Daniel Rocha, while I sympathize with your distress on human failings, I don't
agree with much of the picture you draw. I have lived in three countries,
visited much of the world for work and been around Africa half a dozen times.
I know very well what extreme poverty looks like. You really need to read some
detailed history of the world and the rise and fall of civilizations. I
recommend Durant's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lessons_of_History.
Power is always a mixture of good and bad. Despite being badly treated the
British colonies are arguably better off with some of Western technology than
if they had been left alone. The real problem is bad leaders with excessive
greed and wars. The American people voted in the present useless government.
Whose fault is that?
Communism doesn't work. It has been tried. Socialism is easy to get wrong and
doesn't take sufficient account of human behavior. A new political system will
be required for the coming age of robotics and AI. UBI is the best I have come
across: do you know of a better idea?
Sure, I wrote bout America that is rich enough to implement it. It will be a
disaster for poor countries as the need for cheap labor dies. I don't know of a
good solution for them with their governments so inept.. With luck both food
and energy will become cheap enough that not many will starve.
From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
To: John Milstone <email@example.com>
Sent: Sat, Oct 14, 2017 6:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.
Adrian, I am talking about the whole world. The rot began in in a few places,
in antiquity, when class society began. That is, ony part of the population got
the best slice of the pie. It's difficult for some of us who live in the 1st
world (I live in the 3rd) and never saw what it is abject poverty. Sure, in
absolute terms, indeed things improved, because there is internet, antibiotics,
for most. But improving is not enough, because that's not human nature to
accept inequality, despite the existence of hierarchies. This was never the
case in our evolution and those who are higher in power had actually to
personally respond to their community the reason of why they are there.
The higher the rate of inequality, the more you will have a tendency to have
violent society or the number of people in jail. It doesn't matter if you
prohibit drugs or not, if you control weapons or not, that's just all red
herring. The one who are poor, for generation, will always be in revolt and
attempting violent acts against the ones who are better off. If you deregulate
or regulate something, that won't matter for them, they will just change the
type of weapons or what is used to get stuff in "the easy way".
There is a tendency for people to be leaders, to collectively own some items
(pieces of land become such items when society becomes sedentary). There is a
tendency to fight for things which are important, to the point of death,
specially where there is scarcity. But, there is no justification for greed.
Some people are good managers or some have some type of talent, and eventually
ends up making other people to work for them. The product of such work,that is
money, ends up being owned by whoever commands the employees(it could be
master/slave, lord/serf, large share owner/employee). There is a systematic
to think that this is normal. But it is not. This is herd behavior akin to the
dismissal of cold fusion. It is a cultural domino effect.
I will give you a perspective of how things are progressively worse, on
relative terms, which leads to worse unsolvable contradictions. For the 170
years, there has rational justification for scarcity. When European colonial
powers laid down the telegraph under the oceans, they were able plan and to
enforce the extraction of raw materials in any part of the world. Before that,
that could only be done within the Americas, which was much closer, inhabited
by people with a much lower level of technology, in general. But this was the
beginning of a major contradiction, that is, it was possible to actually plan
the economy in a global level, an utopia could be actually built. Instead, the
opposite happened, an arms race started, large business were integrated to
governments because technological levels raised to a point when even mowing
down opponents was profitable enough to be justifiable.
This kept going until keeping colonies was too costly, after WWII, and the
awareness of the exploitation characteristic of colonization became too
apparent and fragile. But not without a rather small elite in each of this
countries appear. Unlike the 1st world, these were rather small and in absolute
terms, their middle class are in general at a poverty level of the 1st world.
If AI becomes powerful enough, there will not be anywhere to relay menial jobs.
To make matters worse, it seems clear that the sovereignty of any country can
only be maintained with a large barrage of nuclear weapons. I will give you an
example, in 1960, USA could assemble a nuke every few hours. Since 1991,
neither Russia nor USA get rid ofno more than 5 or 10% of the total fissile
material at the peak of cold war (fusion material is comparatively easier to
obtain, the difficulty is in design). There is enough right now to assemble
80,000 war heads. Probably much more, as warheads become more sophisticated and
yield decrease. You can send many more in a single missile, and do much more
The way I see it, is that we are living in the eye of a hurricane, as tensions
grow more and more. Cold fusion is the only way I see to ease all that, as it
would allow the discontents with the civilization, as it is now, to live well
in relative isolation.