886 replies to this topic

[mpe]

In the long run everything could turn out great, unfortunately we would probably have to go through the "short term" disruption with poverty and misery on a massive scale, think early industrial revolution England or worse still a Mad Max world as ordinary people lose everything through unemployment, not 10 to 25% unemployment but 75% and increasing.

 

Technology cant be stopped but  can be guided and the worlds political systems will need to change from serving wealthy self interested minorities to true democracies; but the ruling elite just happen to own and control the worlds capitol, so there is not much chance of them willingly sharing power or capital, after all would you?

 

 

Mike 

[Elus]

"We've reached a tipping point where technology is now destroying more jobs than it creates, researcher warns"

"Technological unemployment is the concept of technology killing more jobs than it produces. While that fear has been considered a Luddite fallacy for the past 200 years, it is now becoming a stark reality, he said."

Link:http://www.businessi...l-crisis-2015-6

Edited by Elus, 05 June 2015 - 01:08 AM.

[mag1]

I think the employment crisis is starkly shown in the recent upheaval in Europe. Some of these countries had (have ?) youth unemployment over 50%!

Modern economies do not require the input of half of their young people?

 

One really has to wonder whether there might be a migration of people from industrialized societies to less advanced societies seeking a productive role in these

communities.

[Kalliste]

The problem right now has a lot more to do with stupid policy-making, moneyprinting, spoiled "third generationistas" who think Europes wealth is a natural law.

Come back in 2025 before we see real Luddite rallies around Europe.

[niner]

The problem right now has a lot more to do with stupid policy-making, moneyprinting, spoiled "third generationistas" who think Europes wealth is a natural law.

Come back in 2025 before we see real Luddite rallies around Europe.

 

It has something to do with moneyprinting, but probably not in the way you think.  Europe embraced austerity as a response to the 2008 financial crisis, as though Keynes never existed or no one understood the 1930's.  Entirely predictably, it put them deeper in the toilet.  If they had employed a dose of stimulus like the US did, they'd be in a hell of a lot better shape today.   The Right pilloried Obama over his "failed stimulus", but they have finally shut up about that (mostly) in the face of our current economic performance.  Had Obama (and Bush, BTW) gone along with the austerity approach that the Right wanted, we'd be looking a lot more like Europe and Japan.   If you were using the term "moneyprinting" to refer to fiscal irresponsibility during the good times prior to the crash, then I'm in agreement.  There are a lot of reasons for the economic problems in much of the world, and they can't really be blamed entirely on any one of them.  Stupid economic policy has a huge amount to do with it, so I guess at the moment, US policy is a little less stupid than some other countries'.

 

The negative consequences of globalization can be seen in our shrinking middle class (with most moving down rather than up), and automation is the next wave of that.  It's been on a slow build for several decades, but it's ramping up now.  Ultimately it will be like globalization on steroids.  I don't doubt that it's already contributing to the world's socioeconomic problems, but it's not the major thing yet.  The question is exactly when it becomes the major thing. 

[mag1]

The policy choices available to Europe might now be quite different than those of the US: Their austerity and euthanasia policies might be a reflection of this reality.

 

The socioeconomic landscape of Europe appears alarmingly bad: Russia is approaching an annual population decline of 1 million people per year, added to the oil price

crisis must be putting an overwhelming stress on them. Many other European nations are confronting various other economic, demographic and political calamities that

is increasingly making an emigration out of the whole mess the best strategy. 

 

It should also be noted that we might no longer be 10 years out from massive job displacement caused by technology. Google's timeline for rolling out robotic transport technology

is 2019. The retail trade industry would then soon be made redundant (15 million jobs) not to mention the transport and distribution jobs that are required for the retail sector.

I am not as worried about the high end Singularity possibilities that may (or may not) occur decades from now, as I am about a relatively simple technology such as robo-transport that

has already been extensively tested and could be here soon. When it arrives, most of our urban landscape will become moonscape.   

Edited by mag1, 05 June 2015 - 10:09 PM.

[mag1]

It looks like the big resource companies are considering transitioning to roboport. Those big truck drivers can make 200K per year in remote resource sites. Such a roll out of that technology in such a setting would almost be ideal as often there is virtually no competing traffic on those roads. Perhaps it could be made even safer by doing much of the transport during over night hours. 

[niner]

It looks like the big resource companies are considering transitioning to roboport. Those big truck drivers can make 200K per year in remote resource sites. Such a roll out of that technology in such a setting would almost be ideal as often there is virtually no competing traffic on those roads. Perhaps it could be made even safer by doing much of the transport during over night hours. 

 

Roboport = Robotic Transport?  (that's my guess)   If their salary is 200K, then their cost to the company is probably 300K.  I wouldn't blame them for going robotic.   That's a lot of money for driving a truck. Everybody is always stressing out about safety with robotic vehicles, but aren't they already way safer than human drivers?  I'd rather share the road with robots than humans, because humans would rather screw with their phones than pay attention.

[mag1]

Yeah, well now that I have my first Well Written under the belt I figure I do not have to pretend that  I am an english as a second language person (or a teenager) anymore. I will be even more insufferable than before!

 

I think robosport sounds better. In the Australian outback where some of these resource companies operate it might turn into a true vehicular sport.

 

It is unsettling that this technology is emerging now. Once an easy application is found (as in the resource industry) it likely would not be long before it is perfected and life as we know it will change beyond what many might be able to imagine. Many good technologies never find that first foot in the door to grow and be perfected. It seems that developing this technology when the robots have a value of probably 300K or more per year on largely unused roads would be an unbeatable investment for the companies.

Edited by mag1, 09 June 2015 - 02:18 AM.

[Kalliste]

I was referring to the printing of money by banks which are then issued as loans to people who have no means of repaying those loans. I don't think that is a good idea. Sweden is the epicenter of a large housing bubble right now. But maybe it actually works? Economics is so weird, maybe my puny human brain cannot wrap itself around global economy.

 

 

 

It looks like the big resource companies are considering transitioning to roboport. Those big truck drivers can make 200K per year in remote resource sites. Such a roll out of that technology in such a setting would almost be ideal as often there is virtually no competing traffic on those roads. Perhaps it could be made even safer by doing much of the transport during over night hours. 

 

Roboport = Robotic Transport?  (that's my guess)   If their salary is 200K, then their cost to the company is probably 300K.  I wouldn't blame them for going robotic.   That's a lot of money for driving a truck. Everybody is always stressing out about safety with robotic vehicles, but aren't they already way safer than human drivers?  I'd rather share the road with robots than humans, because humans would rather screw with their phones than pay attention.

 

 

There was a funny TED-talk were the presenter made the case for abolishing roads as we know them arguing that with mature AI drivers you could literally remove the fences from kindergartens and let kids roam free, the cars would not hurt them in any case, they can spot a cigarette being thrown infront of them from 100m. 

[Elus]

Driverless Trucks to Hit Alberta’s Oilsands Region Replacing $200,000/yr Operators; Big Layoffs Coming

 

“That will take 800 people off our site,” Cowan said of the trucks. “At an average (salary) of $200,000 per person, you can see the savings we’re going to get from an operations perspective.”

 

Billionaire Cartier Boss Warns of Imminent Uprising, ‘Envy, Hatred’ of Poor People

 

Rupert, who has an estimated net worth of about $7.5 billion, seemed deeply perturbed about the impending disappearance of the middle class due to robotics and artificial intelligence, which he said would “put hundreds of millions of people out of work.” 

 

Autonomous Vehicles Will Replace Taxi Drivers, But That's Just the Beginning

 

"...while taxi and Uber driving will probably be the first professions to be made obsolete by autonomous vehicles, this developing technology has the potential to replace at least twenty times as many jobs, all of which are higher-paying. The driverless revolution is about so much more than taxis, and has the potential to radically transform not just transportation but the entire economy."

 

 

180 Trillion Leisure Hours Lost To Work Last Year (Humor)

Edited by Elus, 12 June 2015 - 01:41 AM.

[mag1]

Sure it is just massive. The job losses that we are talking about are huge. No mention is given about train personnel, boat operators or airplane pilots etc. .

 

Transportation is only one aspect of the job losses we are talking about. Transportation is at the logistical center of the entire retail economy. In one fell motion if you cut out all intermediary layers between customers and producers the implications for the labor economy would be massive. As I mentioned we are not talking about especially complex technology. Google has announced that roll out for their technology is scheduled to occur over the next four years.

 

The idea of replacing highly paid resource transport workers is especially ominous as a highly plausible initial market niche has now been located. There are all sorts of great technologies that never seem to go anywhere because they never find that first market which is not extremely price competitive and is an easy market entry. If robosport had to be developed within the urban taxi business it might never attain a foothold.

 

I have considered what the implications might be of loading up a huge Triple E container ship in China with all sorts of consumer goods and just coasting down and up the coasts of the Americas or around the Mediterranean. The cost for a 20 foot cargo container is only about $700. You could have some sort of robotic boat or copter technology that moved containers (the "presents") to all the people waiting on the shoreline for their merchandise. The entire infrastructure of the economy that exists between the producer and consumer would then have been eliminated. The prices that one could buy things for would likely be massively below the endless markups that consumers typically now pay. I do not suppose governments would be especially happy either about losing their piece of the action. And of course, almost our entire society would be unemployed.

 

Well, we no longer have to wait 30 years for the Singularity for all the fun to begin. We are now only about 4 years out from the expected scenario outlined above.     

[Elus]

[mag1]

We haven't had a real scary post on this thread in few days. So, here goes.

 

When Marx considered industrial capitalism about a century ago, he looked out on a world dominated by production. Production! Production! Production! This was his vantage point on the capitalism of his day. Modern industrialized economies to a large extent have moved beyond this conception. In a modern economy, much of the manufacturing and other productive (so to speak) activities are done in nations such as China. Our modern economies have largely been able to compensate from this shift by concentrating on distribution. The central economic activity of modern societies has become distribution. In the modern context what is most important is not the factors of production, but instead the factors of distribution. Goods can be manufactured at extraordinarily modest prices and shipped to modern economies for at most pennies an article. From this point layer upon layer of intermediaries and governments are able to extract substantial commission, taxes etc. . By making this shift, many modern economies have been able to maintain their relative position in comparisons of global wealth without the strenuous exertions from competing directly with the world's lowest cost suppliers of production. 

 

The enormous wealth that some people have been able to create in the technology industry has largely been the result of getting outside of this distribution model by creating breakthrough technology products that often have no marginal cost of production or distribution. There have been many more billionaires created in the technology than would be expected in comparison to the distribution industry which comprises much of our economy. Since, there are so many layers in the distribution system it is not that easy to acquire a large piece of the pie.

 

However, now we can consider what we might call the neo-mag1ian scenario. With current technology, it seems quite possible that a truly massive quantity of wealth could be generated if someone were to simply eliminate all these intermediary layers of the distribution system and essentially offer consumers wholesale prices for products and shipping from the world's lowest cost producers. It would not be that difficult to imagine that the Chinese themselves would be interested and quite capable of creating such a system. {Up until now, it is been relatively easy for modern societies to prevent this because they have owned the bricks and mortar of the distribution system through which all products must flow.} In fact, that could very well be the result of the approaching wave of transbotics (I think transbotic/transbot is a better word for robotic transport than robosport. Go ahead vote {if you must}.). Once transbots are in place one could easily imagine that anyone living in a major North American city could receive a package directly from China (which would only cost at most a few pennies shipping on a Triple E Container ship and at most a dollar total shipping cost to your front door.)

Whatever you bought would likely cost much less than it would have through the normal distribution chain.

 

This would be one of the many consequences of transbotics. One might also wonder what particular need there would be for actually owning transport. People would likely demand that every imaginable good or service would be delivered to them or means of transbot would be provided. This would mean for instance that many of the empty schools in many cities could finally be consolidated at a substantial savings for taxpayers. The implications for trauma medicine would also be of interest. (There would be no particular reason for much of the transbot infrastructure to be built on the assumption that they would need to protect at all costs the consumer goods that many of them would move around. These vehicles could instead be based on the premise that they would protect pedestrian and people still driving vehicles at all costs. Perhaps they could make nerf-mobiles.) The automobile fueling market might also be disrupted, as it seems likely that those providing transbotic services would want to be cool about saving the planet.

 

There really will not be much left of our modern economies in 1461 days, if all this were to occur. This is neo-mag1ism. Hopefully, it will not be mistaken for neo-Marxism. (I do not want to be assigned to the dustbin of history.)  However, thinking about this, I think it is getting close to the time to load up the camper van and head out for some place on this planet that is less technologically advanced. You are all great people, though the idea that our entire urban economy is rapidly approaching the point of complete unemployment has me quite worried, as I do not think many of you have any conception of what you need to do to feed yourself if our economy does truly implode. If that were to happen, then all the pieces of paper that signified wealth might no longer have any value.

 

It will not be long now before we know whether this will or will not happen.

 

Edited by mag1, 14 June 2015 - 11:42 PM.

[niner]

mag1, perhaps this will ease your concerns:  I don't like to stay home all the time.  Sometimes I go shopping just for fun.  I also go to restaurants and bars, just for fun.  I suspect I'm not alone in this predilection.  A trend in retailing for some time now has been to turn shopping into a destination rather than a chore.  Robotic transport may put a lot of drivers out of business, but I have a feeling that my favorite stores, restaurants, and bars will still be there, because people like me will still want to go to them.  This is not to say I'm unconcerned about technological unemployment-- it's clearly going to be a problem, but I don't see our retail sector going away overnight.

[mag1]

Yeah, I think you got close to the quick with your reply. This is to a large extent about people people and non-people people. Notably many people who have been successful in the technology industry could reasonably be diagnosed on the autism spectrum. This is something that perhaps should be contemplated by the wider community. Those individuals who have and are acquiring vast amounts of money and are shaping in a profound way the future life experience of the entire planet largely understand people as things. It is highly disturbing to contemplate such a notion.

 

From my personal life experience, if I had been given some of the technological choices that have emerged or are emerging now earlier in my life, I would have chosen them and been a much happier person as a result.

 

To my way of thinking, if children are going to school to learn, then the learning experience should be maximized. Everything possible should be done to ensure that learning  occurs to the greatest possible extent. This is obviously not what happens at school. In truth for many students attending school the educational experience might be one of their least prioritized items on their list. This, in spite of the massive investment by the community in education. I demonstrated the potential of online to myself clearly over the last few years while taking online university courses. I have been truly amazed at the extreme level of achievement that is possible when being left alone with a textbook and internet resources. If the community wanted to launch a golden age of academic achievement and scientific breakthroughs not much more would be required. All the money spent on Olympic sized school swimming pools and all sorts of other items could be safely reinvested in other government projects. 

 

Also it is true that I share at some level the inner rage that many movies (especially American) show of people who felt helpless by their life circumstances and considered violence their only option to communicate that rage. As I proceeded through the social structures (in particular education), I could just feel the oozing sense of total indifference of my person-ness and the extraordinary sense of entitlement by people who were in what is almost a total monopoly. I had no idea how to respond to this situation, though now that we have moved into the 21st Century much of my response and ways I could have coped better with circumstances have become clear to me.

 

For example, my genome scan  revealed some truly revealing results. I really do not know how the regular school system could cope with revelations about my genome and the implications that my genetics would likely have on my perception of the school social environment. Making these disclosures would have likely profoundly changed my life experience. Even my own family has had difficulty coming to understand the implications of our genetic variants. The whole notion that there is a universal normal psychology that can be assumed is going to be quickly discarded as the wave of sequencing now underway is extensively analyzed. Matching genetics with the right environments is going to make for a much happier world.

 

I would also feel so much more empowered. The minor skirmishes and cool indifference do still linger in memory. It was not clear to myself back then how to  cope with such incidents. It is sure much clearer now. I would not allow many if any such incidents to occur if I were sent back in time. I could now well imagine myself staring down some bothersome incident that lurks in my memory from the past and just imagine saying to myself back then:

"Go right ahead! Bother me! I am not going to tell you this: I will just let you figure it out. This is forever. I do not have to be here. I have so many choices that technology offers me. This is the last time I will ever be bothered again. Auf Wiedersehen!"

 

It is so empowering. The individual can now in their own way bring down grossly ineffective and dysfunctional organizations because there are all these choices. People truly do have this magnitude of power in the modern world. It would probably not take that many students saying "I am out of here, I want to go online" before the current system took note. It would soon become clear that the entire dysfunctional system could collapse. When you consider all the school shootings in America would it really be such a bad result? The home school movement did experience massive growth after yet more horrific shootings occurred in schools. People do have choices.

 

Most of the choices that have emerged are much more effective than what has ever existed. If the current socio-economic structures do not tune in, they will become completely irrelevant. Consider your example of shopping for enjoyment. Many people would likely not find shopping on average to be fun. It is a necessity: they are trapped in doing something they have to do. It is not difficult to imagine that my mind experiment noted above will soon apply to most of our experiences. Customer service will not be said in an ironic oxymoronic sense. If stores ever want to have customers again, they will need to accept the mental challenge and return it with their own unspoken message

"We are hear to help you. We will always value you as a person and a customer of our store. You do not have to be here but we want you to be here and we welcome you. We know you have many technological choices, though let us prove to you that we can do better than any technology."

 

This is the only possible way that our society will be able to cope with this approaching way of technology. Ironically it will greatly humanize our lives. People who believe that they can continue the behavior of the past or are just indifferent will soon be unemployed.         

Edited by mag1, 15 June 2015 - 03:57 AM.

[mag1]

My last post expanded the thread in an important new direction.

 

The thread to this point has largely interpreted the economic implications of the coming wave of technological change in purely money terms. Yet, in the modern world, a substantial portion of people's lives is spent more in a psychological economy. One of the more lasting memories that many people will cherish almost on par to a fancy possession is a gold sticker they received in primary school for a job well done.

 

A significant problem with this psychological economy (i.e. educational system) is that for many they will not ultimately receive positive reinforcement from the experience. This would also be true of many of the experiences that technology will replace. School, shopping, urban transport (road rage) ... these are often not enjoyable experiences. There has up to this point not been any obvious way to engage in these activities without some sense of rage.

 

As people of conscience and intelligence it is our moral duty to help incubate solutions for such problems. It should not be the duty of children to analyze how they will navigate through often highly dysfunctional educational systems. The main job of children should be developing their intellect while having fun times with their friends. However, as I noted above, the approaching wave of technology will profoundly change the choices available. Those organizations that do not have as a core value providing humane services for people will simply be displaced. Organizations in the future that do not strive to provide all their customers with positive experiences will themselves have no future. 

 

This should be recognized as a substantial contribution to resolving problems that have always seemed unsolvable. Problems such as school violence, road rage, etc. have never had obvious solutions-- that would be why we still must try to confront them even now. However, the coming wave of technological change is offering the possibility of substantially different social environments. Obviously, the school violence problem will be dramatically lessened when the school of the future 

is a home school!   With robotic transport it might be difficult for those of the future to comprehend road rage or shopping rage.

[niner]

the school violence problem will be dramatically lessened when the school of the future is a home school!   With robotic transport it might be difficult for those of the future to comprehend road rage or shopping rage.

 

I don't want to home school my kids.  They wouldn't have a chance to hang out with their friends and meet new people.  If we had millions of kids spending all day in their dysfunctional family homes instead of relatively safe at school, how do you know that we wouldn't have a bigger yearly body count?  At home they can find daddy's gun and blow their own little brains out.  Or maybe mommy's low life boyfriend will snap when they're being too noisy and he'll shoot them. 

 

I already don't comprehend shopping rage...  Is that a thing?

[mag1]

The point to concentrate on is the idea of educational choice. Choice / options changes everything. That is one of the reasons why school shootings in private schools are almost unheard of. When people can carefully think through 

the range of choices available to them they can choose which one will work out best for them.

 

One of the main problems is that for many there is no school choice. There often is one reasonable choice. There is only one school within easy walking distance. It is a monopoly! A choice of one is not a choice at all. It would not be difficult to imagine that if you randomly followed a child in almost any typical neighborhood to school, a clear majority would wind up at the one geographically closest to their home.

 

For the only time, in their life children will be placed in an environment in which there are no options. It is hardly surprising that many of the children who would reasonably be psychologically profiled as high risk school shooters spontaneously

revert to typical non-risk adults.

 

As an adult you have almost unlimited choice in how you will live your life. Try to name even one fixed and absolute rule of adult life! It is not an easy task to answer such a question. Now consider the regimentation of school life. Within a school it becomes difficult to name any choices that are available. In many high schools you might be down to only a few elective every year!

 

It is hardly surprising that government has almost single-handedly created the school violence problem through their command and control approach to the management of the educational system. Corporations would be criminally charged for such behavior. Yet, somehow government is always able to shrug off their responsibilities and point to all the intractable sociological problems involved. Offering people the maximum possible choice is a foundational value of our society. It is disturbing that for too long the freedom of children to construct their own lives has been withheld.

 

I have been impressed at how well informed educators are about the approaching educational transformation. It is self-apparent that many of the ideas I have noted will radically change the lives of children. Educators also see much the same future.  My own home school experience lately has clearly shown me what is possible. Home schooling is a whole lot more about learning and a whole lot less about acting out some socially assigned role. In a home school, sociology disappears.

 

In terms of how the home environment might compare to the school environment, well yes that could be a concern. However, one thing to remember is that the underlying problem with school violence is the combination of often greatly different cognitive genotypes in a single environment. Friction is inevitable. A home schooling context would more than likely involve a child alone at home or with one other parent. The amount of parent child interaction might be very minimal.

 

It would not seem unreasonable to expect that a safety audit would be conducted before a child began home schooling. The real concern with school violence is that there are a few students that pose significant risk to others. No viable solution   has yet emerged to solve this problem... aside from bringing in even more heavily armed security guards. Keeping kids out of school simply removes targets for those few who are the perpetrators.

 

Yes, correct me if I'm wrong but shopping rage is considered a legitimate rage-holism behavior. All those rage behaviors are simply a result of people trying to interact with an environment with limited resources. Road rage, school rage, shopping rage.. it is endless. It is just the kindergarten game of musical chairs enacted by grownups. It will all stop if instead of taking away chairs they started adding them: magical chairs. Even children can immediately see the implications of magical chairs. 

 

That is exactly what will happen when there is school choice, robotic transport, robotic shopping.

School rage, road rage, shopping rage etc. etc. will stop instantly.   

 

   

[Mind]

 

the school violence problem will be dramatically lessened when the school of the future is a home school!   With robotic transport it might be difficult for those of the future to comprehend road rage or shopping rage.

 

I don't want to home school my kids.  They wouldn't have a chance to hang out with their friends and meet new people.  If we had millions of kids spending all day in their dysfunctional family homes instead of relatively safe at school, how do you know that we wouldn't have a bigger yearly body count?  At home they can find daddy's gun and blow their own little brains out.  Or maybe mommy's low life boyfriend will snap when they're being too noisy and he'll shoot them. 

 

I already don't comprehend shopping rage...  Is that a thing?

 

 

This is a myth/urban legend for *most* home schooled kids. Most do group activities a couple times a week at least. They are in sports leagues, sometimes playing on local high school teams. They get out in the community all the time. I have given science/weather presentations to home-school groups a few times a year for over a decade now. I give tours of our TV station a handful of times a year to different home school groups. They are typically great kids. Their parents are dedicated teachers and devote a lot of time to making sure their kids have a well-rounded up-bringing. This has been my experience, anyway, in interacting with dozens of home-school groups in my area.

 

The information revolution and automation will further disrupt education. Home-school kids might be better off because they will be the ones adopting distributed online learning techniques first.

[niner]

 

 

the school violence problem will be dramatically lessened when the school of the future is a home school!   With robotic transport it might be difficult for those of the future to comprehend road rage or shopping rage.

 

I don't want to home school my kids.  They wouldn't have a chance to hang out with their friends and meet new people.  If we had millions of kids spending all day in their dysfunctional family homes instead of relatively safe at school, how do you know that we wouldn't have a bigger yearly body count?  At home they can find daddy's gun and blow their own little brains out.  Or maybe mommy's low life boyfriend will snap when they're being too noisy and he'll shoot them. 

 

I already don't comprehend shopping rage...  Is that a thing?

 

This is a myth/urban legend for *most* home schooled kids. Most do group activities a couple times a week at least. They are in sports leagues, sometimes playing on local high school teams. They get out in the community all the time. I have given science/weather presentations to home-school groups a few times a year for over a decade now. I give tours of our TV station a handful of times a year to different home school groups. They are typically great kids. Their parents are dedicated teachers and devote a lot of time to making sure their kids have a well-rounded up-bringing. This has been my experience, anyway, in interacting with dozens of home-school groups in my area.

 

The information revolution and automation will further disrupt education. Home-school kids might be better off because they will be the ones adopting distributed online learning techniques first.

 

Mostly I'm just pushing back against the idea that the nation's children would be safer overall if everyone was home schooled.   I honestly think they'd be less safe (as a group) at home.  Compared to the schools I attended as a kid, my kids' schools feel like SuperMax Prisons.  I know that homeschooled kids have some options to socialize, although I kind of doubt there would be as many as for kids who were in a regular school.  I also find homeschooling to be rather crazily inefficient-- If everyone had to do it, then half the population couldn't have a full time job.  Of course, this IS a thread about people losing jobs, so I suppose homeschooling would give all those unemployed parents something to do, but how many of them would actually be good at it?  Much of school is about getting socialized, and I don't think that's as easy to do online as, say, learning phonics or arithmetic.
 

[mag1]

Yes, though it should probably be noted that the early adopters of home schooling have been those parents who find the current educational system and the response the educational system has made to the challenges facing it-- disturbing.

Home schooling has largely been about parents wanting to provide their children with an experience that is better than that could be delivered by the official system. Such fleeing of the best and most capable is always a great concern. The children who have been removed from the system are not the shooters, they are the shootees. Those children remaining become increasing enriched with potential shooters. Parents probably have fairly good insight into whether their children would pose a risk to them in a home environment. It would seem unlikely that they would choose to home school their children if they felt by doing so they would be put at risk. In fact, the efforts required to home school children would likely discourage those parents that were not especially interested in their children's welfare.

 

The sad thing is that schools will likely become more prison like as the school violence problem continues to unfold. The more violence... the more the capable flee... the more the violence escalates. Only the innovators would actually take decisive action. The government then proposes even more futile and counter-productive counter-measures. Failure is rewarded.

 

That is not a bad idea about home schools being an employment driver as the singularity approaches. Why not devote more social resources to nurturing the next generation? If jobs are going to be eliminated, then it is not an implausible idea that very inefficient jobs such as a home school of one could not become a new employment model. It would be a whole lot better than hundreds of millions of undirected people roaming the streets. Part of the school violence (and other school problems) has emerged precisely because an industrialized model of treating children has been adopted. A century ago when the world industrialized and factories were the destination of those in the educational system, it did not seem a bad choice to model schools on factories. However, the rationale for continuing to do so- when it is becoming increasingly unlikely that our industrialized economy has much existence left- is questionable. The rebuttal to school as a socializing force is that it is exactly the type of socialization that most parents would not want their children to have. Almost every school has problems surrounding drugs, violence etc. Taking away a perfect marketing platform for these social blights would be a public service in itself.

 

 

Introducing this topic onto the thread is very pertinent as the technology for an educational revolution is already in place. There is no longer any particular reason for things to continue on as they have always continued on than mere inertia.

It is a tremendous opportunity to start a completely new adventure. We already know what is expected to occur with the current structure. This could be the first stage of the transition to singularity. Even this first stage would have truly profound 

influences on the lives of children, communities and employment.

 

[mag1]

Am I the only one worried that the current events in Greece could be a run-through for what the rest of the world might face in the not too distant future (perhaps in less than 5 years)? Greece has a relatively small population in comparison to that of Europe, though it is still placing an enormous stress on the world financial system. What happens when every single nation on the planet is simultaneously confronting a singularity induced socio-financial crisis similar to that of Greece's today and there is no financial structure that is available to help?

 

Perhaps we should all start singing: "All we are saying is give Greece a chance."

Edited by mag1, 05 July 2015 - 12:46 AM.

[Mind]

Greece was living "beyond their means", meaning they were consuming more wealth than they were producing, meaning they promised/voted too many benefits for their population. In order to fulfill their promised pensions/benefits/welfare, they have been borrowing money. Now the bill is coming due. Every developed nation is in the same boat (trillions and trillions of dollars worth of debt, truly mind-boggling numbers). 

 

Any solutions besides "AGI and robots will save us all as we sing kumbaya living on a guaranteed basic income"?

 

The favorite solutions for voters and politicians throughout human history are printing money and more debt, which only serve to enrich those who are already wealthy while destroying the environment by assisting people in living beyond their means. These "solutions" are for the short-term thinkers and instant gratification-types, which is most people.

 

Declare bankruptcy or walk away from the debt. This would suffice if the new leaders did not get right back to borrowing/printing/spending, but rather dealt with the reality of "too many benefits and not enough wealth creation".

 

Get back too work, live with less, pay back the debt. Ha Ha Ha. First of all, most of the developed-world debt burden is probably too high to truly pay off in current dollars. Secondly, ha ha ha ha ha ha. Hardly anyone thinks they should have to work *hard* for a living nowadays.

 

Steal wealth from wealthy individuals and re-distribute. Sounds good, but does not work too good in practice. Also, there is not enough individual wealth to pay off the national debts.

 

It will be a bit rough between now and the future Matrix nirvana everyone seems to envision.

Edited by Mind, 05 July 2015 - 05:50 PM.

[mag1]

What I find so interesting is that a small nation in Europe can cause such a large shock to the global financial system. These small countries have always known that

they could run up the debts and the EU or other international organizations could be counted on to provide some assistance.

 

I just thought if the current problem with Greece has caused so much trouble, what happens when there is no lender of last resort? What happens when everyone is simultaneously attempting to cope with the singularity? Greece is now showing what could happen when the veneer of modern civilization is rubbed off. It is very frightening.

 

As has been pointed out, a global economic crisis could now be looming for the rest of the industrialized world. What happens for the rest of us in 4 years when transbotics goes on line? What happens when there are tens of millions of hungry, desperate unemployed people in our modern urbanized society? These people will not even have the ability to feed themselves!

 

Perhaps it is not so much kumbaya time as time to load up the family in the camper van and go back to the land! At least you would have something to eat. {This is exactly what people in Greece have noted in recent reports. The new aristocracy in Greece are farmers.}

 

Declaring bankruptcy seems like a very bad strategy. Markets never forget that, markets never forgive that.

[Kalliste]

Greece was living "beyond their means", meaning they were consuming more wealth than they were producing, meaning they promised/voted too many benefits for their population. In order to fulfill their promised pensions/benefits/welfare, they have been borrowing money. Now the bill is coming due. Every developed nation is in the same boat (trillions and trillions of dollars worth of debt, truly mind-boggling numbers). 

 

Any solutions besides "AGI and robots will save us all as we sing kumbaya living on a guaranteed basic income"?

 

The favorite solutions for voters and politicians throughout human history are printing money and more debt, which only serve to enrich those who are already wealthy while destroying the environment by assisting people in living beyond their means. These "solutions" are for the short-term thinkers and instant gratification-types, which is most people.

 

Declare bankruptcy or walk away from the debt. This would suffice if the new leaders did not get right back to borrowing/printing/spending, but rather dealt with the reality of "too many benefits and not enough wealth creation".

 

Get back too work, live with less, pay back the debt. Ha Ha Ha. First of all, most of the developed-world debt burden is probably too high to truly pay off in current dollars. Secondly, ha ha ha ha ha ha. Hardly anyone thinks they should have to work *hard* for a living nowadays.

 

Steal wealth from wealthy individuals and re-distribute. Sounds good, but does not work too good in practice. Also, there is not enough individual wealth to pay off the national debts.

 

It will be a bit rough between now and the future Matrix nirvana everyone seems to envision.

 

It is very possible that there exist no nice end to the current situation for humanity. I would not be surprised if the next decades were those of economic woes, global strife and hardships with no cowboy riding into the sunset, Come a few decades we will wake up one day to find our information systems non working, a few mins/hours/days later you notice weird cooling towers and solarpanels growing on the horizon moving towards you...

 

[niner]

It's funny, but lenders were lining up to give money to Greece prior to the crisis.  Maybe that's because the criminal enterprise known as Goldman Sachs helped Greece hide the true extent of its debt back in the 2000's.  This allowed them to skirt the EU debt limits, helping to create today's crisis.

 

 

As has been pointed out, a global economic crisis could now be looming for the rest of the industrialized world. What happens for the rest of us in 4 years when transbotics goes on line? What happens when there are tens of millions of hungry, desperate unemployed people in our modern urbanized society? These people will not even have the ability to feed themselves!

 

Here in America, many of those soon-to-be-hungry people are well-armed.  They probably won't be eating those bullets, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if people start trading bullets for food, as in "give me your food or I'll give you a couple of my bullets"...  I think that it profoundly behooves the 1% to see to it that we don't develop a lot of desperate starving people.

[mag1]

I think the problem lies in the fact that in modern industrialized society real economic value (i.e. necessities such as food) become so distant from the financial instruments which can be used to exchange for these necessities. So much of the modern economy is largely the fraud of ego boosting consumer consumption.

 

What I am worried about is that when the time arrives when people need things of real value, they will only have useless pieces of paper. In that context, what particular role would money have? The truly desperate might steal from those with money, though what could be bought with money? This seems to be unfolding in Greece. The money economy is grinding to a halt. The banks are shuttered, though people still have basic economic needs that need to be satisfied. How do people fulfill these needs in an urbanized landscape of steel and glass?

 

 

[niner]

I think the problem lies in the fact that in modern industrialized society real economic value (i.e. necessities such as food) become so distant from the financial instruments which can be used to exchange for these necessities. So much of the modern economy is largely the fraud of ego boosting consumer consumption.

 

What I am worried about is that when the time arrives when people need things of real value, they will only have useless pieces of paper. In that context, what particular role would money have? The truly desperate might steal from those with money, though what could be bought with money? This seems to be unfolding in Greece. The money economy is grinding to a halt. The banks are shuttered, though people still have basic economic needs that need to be satisfied. How do people fulfill these needs in an urbanized landscape of steel and glass?

 

I don't see any reason why a technological development that puts a lot of people out of work would have to cause money to become worthless.  Once we got rid of Alan Greenspan, who though that the free market would take care of everything and that asset bubbles were not dangerous, we have had a competent and responsible central bank.  As long as that situation maintains, and Congress doesn't take us over a fiscal cliff, we should have a pretty stable currency.  Greece is somewhat of a special case, and I don't think it's a reliable model for what might happen in other economies.

 

If a company replaces expensive drivers with robo-trucks, then the company will save money, otherwise they wouldn't do it.  If our politicians decide (on the basis of ideology that no longer applies) that the owners of the company should keep every penny they save by firing workers, and the former workers become wards of the state, then the remaining taxpayers will have to support all those unemployed workers.  An obvious solution is to require the company to do more to support their former employees, rather than fob the problem off on the taxpayers.  If that slows the adoption of robotrucks, so be it.  I think it would be better than roving bands of desperate, hungry, armed people, or a currency collapse caused by too much outgo and not enough revenue.

[Kalliste]

One of my quiet hopes is that a lot of stuff will become cheaper. I Think it was  the book Makers by Doctorow that inspired this line of thought. It would be a nice way for tech to help us while it is making us less employable. Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge is also along these lines, it takes place in the 2020's (starts out from the POV of a man with severe dementia as he is rescued by crude biotech repair-treatments which got me into the whole SENS thing   ) and it goes to show how a weird near-futureish economy could be both poor by our definitions but also infinitely much richer than most people can imagine. Both Makers and Rainbows End helped me become more positive about near future years.

 

By the way, the rich only needs to worry about poor people with guns for a relatively short period of time. In a decade or two I have no doubt money will be able to buy you quite a solid private drone army.