Print

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

[Orange Wizard]

The whole point of a post-scarcity economy is that capitalism isn't the governing force any more. Those without jobs can be provided for because those with jobs and robots will be producing far more than is needed.
Taxes and a welfare state aren't impossibilities.

[penguinofhonor]

North Korea may have the ideal solution here. If all the intelligent people participated in farming or service jobs part time, society wouldn't have to have full time workers for these things. As everyone is intelligent, they will be able to perform their jobs better and more efficiently than an unintelligent person, and eventually invent ways to automate these tasks. And while they're on the job they'll be thinking about the universe and ideas that can help society instead of the next big curling game.

[Loud Whispers]

North Korea may have the ideal solution here. If all the intelligent people participated in farming or service jobs part time, society wouldn't have to have full time workers for these things. As everyone is intelligent, they will be able to perform their jobs better and more efficiently than an unintelligent person, and eventually invent ways to automate these tasks. And while they're on the job they'll be thinking about the universe and ideas that can help society instead of the next big curling game.

Nah what you need is the middle path, when the Buddha was starving to death he realized he couldn't actually think about anything other than starving to death.

The Buddha = first advocate of middle class capitalism

[mainiac]

Budha was stupid, he never once argued for the mechanization and consolidation of agriculture.

[LordBucket]

By my reading, nullBolt didn't mean anything even remotely close to that.  In his original mention of "potential" as quoted by you in this post, he was speaking about very general things like intelligence and the ability to reach shelves.

How do you measure such "general" traits as "intelligence" and "ability to do [whatever]" in a person? By comparing their behaviour with generally accepted standards of behaving "intelligently" or being "competent" at whatever task. Sounds perfectly objective, right? Right?

No. Have you forgotten that we live in a capitalist reality? If you inherit a billion dollars from your poppa and invest them in Google stocks, you'll be richer than any "intelligent" person who has ever "earned" their way by relying solely on their own inherent "abilities." And if you have a billion dollars, people will think that you're "smart," "competent," and "able" even if you're utterly incompetent and rock-stupid. Case in point: it starts with a "T" and rhymes with "rump."

If you think that people have innate value besides their objective economic value, you are a bad capitalist, shame on you.  If you are not a capitalist, why are we even having this argument?

I fail to see how these questions are a suitable response.


A: "I liek mudkipz."

B: "Isn't that unsanitary?"

A: "...no?"

B: "Does your threat ever get sore?"

A: "Dude, what are you talking about?"

B: "You said you like mud kips. Never heard of a kip made of mud, but eating anything made of mud seems like a terrible idea."

A: "No, 'mudkips.' It's a pokemon.


B now has a choice!


B response 1: "Oh. Ok."


B response 2: "Well, how do you eat pokemon, then? They're not even real! Have you forgotten we live in the real world, not some video game? If you somehow had a bunch of pokemon and ate them, you'd be stuck with lightning and fire effects going off inside your stomach. Much worse off than people who very reasonable stick to eating regular food. Plus, eating your pokemon would make you a bad pokemon trainer, shame on you. And if you don't eat your pokemon, why are we even having this argument? "


You chose option 2.

[wierd]

B sub 2)

depends on the pokemon. It may be possible to farm and consume plant type pokemon without killing them. Take for instance, mushroom based pokemon like cordyceps. Just keep feeding cordy, and cutting little bits off to stir fry.

EG, counter argument sub 2 begs the question when it makes bold, sweeping statements.

[Loud Whispers]

dude mudkips ayyy lmao

[penguinofhonor]

Was the preachy parable really necessary to tell someone they're not responding to the point you're making?

[sprinkled chariot]

No. Have you forgotten that we live in a capitalist reality? If you inherit a billion dollars from your poppa and invest them in Google stocks, you'll be richer than any "intelligent" person who has ever "earned" their way by relying solely on their own inherent "abilities." And if you have a billion dollars, people will think that you're "smart," "competent," and "able" even if you're utterly incompetent and rock-stupid. Case in point: it starts with a "T" and rhymes with "rump."

Oh yeah?

"Proverbs, the chapter 'never bend to envy.' I've had that thing all of my life where people are bending to envy."

Not until robots can legally inherit property.

The robots wont need to phase us out then, they'll just own us.

#checkmateatheists

Robot owner can introduce sense, reason and logic into your life.Master robot punching you, when you are illogical or inefficient is something every person needs. Also no more worrying, or you get punched!
Also no bad habits, sleep problems,  as you are too busy mining minerals for your robot owner, so he can make more robots, so he does not have to spend his time punching you.

[SirQuiamus]

I fail to see how these questions are a suitable response.

By my reading, nullBolt didn't mean anything even remotely close to [potential == the ability to make money]. In his original mention of "potential" as quoted by you in this post, he was speaking about very general things like intelligence and the ability to reach shelves.

My point is that your "very general things" == "the ability to make money."

Your argument is of the form: "This guy wasn't talking about A; he was obviously talking about A."

[wierd]

The truthfulness of that statement is found to be incorrect, when one encounters unintelligent agents successfully accruing money.

Take for instance, a bank account, held above the minimum balance, for any period of time.

[scrdest]

The truthfulness of that statement is found to be incorrect, when one encounters unintelligent agents successfully accruing money.

Either you're taking a piss, or you're secretly a politician.

[wierd]

And I would have gotten away with it too, if it werent for you meddling kids!




No, I was referring to how Mainiac mentioned that his interpretation of "general things" included such things as "intelligence."  A bank account is not capable of thought, or independent action, but is still capable of accumulating money.

Thus, there is a false equivalency in SirQuiamus's calculus.

[mainiac]

Who?

[wierd]

Sorry, quote attribution fail.

Should be LordBucket, not Mainiac. Sorry bro.