Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Sirus]

I was under the impression we already had teleoperation?

So far as I'm aware, yes. Sees particularly notable use in medical and military fields, that I'm aware of. Looks like we're starting to see an increase in civilian usage, even. Y'know, beyond RC cars and whatnot.

Read teleoperation as teleportation. Much confusion and excitement ensued.

[WealthyRadish]

Post scarcity doesn't strictly mean that it's just robots that do everything or it's all automated, it's more that people no longer need to work to live (or rather to live well). It's not that nobody will ever work, you can still have people working, but the fact that they're working would be voluntary. A person may work at a daycare because they like kids and want to buy some luxury, not because they'll be eating out of trashcans if they don't.

You also have to keep in mind that a good deal of the US economy is currently a fairly ridiculous circle jerk of service niches that can only be profitable in an environment of subsidies and low wages. And even then, labor is typically their highest expense.

Fast food is a good example... nobody would starve if every fast food joint in the country were closed, because their role is strictly about service and not food (well, the workers may starve, since they're already living in poverty). What they're providing is a place where you can buy pennies worth of crappy government subsidized food prepared by minimum wage workers (who are either in poverty, working 60 hours a week in multiple jobs, or dependents on someone else) without having to cook it yourself or wait 10-20 minutes. And hey, places like this can exist and make money. Are there better (more efficient, healthier, less labor intensive, less wasteful) ways of distributing food? Of course there are. But that method happens to be the most profitable, convenient, and marketable, so even though the food could be practically free people continue to pay 6 bucks for a shitty sandwich and drink as though they're getting a good deal. And then some of that 6 bucks (after the shareholder's cut and taxes to pay for all the wars that nobody seems to be aware of anyway) goes to pay the pathetic wages of the workers, who get to continue living. What a bargain.

And for as long as we live in this kind of an economic system, the emphasis will be on creating jobs! Creating new markets! Helping businesses employ more people! While actually, the reality is that these jobs are pointless economic stopgaps that conveniently fill a void where workers need to be doing something to live while the real economic heavy lifting (that makes everything of any importance possible) comes from near-slave labor overseas and militaristic protectionism of international markets dominated by US companies. The same can be said about most of the consumer tech industry, the financial industry, half the construction industry, the agricultural industries (specifically livestock feed and corn syrup production), and many others, each with their own flavor of madness. They're just building off each other on top of the already present foundation that most of our needs are met, and have been for half a century, and all that's left to keep the system going is consumerism, war, and political inertia propped up by those most profiting from it.

[Sergarr]

Also note that it would be quite hard to print brick or any other kind of stone...

It is too bad we don't have enough Tungsten to make a magma-based 3d printer.

Tungsten is a pretty bad materials for making things out of, because its oxide WO3 is volatile. Meanwhile it evaporates away at high temperatures.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, absolute step 1 is getting the nation to realize that jobs are a bad thing made necessary by the realities we have to deal with (and that many of those "realities" are political ones, not objective laws of nature). But, yeah, good fucking luck with that.

[Sergarr]

Yeah, absolute step 1 is getting the nation to realize that jobs are a bad thing made necessary by the realities we have to deal with (and that many of those "realities" are political ones, not objective laws of nature). But, yeah, good fucking luck with that.

Not to mention the problem of "overproduction".

There are two ways to solve the problem of factories getting too effective: artificially keep the productiveness down , or to miniaturize the equipment while maintaining the productiveness until everybody can afford to have one.

The "job creation" is the first way - and it will lead to the end of the world, if we don't stop it before it's too late.

[Frumple]

... is that a thing that actually happens? Last I checked when it reaches the point of needing to artificially keep productivity down in order to avoid having too much surplus, companies just start firing people.

Hell, that's a fair chunk of the reason the service industry in general even freaking exists. Didn't have anything to do because actual production work didn't need more people.

[Sergarr]

... is that a thing that actually happens? Last I checked when it reaches the point of needing to artificially keep productivity down in order to avoid having too much surplus, companies just start firing people.

Hell, that's a fair chunk of the reason the service industry in general even freaking exists. Didn't have anything to do because actual production work didn't need more people.

Why yes, I consider the service industry to be a method of artificially keeping the productiveness down.

And this is why it is wrong - it only delays the inevitable moment when the system breaks. And when a service economy breaks, it leaves millions of people without any productive skills. Hell, it already shows just how much that system is fucked up, if you look at how often the people working in service industry need the psychological help, anti-depressants and the like.

This is why we need to miniaturize the production facilities until everyone can afford one. It will solve so many problems.

[Lagslayer]

But that's just it. Everyone agrees on what would be a good idea, but nobody is sure how to actually make it work. To change how people think and interact on such a large scale, you have to rely on certain types of people to organize them, the good-natured, compitent, charismatic type. However, this sort of all-powerful position tends to attract certain other kinds of people, you know, the ones who are charismatic, but aren't above manipulating others to suit their own ends. While the good charismatic people tend not to manipulate and step all over people to get into these higher positions (because that would make them a living contradiction), the psychopaths have no problems with it. And if they are also good liars, then they have every advantage in getting it. The problem isn't the system, it's what every system inevitably attracts, and that's not so easy to fix. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Lord Shonus]

What would do a lot to improve things, if a way could be found to actually do it, would be to outlaw "cheap" products. (Note: There's a big difference between "cheap" and low-price.) A huge amount of resources are put into "smart"phones that are barely able to make calls, clothes that fall apart after a few washings, or cars that are plagued with serious mechanical problems within a year or two in an endless quest to bring the cost-per-unit down so that they can sell the things to people who normally wouldn't buy something of that nature due to cost, but if you can get the price just low enough they'll bite. This doesn't even count knock-off products of even lower quality. If we could set up minimum quality standards, not only would the environmental impact of technology be greatly reduced, but the average person would actually have more money in the long term because they wouldn't be forced to buy a new phone/replace the dishwasher/shell out for yet another car repair. In other words, a lot of low-cost consumer products are "false economy" in that their low initial price hides the much larger long-term cost.

[SalmonGod]

Glad to see this is progressing in roughly the right direction.

Yeah, the focus on automation as a requirement for post-scarcity is ridiculous.  We don't need to automate everything.  It isn't a requirement that nobody has to work.  This is because a majority of people actually like working, and there are even enough people who enjoy doing jobs normally seen as undesirable to get those done if infrastructure is focused on simply getting the job done without loads of extraneous bullshit. 

But our perspective is all fucked up.  Our infrastructure is designed to create unnecessary work.  While it is an elite class capitalist imperative to eliminate work and reduce costs, it's also a political imperative to create work.  There is severe and deliberate obstruction by workers to prevent progress that eliminates work, because they need it.  And the nature of capitalist relationships creates shitloads of extraneous bureaucracy.  So most people don't see just how much better we're currently capable of.  All the business world and customer service bullshit associated with operating for profit easily makes up 3/4 of the workload associated with what I do for a living.   And the demands on workers are so high because of extraneous bullshit that most cannot conceive of having the will to do anything productive with their free time, leading to the misconception that human beings are naturally lazy.

So automation isn't prerequisite, because there are more than enough people who will still want to work to produce the essential needs of society, whether in pursuit of extra luxuries or because they just want to.

But that's just it. Everyone agrees on what would be a good idea, but nobody is sure how to actually make it work. To change how people think and interact on such a large scale, you have to rely on certain types of people to organize them, the good-natured, compitent, charismatic type. However, this sort of all-powerful position tends to attract certain other kinds of people, you know, the ones who are charismatic, but aren't above manipulating others to suit their own ends. While the good charismatic people tend not to manipulate and step all over people to get into these higher positions (because that would make them a living contradiction), the psychopaths have no problems with it. And if they are also good liars, then they have every advantage in getting it. The problem isn't the system, it's what every system inevitably attracts, and that's not so easy to fix. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

This is the problem.  I firmly believe that we're not going to see progress until we acknowledge that our society is dominated by psychopaths and deal with that obstacle appropriately.  By collectively de-legitimizing existing power structures that are rotten to the core, and building new organizational structures that don't reward and promote psychopaths.

[Angle]

This is the problem.  I firmly believe that we're not going to see progress until we acknowledge that our society is dominated by psychopaths and deal with that obstacle appropriately.  By collectively de-legitimizing existing power structures that are rotten to the core, and building new organizational structures that don't reward and promote psychopaths.

That's the purpose of the idea's I've been promoting - to allow people to create an independent parallel economy where they can get out from under the thumb of the old system.

[SalmonGod]

I do think that the rise of an independent parallel is our only hope. It's impossible for reform to dig deep enough for the kind of change we need, especially without being reversed later, and direct revolution just isn't likely. The only thing is any parallel has to be immune to co-opting.

[Helgoland]

You guys are cute, going from 'no longer needing to work to live' to 'no longer needing to work to llive well' without even making an attempt to define what is 'well', what is a 'luxury', essentially, what is 'living'.

Because we can implement post-scarcity as you define it with $400 per person per year right now, as long as we're willing to accept a standard of living on par to that of the DRC.

[SalmonGod]

You guys are cute, going from 'no longer needing to work to live' to 'no longer needing to work to llive well' without even making an attempt to define what is 'well', what is a 'luxury', essentially, what is 'living'.

Because we can implement post-scarcity as you define it with $400 per person per year right now, as long as we're willing to accept a standard of living on par to that of the DRC.

Food, shelter, and some fundamental medicine and infrastructure.  Anything beyond that goes back to what I said before.

If people want a quality of life that is only attainable by a certain amount of contribution to society, then they will make that requisite contribution.  If they don't make that contribution, then that quality of life obviously wasn't so important to them.  If a minority want a certain quality of life that the majority isn't willing to work for, the majority is not morally obligated to provide it to them.

I don't understand why so much of political/economic theory comes down to "how can we force people to work".  This thinking seems completely wrong to me. 

People will work as much as they need to get what they want out of life.  Trying to design catches and leverages which force more than that is in my opinion completely immoral.

[smjjames]

You guys are cute, going from 'no longer needing to work to live' to 'no longer needing to work to llive well' without even making an attempt to define what is 'well', what is a 'luxury', essentially, what is 'living'.

Because we can implement post-scarcity as you define it with $400 per person per year right now, as long as we're willing to accept a standard of living on par to that of the DRC.

Which level of standard of living? the middle class? poorest of the poor? the rich?