Linus' Economic Synthetic Revolution Topic.

[Sigmatech]

As i am watching the WAN Show right now i thought i would throw down here with the ideals associated with Robots replacing jobs and how ultimately Humanity has this ability to adapt to the conditions within such a shift.

Firstly, Diverting The Labour force would allow some kind of Compensation. Star Trek adapted the idea that Humanity eventually saw the shift and necessity to go from a currency-based ideal to a knowledge -based vision> Engineers and IT working on Advancing humanities reach beyond the planet? Advanced AI to better our lives? Star Ships being built with unified minds driving technology forward? Zephram Cochrane wasn't a Billionaire to Create Warp-Drive...he was a drunken Bum. Humanity has a great ability if anything to show that revoltion can be driven by the most unlikliest of people. Money doesn't help Humanity, Visionaries ultimately do. (Opinion)


As well as this, Robocop (2014) recently  also littered the film with this potential dilemma where the question raised was often linked to 'Anti-Machine' or 'Pro-Machine' with the idea of replacing The Military with Syntethic War-fighters and the problems associated with it. Alongside this was the strong Bias presented by the Snippets provided through the media. In this instance again the Powerful didn't succeed because even through Majority vote, The Purpose of what Humanity represented in 2023 was no different to how it is here in 2014.

Also presented was :

 How much information could better or mutilate the social conditioning we are currently seeing change in everyday life. (Google, Smartphones, Id Tagging=/= Unified Datasource, ID Tracking Combadge?)

Robocop also did pose a hella tonne of ethical issues, but it also had loop holes in how access to technology didn't necessarily mean Humanity could be worsened or better. It ultimately asked alot of good insights into where the line between being human or not is honestly laid. The strongest points that the writers didn't get ballsy with was that a Modified Human (In the film) has access to the entire DPD Database of Crime that had occurred from 2011-2023. Within that instance the amount of Data being presented resulted in over 600+ unresolved Crimes. The flaw the film didn't explain on a technological level was that the assumption was that a Human couldn't Balance that information to the efficient way.

HOWEVER, What got me thinking was that...give a Cop a Smartphone with let's Say 1TB of SSD Storage. Slap that to a Google-Glass Device with Access to an entire Police Database. (Approaching Privacy Issues admittedly) but connect the dots with sec.access top cameras/ Traffic cams, Store Security etc etc). Answer this. Apply this ideal into Today's world and how much Safer would we Feel knowing the Police would then have no reason NOT to be doing their jobs?


There are of course alot of other factors that can be weighed in here, However with what i aimed to explain here alone is only for a single albeit Governmental sector. Think about how Tech can drive Humanity in an efficient manner when implemented in a PROPER and appropriate way.

Comment your insight below. I hope for Star Trek Ultimately, but who really knows?

@LinusTech @Slick

[ilikemacandpc]

pro machine. we shall all be obese people on chairs to whom robots tend. 

[TheRuke]

e-EEEEEEE-Vah

[fade]

When will Slick be replaced with a robot?  By the looks of things Wall-E might be the most accurate...

[TheGhostToast]

Rule of thumb is to predict the worst one. Humanity has a knack for hitting that kind of mark

[TEDWARDS]

If like Luke and Linus said happens were its essentially like Wall-E, The "Rich" people that replace its workers with robots and then would pay money to perform maintenance which would in turn make everything cheaper for them. However would there not be a giant flaw because the people they are making products for wont have the jobs or money to pay for said product, the government would then have to essentially make money irrelevant right?

[Hart]

Making it so no-one has to work for money but you get extra money if you doy ou earn it just makes sense, to me at least. Plus theoretically speaking there's no real reason that we shouldn't be moving towards that future right now.Unfortunately we seem to be heading for something far worse.

 

On a pro machine vs anti machine argument I'm definitely pro-machine in the sense that people should have the right to do what ever they want to their own bodies. 

[CrazyMike]

I personally feel that Robots as good as they are for production and product ending cost is a good thing, I am not a supporter for allowing technology taking over our lives. I believe that technology hinders on a humans capability to learn and function. 

 

Examples:

 

A person who always types (either on PC or smartphone) might not necessarily have the best spelling, punctuation or grammar skills. When a person can just easily use Spell-check and Auto-correct when typing, that person doesn't really pay attention for the correction that is being placed. That person may just take for granted that if that person spells or writes a sentence wrong, the computer will fix it. 

 

A person that grows up with GPS or self driving car can have a hindrance in being self aware with directions. A person can become reliant on the GPS or self driving car, not actually comprehending on how to get to a location. 

 

Many people see these as "well why would we need to learn or know how to do that when there is technology there to do it for us?". I see from my perspective that by not knowing or learning how to do something allows a person IQ of function to be loss. So by having Robotics and technologies become more and more into our lives maybe a good thing for convenience, comfort and cost effective, I believe in the long run it hinders on the basic knowledge that must be maintained. 

 

Short and sweet version : I feel like the advancement of technology and Robotics is making our society stupid. 

[IdeaStormer]

At the rate we're going its going to be a long long time before robots can do what we can. Sure they can do some repetitive tasks which they are well suited for as those tasks are very well programmed to be exact the room for error is very small. The moment one degree of difficulty is raised error conditions are hit and the robot crashes or breaks something. The robot can't handle anything that it was not programmed for, unlike humans, well smart/common-sensed humans at any rate, especially those with experience and memory for the task at hand.

 

Then who's going to plug them in to begin with, program them, lube them, replace the parts that break... humans. Remember, robots will be human made so there's that inherent bug from day one.

 

A good example: A Roomba can vacuum/sweep/mop very well, but the moment a new condition it is not programmed for hits, like...

 

a pet doing a number 2 in the middle of the room, guess what happens?

 

The pets number 2 gets spread across the whole room, hummm a great thing to come home to :lol:

[that_one_kid]

I've always sorta feared a world where everything was automated. I mean if everything is automated, what would us humans do? Yeah it takes away jobs, but more importantly is takes away careers, peoples life styles. I say life styles since peoples lives generally encompass their careers. 

 

What would life become if there was nothing left to do? I think we should only automate things no one wants to do, and there is almost always someone somewhere who wants to (fill in the blank)...

[AHaskin14]

The demand for a labor force will never end. the robots need to be built, the factories need say, metal. the metal needs its own supplier. the the supplier needs miners, the miners need tools, the mine needs to be found and surveyed. the tree of labor that branches out from things as simple as a toothpick are MASSIVE and the time it would take to convert the whole world over to robots would be very extensive. Plus you can look at the matter of evolution, and as of now robots cannot evolve naturally, and matters such as variation, mutations, and others must be present for evolution. Robots need naturally made resources to function, and so humans will always be needed and present.

[GeTecknics]

im pro robots im already too lazy as is why not make more stuff automated 

[skywake]

It's not like this is the first time this has happened and because of that I'm going to lean towards the positive side of the argument. The industrial revolution did mean that people lost their jobs on the looms etc but it also resulted in a higher standard of living, the end of slavery as it was and the end of animals being used for labour. It also ended up creating a lot of the jobs we're talking about here from the fast food worker to the guy in the assembly line. I suspect that the same will come from this. New jobs will be created, the cost of living will drop and the standard of living will improved.

[LOST TALE]

1% of the population controls 100% of the production.

Unemployment.

 

Need for a new economic model.

 

If not we go communist revolution (rich edition)

[5am]

No more Linus, Remove that idiot from the show.

[Sigmatech]

1% of the population controls 100% of the production.

Unemployment.

 

Need for a new economic model.

 

If not we go communist revolution (rich edition)

That's true. However Financially speaking they don't 'have' to be the ones in control if they aren't bettering Humanity as a whole.

Yeah they maybe rich...But money is only as valuable as the things it can provide. A rich person will never be able to build an engine to make his car go faster...if he doesn't have the genius engineer who designed the blueprints who saw how it could be improved.

it maybe a loophole, but it's one that alot of people aren't seeing in today's world...it is also the one that is creating economic crises.

[IdeaStormer]

No more Linus, Remove that idiot from the show.

 

Well there goes the forum :huh:

[dlf]

Nanotechnology will make some things obsolete - there are clothes (and gloves) that will not wrinkle nor stain -- drop some liquid on them and it just falls down leaving nothing (or very little) behind, that'd probably virtually get rid of washing machines and dryers.

[LOST TALE]

That's true. However Financially speaking they don't 'have' to be the ones in control if they aren't bettering Humanity as a whole.

Yeah they maybe rich...But money is only as valuable as the things it can provide. A rich person will never be able to build an engine to make his car go faster...if he doesn't have the genius engineer who designed the blueprints who saw how it could be improved.

it maybe a loophole, but it's one that alot of people aren't seeing in today's world...it is also the one that is creating economic crises.

The genius engineer needs to eat, so he doesn't really have a salary choice.

The whole individual liberty has always brought that deregulation.

The economic model can't work with that alone.

And so it has been modified, especially with intervening goverments.

[Eyal]

The only long term (somewhat) solution I can see for this problem is dramatically improving the education system, and making it either free or really cheap. A better education system would result in more people that otherwise would work in a factory (which the demand has already started to decrease), to have the ability to work in more complicated jobs. There will be less people with no choice but to work in a labor jobs, and that will go well with the decrease in demand in such jobs.

furthermore, smaller companies will be less likely to be able to make such a large investment upfront and therefore the decrease in labor jobs will not be as big as we might expect, and it's not going to happened over night, giving time to prepare the next generation with the better education to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford studding (which is the same type of people who will have to work in labor jobs if we don't do something about it)

I never studied economy, so I might be totally wrong, It's just my logic...