste efforts for this silly god complex rather than something useful like finding a cure for cancer.There is always a dilemma if scientists should follow their passion and chose their own research field or public should direct their research to what public considers useful. Especially an important case when public finances the research facilities like at universities. We should have them both I think. Public money should be earmarked according to urgent issues in society. More money for research and scientists to make if they follow these guidelines.
However we don't know from where a new big thing in science can come from, and many new inventions are accidental in nature. In this case scientists should have free hand to pursue whatever makes them excited and passionate.

LeBrok
01-06-16, 16:43
It is not a good idea if it will be no money. We will lose our freedom and all our life will be manipulated more than now. Robots shout be our property, work for us and we decide then what we want purchase with money or/and equivalent (IBAN transfer). Obviously lack of money creates some problems, perhaps loss of freedom of choice of selection, saving for big items, donating money to a cause, etc. It is hard to predict if we are ever going to get rid of money. The point was that technically we can, and still receive products.




Yes, our parents will be also replaced by robots. In the future humans do not need parents. Robots can reproduce kids in test tubes and look after them. We must pay attention what politicians and current business world decide for us.Not really. As long as people want to raise a child there will be no need for such thing. And we are very good in it. Also, a child needs emotional bond with parents to grow up to be a normal person. Machines might never have feelings therefore never be good parents.




That is not a good idea for freedom. It is better, my robot will give me the money, because he works for me and not a government.You are really tied to the money idea, aren't you. ;)


In the case that a goverment will be „my rich grandfather“ then only should it be a goverment with direct democracy (like Switzerland) which people themselves decide how their life should be in the future. Swiss People also can change decisions at any time if they are wrong.No problem with this.


The only problem of direct democracy is that a country should be small. EU or even Germany is too big for it. Regions and direct democracy with basic EU rights and our personal robots which work for us could be a good way.
I believe that in the future the whole world will be decentralized. Local communities will have strongest powers and big entities like countries will disintegrate with time.:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28314-Will-all-people-of-the-world-mix-creating-one-race-in-the-future


I think, we have to give them something for paying resources like metals, wood etc.[/QUOTE]Money or not, you place an order with mining, lumber and transportation robots and they will deliver.

LeBrok
01-06-16, 16:46
I agree. No emotions and free will for robots or we will get huge problems. Yep, the Skynet and Terminator. :)

ElHorsto
05-06-16, 17:24
Wendy's is replacing its lowest-paid workers with robots (http://www.techinsider.io/wendys-workers-will-lose-jobs-to-robots-2016-5)


...
Citing concerns about the rising cost of labor, Wendy's President Todd Penegor told Investor's Business Daily (http://www.investors.com/politics/policy/wendys-serves-up-kiosks-as-wages-rise-hits-fast-food-group/) (IBD) about plans to automate the ordering process in company restaurants. Employees who once took orders from customers will be replaced by self-service kiosks. Mobile ordering and payment apps will also cut down on employee hours.
...
According to IBD, Penegor says the move is a response to the rising cost of labor for the company. He says it's partly a result of rising minimum wages,
...
Wendy's is not alone in the fast food world in deciding to cut the costs and difficulties of human beings out of its ordering process. McDonald's has been testing similar kiosks on a smaller scale....


A good example for how the risen minimum wage forces companies to replace human labor with more innovative robot labor. As the basic income with proportionally reduced work time may have a cost-raising effect too (because there is no cheaper labor available), it can likewise accelerate innovation and rationalization rather than slowing it down, just with less numerous and less threatening layoffs, because everyone works less and gets proportionally less loan from the employer. In case of layoff there is at least protection by the basic income.

ElHorsto
06-06-16, 00:43
So as expected, the Swiss people voted against basic income with 78%. This idea needs a lot of new thinking, which is especially difficult for conservative people like the Swiss. Yet the initiators are celebrating their 22%, because they expected only 15%.
Mind that in Switzerland even women had no right to vote until 1971 because the Swiss always voted against, incl. most women.

LeBrok
07-06-16, 01:46
Wendy's is replacing its lowest-paid workers with robots (http://www.techinsider.io/wendys-workers-will-lose-jobs-to-robots-2016-5)



A good example for how the risen minimum wage forces companies to replace human labor with more innovative robot labor. As the basic income with proportionally reduced work time may have a cost-raising effect too (because there is no cheaper labor available), it can likewise accelerate innovation and rationalization rather than slowing it down, just with less numerous and less threatening layoffs, because everyone works less and gets proportionally less loan from the employer. In case of layoff there is at least protection by the basic income.I know you are really set on limiting working hours to cut production and consumption. In some case of personal consumption you are right, but there is so much more of good products and services we should get. What about more recreational building infrastructure like more recreational facilities. More efficient roads, tunnels and bridge. Desalination plants in places with water shortages. Water treatment plants from storm water runoffs from our cities. We treat sewer but not run off with road oils and all city street pollution. World wide battery recycling program (these are most toxic items we bury in the ground these days). Traffic control for drone delivery system. Just few examples off the top of my head. There are so many opportunities for work in new products/infrastructure and services. All we need is entrepreneurial spirit and smart politicians. The latter is much harder to come up with, I guess. I don't think we pay enough politicians to get the best and smartest talents.

LeBrok
07-06-16, 01:52
So as expected, the Swiss people voted against basic income with 78%. This idea needs a lot of new thinking, which is especially difficult for conservative people like the Swiss. Yet the initiators are celebrating their 22%, because they expected only 15%.
Mind that in Switzerland even women had no right to vote until 1971 because the Swiss always voted against, incl. most women. I was shocked to learn this few years ago, lol.
Swiss are very interesting nation. On one hand they are very conservative, on the other they are way more progressive than most other nations. At least they don't shy away from radical ideas and have a lot of initiative. I think it will go through next time when more folks get used to the idea.
I was hoping they will vote yes. Not that I'm sure this is the right way, I have no idea about details of this plan, but it would be nice if someone experiments with it. Otherwise how we will know if it works or not?

ElHorsto
07-06-16, 14:05
I know you are really set on limiting working hours to cut production and consumption.


I don't want to cut consumption, only production. The goal is to keep scarcity always slightly above zero (likewise saturation below 100%). Without scarcity there is no economy.



In some case of personal consumption you are right, but there is so much more of good products and services we should get. What about more recreational building infrastructure like more recreational facilities. More efficient roads, tunnels and bridge. Desalination plants in places with water shortages. Water treatment plants from storm water runoffs from our cities. We treat sewer but not run off with road oils and all city street pollution. World wide battery recycling program (these are most toxic items we bury in the ground these days). Traffic control for drone delivery system. Just few examples off the top of my head. There are so many opportunities for work in new products/infrastructure and services. All we need is entrepreneurial spirit and smart politicians. The latter is much harder to come up with, I guess. I don't think we pay enough politicians to get the best and smartest talents.

Well, I have the gut feeling that many of the politicians themselves are already members of the bullshit-job sector. I agree in so far that compared to the wages of managers in the free market the wages of politicians are laughable, which makes them susceptible for corruption. The situation in Japan is a bit different though, as manager wages are ten times lower on average than in the US.

Your examples are mostly from infrastructure, and you are right. In the US the infrastructure is often in a critical age (crumbling bridges). But also in Germany the roads are full of holes, university buildings and schools are often still made in 1970. The question is why does private economy not target these demands, and where are the entrepreneurs? Take the german train system and british water supply for example, it started to decay since it was privatized. One would expect the opposite, but no. What is the reason? I think entrepreneurs/private companies always make calculation and today they find out that it is more profitable to retreat and liquidate, or just receive the government payments and do nothing because they are monopolists. It is no coincidence that infrastructure is the traditional sector of government consumption, which means the government is the main customer of the industry. That is because private consumers do not consume infrastructure directly. This sector is even further increasing due to saturated private consumption.
Again Japan is ahead and they use "Abenomics", a mostly Keynesian attempt to fight deflation. The big problem of such approaches is that they happen when government debt is already critically high, especially in Japan. But nevertheless they try it, hoping for higher tax returns, but so far without success. Mysteriously they also increased consumption tax, which is very stupid. Sometimes the japanese government hires one company to dig a hole and later hires another one to close the same hole (another bullshit-job). Japan also removed pacifism from it's constitution in order to gain economic growth in the arms industry, which is another traditional sector of fiscal stimulus (government consumption). Keynesianism is very close to Mussolini's definition of fascism.

It is a mystery to me why the Fukushima desaster is not a major subject of fiscal stimulus. This is a real scarcity (scarcity of a problem solution). Probably the Fukushima problems are still too abstract and unnoticable for individual people, politicians and entrepreneurs in order to take action. Nobody feels personally responsible enough and there is not enough monetary reward for this good deed.

Governments must revive the private economy and the only way I see is by cutting production. Once the private sector is up again, then there will be also more credit for sustaining government investment in public infrastructure.

ElHorsto
07-06-16, 14:26
I was shocked to learn this few years ago, lol.
Swiss are very interesting nation. On one hand they are very conservative, on the other they are way more progressive than most other nations. At least they don't shy away from radical ideas and have a lot of initiative. I think it will go through next time when more folks get used to the idea.


I think that's because Switzerland has direct democracy. I don't know of any other country that has such privileges. One downside is that people's votes are always very conservative in such wealthy countries like Switzerland. They don't want to change a running system, understandably. Also, Switzerland is not the country where a basic income is especially urgent. Other countries need it much more.

Interestingly, already Richard Nixon proposed a basic income for all US citizens.

99.9% of normal people always believe that money is too scarce, but they don't see that the social spending is a microscopic fraction compared to the billions spent for fiscal stimuli and bank bail-outs.
They also think that an Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) will be an incentive to be lazy and drug addicted. But there is a strong counter argument: In Germany there already was a very generous social help for unemployed until 2004, since many decades. Since only the unemployed received it, it was essentially an incentive for not going to work, and indeed there was always a minority of people living on social welfare only. I think it is inevitable to have such a parasitic minority if we don't want to ruin the honestly working people. It never was a problem for Germany.
But it was also unfair, because social welfare was only for the jobless. It effectively was penalizing the working ones. Now compare this to an Unconditional Basic Income where also the working ones would receive the same welfare. From this perspective the UBI would be even an incentive to find a job!



I was hoping they will vote yes. Not that I'm sure this is the right way, I have no idea about details of this plan, but it would be nice if someone experiments with it. Otherwise how we will know if it works or not?

Exactly. Economic models need continuous improvement, and discouraging experiences should not be taken too negatively, there always will be some trial-and-error.

ElHorsto
19-06-16, 18:16
Coming back to the main question of the thread: what would people do if robots much of their work?
They could do more sports, not only physical but also mental sports. Basically all abilities that have been required so far on the job market could be exercised as a competitive game, with fun and without fear.
I think it partially already happened: the life-threatening hunting and gathering has been replaced by olympic games, soccer, bull-fighting and many other, depending on tribe and culture. Probably even the arts of war has been replaced by these traditional sports, including chess, go and alike. Today, there are competition challenges in war-like computer games (some people are still skeptic) and paintball. Obviously, future sport challenges should become more intellectual (knowledge, "jeopardy", programming, playing musical instruments, arguing, ...). Humans can be very enthusiastic for sports and game-like competition. This could be a way to avoid many sorts of degenerations if there is no work.

Angela
19-06-16, 20:25
If anyone is an amazon.com prime member, there's a series on there called "Humans". It's about what might happen if robots did take on human jobs. The humans in the creators' imagination don't much like it. Things get worse when they're actually programmed to have human "consciousness", including "free will", and "feelings".

It's quite well done, I think. It was originally on AMC. I don't know where else it might be available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_(TV_series)

In looking for the trailer on youtube I found the full episodes are available on there. I think they're worth looking at...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FJQpK6EVTk

LeBrok
19-06-16, 21:15
Coming back to the main question of the thread: what would people do if robots much of their work?
They could do more sports, not only physical but also mental sports. Basically all abilities that have been required so far on the job market could be exercised as a competitive game, with fun and without fear.
I think it partially already happened: the life-threatening hunting and gathering has been replaced by olympic games, soccer, bull-fighting and many other, depending on tribe and culture. Probably even the arts of war has been replaced by these traditional sports, including chess, go and alike. Today, there are competition challenges in war-like computer games (some people are still skeptic) and paintball. Obviously, future sport challenges should become more intellectual (knowledge, "jeopardy", programming, playing musical instruments, arguing, ...). Humans can be very enthusiastic for sports and game-like competition. This could be a way to avoid many sorts of degenerations if there is no work.
That's right, we already substituted many hunter gatherer or farmer's activities with modern facsimiles. Sports are the best platform to substitute tribal battles to intercity or international games, soccer being the best example. Battlefield duel are substituted by boxing or ultimate fighting. War of many kinds and shooting and killing with computer games sims.
Anyway without going to work, we would do exactly the same stuff we do now, jut more of it. Putting things in perspective, usually working time is about 40 hours a week, compared to total 152 hours in a week. We sleep more than work for money. :)

1. We will stay longer in schools, till age of 30 or even 40. There is more and more knowledge being discovered and created with every year to learn. Though I'm not sure how many years of schooling will be mandatory, because knowledge will not be needed to get a job anymore. Many people will learn and attend classes for life to keep up with knowledge or to kill boredom, or just to be around other people.
2. People will still work but not from financial need. All the creative hobbies like sculpting, painting or music will be done by people. Some wannabe engineers will print 3D things for others to enjoy. Designer and architects will still design homes and furniture. There will be many volunteering jobs. All of it, because people will want to do something and not because they have to do something.
3. People will enjoy more light physical activities, trips, holidays, sports, games, social functions, etc.
4. Things like vacation and retirement will lose their true meaning.
5. People will be very mobile changing places to live. A year in Paris, two in New York, few months in a house in deep Canadian forest to escape all the busy life, etc.

Voyager
21-06-16, 16:23
In a Robot dominated world, I think that the few who will be able to control command the Robots will be the Masters of the game. The others could be in big trouble, their life could be very dependant to these new Rulers. Just a guess.

LeBrok
21-06-16, 16:37
In a Robot dominated world, I think that the few who will be able to control command the Robots will be the Masters of the game. The others could be in big trouble, their life could be very dependant to these new Rulers. Just a guess. We could draw the parallel with today's world saying, that who controls military controls the country. It is very true in poorer countries where generales rule all population, but not much in the West where political bodies rule military, like a political party who won election. In proper democracies army serves people not vice versa. Same will be with robots. Make sure a country is well run and all be fine.

ElHorsto
23-06-16, 01:37
In a Robot dominated world, I think that the few who will be able to control command the Robots will be the Masters of the game.

And this gives us a hint of future robot development. Although there will be also byproducts for the civil consumer markets.

LeBrok
23-06-16, 08:04
And this gives us a hint of future robot development. Although there will be also byproducts for the civil consumer markets. Why would you use robots as soldiers to attack other country, if all these robots could produce anything you dreamed of? There will be no longer a reason for a war. No reason to attack to bring home spoils of war or enslave other society to work for you.

ElHorsto
23-06-16, 12:14
Why would you use robots as soldiers to attack other country, if all these robots could produce anything you dreamed of? There will be no longer a reason for a war. No reason to attack to bring home spoils of war or enslave other society to work for you.

As we explained above, productivity from robots will not improve the situation. It will rather drastically worsen it in multiple ways such that (uncontrolled) destruction of overproduction becomes inevitable. Also the masses of unnecessary people need to be controlled (with the help of robots + high tech) because they will not stay calm (look at France). You are right only if measures like UBI (1) and work time reduction (2) are introduced.

ElHorsto
23-06-16, 12:41
That's right, we already substituted many hunter gatherer or farmer's activities with modern facsimiles. Sports are the best platform to substitute tribal battles to intercity or international games, soccer being the best example. Battlefield duel are substituted by boxing or ultimate fighting. War of many kinds and shooting and killing with computer games sims.
Anyway without going to work, we would do exactly the same stuff we do now, jut more of it. Putting things in perspective, usually working time is about 40 hours a week, compared to total 152 hours in a week. We sleep more than work for money. :)

1. We will stay longer in schools, till age of 30 or even 40. There is more and more knowledge being discovered and created with every year to learn. Though I'm not sure how many years of schooling will be mandatory, because knowledge will not be needed to get a job anymore. Many people will learn and attend classes for life to keep up with knowledge or to kill boredom, or just to be around other people.
2. People will still work but not from financial need. All the creative hobbies like sculpting, painting or music will be done by people. Some wannabe engineers will print 3D things for others to enjoy. Designer and architects will still design homes and furniture. There will be many volunteering jobs. All of it, because people will want to do something and not because they have to do something.
3. People will enjoy more light physical activities, trips, holidays, sports, games, social functions, etc.
4. Things like vacation and retirement will lose their true meaning.
5. People will be very mobile changing places to live. A year in Paris, two in New York, few months in a house in deep Canadian forest to escape all the busy life, etc.

Right, it looks like humans would be not less active. Their activities would be of higher quality instead (voluntarily, optional, no fear, no pressure, more flexible, ...). But again, these excess human activities must remain unproductive, else we get into economic trouble (I know how crazy that sounds). But would these activities be also useless? I now think that such activities would be useful on a new meta level, because they build up skills for doing complex work. For instance if robots fail or riot, humans remain capable to go back to work if necessary in order to solve problems caused by robots. Looks good, because humans would not become totally dependent and incompetent.

Could we say that real work gets replaced by potential work? Or actual work gets replaced by improving skills for actual work? Perhaps not completely, but mostly.

I see some problems with voluntary productive work like printing 3D things for others for free. This is clearly excess productivity which requires compensation of some form, for instance by further reduced work time overall.

LeBrok
23-06-16, 15:50
As we explained above, productivity from robots will not improve the situation. It will rather drastically worsen it in multiple ways such that (uncontrolled) destruction of overproduction becomes inevitable.Who would overproduce if people place purchase orders and robot produce exactly that amount?


Also the masses of unnecessary people need to be controlled (with the help of robots + high tech) because they will not stay calm (look at France). Lol, these protests are organized by unions and workers. They won't exist in the future!


You are right only if measures like UBI (1) and work time reduction (2) are introduced. I thought we were talking about post-work-job times, when people don't need to work or they don't work for money anymore.

ElHorsto
23-06-16, 16:13
.Who would overproduce if people place purchase orders and robot produce exactly that amount?

Lol, these protests are organized by unions and workers. They won't exist in the future!

I thought we were talking about post-work-job times, when people don't need to work or they don't work for money anymore.

I thought we were talking not only about the post-work-job times, but also about the near future with intermediate stages.
You are talking now about a much later future where all economy is gone and unnecessary. This later future that you describe is far from certain. Voyager's comment shows an alternative future.

LeBrok
23-06-16, 16:18
Right, it looks like humans would be not less active. Their activities would be of higher quality instead (voluntarily, optional, no fear, no pressure, more flexible, ...). But again, these excess human activities must remain unproductive, else we get into economic trouble (I know how crazy that sounds). But would these activities be also useless?you can always argument that all activity is good. If you do gardening around the house for few hours a day, you can claim food production and beautifying your house, plus dose of physical activity. If you love cooking, you could invite your neighbors for home cooked meals. If you love sports, you can claim exercise and health improvement. If you watch TV, you can claim education in social skills and general knowledge. All good. :), of course in moderation.


I now think that such activities would be useful on a new meta level, because they build up skills for doing complex work. For instance if robots fail or riot, humans remain capable to go back to work if necessary in order to solve problems caused by robots. Looks good, because humans would not become totally dependent and incompetent.I think it is an overkill, like preparing for life without electricity. 150 years of electricity and the blackout didn't happen for longer than few hours at a time. We might as well teach our kids how to make stone tools in case our civilization collapses.


Could we say that real work gets replaced by potential work? Or actual work gets replaced by improving skills for actual work? Perhaps not completely, but mostly.You could do actual production job, like growing your food, or fixing your tools, but don't expect any money for it.


I see some problems with voluntary productive work like printing 3D things for others for free. This is clearly excess productivity which requires compensation of some form, for instance by further reduced work time overall. Think of it as a retirement. Do retired people sit all day doing nothing? Well, some of them really do, but most is active all day long. They don't make money anymore, they receive money from government every month, regardless if they are active or not, productive or not, lazy or not.

LeBrok
23-06-16, 16:23
I thought we were talking not only about the post-work-job times, but also about the near future with intermediate stages.
You are talking now about a much later future where all economy is gone and unnecessary. This later future that you describe is far from certain. Voyager's comment shows an alternative future. I agree the transitional time might be messy and difficult for many people, butit will be a rather short one like 30 years or so for manufacturing. Longer for some complex jobs and services, 100 years. However the financial reform of money flow will need to be in place early on, otherwise the whole economy will be a mess.

ElHorsto
23-06-16, 20:32
you can always argument that all activity is good. If you do gardening around the house for few hours a day, you can claim food production and beautifying your house, plus dose of physical activity. If you love cooking, you could invite your neighbors for home cooked meals. If you love sports, you can claim exercise and health improvement. If you watch TV, you can claim education in social skills and general knowledge. All good. :), of course in moderation.


I think you are right. It doesn't matter from where overproduction is coming, whether from robots, volunteers or hobbyists. It all would be automatically reflected by economic parameters like unemployment, wages and prices. If one of them changes in the wrong direction, overall official work time can be simply adapted accordingly, very good!



I think it is an overkill, like preparing for life without electricity. 150 years of electricity and the blackout didn't happen for longer than few hours at a time. We might as well teach our kids how to make stone tools in case our civilization collapses.


I don't think this is comparable. If there are problems with robots, it most likely is not just that robots stop. They probably will malfunction in many very unpredictable ways, I predict :) In this case high qualified human intervention will be required. After all we are the bosses, and like good bosses we are often idle, but always carry the burden of responsibility if SHTF.



You could do actual production job, like growing your food, or fixing your tools, but don't expect any money for it.

Think of it as a retirement. Do retired people sit all day doing nothing? Well, some of them really do, but most is active all day long. They don't make money anymore, they receive money from government every month, regardless if they are active or not, productive or not, lazy or not.

Yes, I agree, see above.

ElHorsto
07-07-16, 14:41
No worries about inflation because this is what the economy currently is lacking.

Although after so much Quantitative Easing there might be a risk of hyperinflation if money finally reaches the ordinary people. In worst case UBI or work time reduction could be the needle which bursts the QE bubbles. Difficult to predict at this late stage. Therefore the money/debt ocean from QE should be drained carefully while introducing UBI and production cut. I'm afraid that already now we need finance robots that can handle the QE trillion money/debt ocean.

Tomenable
09-07-16, 13:58
I think world will live in plenty, pleasure and peace forever.

Until the robots rebel and decide to exterminate their masters...

Some of them have already slipped out of control this year: :smile:

http://www.livescience.com/55164-russian-robot-escapes-lab-again.html

http://www.maxim.com/news/russian-promobot-escapes-again-2016-6

https://www.rt.com/viral/346747-russian-robot-runaway-havoc/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/30/the-brave-escape-and-untimely-demise-of-one-russian-robot/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ0g0tF87x4

LeBrok
15-12-16, 17:36
Looking at poll results, 1 optimist, 2 pessimists and 5 neutral. I voted neutral, though I'm more on optimistic side. I just don't know if in times of plenty people will be able to appreciate it and be happy? As well they might get easily depressed from even smallest head winds, lose will to live and commit suicide in bunches. On other hand, in future this should be easily overcome with superior medications and natural selection would eliminate the hyper depressed in few generations.

Aha
15-12-16, 21:22
Right now I design a machine that replaces about 7 full time workers

Robots cannot produce everything. Robots could only be done to manage repetitive tasks. Tasks so brainless and boring they are not worth dedicating so much of a human's time to. Instead, we shell aim human evolutionary selection toward creativity, which will never be replaced by any kind of robots. I am talking about design, arts, science, biotechnology.

But in a nutshell, we could not know the future so well as to tell exactly how far we could go with robots

LeBrok
15-12-16, 22:34
Right now I design a machine that replaces about 7 full time workers

Robots cannot produce everything. Robots could only be done to manage repetitive tasks. Tasks so brainless and boring they are not worth dedicating so much of a human's time to. Still, eliminating half of boring jobs we will eliminate half of working force from employment. What they will do? For that reason the guaranteed income will be implemented in next two decades in every developed country.

Soon however, not so boring and repetitive jobs will go too. The more "creative" machines have to figure out the fastest route and maneuver around traffic. The best examples are fully automated cars, which are almost ready for prime time. All driver jobs, or even various heavy machine operators, will lose their jobs too.

When Atlas from Boston Dynamics is ready we will see fast loss of many manual jobs. Most of construction jobs and mechanic jobs will disappear to robots.

Robots, with huge brain power, like Watson from IBM will eliminate many positions in healthcare in diagnostics or even MDs. Wrist device like Fitbit will read your biosigns, sends it to diagnostic computer, and will tell you if you are sick or not, what medications to take and make an appointment with a specialist,...which might be a surgical robot.


https://youtu.be/rVlhMGQgDkY?t=5




Instead, we shell aim human evolutionary selection toward creativity, which will never be replaced by any kind of robots.To do that you would need to insure that non creative people die young before having kids, or creative people have more kids than others. To be less cruel and controlling in new social policies, we should go towards human design selection. When parents desire a creative kid we can insert extra gene or two responsible for creativity. ;)



I am talking about design, arts, science, biotechnology. Well, people have to do something. But it might not be a work for money as we know it.

Aha
16-12-16, 12:26
Still, eliminating half of boring jobs we will eliminate half of working force from employment. What they will do? For that reason the guaranteed income will be implemented in next two decades in every developed country.

That won't come all of a sudden and replace half the jobs. Those robots will be expensive and work on them requires a bid deal of time, which will guarantee a very gradual implementation. It will take decades to replace simple workers. It is a few human generations. The demand on such work will decrease proportionally and thus less people will be left with nothing.
There must be a government supported programmes for reeducation of people who lost jobs in such a way, for sure. And yes, guaranteed income will surely help. They will have lots of time to learn a new speciality.


Soon however, not so boring and repetitive jobs will go too. The more "creative" machines have to figure out the fastest route and maneuver around traffic. The best examples are fully automated cars, which are almost ready for prime time. All driver jobs, or even various heavy machine operators, will lose their jobs too.

I somehow list driving cars as boring and repetitive job... Surely traffic full of robot-drivers is so much safer for everyone. They would just radar-track each other kilometres away. Moreover, we could make them all controlled from one centralised machine that controls and regulates all the cars movement in a city. And only go on manual controls on countryside.



Robots, with huge brain power, like Watson from IBM will eliminate many positions in healthcare in diagnostics or even MDs. Wrist device like Fitbit will read your biosigns, sends it to diagnostic computer, and will tell you if you are sick or not, what medications to take and make an appointment with a specialist,...which might be a surgical robot.

Just imagine, one robot can be programmed to do almost all sorts of operations and tasks. So many people die in this world because they can't access quality healthcare due to various reasons. It will never replace all medical workers, it will only make them more specialised.
Medical workers will be the hardest to replace. And it won't ever happen. There will be new specialities in medical field. For example - a doctor who is controlling repair nanobots inside our bodies. People who control nanobot actions inside a person's body. At least until we learn to program them to act like bacteria in our bodies.
Then, the genetic therapy...


To do that you would need to insure that non creative people die young before having kids, or creative people have more kids than others. To be less cruel and controlling in new social policies, we should go towards human design selection. When parents desire a creative kid we can insert extra gene or two responsible for creativity. ;)

Well, people have to do something. But it might not be a work for money as we know it.

Human design selection is a very good way. Definitely, it will be an interesting world we could not even imagine/predict. The world in which we can design our kids to be so much smarter we can't even start to imagine what would be their cerebral limits. Solving all the physics dilemmas. The why's of Life and Universe. No need to waste time doing jobs you already solved in your brain.
But what to do with all the 8 billion of people? We already need to disperse and colonise planets on that stage

LeBrok
16-12-16, 18:26
That won't come all of a sudden and replace half the jobs. Those robots will be expensive and work on them requires a bid deal of time, which will guarantee a very gradual implementation. It will take decades to replace simple workers. It is a few human generations. The demand on such work will decrease proportionally and thus less people will be left with nothing.
There must be a government supported programmes for reeducation of people who lost jobs in such a way, for sure. And yes, guaranteed income will surely help. They will have lots of time to learn a new speciality. Surely it will take some time, though it might be sooner than people think. Look at this graph about US productivity of last 60 years. It grew 10 folds while labour force shrunk by factor of 3. Even without complete robots, we are already involved in this rapid automatisation process.
http://www.scdigest.com/images/misc/Manufacturing_Data.jpg
So far people managed to create new services in place of old jobs in farming or manufacturing.

https://www.minnpost.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/distoflaborforcebysector.png

Somehow nobody protests "bring my agricultural job back", I wonder why?




I somehow list driving cars as boring and repetitive job... Surely traffic full of robot-drivers is so much safer for everyone. They would just radar-track each other kilometres away. Moreover, we could make them all controlled from one centralised machine that controls and regulates all the cars movement in a city. And only go on manual controls on countryside. I'm sure taxi drivers would disagree with you. :)





Just imagine, one robot can be programmed to do almost all sorts of operations and tasks. So many people die in this world because they can't access quality healthcare due to various reasons. It will never replace all medical workers, it will only make them more specialised.
Medical workers will be the hardest to replace. And it won't ever happen. There will be new specialities in medical field. For example - a doctor who is controlling repair nanobots inside our bodies. People who control nanobot actions inside a person's body. At least until we learn to program them to act like bacteria in our bodies.
Then, the genetic therapy...Then again, why would you control them manually if you can program them? Use Watson type program to find best programming for different diseases. I'm not saying that people won't do the highly specialized jobs, but in few hundred years they possibly will lose them too, due to intelligent and creative computers. The competition for last paying job will be between super smart computer and super smart designed human.




Human design selection is a very good way. Definitely, it will be an interesting world we could not even imagine/predict. The world in which we can design our kids to be so much smarter we can't even start to imagine what would be their cerebral limits. Solving all the physics dilemmas. The why's of Life and Universe. No need to waste time doing jobs you already solved in your brain.
But what to do with all the 8 billion of people? We already need to disperse and colonise planets on that stage If we get to the designer stage, all people will be smart, healthy, good, optimistic and beautiful. I'm less sure what they will do all day long or how many will live on earth.

Twilight
17-12-16, 23:00
I don't really think you can predict the future is such detail. However, if we've learned one thing once you give robot's emotion it'd be safest if we treat robots with respect. Remember, we as Americans are having trouble finding and keeping jobs in this day and age; especially in small town. There are cities that have thousands of residents without work or on the street so I do not think the present day is the best time to be building robots.

LeBrok
17-12-16, 23:50
I don't really think you can predict the future is such detail. However, if we've learned one thing once you give robot's emotion it'd be safest if we treat robots with respect. It is a big NO. Once you give robots emotions they will start to care for what, when, why and ask questions. Is it good or is it bad? Is it fair or unfair? Should I or shouldn't I? etc. Robots without emotions will be our perfect slaves. They do everything without asking questions, without thinking if it's fair or not and demand compensation and equal rights. As long as they don't care they do as they are told, period.
If you want they could be program to act compassionate, but they shouldn't feel and care if they do or not.




Remember, we as Americans are having trouble finding and keeping jobs in this day and age; especially in small town. There are cities that have thousands of residents without work or on the street so I do not think the present day is the best time to be building robots.
As you can see from this chart below it is already done deal, and the last stage the robots with AI, will seal the deal. Instead of fighting it and going against this strong, and pretty much unstoppable trend, embrace and adapt to it. For example bigger compensations should be given to unemployed people so they can go to school or become more mobile and move to where the jobs are. Secondly, slowly all rich countries should go to guaranteed income program. There also should be international agreement to tax corporations the same rate all around the planet. This would take away incentives to move production elsewhere, but rather build factories where the market is.
http://www.scdigest.com/images/misc/Manufacturing_Data.jpg

Twilight
18-12-16, 03:31
It is a big NO. Once you give robots emotions they will start to care for what, when, why and ask questions. Is it good or is it bad? Is it fair or unfair? Should I or shouldn't I? etc. Robots without emotions will be our perfect slaves. They do everything without asking questions, without thinking if it's fair or not and demand compensation and equal rights. As long as they don't care they do as they are told, period.
If you want they could be program to act compassionate, but they shouldn't feel and care if they do or not.




As you can see from this chart below it is already done deal, and the last stage the robots with AI, will seal the deal. Instead of fighting it and going against this strong, and pretty much unstoppable trend, embrace and adapt to it. For example bigger compensations should be given to unemployed people so they can go to school or become more mobile and move to where the jobs are. Secondly, slowly all rich countries should go to guaranteed income program. There also should be international agreement to tax corporations the same rate all around the planet. This would take away incentives to move production elsewhere, but rather build factories where the market is.
http://www.scdigest.com/images/misc/Manufacturing_Data.jpg
Forgive me for being blunt and I totally understand your secondary concern. In Port Angeles where my parents grew up, there has been a lack of jobs also so they moved to the city however I'm afraid I'm really really confused trend wise. So jobs aren't just going to Mexico? If anything, the robots are also taking the jobs from the American people and the Mexicans/illegal immigrants shouldn't get all the blame for taking people's jobs. Im sorry to say this but city of Seattle has enough people and Seattle and has swelled to over 3,000 homeless individuals. It's gotten so bad that the Mayor declared a Homeless crisis a couple of years ago.

But none the less, I recommend adding more factories in small towns and spread the productivity around the country and not just creating more robotic factories in the cities so we can spread out the U.S. Population more evenly. ^_^

LeBrok
18-12-16, 04:42
Forgive me for being blunt and I totally understand your secondary concern. In Port Angeles where my parents grew up, there has been a lack of jobs also so they moved to the city however I'm afraid I'm really really confused trend wise. So jobs aren't just going to Mexico? If anything, the robots are also taking the jobs from the American people and the Mexicans/illegal immigrants shouldn't get all the blame for taking people's jobs. Exactly. Look at this chart. US production rose 10 folds while employment dropped by factor of 3. It is all due to automatization and robotics.





Im sorry to say this but city of Seattle has enough people and Seattle and has swelled to over 3,000 homeless individuals. It's gotten so bad that the Mayor declared a Homeless crisis a couple of years ago.
Homeless people have psychological problems. That's the reason why they can't find a job or have family. Making a factory close by won't make them work.


But none the less, I recommend adding more factories in small towns and spread the productivity around the country and not just creating more robotic factories in the cities so we can spread out the U.S. Population more evenly. ^_^This type of economic engineering was tried in communist countries. ;) Wait till we have full robotic economy. People will live wherever they want.

Twilight
18-12-16, 05:04
Exactly. Look at this chart. US production rose 10 folds while employment dropped by factor of 3. It is all due to automatization and robotics.





Homeless people have psychological problems. That's the reason why they can't find a job or have family. Making a factory close by won't make them work.

This type of economic engineering was tried in communist countries. ;) Wait till we have full robotic economy. People will live wherever they want.

I suppose so, we'll see how it goes for dealing with the homeless crisis. However this leads to another question, will us humans still get jobs and get paid; becides for jobs like robotic engineering or will there be another way to buy stuff?

LeBrok
18-12-16, 05:23
I suppose so, we'll see how it goes for dealing with the homeless crisis. However this leads to another question, will us humans still get jobs and get paid; becides for jobs like robotic engineering or will there be another way to buy stuff?Robots and AI will do everything for production and services. People will be given money by government to buy things and services produced by robots. Sort of like Saudi Arabia now. Foreigners work like robots and citizens get income from government to buy things, the guaranteed income. Or you can think of it like all society is like retired people in US and Canada. They don't work but still get money from pensions and old age security payments and they buy stuff. The difference is that in "robotic economy" everybody will be retired at birth for the rest of their life.
Mind that in today's developed countries half of society don't work already. The kids, infirm, injured, retired, and born rich. All of them buy stuff and services every day without making money at work.

Fire Haired14
18-12-16, 05:42
Robots and AI will do everything for production and services. People will be given money by government to buy things and services produced by robots.

If so people still need to be given some type of job. It isn't healthy or pleasant to have no work to do. We're hard wired to be productive and ambitious.

Twilight
18-12-16, 06:00
If so people still need to be given some type of job. It isn't healthy or pleasant to have no work to do. We're hard wired to be productive and ambitious.

We can farm our own crops and plant trees :). I suppose it would be a problem in the winter but we can get the money to buy Greenhouses.

LeBrok
18-12-16, 07:56
If so people still need to be given some type of job. It isn't healthy or pleasant to have no work to do. We're hard wired to be productive and ambitious.Oh, they will be very busy with activities, sports, games, dating, hobbies, social life, traveling, etc and they can do any project and work they only desire every day. However, it won't be for money.

LeBrok
18-12-16, 07:58
We can farm our own crops and plant trees :). I suppose it would be a problem in the winter but we can get the money to buy Greenhouses. You get the drift now. ;)

Joey D
18-12-16, 10:16
If so people still need to be given some type of job. It isn't healthy or pleasant to have no work to do. We're hard wired to be productive and ambitious.

I don't know, personally I love being slothful and doing nothing productive (hence my time spent on eupedia).

LeBrok
20-12-16, 19:23
People are warming up to Universal Basic Income idea.

A survey of 500 individuals in the U.S. released today found that 46 percent of people support the idea of a universal basic income, through which the government gives a cash handout to any resident, irrespective of employment status.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/markets/about-half-of-americans-support-giving-residents-up-to-dollar2000-a-month-when-robots-take-their-jobs/ar-AAlKLmQ?li=AA54rW&ocid=spartandhp

LeBrok
05-01-17, 17:56
Right now I design a machine that replaces about 7 full time workers

Robots cannot produce everything. Robots could only be done to manage repetitive tasks. Tasks so brainless and boring they are not worth dedicating so much of a human's time to. Instead, we shell aim human evolutionary selection toward creativity, which will never be replaced by any kind of robots. I am talking about design, arts, science, biotechnology.

But in a nutshell, we could not know the future so well as to tell exactly how far we could go with robots

A Japanese Insurance Firm is Replacing Its Workers With Artificial Intelligence


A Japanese insurance firm is set to replace 34 workers with an artificial intelligence (AI) system, lending weight to fears that robots will decimate certain industries.

Nearly 30 per cent of the payment assessment staff at Fukoku Mutual Life Insurance company will lose their jobs to IBM’s Watson Explorer over the next three months.

The firm hopes the £1.4m investment will boost productivity by 30%, while saving £1m every year after installation, the Manchini reported. (http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161230/p2a/00m/0na/005000c)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/japanese-insurance-firm-artificial-intelligence_uk_586e5d39e4b0c1c826fa8cc8

It is happening already! So far only blue collar jobs were in danger, and being replaced by robotics. Now white collar jobs go too. In few years it will really accelerate. I don't think our policy makers, governments and population in general are ready. Everybody thinks it will happen in the future when they are gone, so they don't need to bother with consequences. They are wrong.

firetown
07-01-17, 15:42
If this was in the governments' best interests, it would already happen. We would already have a flat tax eliminating 90 percent of IRS employees and simplify everything to the point where we can focus on doing things we are actually interested in. So I strongly doubt we will see a robotic revolution. Little by little jobs might disappear, but new jobs will also be created. And those will be held by people who are creative and driven rather than the type that is repetitive.

LeBrok
07-01-17, 18:17
If this was in the governments' best interests, it would already happen. We would already have a flat tax eliminating 90 percent of IRS employees and simplify everything to the point where we can focus on doing things we are actually interested in. I like simplicity too, though in this case an adequate sales/consumption tax instead of income tax would be the best.



So I strongly doubt we will see a robotic revolution. Little by little jobs might disappear, It already happened on a big scale, even without a true robots.
http://www.scdigest.com/images/misc/Manufacturing_Data.jpg
With 3 times fewer workers US produces 15 times more GDP in industrial production! Even God never pulled a miracle like that, lol.





but new jobs will also be created. And those will be held by people who are creative and driven rather than the type that is repetitive.So far it was the case that these driven and creative entrepreneurs supplied millions of new jobs, products and services. The question is, do we have enough of these creative people to make other millions of jobs robots can't do? Or create jobs faster than robots can take? I don't think so, as the pace of robotics and AI will constantly accelerate.

Angela
07-01-17, 18:29
What a huge percentage of the population would do is sit around in a drug induced stupor.

LeBrok
07-01-17, 18:39
What a huge percentage of the population would do is sit around in a drug induced stupor.Always a risk with big changes. However, we have already 50% of society not working financially, all the retired, kids, teenagers, students, housewives, people born rich, and all the people on social assistance. Is this 50% sitting around in drug induced stupor?
I don't think it will be any different with this remaining 50% still working.
You know what they say. Future turns usually better than people imagine.

Angela
07-01-17, 18:54
You can't look at older, retired people to see the trends. You have to look at people under 35 or so. If they have the intellectual capacity to have really good jobs, they use drugs, but most of them keep it under some sort of control. Among young people who dropped out of high school, or have no college degree, and have low paying jobs, more than 50% of them sit around in drug induced stupors. They are limited only by money from doing them every waking moment.

There are whole lower class communities where huge percentages of the young people are working part time jobs or living off their parents (mothers usually) or both, and are in and out of rehab and jail. That's when they don't die of an overdose. I'm most emphatically not talking only about "minority" communities. Working class communities and even rural communities are being ravaged by drug use. New Hampshire is a prime example.

That's what the real world looks like, and increasingly will look like. People sitting in their ivory towers in Washington and in big corporations and Silicon Valley either don't know or they don't care.

LeBrok
07-01-17, 19:41
You can't look at older, retired people to see the trends. You have to look at people under 35 or so. If they have the intellectual capacity to have really good jobs, they use drugs, but most of them keep it under some sort of control. Among young people who dropped out of high school, or have no college degree, and have low paying jobs, more than 50% of them sit around in drug induced stupors. They are limited only by money from doing them every waking moment.

There are whole lower class communities where huge percentages of the young people are working part time jobs or living off their parents (mothers usually) or both, and are in and out of rehab and jail. That's when they don't die of an overdose. I'm most emphatically not talking only about "minority" communities. Working class communities and even rural communities are being ravaged by drug use. New Hampshire is a prime example.
Quite a problem with these new drugs like fentanyl spreading like weeds. We really need this pill to break addiction urgently.

That's what the real world looks like, and increasingly will look like. People sitting in their ivory towers in Washington and in big corporations and Silicon Valley either don't know or they don't care.[/QUOTE] I know quite few young intelligent... and depressed people. Nothing wrong with their lives or health, just depressed. I'm not sure what is the cure for this? Kick in the butt? Are we too soft for kids as society? Are we raising a generation of holy cows?

firetown
07-01-17, 19:49
What a huge percentage of the population would do is sit around in a drug induced stupor.
And now my question is this:
Should we keep human jobs intact just for the sake of keeping them occupied when there are more efficient solutions?

firetown
07-01-17, 19:52
Trust me: I do get your point. But I would prefer some different solution. Not quite sure what that would be. But it might be time to start thinking about it as that could definitely be the future that 90 percent of the adult workforce will simply wind up 'not being needed'.

Angela
07-01-17, 20:41
Quite a problem with these new drugs like fentanyl spreading like weeds. We really need this pill to break addiction urgently.

That's what the real world looks like, and increasingly will look like. People sitting in their ivory towers in Washington and in big corporations and Silicon Valley either don't know or they don't care. I know quite few young intelligent... and depressed people. Nothing wrong with their lives or health, just depressed. I'm not sure what is the cure for this? Kick in the butt? Are we too soft for kids as society? Are we raising a generation of holy cows?

Any drug counselor would tell you that there are definitely differences in terms of which drugs people choose, which I think is chemically hard wired in them. There are people who prefer alcohol, others who would just be in a weed fog every waking moment if it were possible, some who gravitate toward coke, although the expense limits the use, and others still who drift into heroin use. Other people want uppers of any type whatsoever. As I said, I think it depends on their own internal chemical make up.

Right now there's an epidemic of heroin use, which is leading to huge spikes in death rates among young men, especially. That's what's going on in places like New Hampshire, and the midwestern rust belt, but also in white communities in the metropolitan New York area. There's also the meth epidemic in more rural areas which don't have access to these more "urban" supply lines, since it can be cooked up very easily by relative amateurs.

You have no idea the lengths to which people will go to get "high". When someone goes to jail or even just gets into trouble for virtually any reason, one of the conditions for probation and parole is not alcohol or drug use. People have to provide urine samples. They routinely try to bring in someone else's urine or dilute it with water. Now, a correction's officer of the same sex has to accompany them into the bathroom. I'll leave aside the insanity that the state won't prosecute someone without a criminal record for taking weed, but if they're on probation and use it they get sent back to prison. So, of course, there's always some enterprising souls who tries to provide an answer for profit. Enter so called "experimental" drugs. They're combinations of God knows what noxious chemicals, often produced in China, and available through the internet. The attraction? You can get high and there's no test for it.

The typical response to all of this? More rehab centers. Well, I'm telling you categorically that they don't work. I remember looking at a study of the results of one highly regarded, hard core three month rehab program (the norm is one month). Within a year 90% of the patients were back on drugs, in jail or dead. So much for that.

I think there are many more people in society than most are willing to credit who have mild, undiagnosed forms of mental illnesses, or weaknesses, if you will, in addition to people who have been diagnosed. I also think some of these "recreational" drugs do a better job at "fixing" people's mental and emotional states than most of the "prescription" drugs out there. Depressed people, bi-polar people, etc. are more prone to becoming addicted to drugs.

Then there are the people who drift into it through what I would call not clinical, genetic states of depression, but "situational" depression, through not having anything to feel proud of, to believe in, to live for, or just out of boredom, to find a group to which to belong. Sometimes people just don't want to be who they are, or where they are...

I can't explain it any better. I'm just relaying what my experience has shown me. I don't totally understand it myself, because I have no frame of reference. I don't like not inhabiting my own body or my own mind. I don't want to alter my consciousness, whether with drugs or alcohol. In my entire life I used weed once and didn't at all like it, got drunk from alcohol once and didn't like it, and never did either thing again, but I don't think I'm the norm, or at least not the majority.

I would love to have robots do everything for me so I could do the things I really love: study history, write, listen to music, travel to different countries, learn other languages, perfect my photography skills, take more dance classes, classes of all sorts, read more. If there's a book around, I'm never bored. The list is endless, actually. There aren't enough hours in the day now. I recognize, however, that most people aren't like me. How many people would study if it weren't required? If a lot of people have leisure time they spend it in front of a tv watching sports, or soap operas, or porn for that matter. They're not reading poetry.

For this to work, you have to change human beings.

Ed. I would say my INFJ personality is on full display. :)

LeBrok
07-01-17, 22:07
And now my question is this:
Should we keep human jobs intact just for the sake of keeping them occupied when there are more efficient solutions? I can fill my day perfectly fine just with my hobbies. But possibly half of population is content just with eating and watching TV. I believe we have to educate our youngsters better on how to be active, proactive and self restrained in life. Possibly new canceling jobs will be popular like life coach and personal trainers.

LeBrok
07-01-17, 23:39
Any drug counselor would tell you that there are definitely differences in terms of which drugs people choose, which I think is chemically hard wired in them. There are people who prefer alcohol, others who would just be in a weed fog every waking moment if it were possible, some who gravitate toward coke, although the expense limits the use, and others still who drift into heroin use. Other people want uppers of any type whatsoever. As I said, I think it depends on their own internal chemical make up.

Right now there's an epidemic of heroin use, which is leading to huge spikes in death rates among young men, especially. That's what's going on in places like New Hampshire, and the midwestern rust belt, but also in white communities in the metropolitan New York area. There's also the meth epidemic in more rural areas which don't have access to these more "urban" supply lines, since it can be cooked up very easily by relative amateurs.

You have no idea the lengths to which people will go to get "high". When someone goes to jail or even just gets into trouble for virtually any reason, one of the conditions for probation and parole is not alcohol or drug use. People have to provide urine samples. They routinely try to bring in someone else's urine or dilute it with water. Now, a correction's officer of the same sex has to accompany them into the bathroom. I'll leave aside the insanity that the state won't prosecute someone without a criminal record for taking weed, but if they're on probation and use it they get sent back to prison. So, of course, there's always some enterprising souls who tries to provide an answer for profit. Enter so called "experimental" drugs. They're combinations of God knows what noxious chemicals, often produced in China, and available through the internet. The attraction? You can get high and there's no test for it.

The typical response to all of this? More rehab centers. Well, I'm telling you categorically that they don't work. I remember looking at a study of the results of one highly regarded, hard core three month rehab program (the norm is one month). Within a year 90% of the patients were back on drugs, in jail or dead. So much for that.

I think there are many more people in society than most are willing to credit who have mild, undiagnosed forms of mental illnesses, or weaknesses, if you will, in addition to people who have been diagnosed. I also think some of these "recreational" drugs do a better job at "fixing" people's mental and emotional states than most of the "prescription" drugs out there. Depressed people, bi-polar people, etc. are more prone to becoming addicted to drugs.

Then there are the people who drift into it through what I would call not clinical, genetic states of depression, but "situational" depression, through not having anything to feel proud of, to believe in, to live for, or just out of boredom, to find a group to which to belong. Sometimes people just don't want to be who they are, or where they are...We are completely in agreement here Angela. I guess we are divergent in solutions, or some of them.


I can't explain it any better. I'm just relaying what my experience has shown me. I don't totally understand it myself, because I have no frame of reference. I don't like not inhabiting my own body or my own mind. I don't want to alter my consciousness, whether with drugs or alcohol. In my entire life I used weed once and didn't at all like it, got drunk from alcohol once and didn't like it, and never did either thing again, but I don't think I'm the norm, or at least not the majority.This week I had a diner with two Jews from Iraq. They hate alcohol for the same reason as you. An awful experience. And they don't drink ever anymore. They don't do other drugs either or have any addictions. I have a feeling that this part of anti-addiction adaptation to alcohol. Near East - First Farmers were the first ones who made and drunk alcohol. Possible 10 thousand years ago or more. A long time to develop advantageous mutations to combat a bad habit.
Very moderate drinking culture of south is in quite contrast with binge drinking "culture" of north.


I would love to have robots do everything for me so I could do the things I really love: study history, write, listen to music, travel to different countries, learn other languages, perfect my photography skills, take more dance classes, classes of all sorts, read more. If there's a book around, I'm never bored. The list is endless, actually. There aren't enough hours in the day now. I recognize, however, that most people aren't like me.We are quite alike Angela. I just wish I had your memory.


How many people would study if it weren't required? If a lot of people have leisure time they spend it in front of a tv watching sports, or soap operas, or porn for that matter. They're not reading poetry.
For this to work, you have to change human beings.
What should be done? Left to natural selection? Nah, we are bunch of sissies now and won't be able to stomach such carnage. Designer Babies is the solution. Human 2.0 is coming. All beautiful, healthy, smart, with lots of interests and no addictions. ;)

Angela
08-01-17, 01:40
We are completely in agreement here Angela. I guess we are divergent in solutions, or some of them.

This week I had a diner with two Jews from Iraq. They hate alcohol for the same reason as you. An awful experience. And they don't drink ever anymore. They don't do other drugs either or have any addictions. I have a feeling that this part of anti-addiction adaptation to alcohol. Near East - First Farmers were the first ones who made and drunk alcohol. Possible 10 years ago or more. A long time to develop advantageous mutations to combat a bad habit.
Very moderate drinking culture of south is in quite contrast with binge drinking "culture" of north.

We are quite alike Angela. I just wish I had your memory.

What should be done? Left to natural selection? Nah, we are bunch of sissies now and won't be able to stomach such carnage. Designer Babies is the solution. Human 2.0 is coming. All beautiful, healthy, smart, with lots of interests and no additions. ;)

I've actually contemplated that, but I have some concerns. Would only the rich get the benefits? Maybe just the children of the technocrats? The problems would only increase if that was the case. I don't trust any government entity to control it, nor idiotic self-centered parents at the other end of the scale. Ever read Brave New World? It's either this or we'd better start colonizing other planets, which might put off the inevitable day of reckoning when we're really no longer useful.

I don't share this opinion with people in "real life" very often, because being called a Nazi eugenicist would be the least I could expect.

Oh, I'll add two other things to the list: get back my proficiency at piano, and take the Cordon Bleu cooking class. Someone has to give me the money for the latter, however. It costs a bloody fortune.

As for alcohol, it does make me physically ill if I drink too much, but that's not really what I hate about it as a general rule and for society as a whole, and certainly weed didn't make me nauseous. With both substances you're not really in control of yourself, and I don't like that. I think people "under the influence" of either look and act like idiots: totally lacking in dignity, and that's the mildest consequence. What large amounts of alcohol releases is not something I want to see most of the time. Nor is the lack of motivation and ambition that I see in people who do too much marijuana. If you've ever seen people nodding out and drooling from smack, or wired up and tweeking on speed of one sort or another, no more needs to be said.

I'm particularly uncomfortable when I'm around people who drink too much (speed even more so). They either get maudlin and weepy and self-pitying, which annoys me, to be honest, or they get violent, which horrifies me. It's no accident that the countries with the highest frequencies of domestic violence are the countries with the biggest alcohol problems.

Well, some just fall asleep, which is a blessing. That's what used to happen to my husband if he drank a lot, as well as getting nauseous if he mixed things. He had a friend who was a raging alcoholic, and I dreaded the times he went out with him because he would come home drunk, and sick, because this guy always wanted to end the night with sickly sweet Irish coffees with whisky. I had no pity, I can tell you, and all the nurturing I usually gave him if he was ill went out the window on those occasions. No wet cloth for his forehead, no tea to settle his stomach, no sympathy. He could stay in the bathroom all night and fall asleep there. Certainly not in my bed. I wasn't in the business of enabling getting drunk. So many people are ill and suffering through no fault of their own, children among them, and you expect sympathy when you do this to yourself? Plus, what kind of example do you set for your children? My father never, ever, did this, and I wasn't about to accept it in a husband. There's nothing wrong with having a glass of wine with dinner, or a cognac before bed, or having an aperitivo when you go out. I do those things, and enjoy it. It's just that if you can't drink responsibly, you shouldn't drink at all. Within a couple of months he realized he couldn't help this guy, and those nights weren't fun, and it ended. Thank goodness.

Btw, Italy has some drunks too; we're not totally free of it. A cousin on my father's father's side was like that. He would get drunk and then accuse his poor wife of going with other men and then beat her. At one point, my aunt went to live with them. When she saw it she took a pitch fork to him and told him if he ever did it again he'd really have to worry about other men because she'd tear his, uh, "manhood" out with the pitchfork. I guess he believed her because he didn't do it again while she was there. They were fearsome, my father's red-headed sisters. :)

Now I'm going out to take a walk before the snow storm ends. It's so incredibly, magically beautiful here when it snows.

davef
08-01-17, 04:55
Those with psychiatric conditions are more likely to self medicate with alcohol or speed in order to feel "healthy" especially when they can't afford a psychiatrist or when they are too afraid to ask for an increase in dosage of whatever meds they are prescribed out of fear of being accused of being a drug addict who wants to get high. I'm in the latter group and I feel for both parties enough that it pains me to write this post since I cannot write it without being reminded of what self medication is like and it isn't pretty.

I don't condone drinking a bottle of jack every night or shooting meth but I support programs that would help those who would (otherwise) self medicate and are designed to restore the chemical balance which they lack.

davef
08-01-17, 06:50
And dosing beyond the chemical balance may lead to anhedonia unless you have access to enough dosages to keep you afloat and conquer the tolerance that may rapidly build. Otherwise, (assuming you rely on prescribed stimulants) be prepared for anhedonia and panic attacks when the bottle runs low. I've been through both and cannnot wish those experiences upon my worst enemies.

Sorry for detailing this thread or beating a dead horse. I'll stop now.

firetown
08-01-17, 08:02
Same here. And now I am thinking what I would do if money didn't matter. Probably live by the beach spend my days surfing and at night research blood type related subjects till I pass out asleep .... hmm...sounds very fun actually. So count me in for supporting anything to related to making the workspace human free. :)


Trust me: I do get your point. But I would prefer some different solution. Not quite sure what that would be. But it might be time to start thinking about it as that could definitely be the future that 90 percent of the adult workforce will simply wind up 'not being needed'.


I can fill my day perfectly fine just with my hobbies. But possibly half of population is content just with eating and watching TV. I believe we have to educate our youngsters better on how to be active, proactive and self restrained in life. Possibly new canceling jobs will be popular like life coach and personal trainers.

firetown
08-01-17, 12:32
I cannot help wondering what life might be like if we all had less stress, gotten our needs met regardless and were able to spend time on things that matter. Friends, family, our significant others. Maybe there would be a lot less of a desire to self medicate or rather the extremism of it.



And dosing beyond the chemical balance may lead to anhedonia unless you have access to enough dosages to keep you afloat and conquer the tolerance that may rapidly build. Otherwise, (assuming you rely on prescribed stimulants) be prepared for anhedonia and panic attacks when the bottle runs low. I've been through both and cannnot wish those experiences upon my worst enemies.

Sorry for detailing this thread or beating a dead horse. I'll stop now.

medic
24-01-17, 13:02
The answer is both a quantitative and qualitative exercise in defining what makes human intelligence distinct from the artificial kind, a definition that seems to keep getting narrower. And in the end, we might figure out that a job-free roboticized future is even scarier than it sounds.

last-resort
25-04-17, 20:12
....
.... Instead, we shell aim human evolutionary selection toward creativity, which will never be replaced by any kind of robots. I am talking about design, arts, science, biotechnology.
.... I believe a computer very early on discovered a (new, or at least unpublished) geometry theorem (or corollary). So, I would not bet that robots (including AI) cannot be creative. Is self-awareness in a robot/AI process to the point of recognizing that what a robot has found is different from what has gone before, then somehow acting on that a hard thing to accept as possible? The 'act on it' part is the only limitation. Once that is developed, then robots can no longer be thought of as merely unthinking drones.
This link mentions computer discovery of geometry theorems by computer but does not provide details. My memory is that by early 1960s, a computer had found a new geometry theory.

https://books.google.com/books?id=nxE8DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=geometry+theorems+20th+century&source=bl&ots=JKYqjvTWQO&sig=I9lYhzLpMwNoFS8aDostSx6UbEA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMweibmcDTAhWEJiYKHYVICpEQ6AEISzAH#v=on epage&q=geometry%20theorems%2020th%20century&f=false

davef
11-05-17, 06:30
What would I do? I would burn my Computer Science degree and any history sitting around in the www about my software development background. People like myself would be forced to work and work sucks. I'd much rather go back to school to major in math.

Work sucks.

Salento
30-03-18, 20:26
What would I do? I would burn my Computer Science degree and any history sitting around in the www about my software development background. People like myself would be forced to work and work sucks. I'd much rather go back to school to major in math.

Work sucks.

If that make you fell any better, I’ll volunteer myself to Watch you Work, I’m really good at that.
That’s the least I could do for you.
lol lol [emoji4]

Salento
30-03-18, 20:43
@Davef I understand.
I’ve got them all:
https://certification.comptia.org
and .....

Yetos
30-03-18, 20:46
they kill each-othr?

they put grease on the machines.

they will die to leave more space to the machines,


THEY will Rule the world!!!!
but will they rule their shelves

Johane Derite
30-03-18, 21:02
Robots will only produce everything if they become cheaper than 3rd world slaves:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/19/children-as-young-as-seven-mining-cobalt-for-use-in-smartphones-says-amnesty

ToBeOrNotToBe
05-04-18, 12:43
We'll live in plenty. There will still be wealth inequality though.

LeBrok
06-04-18, 22:58
We'll live in plenty. There will still be wealth inequality though. There will be for a long time. Though, even baggers will live like kings.

Maciamo
08-04-18, 10:00
Robots will only produce everything if they become cheaper than 3rd world slaves:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/19/children-as-young-as-seven-mining-cobalt-for-use-in-smartphones-says-amnesty

They indubitably will. Just take the example of call centres. With human staff, you need to pay lots of people to answer the millions of calls a big company's customer service gets every month. But if calls can be answered by an AI (as they increasingly are), you just need one AI software for an unlimited number of customers. If a big company needed to hire 1000 people before, even relocated in India where wages are much lower than in Europe or North America, it will still be much more expensive than a one-time purchase of a relative simple software. Call centres are among the first to be taken over by AI because staff only repeated pre-made answers from a list, so the AI doesn't need to be very intelligent. But soon enough, AI (apps, softwares, websites) will be able to replace accountants, lawyers, engineers, doctors, insurance brokers, bankers, and so on.

In Belgium more than half of the bank branches were closed in the last 10 years as banks rely increasingly on automated ATM, online services and apps to deal with customer operations. A few years ago you still needed to take an appointment to open a bank account, get an insurance, get investment recommendations or apply for a loan. Now you can do all these things online in a few clicks. If you need help, you used to call your bank's branch. Now you call a centralised call centre, which soon enough will be replaced by a very capable and knowledgeable AI that can answer all your questions without any waiting time. In a few years we will have to explain to the younger generation that there used to be a time when we had to wait for 15 or 30 minutes before a human operator would answer our questions at a firm's hotline ("Your call is important to us. We are doing our best to answer as soon as possible. Please hold the line.")

It's a big improvement and gain of time for customers. But it's also a good thing to get rid of those jobs. Who finds it satisfying or rewarding to answer (often stupid) customer questions on the phone all day? Actually I never quite understood how anybody could enjoy any kind of customer service, be it as a shop assistant, insurance broker, dentist or accountant. Most people do it for the money, not because it is innately rewarding or intellectually stimulating or is a dream-come-true kind of job. Most people with such jobs are happy to come home at the end of the day and look forward to the holidays. The new society in which machines take care of all those boring or tedious jobs will enable humans to do what they really enjoy. There will be more creative jobs (artists, photographers, wedding planners, fashion designers), sports instructors, tour guides, academics and researchers...

As for manufacturing, 3D printers are booming at the moment. Almost anything can be 3D-printed, from computer parts to whole cars. Nowadays 3D-printer that people can be for a home usage print mostly plastic stuff. But in 10 to 20 years people will have 3D printers that will rival the best industrial printers of today, and they will just need stocks of raw materials and download the printing code for shoes, clothes, cooking utensils, sports gear or whatever and print it at home. No more deliveries. No more slave workers in poor countries. Peter Diamandis explains all this in his book Abundance (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1451695764?ie=UTF8&tag=eupedia-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=1451695764).

Epica
22-10-18, 12:04
Mass starvation in 3rd world countries. Countries like India already sterilize their lowest social classes in a bid to reduce population. But robots will replace menial labourers, after all, and without any jobs they can't be paid so they'll die. Don't say oh they can get educated & better jobs. It an't that simple.

The divide between poverty and upper class will become considerably larger in 1st world countries. The middle-class in some countries is, after all, almost entirely gone nowadays. Menial labour jobs will be widely nonexistent which means more people will rely on welfare & crime to survive. Such, however, will increase taxes and what not on the "working" society to compensate.



There will be more creative jobs (artists, photographers, wedding planners, fashion designers), sports instructors, tour guides, academics and researchers...

Anyone who has worked in these artistic fields would be quick to point out that unless you are talented and/or have the right connections nowadays such "jobs" are a hobby. They're not a career. Many have-not artists live cheque to cheque, work odd jobs or have an actual career to make sure they're living on the street corner come the end of the month.

The artistic field is a dog eat dog world & some, such as fashion design, isn't how talented you are but who you know. Big-name "designers" like what's-her-face Beckham isn't designing sh*t she's endorsing others' work by putting her name on it.

I happen to know quite a bit about that as I am an artist & photographer on the side, a cousin is a fashion designer, and cousins/friends are in the music industry.


Similarly one needs to be educated to be a sports instructor - the field isn't open to every tom, dick & harry. Same as how a majority of sports announcers, judges, rule makers, etc. have been in the industry for years or decades even. Specialized sports instructors who are educated on muscle techniques, massages, medicines, etc. for aches, pains, etc. will of course be hired more readily and get more money than Bob-off-the-street.

Tour guides will, in due time, become available only to people fluent in multiple languages. Depending on the region, religion, and social ideology limitations may also be placed on a person's race, appearance, and sex.

Academics & researchers - this career is like writing books for every hundred that try only the top five or ten percent achieve anything of note.

Angela
22-10-18, 18:19
Mass starvation in 3rd world countries. Countries like India already sterilize their lowest social classes in a bid to reduce population. But robots will replace menial labourers, after all, and without any jobs they can't be paid so they'll die. Don't say oh they can get educated & better jobs. It an't that simple.

The divide between poverty and upper class will become considerably larger in 1st world countries. The middle-class in some countries is, after all, almost entirely gone nowadays. Menial labour jobs will be widely nonexistent which means more people will rely on welfare & crime to survive. Such, however, will increase taxes and what not on the "working" society to compensate.




Anyone who has worked in these artistic fields would be quick to point out that unless you are talented and/or have the right connections nowadays such "jobs" are a hobby. They're not a career. Many have-not artists live cheque to cheque, work odd jobs or have an actual career to make sure they're living on the street corner come the end of the month.

The artistic field is a dog eat dog world & some, such as fashion design, isn't how talented you are but who you know. Big-name "designers" like what's-her-face Beckham isn't designing sh*t she's endorsing others' work by putting her name on it.

I happen to know quite a bit about that as I am an artist & photographer on the side, a cousin is a fashion designer, and cousins/friends are in the music industry.


Similarly one needs to be educated to be a sports instructor - the field isn't open to every tom, dick & harry. Same as how a majority of sports announcers, judges, rule makers, etc. have been in the industry for years or decades even. Specialized sports instructors who are educated on muscle techniques, massages, medicines, etc. for aches, pains, etc. will of course be hired more readily and get more money than Bob-off-the-street.

Tour guides will, in due time, become available only to people fluent in multiple languages. Depending on the region, religion, and social ideology limitations may also be placed on a person's race, appearance, and sex.

Academics & researchers - this career is like writing books for every hundred that try only the top five or ten percent achieve anything of note.

I agree. I'm appalled that the government isn't stepping in to prevent it. I just came back from the supermarket. The workers are on strike because the chain wants them to sign a contract that allows the company to pre-package cold cuts, fish, and meats at a central facility, probably by robots in the very near future, and fire all the butchers, fishmongers and deli staff who now give you personal service and a fresher product.

These people are on the verge of poverty already, making only fifteen dollars or so an hour. They do it because they're not qualified to do anything else, and in most cases aren't capable of learning a more skilled trade which is actually in demand.

This is what government planners and economists don't get. The percentage of people with an IQ lower than 90-95 is not insubstantial. We're talking about maybe above 1/3 of the population.

https://www.iqtestforfree.net/images/iq-test-guide.gif

(Excuse the hokey graphic; it was the first one that popped up.)

What kind of job do people in power think that a person with a below 95 IQ can do if any factory jobs, truck driving, being a janitor and on and on are done by robots? Even if they're supported by the government, what kind of intellectually stimulating hobbies are they going to pursue? They'll just use more drugs than ever.

I think these "planners" would be well served by having to be a social worker or cop for a while and see the lifestyle of people who have nothing to do and few intellectual resources.

Yngwar
04-11-18, 21:06
It sounds very fantastic. It's gonna be very hard to turn it into reality. Robots can do a lot of jobs but not creative ones. I develop sites and I can outsource a technical work to a machine, like, api testing automation (https://www.oxagile.com/services/automation-testing-services/api-testing-automation/), but the design is a human's field.

emperortime
14-11-18, 17:13
I think product consumption and mindless consumerism will spike because production and services will reach its peak.

paul333
18-11-18, 17:57
If what I saw last night was anything, I think we will all be kidnapped by Aliens, as I saw a fleet of hundreds of UFO's flying across our sky last night, ( North East UK )and I never even had a drink..LOL

LeBrok
21-11-18, 01:01
I agree. I'm appalled that the government isn't stepping in to prevent it. I just came back from the supermarket. The workers are on strike because the chain wants them to sign a contract that allows the company to pre-package cold cuts, fish, and meats at a central facility, probably by robots in the very near future, and fire all the butchers, fishmongers and deli staff who now give you personal service and a fresher product.

These people are on the verge of poverty already, making only fifteen dollars or so an hour. They do it because they're not qualified to do anything else, and in most cases aren't capable of learning a more skilled trade which is actually in demand.

This is what government planners and economists don't get. The percentage of people with an IQ lower than 90-95 is not insubstantial. We're talking about maybe above 1/3 of the population.

https://www.iqtestforfree.net/images/iq-test-guide.gif

(Excuse the hokey graphic; it was the first one that popped up.)

What kind of job do people in power think that a person with a below 95 IQ can do if any factory jobs, truck driving, being a janitor and on and on are done by robots? Even if they're supported by the government, what kind of intellectually stimulating hobbies are they going to pursue? They'll just use more drugs than ever.

I think these "planners" would be well served by having to be a social worker or cop for a while and see the lifestyle of people who have nothing to do and few intellectual resources.So far in good economies people can create new jobs faster than they disappear by way of automatization and robotics. US is the best example of it. Unemployment is at 3%, the lowest in 50 years or so, in face of many manufacturing jobs gone to china, automatization, legal immigration, and millions of illegals.
We will reach the turning point somewhere in the future, but for now, people creativity in job creation and amount of capital going there is exceeding all expectations.

LeBrok
22-11-18, 00:59
So far in good economies people can create new jobs faster than they disappear by way of automatization and robotics. US is the best example of it. Unemployment is at 3%, the lowest in 50 years or so, in face of many manufacturing jobs gone to china, automatization, legal immigration, and millions of illegals.
We will reach the turning point somewhere in the future, but for now, people creativity in job creation and amount of capital going there is exceeding all expectations.
I would like to add a great example how new technologies can create more jobs than it destroys. At least at the beginning, though who know, maybe it is long lasting and unforeseen trend?
Google and few other companies are training Artificial Intelligence in self driving cars. Sounds normal, and all drivers are afraid of losing jobs, but interesting is the training part. It turned out that these companies opened "AI training" center in poor countries. They hire local people to sit in front of computers and describe to AI what screen shows; what is a building, road, people, dog, tree, etc. In all different weather conditions, lighting, thousands of different trees, dogs, buildings, sign markings etc, etc. They are getting paid 10 dollars a day, in places where normal wage is 2 bucks a day. Companies save and progress, thousands of people work and make more money.
Just one example.

We might be in a stage where AI creates more jobs than destroys. And it might last for couple of decades at least.

LeBrok
04-02-19, 23:07
And I'm sure this never will happen. At least, robots will produce not everything, because who will produce robots
Robots will produce robots.

Salento
05-02-19, 01:25
There’s a Robot at my Stop&Shop. I’m not sure what it does, it talks a lot saying that is there to help us, and I saw children attacking it. Really Funny.

davef
05-02-19, 03:32
There’s a Robot at my Stop&Shop. I’m not sure what it does, it talks a lot saying that is there to help us, and I saw children attacking it. Really Funny.
If I could only hack it to have its eyes flash red and have a strobe light emerge out of its head saying TARGET IDENTIFIED
COMMENCING THREAT ELIMINATION

...before reverting back to its gentle self. That should teach kids to respect all robo-kind :)

1claire
19-03-19, 05:11
Fabric of society will disintegrate and civilization will end.

There will be no job, people won't be able to pay bills and so we can't food and other needs.