It is also the joy of work- accomplishment, etc. rather than competing- maybe you are testing your own skills or mastering your abilities to repair something, create something.
On Sep 20, 12:03 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Reminds me of the Fritz Lang classic Metropolis. Who's going to build and > repair and innovate the robots? Other robots? Haven't you seen "I, Robot" > or "Terminator?" There will always be greener grass somewhere and people > will "compete" to occupy it. If it's not Financially perhaps we will have > gladiatorial competitions to weed out the weak. Maybe we'll play chess for > favors. Maybe we'll keep building robots to fight for us and play chess for > us, I dunno. But we will always compete for what we want and we will always > WANT what we don't HAVE. Doesn't matter if we already have everything maybe > I want HER. Or HIM. Or that PARTICULAR view from that SPECIFIC condo or > whatever. I'm no sociologist but I'm pretty sure the compitition gene is > hardwired in the best of us and if we lose it we are doomed. I mean extinct > doomed. > > dj > > > > On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 4:56:36 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > Thought experiments are devices of the imagination used to investigate > > the nature of things. Thought experimenting often takes place when the > > method of variation is employed in entertaining imaginative > > suppositions. They are used for diverse reasons in a variety of areas, > > including economics, history, mathematics, philosophy, and physics. > > Most often thought experiments are communicated in narrative form, > > sometimes through media like a diagram. Thought experiments should be > > distinguished from thinking about experiments, from merely imagining > > any experiments to be conducted outside the imagination, and from > > psychological experiments with thoughts. They should also be > > distinguished from counterfactual reasoning in general, as they seem > > to require an experimental element. > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/ > > > One I like is the notion of robot heaven. It's easy enough to imagine > > a time when machines grow our food, build our shelter and do our > > work. The interesting stuff comes in thinking what this would mean > > for wealth distribution and the nature of society. What work would be > > left to do? One can also wonder what place any of our work ethics > > would have in such a society. There may be some deconstructive effect > > on just what current work ideologies are in place for. > > > One of the great improvements technology brought to my life is more or > > less never having to go into a bank. The only real innovations in > > banking are the ATM and electronic banking. This kind of technology > > and similar in agriculture and industry fundamentally reduce the > > amount of human effort to grow and make what we need. We are in > > partial state of robot heaven. > > > Our ideologies are not up to speed. Real unemployment is massive and > > education does little to provide job skills. We are sold life-styles > > and products by insane advertising. Job creation seems to be in > > perverse areas like financial services or bringing back attended gas- > > pumps. With more efficient production we should be able to afford a > > bigger social sector and I can't for the life of me understand why we > > allow competition through crap wages and conditions. > > > A great deal of what we pay for could be available more or less free. > > Educational content and utility banking are examples - these are areas > > that could be ratinalised like agriculture and manufacturing. > > Millions of jobs would go. We should be asking why jobs are so > > central to out thinking on wealth distribution and how we might > > encourage work without the rat race.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --
