Cyclone Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 We have the knowledge and the resources to now go that one last step and allow technology to do all of the mundane work This just isn't true. The manual jobs that still exist, exist because it's either not practical, not economical or simply not possible (given current technology) to automate them. There's an office of people sat here writing software. The reason we have jobs is because it's an intractable problem to write software that itself can analyse requirements and write software. People work in factories alongside automated tools to perform the jobs that can't be automated. We can't even get cars to drive themselves (which would allow the replacement of all kinds of commercial drivers, not to mention making my commute much easier). We have reached the point of some trains being driverless, but it needs to be planned in from the start, hence the DLR in London is driverless, but the Midland Mainline is not. Speaking of railway, machines are incapable of formulating plans for railway, they're also incapable of detailed planning about how to implement it, or indeed of going out and doing it. These problems aren't necessarily things we can never do, but they are currently beyond our capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
practitioner Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 Working is hard work and can be really boring. I don't think people should be made to work or made to feel bad about not working. They should be given a living wage and the people who do like to work hard should pay for it out of their taxes. Especially the "middle class". They don't need all that money anyway. People who don't work still like to drink, smoke, enjoy decent TV, sound and video gaming systems. Why do you want to deprive them of this pleasure by not giving them your money? People who don't work always seem to get a hard time from those who do work. It's not fair or very nice. Discuss. Honestly I 100% agree with the title of the thread, maybe not some of the contents of your post i.e the people who work shouldn't have to fund the people who don't want to work, but considering them people who dont want to work may say you have destroyed by natural resources for survivial maybe they should. Humans atleast in the UK, are told they have freedom lets be honest if animals had the thought capacity to they would laugh at us. The order we have in this country lets you do anything but live completely free. If a person wanted to live in their natural habitat in the UK that would involve hunting which would equal jail time, were puppets forced into an education then work. Great and original post - *subscribes and looks forward to going through it later on* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedders Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 Working is hard work and can be really boring. I don't think people should be made to work or made to feel bad about not working. They should be given a living wage and the people who do like to work hard should pay for it out of their taxes. Especially the "middle class". They don't need all that money anyway. People who don't work still like to drink, smoke, enjoy decent TV, sound and video gaming systems. Why do you want to deprive them of this pleasure by not giving them your money? People who don't work always seem to get a hard time from those who do work. It's not fair or very nice. Discuss. This towns not been the same since they introduced 'Care in the community'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted July 16, 2010 Author Share Posted July 16, 2010 whooo nelly calm down and please dont swear at me! it is indeed your choice and no i dont think your messed up it was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek my apologises if if you missunderstood. of course you dont think its flawed its your view/idea and you are entitled to it of course. same as i am entitled to look at it and ask and question and have a view of it aswell. however just because i disagree with it that doesnt make it wrong i have an open mind and am willing to look at it and respect your choice in beliveing it. this started because i asked a question which by the way you never anwsererd you just threw other arguments/comments at me. all ideas have to start somewhere BUT with all theorys they need testing and looking into too see errors or potential errors you know like trial and error. i dont want to argue with you it isnt my style i was merely pointing out a potential error in your plan that i asked you too look into and/or think about and then answer my question. p.s im not sure what your accussing me off in your end comment? I love you I have thought about what I said in the OP and have now decided I don't agree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 This just isn't true. The manual jobs that still exist, exist because it's either not practical, not economical or simply not possible (given current technology) to automate them. There's an office of people sat here writing software. The reason we have jobs is because it's an intractable problem to write software that itself can analyse requirements and write software. People work in factories alongside automated tools to perform the jobs that can't be automated. We can't even get cars to drive themselves (which would allow the replacement of all kinds of commercial drivers, not to mention making my commute much easier). We have reached the point of some trains being driverless, but it needs to be planned in from the start, hence the DLR in London is driverless, but the Midland Mainline is not. Speaking of railway, machines are incapable of formulating plans for railway, they're also incapable of detailed planning about how to implement it, or indeed of going out and doing it. These problems aren't necessarily things we can never do, but they are currently beyond our capabilities. I understand where you're coming from but I think you need to remember that at the moment our current projections are for a future that is essentially the same as our present but with improved technology. If we began now to reset that projection, if we put all of our consideration to transitioning to a stage where technology took over from human labour and money was to be eradicated then I think you'd find that we could make the changes/ improvements needed quite rapidly. Throughout the transition, as more young people continued in education (on a voluntary basis, learning what they wanted to learn) rather than entering the workforce, more and more brains would be focussed on solving each issue as it arose and you'd see an exponential rise in technological and practical improvements. As money was eradicated you'd also gradually see the Third World catch up with the west/ Asia and world society would become more balanced. High standards of education have been correlated with a lowering of birth rates so the world population would become more in tune with resource availability without need for draconian measures such as China's one child policy. I definately think this is a brighter prospective future than just thinking that we can continue to rape the world's resources for profit and to hell with the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 ^ quite nicely put Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dozy Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 I love you I have thought about what I said in the OP and have now decided I don't agree with it. You're very, very norty!!! But you did manage to hook quite a few posters, didn't you?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 Honestly I 100% agree with the title of the thread, maybe not some of the contents of your post i.e the people who work shouldn't have to fund the people who don't want to work, but considering them people who dont want to work may say you have destroyed by natural resources for survivial maybe they should. Humans atleast in the UK, are told they have freedom lets be honest if animals had the thought capacity to they would laugh at us. The order we have in this country lets you do anything but live completely free. If a person wanted to live in their natural habitat in the UK that would involve hunting which would equal jail time, were puppets forced into an education then work. Great and original post - *subscribes and looks forward to going through it later on* You may be interested in this short (15 mins) philosophical video that considers the idea of 'freedom' in capitalist society. I've posted it before, but it's so good (and interesting/ thought provoking) that I should probably post it on every thread It's by Stefan Molyneux and this is his main site which contains lots of similar short philosophical podcasts- http://www.freedomainradio.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123456A Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 I agree if people don't want to work they shouldn't get any support. They should be left to starve. Nooooo, they could eat grass. then we wouldn't have to pay council workers to cut the verges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 Why haven't robots been invented to do all the work so that humans can spend their time lazing by rivers, painting pictures and reciting love poetry? Tomorrow's World was promising something like this in the 70s What I would like to know is why haven't the technological improvements in labour saving devices resulted in a shorter working week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.