Exactly. You can’t eliminate the need to convince people to do work they’d really rather not do, until robotics & AI gets good enough to do such jobs instead - and we are a long way from that. Until then, people need to be either bribed or coerced into doing such jobs, and the most ethical way of doing so is the former. In other words, pay them. At this time, the alternative to money isn’t “technology”; it’s pointing a gun at people and making them work without pay. Or just letting society collapse because people aren’t doing the unpleasant, necessary jobs.
Well, for one thing, in the same sort of way that it’s not possible to be stampeded to death by a single cow, or eaten alive by a single ant.
Why would they care if it was a law either? Because they fear the consequences? I’d rather solve the issue.
Who WOULDN’T want to drive one?
It can’t solve people WANTING to drive drunk, and it can’t solve murder out of passion. But neither does law.
Also I don’t want to give you the impression that I know everything they intend on doing. i know they think laws are pointless because they don’t solve real problems. They don’t understand why someone kills they just punish them for killing. That’s the problem. To try to prevent these crimes through proper education and finding mental problems early on and treating them. Today that just doesn’t happen.
Where did you read that? I never said that. I just said that they weren’t very good problem solvers.
So you admit there are people that have to work shitty jobs for shitty wages, and you prefer this current system. The ‘shitty’ jobs will be done by machines. And any tedious (Shitty) job CAN be done by a machine. Machines are much better and more reliable than humans in every way at repetitive tasks. Name any job like that and a machine can do it.
Considering education is completely free, and I think most humans have a desire to learn and create… I would want to do robotics, since that was my initial goal before dropping out for medical reasons and piling on 30 thousands of dollars in hospital bills and student loans…
I think you underestimate what people will do. Of course there is still the ability to be a celebrity or be praised for your work.
Did you make any money in school? You still did the work. lets face it there are lazy people, but do you really want them contributing to a project anyway? Still, that’s not to say a lazy person can’t do something constructive given a lot of time…
You might say… I don’t want to benefit the lazy person. But you do it already with welfare. Not all of them lazy, but definitely some. Are some people forced into the work place who are lazy and contribute who wouldn’t have normally, yes, but how happy are they? how happy are you at your current job? Could your job be taken over by AI and and robotics freeing you up to do something more to your liking?
Also I had a teacher who taught me piano since I was 5 for free. Which inspired me to teach kids piano for free.
Couldn’t it possibly be that we’re so caught up in the reward system, that we can’t possibly think outside the box. We are so accustomed to it, and it feels so natural, that we can’t think… hey as long as I had food, a home, clean air and water I’d do what I do with just the intent of educating someone, or healing someone.
I mean think about what people do on these boards all day. You guys attempt to educate ignorant people like me for FREE!
I said no such thing, and I’ll thank you to have to decency not to try to put words in my mouth. I said:
Any job that currently can be done by a machine IS being done by machines, because it’s so often cheaper and more efficient to do it that way, however, we currently have not developed our technology (or invested in it sufficiently) to be able to hand every job over to unsupervised, self-maintaining machines. We just aren’t there yet.
Proctologist, any form of nursing, farmer, policeman, etc - these aren’t necessarily all shitty jobs, but they are jobs that fewer people would choose to do if they didn’t get paid for it, and they can’t be completely replaced by machines, yet.
I see your problem here - you seem to think that murder is an aberration, something resulting from deep emotional disturbance.
But you’re wrong. Killing people is perfectly normal human behavior, and has been since time immemorial. People kill each other for logical, sane reasons - to get something they want, to get rid of someone they don’t like, or to establish dominance. So long as humans remain humans, some of them will want to kill, and no education or robot butlers will ever change this.
Humans are violent, untrustworthy, self-serving beings. It’s part of our genetic code. The fact that we’re also kind, loving and empathic doesn’t erase the darker sides of our nature. Short of performing 6 billion lobotomies, you will never, ever manage to do away with our drive to hurt one another. The best you can do is control it by way of governments and laws.
You can’t. Live with it. You can use the threat of the law to coerce people into not driving drunk, or you can watch as they drive drunk and kill people. The magic solution you want doesn’t exist.
All the people who want to drive drunk, for one. And all the people who don’t want to be stranded when your gadget screws up and stops the car even when they are sober, for another.
The law stops the vast majority of murders that would happen without it; that’s why being murdered is highly unusual.
Most people ARE successfully educated against committing murder. As for mental problems, our understanding of the brain is primitive; another example of you demanding a solution we are nowhere near being able to implement. What are we supposed to do in the intervening decades ( at least ) between now and when we can comprehensively understand and treat brain/psychological disorders?
You grossly overestimate present technology.
The way I see it, the quest for wealth cannot be sustained in a closed system like the Earth and until we are able to leave it, monetary gain is going to have to be abandoned at some point, so we may as well start thinking about it earlier, rather than later.
Earth is not a closed system.
So, you are saying financial growth can continue indefinitely and there is no limit to what can be turned into a profit on this planet?
Pretty much, yeah.
Well, you are entitled to believe that, but do you want to explain first how a planet that the human race is stuck upon for the foreseeable future, is NOT a “closed system”?
Sorry, but you had said " Why would anyone choose to work (at least, work at something other than an enjoyable hobby), if money is no longer necessary?"
So that implies you think that the current system works, but I found it ironic that you also said “Who will do the shitty jobs?” which obviously proves it doesn’t work.
The fact people still have to work a shitty job is something we should eliminate, but with capatalism, if you remove all those shitty jobs how can working people make money. So there we have our dilemma.
Sorry I did not mean to put words into your mouth.
Not true.
I think we are behind where we should be. I think the problem is human labor is still too cheap for us to put any money behind researching alternatives to the other jobs that can be done. If we changed our priorities from making money, to making progress… I think we’d be alright.
Proctology: Examinations can be made much easier with technology that’s for sure. But you don’t think a robot could do this job at some point? I could imagine a small sensor being inserted that travels through the intestines for irregularities. Maybe even a way for the patient to give themselves a full examination.
Nursing: My mom loves being a nurse and has worked with both the elderly and mentally disabled. Even with all the work that’s required she wouldn’t have any other job, and I think most of the people who work there would agree. I agree person-to-person interaction can’t be solved by machines, but would people just abandon the disabled unless they were getting paid?
Actually it’s a good point. I think that most of us are so USE to to receiving a reward that it makes it a tougher decision. Instead we have to learn that the reward is from helping other people.
Farming: Many farms have automated machinery for harvesting already. Also there are hydropnic farms which are revolutionary.
Policeman: The goal is to have no need for them, but yes I think they would probably need one at the beginning.
Basically it sounds like some sort of Grand Unifying Theory for every bizarre leftist, socialist, anti-corporate, post-scarcity, technology singularity-ist idea on the internet. It (like many of the people on this board) demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of economics, money, and how and why things get built in this world.
No, it simply means we haven’t the capability of doing better, yet. I’m quite certain that barring something like a collapse of civilization we will eventually be able to hand over the nasty jobs to machines; but we just aren’t there yet. We “should” get rid of such jobs the way the people of the 1300s “should” have used penicillin to stop the Black Death.
I can see you’re misunderstanding as well. Human culture is actually a part of human evolution. And over the course of evolution we have developed emotions such as empathy which are NOT part of the primal brain which is what controls our anger.
So considering that you’re still under the impression that we haven’t evolved at all since our days as upright primates, it might shock you to know that we do have feelings other than anger.
While I feel there are SOME… very very few people… who are complete sociopaths and wouldn’t think twice about killing someone. For them the law is hardly a deterrent anyway.
So does the law help at all? If someone is plotting first degree murder it might be, but in the heat of passion they’re probably not going to consider it.
So really I think law only helps prevent one type of murder and that is first degree. Someone plotting and deciding against it based on the risk they will take. First you assume since there is no law there is no consequence. I’ll be honest I’m not sure exactly what they do in those cases, obviously there must be SOME consequence, but I assume if they are wise enough to back out of murdering someone because there is a law, then there equally wise to know that even though it’s not a law they’ll be punished somehow and looked down upon (I’m not sure what they are going to do - not my plan).
Still Murder doesn’t have to be a law to know it’s wrong.
My whole point wasn’t to make the case that we should have freedom to do whatever the hell we wanted. My point was to show that the laws man has made are either obvious wrongs or problems better suited for a scientist to handle.
I never made the leap that science was the answer to murder. Read what I said:
I never said: science can solve murder.
Still I think with a better standard of living murder would be reduced and I think with proper education (emotional education and psychiatric evaluations) we can prevent much of it.
Oh, the ideas involved are older than that. I have old overidealistic sci-fi books from the 60s and 70s that sound a lot like this. Well before the Internet.
Or at the least, not dictated by merchants and self-serving politicians.
Um, no. Empathy is not some recently developed capability; it’s much older than civilization.
:rolleyes: Soooo, you condemn the law for being imperfect and want to get rid of it, but have no idea at all what to replace it with? I hope you don’t apply the same standards with parachutes and skydiving.
But there has to be a law to stop people from doing it anyway.
Well, you failed. Especially since the answer most scientists would give for the problems you want them to solve would be to say “Well, make it illegal!”
We HAVE. This, right now, is the society you want where people are educated against murder. Murder is far rarer than it was in the past.
And slightly younger than the neo-cortex.
What about money does the creator not understand?
Why things get built in the world? What do you mean by that?
Why what gets built? A house? A government?
You know my macro-economics teacher didn’t understand half of what she taught me in college so maybe you could enlighten me about how things work.
This is all from my understanding.
The first bank:
Goldsmiths smelted gold into coins.
Goldsmiths eventually began offering a storage service.
Goldsmiths gave receipts upon storing gold.
People began using the receipts in place of gold.
First gold-backed paper currency was born.
Goldsmiths got an idea to make loans using paper receipts for more than they had gold.
Government found out about the scam, but at that point their economy was so embroiled in the mess that they had to legalize it.
How banks got started in America:
I know most Americans were opposed to banks, and I believe the Revolution started because we were being forced to switch to the British banking system.
I think we opposed banks for a long time after as well, but eventually a few came and went as powerful bankers pushed the idea (obviously so they could benefit from it).
I don’t remember much, but I do remember a part where bankers actually loaned money to each other to start banks instead of using their own money.
Someone said something about not being able to write money out of thin air?
How modern banking works:
The Central Bank lends money out to other banks.
The banks set their interest rates based on the Central Bank’s.
Banks lend out money based on what are in their reserves. Note I did not say that they lend out their reserves. Instead of lending out their reserves they simply add money to an account as a credit.
Of course the bankers have a lot of products for investors like CDs which accumulate interest, which allow you to put money (the more the better) in the bank for a lot. Those systems only seem to benefit the wealthy though. I wonder where they get the money… hmm.
They also have refinancing which… we all know how that turned out. Upping interest rates like crazy because of their gambling causing many people to lose their homes.
I don’t know a lot. But I personally don’t think banking is legit. And I don’t think economics in general is legit. I really feel like it’s meant to confuse the average person so that they CAN’T understand.
So you can talk about how people don’t understand economics, and I’m sure some fat cat is saying: “that’s the point.”