Percepton...re Manufacturing/Jobs...Charts tell the truth

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Lance: you focus on the edges of Rorschach images. That is "textbook" for being inflexible..... which you are.

You say you respond to my points, and I show you IMMEDIATELY AND DIRECTLY that you did not....eg on the example that Nukes and MAD probably explain our Long Peace moreso than trading relationships.

There is much there you just ought to recognize about yourself. Improve yourself..........but first you have to want to change.

I'm willing to go more specific and even repeat more narrowly if you evidence a willingness to learn.

...............it really is just this "objective."

[Lance Kennedy]

," but the top of any such list would have to include Nukes"

Above, Bobbo, is what you said. It is a statement lacking so much detail that it is not an argument at all. And yet you have the cheek to complain that I did not respond to it. I did not respond to it, because it was essentially a meaningless statement. No meat to it. If you want me to recognise such a thing as an argument, you need to present it as an argument. Otherwise I will ignore it as unworthy, which I did.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Well..... thank you Lance. Actually well done....I agree that is where I introduced the notion of Nukes. In a discussion of what causes and what prevents War.......what in the world do you think Nukes refers to except the use thereof? And my position is detailed enough to say its on the TOP of the list....ie: the most important/determinative factor so that as I said in the next sentence: "I think trade and democracy drop out of consideration."

Now...........you can agree of disagree with that evaluation/positioning of mine but it is not lacking in detail after a long discussion of Nuclear Energy as we have done here. I assume you know about Nuclear Weapons to about the same degree? You know...... you can't demand to be spoon fed...you have to involve your own intellect in a discussion.

Again....I actually assume YOU DO KNOW IN DETAIL WHAT i MEANT. Its so obvious...further detail is not warrented. Your demand for same shows the very restraint on your intellect that leaves an honest exchange wanting.

Going further into nuance, you say I have the Cheek to assume you have the basics of the subject? But just above you state you respond to every/most questions that are put to you.....but here we have an example where you did not. I assume your "position" to all the other direct questions made of you is that you weren't spoon fed so you had no oblibation to even recognize they were asked?.............................................. If I did that, I would be dishonest. If you are being honest...............then either you understand and know how Nuclear Weapons would affect the Pinker analysis therefore to deny it is dishonest. If you don't understand, then you are simply ignorant. Both positions result in your failure to engage the argument.

So........think about the notion that arguments do not lose their validity just because you disagree with them......or are you that ignorant??? I don't believe it.........you know what MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction" means....right?

Must this be said in some other way????? I really don't need to have my opinion "win" in any sense......its just that you are in my mind objectively denying reality and don't recognize how stulted this makes your engagement.

One recognition I have in life is realizing on several points/issues: "I was wrong." At those times, I wish those close to me might have advised me of same.... consider this alternative. Thereafter, as you have now, I can think about a different perspective/understanding/appreciation of a subject and accept or reject it or take what is worthwhile from it. That would have given my intellect a directed opportunity to re-evaluate. Instead....I had to learn from experience.

I hate it when that happens.

[Lance Kennedy]

Bobbo

Please try to recognise the importance of clear and unambiguous communication.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

OK Lance: please state specifically what is not clear and unambiguous. My first reaction to what you mean or are really saying is not very admirable on your part..........or ......... is just exactly another example of what I pointed out just above.

C'mon Lance. Give yourself a break.

[Lance Kennedy]

The obvious example, Bobbo, is your very brief comment about nukes, which it turns out you expected was an argument, which I should have responded to. But that was utterly and totally unclear.

[Matthew Ellard]

....but given enough automation, BY DEFINITION (ie=math) people will be nearly totally replaced. And thats one issue. What to do when human labor is no longer required for economic output. Its a cultural shift which societies don't do very well.

I can't give you a straight opinion to your prediction, because I don't know.

My gut feeling is that the history of the world has always had a growing surplus in production. 5,000 years ago that allowed for a ruling class and religious class to be supported and come into existence. Perhaps the extreme future scenario is where people find things to do like religion again, when all labour is freed up by automation. However, I simply don't know.

Who actually does any work in Star Trek?

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Matt: I agree few things are ever certain. "But" I would think most of the previous dire predictions of doom and gloom regarding the loss of jobs from automation where also cautioned by predictions of the new jobs that would be created? If not, I can certainly think of them now.

The singularity we are facing now though is a bit different. "No One" is suggesting that any other jobs will be available. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ISSUE. We can backstop this by using our imaginations as you did witht he suggestion that with free time we can all get into religion?.....or pottery......or music ......or sex...... or drugs....etc. All not very "job" oriented.

Is your gut feeling properly stated? It takes no guts to simply realize what is before us that "the world has always had a growing surplus of production." Again....thats the very issue before us with the singularity. Such an excess of production that near nill labor is required to produce it.

I've mentioned this once before that "the number of jobs" in a society is set by society. My demonstration of that is for instance "society" could set a law that only humans can act as electronic switch activators. Simple rule: and Violet: instantly we have a labor shortage requiring a doubling of the population to even half way meet. (Yes==thats x4). But society has decided we don't want human switch operators. We want silicon. And the choice of silicon continues.

In history.... excess populations were "utilized" by the Powers that Be for Wars...or to be starved out to allow access to their land. I think either is about as likely as Society changing to a Universal Basic Income. The powers that be are just that self possessed.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

The obvious example, Bobbo, is your very brief comment about nukes, which it turns out you expected was an argument, which I should have responded to. But that was utterly and totally unclear.

Lance: when discussing the causes of our Long Peace, does the issue of MAD and Nukes actually have some relevancy or none at all?

[Lance Kennedy]

MAD and nukes appear not to have contributed to the Long Peace, either positively or negatively. There is a hypothesis that the fear of nukes prevented war, but it is hard to find evidence for this. Certainly the ownership of nukes by certain nations, such as Israel, has not prevented other nations acting in a hostile manner towards them, even to the extent of launching a war. Both Pakistan and India have nukes, and they have engaged in war with each other several times in the years after they each developed nukes. This argument is developed at length in Pinker's book.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Ok Lance: you have answered a tangential or related question at length showing you know more than most about Nukes.

Now: answer the question actually posed to you.

[Lance Kennedy]

I did answer it.
But to keep it simple enough for simple people to understand, the answer is probably not.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

OK Lance................... regard: I read your answer another time, and you are right. I wanted the relevancy of Nukes to be addressed in a more incorporated way so as to negate ignoring the issue totally would be seen as negligent. but that ties the question asked of you back to our previous discussion.

Its like asking "Do you have a watch" and expect the time of day to be stated when you get back a Yes or a No.

So...........I'm tired of playing patty cake. You've been told, your choices are yours.

Carry On.

[Lance Kennedy]

Bobbo

Thanks for admitting I was correct.
I have to say, though, if you want a particular kind of response, you need to be more specific in your question.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Well Lance, I'll leave this topic for now. More than admitting anything, I gave you an example of how to reread and argument from the other person's point of view.

Try it.

[Major Malfunction]

Who actually does any work in Star Trek?

Scotty's engineering crew. The security crew seem to have a high attrition rate. The medics, the science crew, the command crew. They all seem to work pretty hard.

But I reckon the scientists and engineers have been slacking off a bit in trying to design a safer console that doesn't explode and kill it's operator when the hull is hit.

[Lance Kennedy]

Star Trek, of course, is a most unrealistic program. Even apart from the fact that warp drive, non rotational artificial gravity, force field shields, inertial compensators, tractor beams etc are totally against the laws of physics, you have to wonder at a starship that requires a human crew of dozens of people. Even today, it is possible to organise an ocean going ship that can raise its own anchor, start its engines, motor to a set location possibly thousands of kilometers away, and drop the anchor in a preset location to an accuracy of half a meter, and then shut down its own engines, and all without a single human actually being aboard. Why should a futuristic starship with on board supercomputer need so many people?

As far as work is concerned, I am inclined to the idea that the 'ideal' society would include not being forced to a specific work to make a living. Instead, working only as and when, and how the person wants to.

[Major Malfunction]

I love the idea of a "Living Wage". If you want more, take a job. Make your hobby your job. I'd happily work three days a week doing something I enjoy for a bit of extra cash, and just to stay active, even. And I wouldn't be a burnt-out husk trying to maintain this monotonously-robotic, close-to-slavery, 9-to-5, BS, wage-slave rigamarole.

BarterCard is a good idea, too. Trade produce and favours in a village economy.

But, of course, we're talking about Humans, here... There will always be those who don't reciprocate, &/or try to monopolise.

[OlegTheBatty]

Star Trek, of course, is a most unrealistic program. Even apart from the fact that warp drive, non rotational artificial gravity, force field shields, inertial compensators, tractor beams etc are totally against the laws of physics, you have to wonder at a starship that requires a human crew of dozens of people. Even today, it is possible to organise an ocean going ship that can raise its own anchor, start its engines, motor to a set location possibly thousands of kilometers away, and drop the anchor in a preset location to an accuracy of half a meter, and then shut down its own engines, and all without a single human actually being aboard. Why should a futuristic starship with on board supercomputer need so many people?

As far as work is concerned, I am inclined to the idea that the 'ideal' society would include not being forced to a specific work to make a living. Instead, working only as and when, and how the person wants to.

Because a computer doesn't give a {!#%@} if a console explodes, but crewmembers do. To make interesting shows, they need:

People who can (and will) be killed.

People to fill the role: When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

A person or persons to be focal points of the stories.

The first two are the most important.

[Matthew Ellard]

Star Trek, of course, is a most unrealistic program. .

I agree. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

On one hand, Captain Picard has to have special knowledge & skills, otherwise why was he promoted to captain? Does Captain Picard get paid more than the toilet cleaners on the Enterprise? Well, I can imagine a human making an extra effort for the honour of becoming captain ,but I can't imagine the ten toilet cleaners making big efforts for the honour of cleaning toilets. Perhaps they get paid more.

My view, concerning economics, is that humans need to get paid in resources, for some measurable indicator as humans need some sort of fixed system for distributing resources. Sometimes this is for their effort (capitalism) sometimes this is for their needs (pure communism), sometimes it is for evolved reasons (feed your own family). Therefore I think (but don't know) that in any future human society there will always be some measurable indicator to distribute resources accordingly. I just don't know what that will be in the future.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

I've often wondered what the wage differential would have to be to get me to give up my cushy desk job to become a coal miner instead. There might not be one. Toilets though...... I clean mine now... not so bad.

Ha, ha.... speaking of honor...........in the Star Trek Economy on a Starship in the Future: everyone is honor bound to clean up after themselves. "The Prime Directive (sub 2): No dump is free."

[ElectricMonk]

Humans don't need payment: plenty of societies have/had no money or privatized wealth.

All that humans need is a measurable sense of being part of a group and where they stand in the hierarchy of that group.
A Star Trek world in which all needs are met is possible when people get their validation from social status: Picard gets his reward from his rank and associated perks, not from wealth.

It is just a question on how to structure incentives: using money is a nice trick for that, but it isn't necessary - and probably not even the best.

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

"MONEY" is the root of all evil is one of those high tech advances that may destroy advanced intelligent life.

I think it was even a theme in one of the Heinlein novels where some guy was King of a newly populated planet and the rabble were chaffing against paying interest on loans they had taken from him. So.... he said fine.... here are all your assets: run your own bank. His time for Leadership had passed. People arguing about money: very advanced.... but not far enough.

[Major Malfunction]

Therefore I think (but don't know) that in any future human society there will always be some measurable indicator to distribute resources accordingly. I just don't know what that will be in the future.

Teleporter toilets that just atomically strip the {!#%@} off your arse whiskers.

[Lance Kennedy]

The other part of EM's idea is that such people will be rarities. Most people in Picards world will receive what they need automatically and will not bother working. Only a very few will feel a driving need to contribute. Picard is one.

[Major Malfunction]

People who want to, do. And I think your estimate is low.

[Matthew Ellard]

Teleporter toilets that just atomically strip the {!#%@} off your arse whiskers.

Dear Major Malfunction

Thank you for your informative post. I try to expand my vocabulary everyday. I now have the pleasure of adding "arse whiskers", an expression I have not encountered before.

Kind Regards

Mr Matthew T Ellard

[bobbo_the_Pragmatist]

Thank you for your informative post. I try to expand my vocabulary everyday. I now have the pleasure of adding "arse whiskers", an expression I have not encountered before.

Kind Regards

Mr Matthew T Ellard[/i]

Just for my info...... where in Australia do you find dingle berries?

[Flash]

download (2).jpg

arse whiskers = dingleberries