Looking back from the " future " Singularity Intelligence decided changing monetary unit accounting to Real Economy energy unit accounting was a highly workable system even better than advance simulations had indicated . War based " economics " had shown this tradition wide of the mark and " underperforming " compared to ( peaceful non toxic sustainable renewable ecological energy unit accounting ) sense . As for previous built in social trauma and control convenience the war thing had supplied to certain vested interests …their encryption had expired and no one gave a fig what they thought anymore . Non invasive regenerative medical technology for prefrontal lobes had being inexpensively available for a very long time out of Indiana University research .
You won't profit from it if you have no own corporations, own high level workers inventing new products, own industries to produce it and own robots. If it's all done by foreign capital than politics in your country is completely owned by that capital with leverage to extort lowest taxes not sharing wealth with your nation but exploiting it.
Somewhat idealistic and theoretical? Who makes the decisions? As Jaron Lanier has written "Who Owns the Future?" When Adam Smith surmiised that we might be working 15 hours a day, he must have assumed that there is a fair method of distribution of jobs? That seems not to be the case. In many countries we now have about 2x labour force, since most women are now also working, whereas they were not in 50s or 60s: they were "homemakers". Automation has increased productivity significantly in the last 50o years, but wages have barely changed, perhaps even slumped. Unfortunately, the profits have been captured by the owners (the 1% or less?) and technological unemployment has thrown many out of work, or having to settle for more menial jobs. In fact, employers very much LIKE having people unemployed because that puts downward pressure on salary demands! I also think "this time it is different" because we are automating not only brawn (muscles) but brains (AI and ML) which is totally new viz industrial revolution. Perhaps the end result will be a measure of how well democracy (the actual desires and will of "the people") works? I expect most employees would prefer less work hours, sharing jobs, and sharing in the benfits of productivity. Automation is largely developed through taxes (on everyone! including those workers about to be unemployed!) supporting university research and government and military projects. Sharing the benefits would be "fair". However, employers prefer to hoard more profits, push down salaries, and have even more control over the process.
Im very confused why anybody needs a job to have purpose…surfing, gardening, cooking ,painting, building and constantly renovating your house..by hand, fixing up old cars, making ant houses ., bird watching , dog rescuing , ive never seen people not have plenty of things they love doing other than working for, someone else..ubi s then elimination of the share markets , regulations on bankers, taxes on land instead of income ..theres hundreds of ways to organize society that doesn't involve slaving away for somebody else ? The problem isnt a lack of solutions surely? Its the will of the powerful that stands in the way of a pleasant leisurely way of life ..we have the resources, we have the creativity and we are about to have the technology .. the question is who owns that technology … read Yanis Varoufakis
I’d like the opportunity to have re-education made availiable at low cost and the to be able to opt out of work when ever I wanted to get out for significant time and relearn and re imagine the future. Not for everyone, but Def for those of us who are more open, though we might need some resources such as social clubs related to staying in touch on this kinda thinking and transitions.
23:52 The toady and the plutocrat wanna-be gets threatened. This happened when people in the US including myself started ordering medicines and having medical procedures in Canada, Germany or even India or Mexico. The medical doctors and especially big pharma got very upset. And since teamed up with VISA and other major card companies to prevent purchases from "rouge" pharmacies for ordering over the internet. Many that still require a Rx from a doctor, but they want it prescribed by an American doctor. It's funny how a minority controls "public" sentiment. Basically, it was never public sentiment, but the sentiment of the toady and wannabe plutocrat.
"Do you want high leisure, infinite material comfort with no work?" Well yes, obviously. I don't really want to go to some factory and sit around making chairs all day just so I can have something to do. I've already got plenty to do. There's biking in the summer, snowboarding in the winter. If the weather is crap and I need to be inside, I can play around on my computer making video games, writing, or pursuing some other creative thing. I don't need work to connect with people. I'm naturally social as it is. All I need to do is go to a skate park or put on my snowboard and say hi.
What sort of people need someone else to tell them what to do just to avoid boredom or feel like they have a purpose? Are they just naturally subordinate? A world with less drudgery is obviously superior to a world with more of it. Duh.
There is a wrinkle that many overlook: Previous jobs like farmer and ditch digger could be done by sany human with a working body. Loss of old jobs opens up new jobs, it's true.
But, not everyone CAN become a computer programmer. Not everyone has the IQ needed, and even if they do, they may not have the right mindset. What do they do?
In thew old days they could have made a good living on a farm. What will they do now?
The crucial question he does not touch, is whether in future we will have to work for a living?!
Or even want any kind of employment!?
When robots, big data and automation manufacture all food and daily necessities, we could indulge in culture, creative tasks, learning and creating livable communities.
Call it jobs, work or simply community work.
It is going to be an enforced employment as of today only if the methodical inequality (fiat debt) is uphold.
Otherwise we will evolve and become higher, conscious beings, more like our alien peers.
all kinds of automatization are bounded to the demand, uk did not became the first industrialized/mecanized country because of improvements in technology, steam machines have been invented dozens of times since the bronze age, water wheels existed for ages, is became the first industrialized economy because it had access to asian markets and american slave labor produce, it was a political/military position that enabled the changes in the production, not technology
right in the begining he says machines ae a threat to jobs since the begning of capitalism, assuming that capitalism=automation and industrialization=automation and they are 3 very different things that came about 200 years appart each, capitalism in th late 1400s, industrialization in the 1600s and mecanozation in the late 1700s, its like saying in 2200 that AI has been a threat to jobs since the begining of the industrial revolution
Around 35:00 a very deceptive proposition. 1) have material productivity but no jobs, thus generating poverty; 2) material productivity, but sadness because we love jobs; 3) or keep jobs with low productivity in order to be happy. In sum: wage labour or sadness. Its a very narrow view that conviniently keeps Marx aside, except for a footnote and a joke. Productivity can be shared, reducing jobs and generating happiness. It would take a small step for man but would be a giant leap for mankind: share the property over production. Once again, burgeoise property unquestioned. Tells you how "new" this "economic thinking" really is.
climate change requires retrofitting every building. New electrical system globally. These jobs cannot be automated. Jobs that can be automated will be in order to free up the labor to accomplish the herculean task
Disappointingly shy and foggy regarding relations of jobs, work, income, distribution and promises of sane economy such as increased leisure time and reduced uncertainty.
Sane economy would allow everyone unconditional basic material floor on which to stand. That means: income unconditioned by work (just like the rich have) which is sufficient for food, shelter, clothes, some comfort, full health care and good education. Who has more ambitions or wants after that, or is miserable for not being a wage slave, is free to earn more through cooperatives or renting themselves to others.
Discussing automation without demystifying JOBS and DISTRIBUTION is in vain. Insisting that work is somehow inherently tied to income is hypocritical, as can be seen with rich people, whose wealth is something society allowed and not a "god given" law of nature.
Most people work (slave) just ot pay the bills. They hate their jobs and themselves but are forced to create all kinds of material and service crap just to justify their income. This "economy" is toxic for the planet and for the people but it serves the rich. It's a disguised feudalism.
Gary Stevenson spotted at 9:09
Nmmmjjnnnnnnnbbbbbbb
yes, just get used to it.
Looking back from the " future " Singularity Intelligence decided changing monetary unit accounting to Real Economy energy unit accounting was a highly workable system even better than advance simulations had indicated . War based " economics " had shown this tradition wide of the mark and " underperforming " compared to ( peaceful non toxic sustainable renewable ecological energy unit accounting ) sense . As for previous built in social trauma and control convenience the war thing had supplied to certain vested interests …their encryption had expired and no one gave a fig what they thought anymore . Non invasive regenerative medical technology for prefrontal lobes had being inexpensively available for a very long time out of Indiana University research .
None there is old enough to have dug a well by hand, shoveled manure, or planted potatoes. They have no understanding of the work ahead.
You won't profit from it if you have no own corporations, own high level workers inventing new products, own industries to produce it and own robots.
If it's all done by foreign capital than politics in your country is completely owned by that capital with leverage to extort lowest taxes not sharing wealth with your nation but exploiting it.
Did my mans say "bascillay"?
Somewhat idealistic and theoretical? Who makes the decisions? As Jaron Lanier has written "Who Owns the Future?" When Adam Smith surmiised that we might be working 15 hours a day, he must have assumed that there is a fair method of distribution of jobs? That seems not to be the case. In many countries we now have about 2x labour force, since most women are now also working, whereas they were not in 50s or 60s: they were "homemakers". Automation has increased productivity significantly in the last 50o years, but wages have barely changed, perhaps even slumped. Unfortunately, the profits have been captured by the owners (the 1% or less?) and technological unemployment has thrown many out of work, or having to settle for more menial jobs. In fact, employers very much LIKE having people unemployed because that puts downward pressure on salary demands! I also think "this time it is different" because we are automating not only brawn (muscles) but brains (AI and ML) which is totally new viz industrial revolution. Perhaps the end result will be a measure of how well democracy (the actual desires and will of "the people") works? I expect most employees would prefer less work hours, sharing jobs, and sharing in the benfits of productivity. Automation is largely developed through taxes (on everyone! including those workers about to be unemployed!) supporting university research and government and military projects. Sharing the benefits would be "fair". However, employers prefer to hoard more profits, push down salaries, and have even more control over the process.
It the wrong question, the question should be will Robots CHANGE Your Job?
Bad english
Long term communist
Long live communism and freedom
o:50
8:19
Just think: If robots take your job, you will be liberated to take a much more interesting one. There will always be jobs the robots aren't ready for.
Im very confused why anybody needs a job to have purpose…surfing, gardening, cooking ,painting, building and constantly renovating your house..by hand, fixing up old cars, making ant houses ., bird watching , dog rescuing , ive never seen people not have plenty of things they love doing other than working for, someone else..ubi s then elimination of the share markets , regulations on bankers, taxes on land instead of income ..theres hundreds of ways to organize society that doesn't involve slaving away for somebody else ? The problem isnt a lack of solutions surely? Its the will of the powerful that stands in the way of a pleasant leisurely way of life ..we have the resources, we have the creativity and we are about to have the technology .. the question is who owns that technology … read Yanis Varoufakis
Short answer: yes, the robots will.
I’d like the opportunity to have re-education made availiable at low cost and the to be able to opt out of work when ever I wanted to get out for significant time and relearn and re imagine the future. Not for everyone, but Def for those of us who are more open, though we might need some resources such as social clubs related to staying in touch on this kinda thinking and transitions.
23:52 The toady and the plutocrat wanna-be gets threatened. This happened when people in the US including myself started ordering medicines and having medical procedures in Canada, Germany or even India or Mexico. The medical doctors and especially big pharma got very upset. And since teamed up with VISA and other major card companies to prevent purchases from "rouge" pharmacies for ordering over the internet. Many that still require a Rx from a doctor, but they want it prescribed by an American doctor.
It's funny how a minority controls "public" sentiment.
Basically, it was never public sentiment, but the sentiment of the toady and wannabe plutocrat.
"Do you want high leisure, infinite material comfort with no work?" Well yes, obviously. I don't really want to go to some factory and sit around making chairs all day just so I can have something to do. I've already got plenty to do. There's biking in the summer, snowboarding in the winter. If the weather is crap and I need to be inside, I can play around on my computer making video games, writing, or pursuing some other creative thing. I don't need work to connect with people. I'm naturally social as it is. All I need to do is go to a skate park or put on my snowboard and say hi.
What sort of people need someone else to tell them what to do just to avoid boredom or feel like they have a purpose? Are they just naturally subordinate? A world with less drudgery is obviously superior to a world with more of it. Duh.
There is a wrinkle that many overlook: Previous jobs like farmer and ditch digger could be done by sany human with a working body.
Loss of old jobs opens up new jobs, it's true.
But, not everyone CAN become a computer programmer.
Not everyone has the IQ needed, and even if they do, they may not have the right mindset.
What do they do?
In thew old days they could have made a good living on a farm.
What will they do now?
The crucial question he does not touch, is whether in future we will have to work for a living?!
Or even want any kind of employment!?
When robots, big data and automation manufacture all food and daily necessities, we could indulge in culture, creative tasks, learning and creating livable communities.
Call it jobs, work or simply community work.
It is going to be an enforced employment as of today only if the methodical inequality (fiat debt) is uphold.
Otherwise we will evolve and become higher, conscious beings, more like our alien peers.
all kinds of automatization are bounded to the demand, uk did not became the first industrialized/mecanized country because of improvements in technology, steam machines have been invented dozens of times since the bronze age, water wheels existed for ages, is became the first industrialized economy because it had access to asian markets and american slave labor produce, it was a political/military position that enabled the changes in the production, not technology
right in the begining he says machines ae a threat to jobs since the begning of capitalism, assuming that capitalism=automation and industrialization=automation and they are 3 very different things that came about 200 years appart each, capitalism in th late 1400s, industrialization in the 1600s and mecanozation in the late 1700s, its like saying in 2200 that AI has been a threat to jobs since the begining of the industrial revolution
14:37
"technology isn't independent of technology"
that's why it going for the befit of the few.
we don't pay robots for their hard work.
Around 35:00 a very deceptive proposition. 1) have material productivity but no jobs, thus generating poverty; 2) material productivity, but sadness because we love jobs; 3) or keep jobs with low productivity in order to be happy. In sum: wage labour or sadness. Its a very narrow view that conviniently keeps Marx aside, except for a footnote and a joke. Productivity can be shared, reducing jobs and generating happiness. It would take a small step for man but would be a giant leap for mankind: share the property over production. Once again, burgeoise property unquestioned. Tells you how "new" this "economic thinking" really is.
climate change requires retrofitting every building. New electrical system globally. These jobs cannot be automated. Jobs that can be automated will be in order to free up the labor to accomplish the herculean task
Disappointingly shy and foggy regarding relations of jobs, work, income, distribution and promises of sane economy such as increased leisure time and reduced uncertainty.
Sane economy would allow everyone unconditional basic material floor on which to stand. That means: income unconditioned by work (just like the rich have) which is sufficient for food, shelter, clothes, some comfort, full health care and good education. Who has more ambitions or wants after that, or is miserable for not being a wage slave, is free to earn more through cooperatives or renting themselves to others.
Discussing automation without demystifying JOBS and DISTRIBUTION is in vain. Insisting that work is somehow inherently tied to income is hypocritical, as can be seen with rich people, whose wealth is something society allowed and not a "god given" law of nature.
Most people work (slave) just ot pay the bills. They hate their jobs and themselves but are forced to create all kinds of material and service crap just to justify their income. This "economy" is toxic for the planet and for the people but it serves the rich. It's a disguised feudalism.