Page 1 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

07 Apr 2014, 3:44 pm

People always tell me that if I don't like the way things are; I should just get used to it. They say I need to be more realistic.

I'm trying to be constructive, and your standing in the way of progress. Shouldn't we be organizing?



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sve3IxGbdsw[/youtube]

You can sit idly will while the resources get depleted. Billions of people are going to starve. The one percent will also starve after the workers are gone. NASA; the mainstream of the mainstream has came out and warned us about this.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... scientists

Capitalism is a recipe for collective suicide. You would rather wait for civilization to be terminated, than to question right now?



emtyeye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,421
Location: Inner space

07 Apr 2014, 6:15 pm

Question away, my friend! Does not bother me one bit!



Buttercup
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2012
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 203

11 Apr 2014, 11:42 am

Yes, we should be organizing!
That's what amino acids do, get organized and change the World.
Cooperation helps in putting this World in MANual control.
Because I do not think God is fixing the Core problem.
He might be a drama junkie?
Phyre



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

12 Apr 2014, 4:00 pm

I hate videos, so excuse me for the lack of patience when spending 10 minutes on an amount of detail that'd probably take me 1 minute to understand and process in most other mediums.

Here's the issues I end up seeing here:
1) NASA didn't make study. NASA funded some other people who made the study, and the study that these other people made was really a mathematical modelling that may or may not be true. They based their notions on predator-prey models that a lot of people may simply find strong reason to doubt are really reflective of how the world works. It was very abstract modelling, of the sort that really preys upon cognitive biases more than proves it's case.(So, a lot of people talk about the unrealism of neoclassical modelling, but this was probably even less focused on realism.)

2) These issues are inevitably complicated. Replacing capitalism is a solution that has been tried by other nations, and largely it failed. Without a full analysis of failure, it is utterly foolish to jump onto another solution that might screw things up worse. So, the USSR actually had a more unequal society than the US did. As it stands, there are a number of lines of evidence leading us to a pro-capitalist answer to why non-capitalist societies did not flourish during the Cold War:

a) Switches from communism to capitalism have been successful without regime change. So, China prior to capitalism was not as known for it's economic success. The switch from communism to capitalism was, however, implemented by the Chinese communist party under the reign of Deng Xiaopeng, and following this, China started experiencing economic growth. If the matter was just corrupt governments, we should not assume that the story of the Chinese government would be plausible.

b) Due to the political nature of many proposed non-capitalist systems, the politics of these systems are very likely to doom them to failure. Politics has a habit of dominating efficiency, and even the US and other capitalist nations suffer from milder versions of this problem.

c) Due to the non-market nature of these other social organization forms, there is reason to suspect that they are unlikely to take in information as efficiently as a price system does in a capitalist society. Prices are weightings across the whole of an economy to determine where resources should go, and are difficult to impossible to calculate abstractly without using emergent systems to do the work for one.

3) Any possible gains from a non-capitalist system would have to be offset by the inevitability of a civil war, if not even world war, that would be involved with the "communist revolution". People will not agree that the non-capitalist solution is right. Social movements are not likely to wait for consensus politics on issues this weighty. There is some chance that an ideological revolutionary movement could be met with an ideological backlash. The problems of a war and it's aftermath may actually be worse than the problems within the system originally. So, there is some sense where a lot of us may feel like tweaking and modifying existing institutions is the only real option, even if we did happen to dislike capitalism or think it is deeply flawed.



Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 13 Apr 2014, 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

salamandaqwerty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,378

12 Apr 2014, 5:51 pm

Buttercup wrote:
Yes, we should be organizing!
That's what amino acids do, get organized and change the World.
Cooperation helps in putting this World in MANual control.
Because I do not think God is fixing the Core problem.
He might be a drama junkie?
Phyre


:lol: I can't shake the image of god sitting on a sofa with some popcorn, eyes glued to channel earth.

I can't watch the bid because my net connection is clunky. How do you propose we change the world? You might find that the core group of any revolution are at heart not much different than the dicks with all the power at the moment.


_________________
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does


RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

12 Apr 2014, 7:06 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I hate videos, so excuse me for the lack of patience when spending 10 minutes on an amount of detail that'd probably take me 1 minute to understand and process in most other mediums.

I believe it's a good explanation why reformism can't work.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Here's the issues I end up seeing here:
1) NASA didn't make study. NASA funded some other people who made the study, and the study that these other people made was really a mathematical modelling that may or may not be true. They based their notions on predator-prey models that a lot of people may simply find strong reason to doubt are really reflective of how the world works. It was very abstract modelling, of the sort that really preys upon cognitive biases more than proves it's case.(So, a lot of people talk about the unrealism of neoclassical modelling, but this was probably even less focused on realism.)

I won't pretend to know much about the math.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
2) These issues are inevitably complicated. Replacing capitalism is a solution that has been tried by other nations, and largely it failed. Without a full analysis of failure, it is utterly foolish to jump onto another solution that might screw things up worse. So, the USSR actually had a more unequal society than the US did. As it stands, there are a number of lines of evidence leading us to a pro-capitalist answer to why non-capitalist societies did not flourish during the Cold War:

Humans are unfit to rule over others. People are corruptible. You put a minority in power and they will abuse it. It's not hard to understand the failure of capitalism and marxism. Leninists wish to bring about a political vanguard that is supposed to lead the proletariat. During the revolution this vanguard is supposed to take control of the state. But in doing so they become the tyranny they claim to fight against.

Leninism is counter-revolutionary force.

Anarchists do not want to take control of the state, we want to dismantle it. We do not want resources held by state. We want resources managed in common.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
a) Switches from communism to capitalism have been successful without regime change. So, China prior to capitalism was not as known for it's economic success. The switch from communism to capitalism was, however, implemented by the Chinese communist party under the reign of Deng Xiaopeng, and following this, China started experiencing economic growth. If the matter was just corrupt governments, we should not assume that the story of the Chinese government would be plausible.

Rapid economic growth is terrible for the environment. I am not a marxist.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
b) Due to the political nature of many proposed non-capitalist systems, the politics of these systems are very likely to doom them to failure. Politics has a habit of dominating efficiency, and even the US and other capitalist nations suffer from milder versions of this problem.

Anarchism is the epitome of anti-politics.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
c) Due to the non-market nature of these other social organization forms, there is reason to suspect that they are unlikely to take in information as efficiently as a price system does in a capitalist society. Prices are weightings across the whole of an economy to determine where resources should go, and are difficult to impossible to calculate abstractly without using emergent systems to do the work for one.

The price mechanism does not enforce any kind of sustainable yield. In a non-market system you can have direct communication between the consumer and producer. Everyone can participate in consumer councils. In capitalism you have companies and consumers waging war with each other, which means lots of goods getting displaced in the process.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
3) Any possible gains from a non-capitalist system would have to be offset by the inevitability of a civil war, if not even world war, that would be involved with the "communist revolution". People will not agree that the non-capitalist solution is right. Social movements are not likely to wait for consensus politics on issues this weighty. There is some chance that an ideological revolutionary movement could be met with an ideological backlash. The problems of a war and it's aftermath may actually be worse than the problems within the system originally. So, there is some sense where a lot of us may feel like tweaking and modifying existing institutions is the only real option, even if we did happen to dislike capitalism or think it is deeply flawed.

Capitalism already created the conditions for revolt. It's an anti-human system. If it was natural, there would be no struggle. There would be no labour movement.

Even if civil war was the only way to end capitalism, it's still a better scenario than what theses guys are predicting. Waiting for a collapse of civilization would bring humanity near extinction.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

12 Apr 2014, 11:07 pm

RushKing wrote:
Anarchists do not want to take control of the state, we want to dismantle it. We do not want resources held by state. We want resources managed in common.

Right... and as solutions go, it is very very very untested for large scale social organization, where many people have legitimate reason to feel that it is not likely to work.

Quote:
Rapid economic growth is terrible for the environment. I am not a marxist.

And no economic growth is terrible for the people of the situation.

Quote:
Anarchism is the epitome of anti-politics.

Great to say, but... in practice there would be reasons to have questions and/or doubts. Anti-politics isn't a viable solution either, so the corruption of markets by politics is driven by the fundamental need for political resolutions.

Quote:
The price mechanism does not enforce any kind of sustainable yield. In a non-market system you can have direct communication between the consumer and producer. Everyone can participate in consumer councils. In capitalism you have companies and consumers waging war with each other, which means lots of goods getting displaced in the process.

Ha. Probably not. I mean, in a market system there is a very direct form of communication: buy or not buy. Outside of this, it gets tricky and inevitably political. Also, it's hard for me to see any sort of council as being very likely to represent all people well, or to avoid political alliances outright.

Quote:
Capitalism already created the conditions for revolt. It's an anti-human system. If it was natural, there would be no struggle. There would be no labour movement.

All systems are anti-human systems. I mean, every past system has placed a boot on the face of humanity to a far larger degree than capitalism ever has. The notion that a system could be "natural" itself seems unnatural.

Quote:
Even if civil war was the only way to end capitalism, it's still a better scenario than what theses guys are predicting. Waiting for a collapse of civilization would bring humanity near extinction.

Except that a civil war would also likely bring humanity to a situation of extinction and.... frankly, you probably can't actually evaluate the cases made. So, you cited the NASA study as an appeal to authority, but you had no idea how the study worked, how valid the study was, whether you really should or shouldn't trust it, or any detail like that. And the problem is that highly speculative claims about the demise of mankind are significantly more common than the demise of mankind.



Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

13 Apr 2014, 5:47 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I hate videos, so excuse me for the lack of patience when spending 10 minutes on an amount of detail that'd probably take me 1 minute to understand and process in most other mediums.

Here's the issues I end up seeing here:
1) NASA didn't make study. NASA funded some other people who made the study, and the study that these other people made was really a mathematical modelling that may or may not be true. They based their notions on predator-prey models that a lot of people may simply find strong reason to doubt are really reflective of how the world works. It was very abstract modelling, of the sort that really preys upon cognitive biases more than proves it's case.(So, a lot of people talk about the unrealism of neoclassical modelling, but this was probably even less focused on realism.)
2) These issues are inevitably complicated. Replacing capitalism is a solution that has been tried by other nations, and largely it failed. Without a full analysis of failure, it is utterly foolish to jump onto another solution that might screw things up worse. So, the USSR actually had a more unequal society than the US did. As it stands, there are a number of lines of evidence leading us to a pro-capitalist answer to why non-capitalist societies did not flourish during the Cold War:
a) Switches from communism to capitalism have been successful without regime change. So, China prior to capitalism was not as known for it's economic success. The switch from communism to capitalism was, however, implemented by the Chinese communist party under the reign of Deng Xiaopeng, and following this, China started experiencing economic growth. If the matter was just corrupt governments, we should not assume that the story of the Chinese government would be plausible.
b) Due to the political nature of many proposed non-capitalist systems, the politics of these systems are very likely to doom them to failure. Politics has a habit of dominating efficiency, and even the US and other capitalist nations suffer from milder versions of this problem.
c) Due to the non-market nature of these other social organization forms, there is reason to suspect that they are unlikely to take in information as efficiently as a price system does in a capitalist society. Prices are weightings across the whole of an economy to determine where resources should go, and are difficult to impossible to calculate abstractly without using emergent systems to do the work for one.
3) Any possible gains from a non-capitalist system would have to be offset by the inevitability of a civil war, if not even world war, that would be involved with the "communist revolution". People will not agree that the non-capitalist solution is right. Social movements are not likely to wait for consensus politics on issues this weighty. There is some chance that an ideological revolutionary movement could be met with an ideological backlash. The problems of a war and it's aftermath may actually be worse than the problems within the system originally. So, there is some sense where a lot of us may feel like tweaking and modifying existing institutions is the only real option, even if we did happen to dislike capitalism or think it is deeply flawed.



Walls of text are hard to read.

For ground-up forms of organisation to become viable requires some serious investment into life-long public education in matters such as civics and public relations. The impetus for this will not come from the corporatised state. It looks like the capitalists might f**k everything and send us back to the stone age, so it's a good time to think about this stuff. Still, I would prefer social-democracy, which is capitalism modified to serve the public interest, because unlike anarchism, it doesn't require the general public to be able to think its way out of a paper bag (an iffy proposition), and we're sort of at the tail end of it so we know that it works. Greed, globalisation and cronyism have all but killed social democracy unfortunately.



Last edited by Stannis on 13 Apr 2014, 11:28 am, edited 3 times in total.

RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

13 Apr 2014, 11:01 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Right... and as solutions go, it is very very very untested for large scale social organization, where many people have legitimate reason to feel that it is not likely to work.

Anarchy is not a blueprint, it's a process. In anarchy if something doesn't work we can try different approaches. Western "democracies" are not flexible. In capitalism; power flows downward rather than upward. Anarchist federalism has been practiced in revolutionary periods, and it worked.
Quote:
And no economic growth is terrible for the people of the situation.

In a decentrally planned economy people would no longer be required to produce and market useless crap to live. You are thinking within the current paradigm.
Quote:
Great to say, but... in practice there would be reasons to have questions and/or doubts. Anti-politics isn't a viable solution either, so the corruption of markets by politics is driven by the fundamental need for political resolutions.

Bureacracy is terrible. We don't need more of it. We need less of it. People are corruptible.
Quote:
Ha. Probably not. I mean, in a market system there is a very direct form of communication: buy or not buy. Outside of this, it gets tricky and inevitably political. Also, it's hard for me to see any sort of council as being very likely to represent all people well, or to avoid political alliances outright.

I was talking about multiple councils, and now your talking about a single monolithic one. We can have multiple councils communicating with producers and distributors. In a market system people are manipulated by propaganda (advertisements/public relations); which is a another waste by the way. People don't have enough information to "vote" on the things they buy. On top of that, people don't have the same amount of money, so it really isn't democracy. This dollar democracy argument is ridiculous. Markets are anti-democratic.
Quote:
All systems are anti-human systems. I mean, every past system has placed a boot on the face of humanity to a far larger degree than capitalism ever has. The notion that a system could be "natural" itself seems unnatural.

Egalitarian societies were way more natural, and people were more happy too. If we were egalitarian for a longer period of time (which is true), than egalitarianism is more natural.
Quote:
Except that a civil war would also likely bring humanity to a situation of extinction and.... frankly, you probably can't actually evaluate the cases made. So, you cited the NASA study as an appeal to authority, but you had no idea how the study worked, how valid the study was, whether you really should or shouldn't trust it, or any detail like that. And the problem is that highly speculative claims about the demise of mankind are significantly more common than the demise of mankind.

States claim the lives of more people than any group of anarchists. The governments are the terrorists. And I can't point to any group of anarchists trying to take over a government. Your are supporting an institution that produces war and genocide. States are not peaceful, they are militaries controlled by administrations.

People forget the Russian revolution was peaceful. Revolutions are not always violent.



RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

13 Apr 2014, 12:33 pm

Stannis wrote:
Still, I would prefer social-democracy, which is capitalism modified to serve the public interest, because unlike anarchism, it doesn't require the general public to be able to think its way out of a paper bag (an iffy proposition), and we're sort of at the tail end of it so we know that it works. Greed, globalisation and cronyism have all but killed social democracy unfortunately.

So you admit government can't think itself out of it's own paper bag? In social democracy politicians would still depend on economic growth. They can't remove themselves from capitalism.



Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

13 Apr 2014, 6:15 pm

RushKing wrote:
Stannis wrote:
Still, I would prefer social-democracy, which is capitalism modified to serve the public interest, because unlike anarchism, it doesn't require the general public to be able to think its way out of a paper bag (an iffy proposition), and we're sort of at the tail end of it so we know that it works. Greed, globalisation and cronyism have all but killed social democracy unfortunately.

So you admit government can't think itself out of it's own paper bag? In social democracy politicians would still depend on economic growth. They can't remove themselves from capitalism.


What I was getting at is that in order for ground up democracy to have any meaning requires the participants to take an active interest in civics and whatnot. As it stands, an active interest in the way our society functions is a fringe obsession. And, to the extent that the interest is there, it tends to be blighted by corporate media muddlement.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

13 Apr 2014, 6:57 pm

Working to make one thing a little better seems like a good path for me. I have heard and imagined lots of doomsday scenarios, but none have happened yet. Mostly, things just keep going the way they have, and I've had a lot of chances to avoid the various disasters that I've endured in my life so far.

Our biggest enemies, IMO, are extremism, apathy, and contempt, in no particular order.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

13 Apr 2014, 7:09 pm

RushKing, for the most part I agree with you and I'm on your side. The problem is most people at least in the US care more about Kim Kardashian's tooshie then about anything political at all. A lot people in the US don't want to take down the rich they want to become the rich. They want to live and play in a hustling based environment like a monopoly game.

The USA is done my friend and the truth is the only way out is for this capitalistic system to play itself out. This is one out of many reasons OWS failed and went defunct.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

13 Apr 2014, 11:44 pm

RushKing wrote:
Anarchy is not a blueprint, it's a process. In anarchy if something doesn't work we can try different approaches. Western "democracies" are not flexible. In capitalism; power flows downward rather than upward. Anarchist federalism has been practiced in revolutionary periods, and it worked.

But saying "it's a process" solves no practical problems of implementation. Even further, societies aren't so flexible that we can continually implement trial and error to major questions. You know how it's easy to order what you want on a pizza for 1 person, rather difficult to get agreement between 3 people, well imagine millions of people and trying to get agreement between the entire mess? It's not easy, and truth be told, maybe not even doable. I realize that this issue can be complicated, but we're dealing with a completely untested ideology against a system that actually works to some extent, and in a world where nobody really understands things well enough to just say "Ok, we're implementing THIS social system" at one day and expect it to work, and where to the extent we know how the world works, there is cause to be cynical and skeptical.

Quote:
In a decentrally planned economy people would no longer be required to produce and market useless crap to live. You are thinking within the current paradigm.

That these people wouldn't need economic growth/improvement? No, that seems pretty basic that their economic situation is bad and that they need growth/improvement. Even further, in a decentrally planned economy, it seems the problems of selling one's wares would be even worse. If no central committee is advocating for you, or organizing the conditions of your payment on your behalf, then it stands on you to sell yourself, politically or economically, or to starve, it would seem like. I mean, I realize that these issues can be complicated, but I'm not sure that we're talking about real solutions right now, or that reinventing an entire political/social/economic/legal system is a real option.

Quote:
Bureacracy is terrible. We don't need more of it. We need less of it. People are corruptible.

Bureaucracy is terrible AND essential. Every large system has bureaucracy, both corporate and governmental, and the role of this is to standardize procedures and thus increase the efficiency and/or stability and/or political acceptability of these processes. To say something like "bureaucracy is terrible" suggests a failure to reason through bureaucracy as a social structure and to appreciate that it was incorporated into society for reasons.

Quote:
I was talking about multiple councils, and now your talking about a single monolithic one. We can have multiple councils communicating with producers and distributors. In a market system people are manipulated by propaganda (advertisements/public relations); which is a another waste by the way. People don't have enough information to "vote" on the things they buy. On top of that, people don't have the same amount of money, so it really isn't democracy. This dollar democracy argument is ridiculous. Markets are anti-democratic.

Would it matter how many councils? No matter how it plays out, there is going to be politics involved there. Either the politics of one council per task, or the politics of bypassing the inevitable deadlocks of a multi-council system for each task.

I'm not sure that people are such stooges that we should consider them manipulated by advertisements and unable to make their own choices, and even if THEY ARE so easily manipulated, then I'm not sure we could trust them to run their lives in any sort of democratic way either. If the human mind is this weak, then this does give us reason to doubt a democratic pressure for any process and/or placing an emphasis on greater empowerment to the people.

Markets are democratically complex. They weight certain people more than others. They involve feedback processes between buyers and sellers. As strange as it seems, markets are somehow *more* democratic than democracy in that the responses are more direct, while still openly being elitist and crass in many ways.

Quote:
Egalitarian societies were way more natural, and people were more happy too. If we were egalitarian for a longer period of time (which is true), than egalitarianism is more natural.

"Naturalness" as a category is nonsense. If you want to reinvent some notion of natural law, then I simply see no point in discussing such nonsense. Large societies are unnatural by your own criterion, but they are also at the same time necessary. The same is true with writing and accounting for that matter. Technology is "unnatural".

Quote:
States claim the lives of more people than any group of anarchists. The governments are the terrorists. And I can't point to any group of anarchists trying to take over a government. Your are supporting an institution that produces war and genocide. States are not peaceful, they are militaries controlled by administrations.

You mean because anarchists are literally quite powerless at this point in time???? I mean, comparing the actually existing with the nonexistent is hardly a fair comparison in this matter.

Quote:
People forget the Russian revolution was peaceful. Revolutions are not always violent.

Russia fell into Civil War that same year, so I am going to have to suggest that you're selectively reading history.



AspergianMutantt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,782
Location: North Idaho. USA

14 Apr 2014, 12:42 am

When we see a starving 3rd world country, do we not feel heart and send aid?

Eventually most all labor work will be taken over by machines, Soon we will have quantum computers that will be able to out think us and so put many others out of work in other fields too. And then comes robotics, sure it sounds nice to let them do all your work for you and you get paid for it, but thats unrealistic since any corporation could then just buy their own. this would put even more people out of work.

Thus lack of work means more struggling people all over the globe, Then ask your self this, just because a person cant find work or a means to feed them selves or family, does that also mean that person does not have a right to survive and live with some sort of dignity? exceptions will have to be made

And there is communications, while were living in this era change may seem slow to us, but in truth considering the span of human existence were booming, there is a lot still happening. instant communications, world wide involvement in political gains and ideas. being able to police our selves as a society with our personal communications devices, ideas are growing and changing fast.

Science is taking off like crazy and if your really watching its staggering the rate that were learning and developing things. and when quantum computers come on line as a common factor I cant even imagine what pace we will be gaining in the sciences then. all I know is it might get out of control before we can truly understand it because of technology learning to out think humans them selves before that technology can comprehend or be aware of all the other human and otherwise factors that may seem redundant or illogical to a machine.. but who knows.

In many government systems exceptions are made for those who are without, like consider medical insurance, food stamp programs, monetary aid and so on, so those changes are already taking place its just over time it will no longer be the exception for the poor but the rule for everyone. that everyone will get a flat living expense regardless of income.. like universal health-care through taxation and government subsidies.

Money, the capitalistic systems are collapsing trying to support many of these things, out of necessity it will need to be restructured. while leaving in place a system others can utilize such as a credit system for those who choose to excel or want more then the basics to survive and live.


_________________
Master Thread Killer


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

14 Apr 2014, 6:51 am

AspergianMutantt wrote:
When we see a starving 3rd world country, do we not feel heart and send aid?

Eventually most all labor work will be taken over by machines, Soon we will have quantum computers that will be able to out think us and so put many others out of work in other fields too. And then comes robotics, sure it sounds nice to let them do all your work for you and you get paid for it, but thats unrealistic since any corporation could then just buy their own. this would put even more people out of work.

You are forgetting one crucial thing: energy.

We're running short on energy as it is. If we replaced everybody with a robot and a quantum computer, we'd need a load more energy. This would require us to build even more nuclear power stations than the ones we need to replace fossil fuel ones and electrify transport. That is a significant challenge.