IAchilleasI Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 Provide sources for your OP, at the moment it's just your point of view! NOT fact! You are seriously doubting that technological unemployment is going the wipe out labour as we know it? You need a source to tell you that this system survives on infinite growth to realise it? Well, let me indulge you. First of all, take a look around you. When you turn your TV on, politicians and economists will tell you "The economy grew by X% this quarter, we are recovering from recession". So there's your first hint that growth and GDP is the sole measure of progress. http://www.businessinsider.com/commodities-boom-2011-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/we-cant-keep-growing-like-this-2012-2 http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/getting-ready-for-the-end-of-growth-on-earth.ars On technological unemployment: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/technology/economists-see-more-jobs-for-machines-not-people.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-10/robots-are-stealing-american-jobs-economists-say http://www.good.is/post/automation-insurance-robots-are-replacing-middle-class-jobs/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 You are seriously doubting that technological unemployment is going the wipe out labour as we know it? You need a source to tell you that this system survives on infinite growth to realise it? Well, let me indulge you. First of all, take a look around you. When you turn your TV on, politicians and economists will tell you "The economy grew by X% this quarter, we are recovering from recession". So there's your first hint that growth and GDP is the sole measure of progress. http://www.businessinsider.com/commodities-boom-2011-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/we-cant-keep-growing-like-this-2012-2 http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/getting-ready-for-the-end-of-growth-on-earth.ars On technological unemployment: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/technology/economists-see-more-jobs-for-machines-not-people.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-10/robots-are-stealing-american-jobs-economists-say http://www.good.is/post/automation-insurance-robots-are-replacing-middle-class-jobs/ So everything is getting worse? What about medicine, education, technology, food production, etc, etc... Yes a recession is most easily studied by looking at the GDP. In the end, yes technology is and will remove the need for humans to do the same tasks, but by that point the concept of work will be moot, as so will money. Going back to the bullet points in the OP, if you were to remove money from that equation, but instead replace it with human ingenuity and passion, then there would still be cyclical consumption and the rest. Artificial Scarcity would also still need to exist to maintain order and balance, to avoid over consumption generally or to be used by a single entity to form a monopoly. i.e. if you remove your rule it will allow the rule to be 'sold' / 'given' to another party (whom you hopefully trust is as benevolent as the original owner (even if that is an international single state)) P.S. We need a solution to use inside the box, if you play outside the box then their just ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Greetings everyone ... I am a member of the Occupy Movement and the Zeitgeist Movement. Before you start calling me names, please read what I have to say. ... These are but some of the identifiable problems that exist today. I could add more, but this post is long enough. I look forward to your feedback. Having a number of friends in SF I have been sent a fair bit on the Zeitgeist Movement, but really wasn't sold on the film, thought it was detrimental in fact! Could you please supply a single reference here which may sway my personal internal debate on the subject? (I promise not to ask questions, in this thread anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 So everything is getting worse? What about medicine, education, technology, food production, etc, etc... Yes a recession is most easily studied by looking at the GDP. No, everything isn't getting worse. On a scientific and technological level we are evolving exponentially whilst on a social level we have stagnated. That is the crux of the issue. In the end, yes technology is and will remove the need for humans to do the same tasks, but by that point the concept of work will be moot, as so will money. Hopefully, it will and that is what my whole argument revolves around. "But by that point", which point is that I wonder. How does a system that necessitates monetary exchange for products and labour transition into something that doesn't, whilst not collapsing in the process or at least not rendering itself obsolete? Going back to the bullet points in the OP, if you were to remove money from that equation, but instead replace it with human ingenuity and passion, then there would still be cyclical consumption and the rest. Money wouldn't replace anything because it is not required. Money today is an unnecessary middle man. I don't think you understand what cyclical consumption is. If you remove the exchange of goods and the need to work, then cyclical consumption doesn't exist any more since no one profits from their labour or the goods they produce. Artificial Scarcity would also still need to exist to maintain order and balance, to avoid over consumption generally or to be used by a single entity to form a monopoly. i.e. if you remove your rule it will allow the rule to be 'sold' / 'given' to another party (whom you hopefully trust is as benevolent as the original owner (even if that is an international single state)) Artificial scarcity has nothing to do with dynamic equilibrium (order and balance as you put it). Artificial scarcity aims to restrain abundance to increase profitability. Nothing to do with preservation. P.S. We need a solution to use inside the box, if you play outside the box then their just ideas. I, on the other hand, believe that we cannot solve problems with the same thinking that created them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 Having a number of friends in SF I have been sent a fair bit on the Zeitgeist Movement, but really wasn't sold on the film, thought it was detrimental in fact! I assume you're referring to Zeitgeist: Moving Forward? Could you please supply a single reference here which may sway my personal internal debate on the subject? (I promise not to ask questions, in this thread anyway) You could begin with this video . I doubt any one source would convince you. If you're interested though, there are follow-up lectures to this one that explore solutions, amongst other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 No, everything isn't getting worse. On a scientific and technological level we are evolving exponentially whilst on a social level we have stagnated. That is the crux of the issue. Other than your soon to run out Moores law, what else is proven to be evolving exponentially? And how fast does this next gen technology seep down to the rest of the world? Hopefully, it will and that is what my whole argument revolves around. "But by that point", which point is that I wonder. How does a system that necessitates monetary exchange for products and labour transition into something that doesn't, whilst not collapsing in the process or at least not rendering itself obsolete? Because everything has value, even if it isn't matter. Money wouldn't replace anything because it is not required. Money today is an unnecessary middle man. I don't think you understand what cyclical consumption is. If you remove the exchange of goods and the need to work, then cyclical consumption doesn't exist any more since no one profits from their labour or the goods they produce. So everyone does absolutely everything for themselves? Can't I pop into that family bakers down t' road, their expertise in buns goes back for centuries... mmm I think you are being to idealist, to the point of ridiculous. Artificial scarcity has nothing to do with dynamic equilibrium (order and balance as you put it). Artificial scarcity aims to restrain abundance to increase profitability. Nothing to do with preservation. So it's ok if it's not for a direct monetary gain, any other reason is al-right though? Is anything to have a difference in value, surely a little dampening is required for such a vast system. I, on the other hand, believe that we cannot solve problems with the same thinking that created them. Being a programmer I like to solve things with rational logic, from a mathematical standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I assume you're referring to Zeitgeist: Moving Forward? You could begin with this video . I doubt any one source would convince you. If you're interested though, there are follow-up lectures to this one that explore solutions, amongst other things. I was referring to the movement YOU wrote of, not the definition of the word (i.e. it also applies to those who could assign themselves to such a title, but not the movement you wrote of!) Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is on, so i'll have to watch that later, but it sounds familiar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 Other than your soon to run out Moores law, what else is proven to be evolving exponentially? And how fast does this next gen technology seep down to the rest of the world? Exponential or not, it is evolving and that's all that counts. Doesn't really matter how fast it seeps down, eventually it does. Because everything has value, even if it isn't matter. I don't see how that answers the question. So everyone does absolutely everything for themselves? I thought you'd researched the movement. I was arguing from the assumption that you are aware of a Resource Based Economy which is far from what you're talking about. So it's ok if it's not for a direct monetary gain, any other reason is al-right though? Preservation does not restrain abundance and it operates under the limits of the carrying capacity of the environment. Try not to jump on everything I say and twist it to suit your argument. Is anything to have a difference in value, surely a little dampening is required for such a vast system. What does this completely arbitrary notion have anything to do with the natural world? What is this value you speak of? Monetary value? Being a programmer I like to solve things with rational logic, from a mathematical standpoint. "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Rational logic is useless without the sufficient knowledge and evidence. I've provided you with sources and arguments of how the current system cannot carry on indefinitely. Where is your evidence to suggest that it can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 I was referring to the movement YOU wrote of, not the definition of the word (i.e. it also applies to those who could assign themselves to such a title, but not the movement you wrote of!) I have no idea what you're talking about. Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is the title of the third film. I was asking if this is the film you watched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Exponential or not, it is evolving and that's all that counts. Doesn't really matter how fast it seeps down, eventually it does. So you are using the word willy nilly and not as actual fact, thanks for answering that one clearly! I don't see how that answers the question. LOL, for example, a teacher has value and is worth something due to their particular skill. To survive they will require more than what they get just from teaching, hence dependence on others and some form of trade. But that teacher has value in exchange for these goods. I thought you'd researched the movement. I was arguing from the assumption that you are aware of a Resource Based Economy which is far from what you're talking about. Nay lad! Preservation does not restrain abundance and it operates under the limits of the carrying capacity of the environment. Try not to jump on everything I say and twist it to suit your argument. Unlike you, BTW, that's not jumping LOL! What does this completely arbitrary notion have anything to do with the natural world? What is this value you speak of? Monetary value? Arbitrary, you want to remove it and think it's as simple as that. "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Rational logic is useless without the sufficient knowledge and evidence. I've provided you with sources and arguments of how the current system cannot carry on indefinitely. Where is your evidence to suggest that it can? That we are here and that no moneyless socialist states don't exist. Q. Are you American? You certainly have a lot of blind faith in your notion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.