• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo

Marc Stiegler's 1989 prediction


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#31

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 16 May 2005 - 07:02 AM

The 40 hour workweek is drudgery. We're missing out on all sorts of social relationships that would enrich our lives.

For the love of all that is holy, somebody invent those robots to replace us.


If increased automation gives us more time to pursue our goals, it's probably a good thing. I'm not eager for a permanent vacation, or permanent retirement, solely to explore social relationships in infinite variations but I suppose that's a personal decision.

#32 Jay the Avenger

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 16 May 2005 - 10:52 AM

If you are free from work, and you still want to work, that will be your own voluntary decision.

Everybody benefits from an automated economy.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#33 arrogantatheist

  • Guest
  • 56 posts
  • 1

Posted 16 May 2005 - 01:14 PM

Yes we complain about poverty, but when we say poverty what we mean is relative poverty. Not absolute. Poor Americans have a significant health epidemic right now - obesity. 100 years ago obesity wasn't a worry except for the rich.

Anyone in today's economy who is healthy can make a a lot of money. Just taking the training for a skilled job, and maybe even being entrepenuerial in their field. Like starting their own little plumbing company.

30 dollars an hour isn't hard to make, you just have to specifically train for something that is a good job. Infact if you are willing to go it on your own, you can make a lot more then that. Now if we lived like our grandparents or even parents, living in a basic 1200 square foot home, with maybe one car, working 12-14 hours a day, 6 days a week.. Taking one vacation a year. Would be like 150k a year, and the house would be paid off quickly. Saving and investing that money it would not take long until our joe average was a multi-millionaire.

However today people instead choose to work 8 hours a day, 4 days a week. When you factor in all the vacation, sick time, etc, maybe less then that.. Then we choose to consume much more.. Bigger homes, more exotic food, a closet full of clothing, 2 or 3 vacations a year, 2 cars and an RV.. etc..

#34 wraith

  • Guest
  • 182 posts
  • 0

Posted 16 May 2005 - 10:53 PM

?!

What are the immigration requirements for your universe? I wanna know if I can move there...

#35 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 17 May 2005 - 12:31 AM

Anyone in today's economy who is healthy can make a a lot of money.  Just taking the training for a skilled job, and maybe even being entrepenuerial in their field.  Like starting their own little plumbing company.


I know a number of people around my age (45) who aren't living as well as their parents did in the same stage of their lives. Something structural in the economy has changed in the last 30 years to make it a lot harder to attain a middle-class living standard without taking on an absurd amount of debt.

#36 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 17 May 2005 - 12:37 AM

Everybody benefits from an automated economy.


That would obtain if the automated economy were politically structured so that everyone benefits, as Marshall Brain advocates. (However Brain doesn't deal with the problems caused by the faltering oil supply.) Currently the political structuring benefits people who already have theirs, and screw everyone else. If the trend continues, in a matter of years we Americans will see the return of something like debt peonage.

#37 arrogantatheist

  • Guest
  • 56 posts
  • 1

Posted 18 May 2005 - 09:29 PM

In the future when robots are capable of doing everything a human is, and beyond.. then we will have to rethink a lot of how the economy currently works.

Something like a 20% tax on profits would help, and then send everyone that money equally with a social security check type payment. Of course it is difficult to imagine things in a world that technologically advanced. Would people still seek interaction with other humans? Would they be willing to pay for that?

#38

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 19 May 2005 - 01:25 AM

A similar future is depicted here.

CNN - Enter the 'care' economy

It reads like a Star Trek future of unaugmented humans living with highly advanced technology, and like Star Trek it's (probably) fantasy.

Between 2015 and 2020 we will have machines that will be comparable to humans in terms of intelligence -- or maybe even significantly more intelligent.

...

We will be spending more time on human interaction and doing personal services for other people -- jobs like fitness gurus, lifestyles gurus, feng shui consultants, color therapists, job's that reduce people's stress, these sorts of things will expand dramatically and a lot of people will be working in these jobs.


In other words, we'll be the child minds of a caretaker technological world.

#39 wraith

  • Guest
  • 182 posts
  • 0

Posted 19 May 2005 - 01:03 PM

We will be spending more time on human interaction and doing personal services for other people -- jobs like fitness gurus, lifestyles gurus, feng shui consultants, color therapists, job's that reduce people's stress, these sorts of things will expand dramatically and a lot of people will be working in these jobs.


So in this future I really would be unemployable...

#40 arrogantatheist

  • Guest
  • 56 posts
  • 1

Posted 19 May 2005 - 09:32 PM

Interesting cosmos.. I think his time frames are too short though. I would say 2030-2035 for the intelligence.. And something that I have been wondering about is whether we can program emotions into the computers. Like having them actually experience emotions or believe they are.

It is very star trek like his thinking.. even with the ultra high level intelligence Data robot.. who has no emotions:).

#41 Jay the Avenger

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 20 May 2005 - 10:32 AM

(However Brain doesn't deal with the problems caused by the faltering oil supply.)


Brain is probably a smart guy who doesn't buy into the peak oil shit. ;)

Breakthrough in fuel cells:

http://news.yahoo.co...gy_fuelcells_dc

#42 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 20 May 2005 - 10:40 PM

(However Brain doesn't deal with the problems caused by the faltering oil supply.)


Brain is probably a smart guy who doesn't buy into the peak oil shit. ;)


The world's oil supply is empirically observable and measurable. Oil extraction has peaked in one oil province after another, which has extrapolatable consequences on a finite planet. No new reported oil megaproject (capable of extracting at least 100,000 barrels a day), in a fairly transparent and slow-moving industry, will come online after 2008. Even marginal OPEC members like Indonesia will have to drop out presently because they can't extract enough oil to export. What about these facts strikes you as "shit," as you put it?

Edited by advancedatheist, 21 May 2005 - 01:03 AM.


#43 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 21 May 2005 - 09:09 AM

Say we run out of oil? Then what? I don't understand the focus on peak oil. Humans adapt. Abundant methane hydrates, ample sun, wind and geothermal sites are all available. Nuclear power has unexpectedly been embraced as a so-called "green" technology. Solar chimneys will be tested soon. If that is not enough for our appetites then perhaps methane hydrate reserves are available on Mars. If that is not enough then we can mine the atmospheres of the outer planets. Titan has promising methane deposits.

Fuel sources may not remain a problem, especially if efficiencies continue to increase while size decreases. Eventually, technology and civilization will vanish into the background, leaving ample fuel supplies for new intelligent species entering their own industrial revolution.

The problem with apocalyptic predictions is that they disregard the unexpected and ignore change. If oil production has peaked...so be it. If not...so be it. There are countless other more pressing matters, such as the problem of our continued human-centric biases.

Last point - Brain does deal with the problems caused by the faltering oil supply...he recognizes the coming advent of molecular manufacturing paired with automation (the ultimate in recycling programs).

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#44 Jay the Avenger

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Holland

Posted 21 May 2005 - 04:30 PM

@advancedatheist:

Not so long ago, I posted a lot of links that debunked the peak oil doom scenario. Look those up to see how I think about peak oil.

For me personally, it's a waste of energy talking and thinking about it. I'm through with it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users