The fall or evolution from robot heaven to skyscraper view. On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:32 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think competition works as Don suggests. In business we are > urged to focus on the best customers and rid ourselves of the others. > > On 22 Sep, 12:36, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> We don't get to dictate the behavior of our neighbors but we can sue >> or move. We don't get the same care/benefits- it's arbitrary- based on >> our best information and ability to be covered or to pay. >> >> On Sep 20, 11:33 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:25:16 PM UTC-5, rigsy03 wrote: >> >> > > 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. >> >> > One can certainly enjoy sprucing up one's home or automobile or garden and >> > keep one self busy making sure our home appliances and robots are in good >> > working order. We have plenty of practice so we get quite good at these >> > chores that help ourselves and our families. But our neighbor prefers to >> > play video games and watch cooking shows on tv instead of being >> > industrious. Well that won't work because we are all "entitled" to the same >> > things, correct? So maybe I should go to my neighbor's house and work on >> > his robots and appliances and prune his trees and cut his grass for him. >> > This will, of course, require me to work much harder and the chores around >> > my living space will suffer for it but that's ok because we all deserve the >> > same benefits don't we? >> >> > Maybe not. >> >> > dj >> >> > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text - > > -- > > >
--
