Printable View
Old Manus is ahead of technology as he has a robot to post for him, unfortunately it seems to have malfunctioned and set itself to 'homosexual'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Homold Manusbot posting a very pretty automated emoticon
A kick in the head should work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seargent Hartman
I have a whole lot to say about this subject. It's a highly interesting area for me (On account of me being such a techwaboo xD). :)
This is true to an extent. However, how many people today genuinely mistrust the radio? We might not trust it to be broadcasting accurate information, but I doubt you'll find a significant section of the population who considers it inherently problematic. Same goes to a slightly lesser extent for television, internet, etc. There are a couple of reasons for this. It's natural and often sensible to be suspicious of new technologies, so it generally takes awhile for things to filter in - a few people will give it a try, find it works and doesn't kill them, and then other people will see that it's worth their interest, and it builds from there. The other reason is that if people grow up with something, they're far less likely to have a problem with it than people for whom it is new. Our generation has no problem with TV, or the internet, but we're probably going to have significant numbers of people who are wary of advanced cybernetics, or neogenics.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke
As evidenced by things such as the internet and cellphones and their adoption rates (Since at least the telephone, adoption rates of major household appliances have continually decreased. It took about four years for the internet to become ubiquitous. It took something like 38 years for the radio to reach the same saturation point.), people will often overlook risks when they find something sufficiently convenient. There are concerns by many that cellphones increase cancer risks, for example - yet cellphone saturation is almost 100% in some European nations, and something like 30% of the entire planet owns a cellphone.
So, anyway, to the main topic here! Basically, jobs are already being reduced in favor of automation in some form or another. There's an interesting book I found a couple weeks ago on the subject called 'The End of Work' by Jeremy Rifkin. He suggests that our societies are going to have to find ways to deal with massive levels of unemployment. I believe his claims. Now, we're not yet at a stage where it's a huge problem, not significantly more than unemployment has generally been for Human societies. Over the coming years we are going to reach that point, however. And yes, whilst things like the sciences and the like are the most reliable places to hold jobs, even those are going to be threatened by computers soon enough.
Do not presume that automation cannot or will not attain the things some of us are predicting. The only limits on what they can do are literal physical limits on efficiency and the like. Ray Kurzweil estimates that by the end of the 20's $1000 of computing power will equal a Human brain. By the end of the 40's, it will probably be that $1000 of computing power will exceed the computation capacities of the entire Human race.
What then, shall we do? Chances are, we'll freak out. People who don't benefit or don't benefit directly will begin to find someone to blame. Maybe the new technologies themselves, but more probably, as is already happening, matters such as immigration will become political issues. Hopefully, there will be intervention. You all know full well how zealously pro free-market I am - but when it comes to this, I must abandon my beliefs there in favor of other matters. The free market works in the system as it was, and as it is now. It will not work when a company is so efficient that ten people can do what used to take two thousand. (Consider that during the 1910s, the labor hours to build a car decreased from about 4,600 to around 870.) It will not work when the entire industrial infrastructure of a nation employs just five percent of its population.
What's the answer? Well first, the same kind of thing which has occurred during other periods of increased productivity. The first stages of industrialization allowed the work week to decrease from about 80 to about 60 hours. Today, the work week is between 35 and 50 hours for most (But call it 40 for convenience's sake). Chances are in the next decades, it's going to go down to 30 or even 20 hours per week. That might sound fanciful to us, but a factory worked in 19th century Britain would find it fanciful that people today can work half as much as him and be tens or hundreds of times wealthier. It also might sound fanciful that things are regulated in such a way, but in 1936 a proposal for a 30 hour work week to increase employment reached Roosevelt's desk. He vetoed it, but later expressed regret for doing so.
Beyond that, a shifting work population. We're likely to move more towards things like services, then design and sciences, and eventually to many more artistic pursuits. These trends will occur naturally, but they're going to be rocks in a rushing torrent at best. Automated services already exist and will expand into the high street fairly soon. My university library is already so automated that I can do anything I might need to for my course without interacting with a single member of staff. Heck, I can access more journals from my home computer than is in the actual journal section of the library itself. Soon enough, computers will overtake our abilities to design things, and to perform science. One day, they'll even be artists - but given that such a pursuit is subjective, we're unlikely to ever be made redundant from that. By that point though, I imagine that the economy will look so wildly different as to not even include money.
That sounds crazy coming from me, I know - again, you've all seen me flying Reagan's flag in EoEO - but I never intended to argue that capitalism would last forever, or that it should. I believe it works better now than our alternatives, but this isn't going to be the case for much longer. We will necessarily change our economics to meet the time. Hopefully, we can do that peacefully and wisely.
Edit: I fear the day that an automated system is made for deflecting my wall o' text crits :(
I'll be honest: I only made this thread to see what MILF had to say on the subject. The rest of you guys, well, uh... have fun!
im not even going to read that.. waaayyy too much.. and i think the jobs wont disappear that fast.. i mean you take a huge piece of technology.. an x-ray diffraction machine.. and it still cant do anything without a plumber repairing the cooling system..
im not saying that there will be factory jobs where you just put stuff together.. except for the deluxe cars and such.. which are still fine craftmanship..
Jobs have already disappeared due to rise in automated technology. And also... outsourcing.
People wonder why inner cities are doing so horribly, it's because at one point there were lots of factory and manufacturing jobs available in cities. And those jobs allowed for unionized work and the growth of the middle class. But now, those factories are all shut down and the labor market has shifted in a HUGE way toward the service sector. And not only that, but that service oriented job market has moved from the city to the suburbs.
The middle working class is pretty much becoming obliterated. We have a service based economy with a huuuge number of people working in service and those jobs don't actually pay a decent living wage. It's like, it used to be a pyramid, but now it's more like an hourglass (huge bottom portion, tiny middle portion, and a little bit larger but still tiny upper portion).
It's kinda not cool.
Personally, I don't need to worry because the kind of work I do can never be replaced with automated robots. Unless we're talking about super sophisticated machines which can mimick human behavior in a crazy ass fashion like the Cylons. But until that day comes, I'm pretty much safe.
since i would be pretty much making the machines.. my job would be safe too :p
Well im not saying that alot of people will boycott it, im going more along the lines of how tv hand radio has been around for years but alot of people still read the newspaper. They may use the new technology for certain things but with other things theyd rather deal with peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILFI have a whole lot to say about this subject. It's a highly interesting area for me (On account of me being such a techwaboo xD). :)
This is true to an extent. However, how many people today genuinely mistrust the radio? We might not trust it to be broadcasting accurate information, but I doubt you'll find a significant section of the population who considers it inherently problematic. Same goes to a slightly lesser extent for television, internet, etc. There are a couple of reasons for this. It's natural and often sensible to be suspicious of new technologies, so it generally takes awhile for things to filter in - a few people will give it a try, find it works and doesn't kill them, and then other people will see that it's worth their interest, and it builds from there. The other reason is that if people grow up with something, they're far less likely to have a problem with it than people for whom it is new. Our generation has no problem with TV, or the internet, but we're probably going to have significant numbers of people who are wary of advanced cybernetics, or neogenics.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke
btw i didnt read your whole post
Jobs don't tend to disappear. As you say yourself, jobs move. The unemployment rate has generally stayed within the same range from what I can gather over the last several decades in the U.S., allowing for variation due to economic downturns and upswings of course. If jobs were really disappearing, this wouldn't be the case. You speak of problems with inner cities as manufacturing jobs leave the U.S., but I'm sure there were problems in rural areas with people leaving for manufacturing jobs in the cities over a hundred years ago. Society and the economy change constantly, and people adapt. Having much of production and other things automated would be no different. In fact, I doubt we'll ever come to that point simply because humanity won't want to make itself obsolete or a slave to our own creations. We have to do things for ourselves to a certain extent, and engage in challenging work or we would simply be bored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
Even still, there is a very large difference between computers with computational power that outmatches our own, and computers capable of actual thought, creativity, and originality. Too many problems stand in the way of creating machines that could truly do the things humans do on a daily basis without even realizing it. Simple things like making music, or painting, or even being able to listen to a sick patients symptoms and diagnose an illness. Regardless of whether a computer could take blood or other tissue samples and analyze them for a disease, there aren't tests for every disease, and it could easily be difficult for a machine to pick up on subtleties a human might even have trouble noticing. Regardless of how powerful and well programmed, I doubt any of us will see a machine doing the job of a doctor in our lifetimes, or even our childrens lifetimes, assuming it ever happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Maxx Power
Jobs moving, disappearing, transforming, transitioning, morphing, whatev.
Semantics. The main point of the post still stands.
You win this round.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottNUMBERSOld Manus is ahead of technology as he has a robot to post for him, unfortunately it seems to have malfunctioned and set itself to 'homosexual'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Homold Manusbot posting a very pretty automated emoticon