Bob, unlike Jed I do think your protectionist laws are plausible. And while at first blush I considered them very promising, I then saw a bunch of problems, and the largest problem as I see it is in a loss of productivity.
Ultimately robots are a offering a path away from scarcity and towards abundance. The only problem is that our methods of distribution are based around participation in production. As this stops being possible, so what is needed is not to find work for idle hands, but to find ways to distribute things freely. As such different models need to be discussed. Your model of robots earning money for a person has more flaws than the free money idea. So then the only real option is between free money, or some other concepts. Concepts which I might add have maybe not been sufficiently explored by humanity for a very long time if ever. Unlimited free stuff, just take it. Might not produce waste if people get over hoarding. Money might play little part in many peoples lives. Or An allotment of free stuff, hope it is enough to cover your needs. Maybe it is ultimately possible to have a society that doesn't abuse unlimited free stuff. The thing that is limited is land. John On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jed > > I was beginning to think your arguments were based on black or white, no > gray, in decision making regarding welfare and rights as to what you > consider rights. > > I am glad you recognize there are gray areas as to safety of some > things--water as you indicate. Water production--mining is controlled in > many states. In Alaska the State owns the ground and surface water. It > use is not controlled in many areas, but it can be controlled if the > general welfare is endangered because of its use and/or production. > > I maintain there are also gray areas in the desirability of robots. Some > are good and some are bad. The bad ones may be regulated in the future. > Even multifunctional robotic secretaries with good artificial intelligence > may become regulated to avoid making multifunctional natural secretaries > lose their jobs. > > I think it is clear from our previous discussion that you and I envision > the future differently, and this does not surprise me, since predicting the > future is not mundane. I would guess we might agree on this point. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 11:17 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? > > H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Nothing is inherently safe. >> Everything is potentially dangerous. >> Drinking water is toxic when too much is consumed. There is no such thing >> as "safe sex". >> Explosives are safe when used correctly and appropriately. >> > > But some things are a lot safer than others. Water is generally safe. > Explosives are always dangerous even when used correctly and appropriately. > You have to be very careful with them -- always alert and careful -- > whereas it is nearly impossible to cause harm with a glass of water. That > is why explosives are regulated and a glass of water is not. > > - Jed > >
