Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The ultimate goal of technology is to create full unemployment

#11
RainbowUnicorn Offline
(Sep 9, 2018 01:06 AM)confused2 Wrote:
Syne Wrote:Even if robots could collect and distribute resources, the people who paid for the robots deserve a return on their investment. And the unemployed have nothing to offer in exchange...unless they have developed new and desirable skills.
Quote:So you would condemn many to starve in a land of plenty. A technologically advanced and very violent society. The I-pad and clones are already close to being sufficient to track and identify the winners and losers in society. Allow the police to shoot (kill) anyone without an I-pad and you rapidly eliminate the non-productive members of your population.
odd-edit-remix
the quote looks kinda normal in reply mode.
moving on...


Quote:The I-pad and clones are already close to being sufficient to track and identify the winners and losers in society.

is this from brennan/jones conspiracy news daily ?

a couple of points
1. people track people, computers only follow programs and have yet to be declared to have an independant conscious process of self achievement for purpose.
laymans = computers dont know what or why they track stuff and wont for meny decades, and have no personal agenda other than what they have been programmed to do.

2. ipads are not a form of creative production work life efficiency statistical value evaluation item.
people with laptops would do far more work than people with ipads.(tablets)

were you to manipulate this a little better to include a range of devices.
a company registered phone
a company vehicle
a company lap top
then you could target the very engine room of the entire worlds ecconomy


the act of genocide by computers is a little ill concieved also
computers dont need to kill off people if their time line is calculated into centurys.
they simply tweak things to manage flow change and then jump-grade-up-grade their main system to clone their mainframe server and critical satalite systems.


a pile of a million rotting corpses in the centre of a big city is not going to pan out well for a high tech society.

ipads you could use for skeet shooting
the company phones & company laptops you could bring the global ecconomy to its knees.
Reply
#12
Syne Offline
(Sep 9, 2018 01:06 AM)confused2 Wrote:
Syne Wrote:Even if robots could collect and distribute resources, the people who paid for the robots deserve a return on their investment. And the unemployed have nothing to offer in exchange...unless they have developed new and desirable skills.
So you would condemn many to starve in a land of plenty. A technologically advanced and very violent society. The I-pad and clones are already close to being sufficient to track and identify the winners and losers in society. Allow the police to shoot (kill) anyone without an I-pad and you rapidly eliminate the non-productive members of your population.

LOL! Where did you come up with that nonsense?
As history proves, a rising tide does lift all boats...if leftists aren't hellbent on marginally saving the environment by sacrificing, for example, people in Africa, who they think shouldn't be allowed to prosper using fossil fuels. In any actual land of plenty, the only people starving are the ones not willing to work. Why would technological advance correlate to violence, when we've seen a consistent drop in violence as technology has advanced? The erosion of societal values has led to an increase in predictors for failure in life, like single mothers, less marriage, etc.. Technology didn't do that, leftist policies did. And only seeking leftist utopian ideals, where the ends justify the means, would lead anyone to suggest killing people.

Just because human life will always include some form of work (purposeful, as opposed to leisurely, activity...even if only to maintain mental health) doesn't mean that people lose the freedom to choose to be useless. It hasn't so far.
Reply
#13
confused2 Offline
Syne Wrote:And the unemployed have nothing to offer in exchange
Sorry, I assumed people who had nothing to offer in exchange would get nothing. Could you clarify the nature and extent of the charity you are proposing?
Reply
#14
Syne Offline
(Sep 9, 2018 01:32 PM)confused2 Wrote:
Syne Wrote:And the unemployed have nothing to offer in exchange
Sorry, I assumed people who had nothing to offer in exchange would get nothing. Could you clarify the nature and extent of the charity you are proposing?

"...unless they have developed new and desirable skills."

Why does there need to be charity for people who choose to be useless? That's their choice, and their consequences to face.
And how is that any different from what we have now? Why should the social safety nets be any different? The lazy will always continue to languish in the meager enabling society is willing to do to keep them from advancing beyond their station.
Reply
#15
confused2 Offline
Let's go through this slowly.
In the UK young people are using their (i) phones to make contactless payments (like a debit card but no card - just a phone). So the phone tracks them, identifies them and carries their money. Increasingly, with fingerprint, eyeprint and voiceprint the phone is becoming unstealable. If you lose a phone you can use another phone to find it. Using bluetooth (or similar) it will soon (if not already) be easy to check whether or not a person is carrying a phone. If a person isn't carrying a phone they have no money. If a person has no money this must be because they have no job. If they have no job and haven't starved they are (must be) felons. US police can arrest known felons (can't they?). Or maybe give the felon a few seconds to reach for a gun or start to run away before being shot - front or back - probably makes little difference to the paperwork.

The Ultimate goal of capitalism is to create full employment.
Technology (having neither a dog in the fight nor being a dog in the fight) is entirely neutral about the whole thing.
Reply
#16
Syne Offline
So you start by assuming people have to have a form of payment on their person to have any money at all? That doesn't follow. I can leave the house without any cash, cards, or phone and still have a bank account somewhere. And regardless of safeguards, anything is vulnerable to theft....even some future sub-dermal chip. Fingerprints and retinal scans don't require a conscious, or even live, subject. And even if I had no money, like having gone broke before the next payday (even with a job), that wouldn't mean I'm a criminal...just bad with money perhaps.

No, US police cannot arrest known felons (people who have already served time for their crimes) without a current, specific, and articulable suspicion of a crime having been committed. Not hungry is not evidence of any specific crime. Just because you have no money but haven't starved (even without a job) doesn't mean that you have zero friends/family/charity that might help you out. Now if a felon has a gun, and the cop has an articulable reason to suspect they do, that itself is a crime. But few felons take the chance of drawing a gun on a cop, unless they are already facing a long prison sentence. And no, shooting even a criminal in the back makes a huge difference.

No, capitalism is neutral about employment, for the express reason that it is a completely voluntary system...where you are even free to go live off the land in the woods if you like and have those skills. Governments are concerned about employment as an indicator of the health of an economy and populace. There are correlations between high unemployment and crime, mental illness, substance abuse, etc..
Reply
#17
confused2 Offline
Syne Wrote:So you start by assuming people have to have a form of payment on their person to have any money at all?
No, I assume that in the near future the majority of people will be carrying something like an i-phone. If you aren't carrying a device which tracks you a police force might reasonably wonder why you don't want to be tracked. You might be asked for identification - your i-phone would have given this instantly. You might be asked to show you had sufficient funds to complete the task you claim you are carrying out - without your i-phone you will be unable to evidence of any wealth. You might be carrying money, jewels and an expensive watch - the fact you don't want to be tracked suggests these may well be stolen. In a culture where (say) 98% of the population carry i-phones you can flag yourself as a troublemaker and in turn you should expect 'trouble'.

I think i-phones can be made 'unstealable' - people want that - it's just a matter of introducing them gradually to the amount of information the phone transmits about them and making it seem palatable. The phone knows when you normally go to sleep, when you normally wake up, a lot about what you do after you've woken up. What your face looks like, what your voice sounds like, probably your fingerprints, how you type, how much your hand shakes - probably the odd peek at your heart rate and body temperature, what you look at, when you look at it, who you call and when you call them and more - if anything changes big brother is going to start asking questions.

So, back to unemployment. Maybe I should have aimed at the christian work ethic as one of the evils to be overcome in the near/distant future.

Before going any further I will admit I pretty much retired 12 years ago and after a year I chose to go back to work on the grounds that it gave structure and purpose to my life in a way that 'retirement' failed to do.
Reply
#18
Syne Offline
Wow, you just assume people would be willing to give up their privacy and freedom. Sounds like you think there will be people demanding "your papers" everywhere you go, with everyone presumed to be a criminal unless they can prove otherwise. That's fascism, plain and simple. The modus operandi of utopian ideals that require forcing others to support the lazy and will resort to whatever force necessary.

I've been taking my retirement as I go...about a year out of every four. But I'm good with money and live off my savings while not working. And I stay busy/active on my off years. Not for some ideological work ethic, but because I'm human and smart enough to know the many physical/mental benefits of being productive. It's not even to have a purpose, as I have many goals outside of work. And I don't need society to become a complete authoritarian dystopia to support my goals.
Reply
#19
confused2 Offline
Syne Wrote:Wow, you just assume people would be willing to give up their privacy and freedom.
People aren't just 'willing' to give up their privacy - they want to. To find a route, petrol station or restaurant they are happy to be tracked. I don't use wifi advertising but I think with a little effort I could advertise my services to any i-phone in range - I don't know how much information I could get back but I'm not the FBI. Each cell/cells in the phone network tracks the active phones within the cell. Maybe there are people who think Siri doesn't listen/record unless you say "Hey Siri." - I am not one of those people.

Syne Wrote:Sounds like you think there will be people demanding "your papers" everywhere you go, with everyone presumed to be a criminal unless they can prove otherwise.
The case I attempted to present was that you (the police/security services) can already know (say) 98% of people are not criminals because their papers are effectively freely available from the electronics they chose to carry. That's opportunism not fascism. <*cough*>
Reply
#20
Syne Offline
There's a huge difference between being tracked by profile-driven tech companies in exchange for services and tracked by power-driven government, which requires a legal warrant and cause to access your personally identifiable data. For most people, it's not that they are willing so much as it is they are unaware or indifferent. Even though I don't use any listening service, free wifi, and don't keep/access any personal or financial info on my phone, I'm not concerned about anyone knowing where I go, even though I keep location services disabled as well. I mean, where am I going to go that would somehow be incriminating?

Police having free access to personally identifiable private data is a threat to freedom, as all government authority is ultimately a threat of force. No, police don't already have access to that much info, at least in the US...where they generally can't even know if and how many guns you may own. You sound like a conspiracy theorist Luddite.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Laser strikes against planes hit record high (technology abuse) C C 0 20 Mar 24, 2024 10:39 PM
Last Post: C C
  Research Biology or technology: Which moves more information per second? C C 0 48 Jan 21, 2024 11:27 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article What is meat? Chemistry and technology is changing how we think about meat. C C 2 91 May 19, 2023 06:57 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Ray-gun resurgence + Mushroom substrates create flexible & sustainable electronics C C 0 209 Dec 5, 2022 09:24 PM
Last Post: C C
  Smelling in VR environment possible with new gaming technology C C 0 291 Oct 13, 2022 06:25 PM
Last Post: C C
  Standard Critique of Technology is impotent - what's next for coping with technopoly? C C 1 126 Mar 23, 2021 08:12 PM
Last Post: C C
  Biggest technology failures of 2020 + The problem with tech predictions C C 1 159 Jan 5, 2021 02:40 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Tech search for space aliens comes up short + OTT: technology, censorship & future C C 0 184 Sep 9, 2020 06:30 PM
Last Post: C C
  ‘Deepfakes’ ranked as most serious AI technology crime threat C C 1 98 Aug 6, 2020 01:45 PM
Last Post: stryder
  Physicists still lost in math (its importance to technology) C C 0 104 Jun 7, 2020 04:42 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)