["Let's talk about this in a bit more detail. "Gartner predicts one in three jobs will be converted to software, robots and smart machines by 2025," That is only about 10 years from now. The point I was alluding to in my post was what will we do once the majority of the population is unnecessary". ]
LOL!!! "Necessary" versus "unnecessary"... as defined how, and by whom ? My post just identified the FACT that technology now requires that investment bankers are wholly unnecessary... and, yet...
The point is... there is NO aspect of the problem or the question, etc., that is driven by "facts" or "the technology"... rather than by politics. And, the politics we're defining is of a particularly vicious nature...
["This is a very important consideration for the society and policy makers". ]
No, it isn't. The assumption that the society exists only because government made it and is responsible for every aspect of its existence and evolution... is, ah... hmmm... wrong. That there is uncertainty that exists... is not a reason for policy makers to feel empowered with a need to eradicate it. The rest... is "marketing" focused on justifying the sustained existence of something that is the overly insistent source of the problem rather than the potential solution. The logic of the assertion is "first, we have to eliminate freedom"... only, again... that is merely an ASSERTION... not a logically valid argument. "Change is scary... so you need us to decide things for you"... doesn't appear valid, to me.
["Either we will become a socialistic welfare state, or we will have to forcefully reduce our population"]
LOL!!! Really ? There are only two possible things that might happen ? And, those "choices" that exist require that either we submit to being owned by the government, or else we submit to being killed by the government ? Again, that is an ASSERTION... not an argument... and the only point in making the assertion is the self promotion of those who prefer to make decisions for others... even when they're clueless.
The problem is... there is ZERO logical validity in your analysis... as it is wholly based in unfounded assertions rather than any rational argument.
If you return to my original argument (which was an argument, and not merely an assertion)... what you will find is that the proper CONTEXT of this discussion... is one that relates to MY ARGUMENT about the errors made in control of the systems of MONEY... while not instead incorrectly assuming any rightful ability exists for government to assert a power to control people...
The only rational progression I see from that original argument... to your own (in which you assume government must have a power to act)... is one that would have you connect the dots to say... "Either we will become a society that takes back control over its money... or we will have to forcefully reduce the population of bankers".
The problem you arrive at... if you ignore that primacy in context controls the consideration ? If you don't fix what's wrong in the dislocation of money from proper public control... then, robots will amplify the problem you already have in accelerating global dislocations of wealth based on private ownership of money instead of public ownership of value established in "coin"...
People will always control the robots... which does not mean you should assume they'll actually be benign, when some people might opt to use large numbers of robots to try to control or kill other people... and, of course, that IS going to be the FIRST application you will see succeed ?
Message 29743002
I'd be remiss in leaving the topic without also pointing out that idea of the pending Malthusian Catastrophe... is total bunk.
en.wikipedia.org
The blind spot you see in all those who repeatedly predict disasters that don't ever really occur, or don't ever matter in the way suggested... peak population... peak oil... etc. is OBVIOUS. I'll leave it for you to point out why that is true...
["(and I don't think many people have the stomach to see the latter)."]
Unfortunately, I think you are also wrong both about the "stomach" people might have, as well as erring even more obviously in thinking (asserting, again, rather than arguing ?) that in measuring and evaluating the risks that it will be a census that is what actually matters ? How many people with the "stomach" will it take... when the one guy with the stomach... controls the robots ?
So, when you see Obama telling you "we're doing this in spite of any objections from Republicans, or any limits in power that the Constitution imposes"... what he's really saying is "people with power don't have to respect limits imposed by the majority... and, although we have no need for bankers, we're going to give the bankers control over the robots, and let them make slaves of you all"...
[" There are 4 important factors to consider:"]
I doubt you're considering everything that must be considered... even IF you assume you are properly addressing the issue... which I think is clearly an incorrect assumption...
["(1) The purpose of technology is to eliminate jobs"]
No. It is a fundamental error to assume technology reduces jobs. Innovation introduces change... and change scares people. Some people are better able to adapt to change that occurs. Other people think change needs to be prevented... or, think that they have some intrinsic right to prevent it.
The ASSUMPTION of a relationship such as you posit isn't a proper basis for proceeding from that assumption... but is merely an assertion which is unsupportable. There is no logical value in the assertion... so, nothing built on it has value in logic... ie., it is not valid.
["The purpose of technology is to... (... increase productivity)".]
True by definition, almost... in assuming any innovation that persists has greater utility... which is still not capable of getting you from any impact of an innovation creating "increased utility"... to any public policy.
How are the benefits of any increased utility distributed ? How "should" they be ? Those are political questions, and not technical questions...
[For example, flying from one coast to the other considerably reduces the number of jobs that would have required moving the same number of people by car (think of how many drivers, mechanics, gas stations, etc would be needed if you had to drive instead of flying). Similarly there was a time that every manager had a secretary who'd get his messages and would type his letters for him and managed his calendar. These days we all send our own emails and use Outlook or some other electronic calendar, to say nothing of the voicemail that has removed the need for secretary taking messages. As a result legions of typists and administrative support staff have been let go. So the Gartner maybe underestimating the trend.]
The technology has already existed for a long time... that would enable airplanes to fly passengers MORE safely... by removing people from the controls of the airplanes. Yet, people don't appear ready to fly in planes that don't have people in control... meaning... they're more willing to take the risk that they will die than to risk being made to feel uncomfortable ? So, is that a technical question, or... ?
If robots are suddenly able to cross a threshold that enables them in doing far more work for us than they have been made capable of, thus far ? Assume they're made easily capable of following simple instructions so that they can do ANY task ? (Ignoring that computers have taken 50 years to get to the point of "almost" being able to do what that Commodore 64 was "supposed" to be able to do for us?) Assume that... and, then... how many more robots will we need... when there is no longer a technical or financial limit that exists in how many "employees" you can have ?
[(2) The pace of technological innovation has been increasing - almost since the beginning of time. Think about how long it took to figure out how to melt metals or to figure out the atomic structure of the elements. Now start googling how many new materials (or even new elements) are created over the past few decade. There is no reason to expect that the pace of advancement will not accelerate further and stay at the current rate. ]
Actually... the pace of advancement should accelerate significantly as robots take over all the menial jobs and everyone else has to become either robot operators, robot service technicians, or physicists...
Government obstruction of the education systems is preventing that sort of quantum improvement in potential, currently... as dumbed down education moves the population (of people) in the opposite direction of their potential...
[(3) Our needs and wants don't grow as fast as the technology.]
Untrue... both as a practical matter, and as a fundamental matter of economic theory... which makes the ASSERTION untrue by definition.
[Yes, I know the mantra about never having enough or always wanting the latest gizmo. But that only holds when the prices are cheap and I have nothing better to do with my money.]
??? That makes no sense at all. You claim you WON'T want the latest gizmo... unless they're cheap... but, if they are cheap... then you won't want them because you'll have something better to do with your money ?
Greed... does not have many limits... and, there are no limits for greed when the subject is the easily attainable... that is getting easier to attain.
[I can't remember the last time that I upgraded my PC because it could not do what I needed it to do. I only change it because something in it dies and repairing costs about the same as replacement.]
That it is the greed of the companies making products designed to fail with a short half life... instead of your greed... doesn't alter the fact that greed exists ? The economic argument is that what's cheapest and thus best... is what ever it is that's currently in the market... since that's what is scaled to be producible.
[The same goes for my cell phone. I'll be buying a new top of the line cell phone soon, but only because my older cell phone has been dropped too many times and its battery doesn't hold charge as well. This is an indulgence I am making because I have enough income that the difference in costs between repair and purchase is insignificant to me. The main point here is that if I was out of work, or if the cost differential was too big, I would keep my old phone because it does all that I *need* it to do very well.]
However, all that says is that you'll personally not want to buy a new phone until they force you to... which they can do at any time by changing standards. Your choices... merely require them to force you... they don't alter others choices... and, many others will want "the latest" whether it provides anything they need or not. However, arguing that you use an old cell phone... instead of delivering all your messages to friends by the pony express... doesn't really define any meaningful limits that matter to others. It just says you're along for the ride... rather than cutting any edges.
[(4) ICT removes the time and space barriers. This is a critical change compared to previous eras because now prosperity and wealth effect is not localized to the source (in other words, cities can be drained of their wealth...at least partially).]
This argument is not different now than it was in 1828...
However, AGAIN, return to the context of my original argument ? ICT actually HAS REMOVED the time and space barriers that had created a reason for investment bankers to exist... and, yet, they still exist... and, not only do they still exist, in spite of having become superfluous... they are charging HIGHER rents and tolls... and not going away they way that they should ? Why is that ?
[It also means that automation no longer removes lower end jobs. Now your typical radiologist or programmer has to compete with someone far away (sometime way way far away). What is more, the technology itself is advancing in ways that is approaching and sometimes exceeding human capacity. For example, for eons object recognition was something that humans did well and computers could not do. So the best that ICT had to offer businesses was crowdsourcing of image categorization (e.g. Amazon's Mechanical Turk). Not anymore. In recent years computers have been able to outperform the average user and are now less than 2% worse than a *trained* human. And these are your average computers. Advanced ones, like IBM's Watson, can outdo most doctors and paralegals in their respective fields.]
All that says is that what a "low end" job is... has been, or is in the process, of being re-defined.
And, why shouldn't it be redefined when technology makes a job people used to do obsolete ? Similarly, we no longer employ people to deliver ice daily, so that we can keep our food cold, and keep it fresh longer...
[When I put these 4 together, I see the challenges over the next decade or two looking like the challenges that face Detroit.]
An overly narrow focus limits the utility of the assertion... "Detroit" has never defined a useful boundary for considering the systemic wide economic impacts of changes that have occurred in auto manufacturing... as you also have to include Tennessee, Georgia, Mexico, and Shanghai as being a part of the entire system... which, again, also shows that the problems in Detroit are POLITICAL in origin and not purely economic.
[Too many out of work population that is not able to purchase enough goods and services to maintain a functioning economy.]
??? Another assertion... that seems disproven on the face of it... given I've not read headlines about the masses of people in Detroit staving to death ? Reality appears to be that the economy continues to function... in spite of the drag on the system caused by the dysfunctional choices made by Detroit...
[And the answers will be similar: get rid of the population, tear down the buildings, and give enough grants to whoever that is left over to prevent riots and minimally keep the economy moving. ]
Or, the people of Detroit could opt to change the politicians... and get a different result.
[This is very bad news for "Conservatives". They are getting hit with both the demographic and technological trends. If GOP was stock, I'd be shorting it big time. Not that Dems are any better. As you said, both parties are the same crap. But DNC is better positioned to ride the trend.]
LOL!!! Completely fabricated... wishful thinking. The failure to discern what's politics and what's not... doesn't suggest much inevitability in any "and a miracle happens here" results in future elections.
Change is going to occur... and it really won't matter what political partisans think about it...
The changes technology are driving... will also change the distribution of wealth... and, it will be the NEW distribution in future wealth that will be what shifts power to whoever it will be that calls the shots in the future...
If you are correct in your OWN assertions... they don't validate your basic conclusions. If ICT ["removes the time and space barriers. This is a critical change compared to previous eras because now prosperity and wealth effect is not localized to the source (in other words, cities can be drained of their wealth...at least partially)."]... then what that means... is that to the degree people DO use the ability to shift their location (and wealth) outside of cities... the cities will be made less relevant... both economically and (assuming cheating in elections in urban areas is contained) politically. |
