Depopulation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2015, 05:31 AM
RE: Depopulation
In the late 1800's there was a movement to make sewing machines illegal. Why? Because seamstresses would lose work. Didn't happen. We got better clothes at cheaper prices and seamstresses learned to use a machine.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2015, 06:15 AM
RE: Depopulation
(21-03-2015 03:35 AM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  Yea. It's a shitty job. But my local Wal-Mart has computers checking people out. Not such a shitty job! The first voice I hear when I go to McDonalds, is that of a computer. So, robots and computers aren't taking only crappy jobs. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. So far, so good! I got access to the fucking world on my phone! But I do How the supply/demand (for work) thing will be resolved.

Fuck that. That's a kak job too. Any job that's that boring is the very definition of shitty. My ideal world is one where that kind of needlessly shitty job is performed by a robot every time. BUT, yes, then someone will be out of a job *because* companies think in terms of profit and loss, and fixing a malfunctioning checkout computer is a lot easier than settling the complaints of an angry checkout *person*. So that's the sucky side. Currently I don't have an answer to that, because it is definitely a problem.

But if I allow myself to dream... the day when a robot powered economy means that all the drudge work and heavy lifting is performed by machines, freeing the rest of us to do more interesting stuff - I look forward to that day. People think in terms of exchanging work for money but it doesn't *have* to be that way, we could instead *give* freely to all - but that requires an abundance. A super-abundance. It requires social changes too great to make in the short term... so ja, it's utopian and silly, but I think it's possible to pull off in the far future.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
21-03-2015, 06:51 AM
RE: Depopulation
(21-03-2015 05:31 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  In the late 1800's there was a movement to make sewing machines illegal. Why? Because seamstresses would lose work. Didn't happen. We got better clothes at cheaper prices and seamstresses learned to use a machine.
Jobs are created artificially by central bank. In pure free market only top 0.01% would have money and everyone else would starve to death.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2015, 08:34 AM
RE: Depopulation
(20-03-2015 08:08 AM)morondog Wrote:  Hmm. I see it as more robots => less need for humans to work => more abundance for everyone => Yay...

I'm probably too naive Weeping But for example, cleaning sewers is a shitty job. I can't see that it's an economic necessity that some poor sod has to do that at risk to life and limb. Send a friggin' robot in there! Let the poor sod do something more fun, like supervise the robot.

I think this is a naive view but still not a completely unrealistic view. We haven't yet as far as I know reached a point where economic output has become decoupled from population size in any major economy. It may be that more machines will simply mean more economic output with more opportunity overall. The trouble comes if that stops being the case and we reach a point where a significant segment of the population could never be trained to the level where they could outcompete a machine for any job.

If there are no jobs, how do we structure the economy such that this segment of the population can live a normal life?

I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad problem to have. Such a world could easily resemble a post-scarcity economy where there is simply so much to go around that we start instituting polices like a Basic Income[1] where people all earned a slice of their economy's output despite not necessarily contributing to it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
21-03-2015, 08:48 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2015 09:05 AM by yakherder.)
RE: Depopulation
If a certain segment of society manages to obtain absolute control of all resources and means of production, leaving a different segment of society without the umbrella of their protection, they will do what they've always done. Create their own society separate from the other one or, if sufficient resources to do so are simply not available, take them by force or die trying.

This problem is not unique to modern times. If you don't have the leverage to secure what you need to survive, you don't survive. Welcome to life Smile

On a side note, I'd rather clean sewers than supervise robots. What a boring life. But if it truly comes to the point where the world can only support a small fraction of what it can support now, whether because of diminishing resources or because of technology simply making most people obsolete, then I'll be content with the fact that the world will once again favor those who know how to live by the sword because when people are desperate, order is lost. And if order is lost, the corporate class, who is absolutely dependent on rules and regulations and the fact that the majority of the people are currently law abiding citizens, aren't gonna fare so well no matter how well they're living in the moments before shit hits the fan. This is also nothing new. History hasn't favored leaders that can't provide for the masses. They live a privileged life for a while, then one day there's a lynch mob tearing down their castle.

The reality for the moment, however, is that poverty in this day and age is more relative than absolute. Those of us who consider ourselves to be dirt poor compared to the 1% that everyone is always bitching about are still dying more from obesity than from starvation. Though there are a few people with real problems, most of us are just pissed off because we'd rather get fat off lobster and caviar than off Kraft macaroni and cheese.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2015, 09:01 AM
RE: Depopulation
why do I get the feeling that some paranoid moron with issues was watching this



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2015, 09:06 AM
RE: Depopulation
(10-03-2015 02:18 AM)morondog Wrote:  We *need* less humans IMO. All (well, a lot anyway) of our problems stem from overpopulation IMO. Global warming, lack of resources, rise of global poverty... How we get to having less humans is a matter of pressing concern. I think honestly there's gonna have to be some kind of population control measures implemented soon. I know, wildly undemocratic and evil but... if one's not willing to at least consider such seemingly extreme solutions then we may end up with an *unplanned* extreme solution (such as global war) which will result in everyone being much worse off...

Edit: By population control I mean reproduction control a la China's one child policy. Not exterminating people...

An old boyfriend and his wife have, so far, adopted three Chinese babies - all girls. The law isn't necessarily working...some of the 'extra' babies are relocated.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2015, 11:19 AM
RE: Depopulation
(21-03-2015 06:51 AM)dimaniac Wrote:  
(21-03-2015 05:31 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  In the late 1800's there was a movement to make sewing machines illegal. Why? Because seamstresses would lose work. Didn't happen. We got better clothes at cheaper prices and seamstresses learned to use a machine.
Jobs are created artificially by central bank. In pure free market only top 0.01% would have money and everyone else would starve to death.

Jobs are created by creative people finding markets and filling them -- the very definition of free market.

Where'd you study economics? Havana????

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like onlinebiker's post
25-03-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: Depopulation
(21-03-2015 05:31 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  In the late 1800's there was a movement to make sewing machines illegal. Why? Because seamstresses would lose work. Didn't happen. We got better clothes at cheaper prices and seamstresses learned to use a machine.

wait hold it hold it, you mean they wanted to protect women's jobs by making sewing machines illegal ? I didn't realize automated robotic sewing machines existed at that time Gasp oh wait thats backwards, they didn't exist back then Facepalm

seriously how does this logic work, seamstresses being able to use sewing machines meant they'd lose their jobs.......... what kind of stupidity is this
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2015, 10:34 AM
RE: Depopulation
(25-03-2015 09:57 AM)Ace Wrote:  
(21-03-2015 05:31 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  In the late 1800's there was a movement to make sewing machines illegal. Why? Because seamstresses would lose work. Didn't happen. We got better clothes at cheaper prices and seamstresses learned to use a machine.

wait hold it hold it, you mean they wanted to protect women's jobs by making sewing machines illegal ? I didn't realize automated robotic sewing machines existed at that time Gasp oh wait thats backwards, they didn't exist back then Facepalm

seriously how does this logic work, seamstresses being able to use sewing machines meant they'd lose their jobs.......... what kind of stupidity is this

It doesn't make sense now - but I suppose it did to them. Consider -- if you know how to sew by hand - which is what they did know -- and somebody comes along with a machine that does your job -(or so it seems to the uneducated) you'd feel threatened.

It's my point --- you have to keep up with current technology to be part of the work force - and it's always been that way.....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: