The Neo-Liberals ...

Crni Vuk

Crni Vuk

M4A3 Oldfag oTO
Orderite
I figured that there are quite a few Neo-Liberals on this forum, or well the 'Fuckers are just to lazy to work!' faction, which feel pretty strong when it comes to social welfare, health care, taxes and all that while I guess supporting the idea of free enterprice, corporations, privatisation and all that.

To those people, I have one question.

What should we do about this?



Is there some Neo-Liberal or capitalist idea (seriously now) that could be applied to this new kind of automatisation that might get rid of 50% of the jobs? Not just cheap labor, but really also high quality jobs like Doctors, Lawyers maybe even engineers. Basically anything, that a human does, could be eventually done by a machine, just better. It's not a question of 'if' but 'when'. The human mind is a blue print, and a machine or programm could in theory do it, if its programming is sophisticated enough.
 
I read a while back some article that research had been done by some think tank or research group to determine how many people in the world would be needed if most work could be automated.
It basically came down to two or three billions, the rich upper classes and that number of people needed to oversee and maintain the machines and the other work that can not be automated (yet).

So I assume based on that it would be best if a large portion of the "useless" people would just die.
But seeing as most will probably not be willing to commit suicide, I guess some sort of drastic population reduction through warfare or a bio agent would be the next best thing.

So my question to neo-liberals then is, seeing as I am one of the "useless" persons (you know, having Autism and certain limitations) that takes to much resources and space better spend on the "worthy", will you at least have the balls and spine to look me in the eyes when you condemn me to death, rather then letting some nobody you'll hire say it for you? At least you should face your victims when you decide their fate.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
I read a while back some article that research had been done by some think tank or research group to determine how many people in the world would be needed if most work could be automated.
It basically came down to two or three billions, the rich upper classes and that number of people needed to oversee and maintain the machines and the other work that can not be automated (yet).

So I assume based on that it would be best if a large portion of the "useless" people would just die.
But seeing as most will probably not be willing to commit suicide, I guess some sort of drastic population reduction through warfare or a bio agent would be the next best thing.

So my question to neo-liberals then is, seeing as I am one of the "useless" persons (you know, having Autism and certain limitations) that takes to much resources and space better spend on the "worthy", will you at least have the balls and spine to look me in the eyes when you condemn me to death, rather then letting some nobody you'll hire say it for you? At least you should face your victims when you decide their fate.
Click to expand...


Thing is they don't need to kill you. They can make life hard enough for you to cease being a problem.
 
TorontRayne said:
Thing is they don't need to kill you. They can make life hard enough for you to cease being a problem.
Click to expand...

Oh of course, but again, do they at least have the balls and spine to tell you that they do this because they really would like you to die sooner rather than later?
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
Oh of course, but again, do they at least have the balls and spine to tell you that they do this because they really would like you to die sooner rather than later?
Click to expand...

No, they act like they are doing a great service. Theoretically this kind of government would only seek to gain more power while subverting those around them.
 
^^^^
They even are lying to themselves in order to be comfortable about their decisions, saying that it is "progress" and will be "better on the long run for everyone".

Well you know what they say "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Admitting that people have to die in order so that they can maintain their cushy lives full of sunshine would shatter the illusion that there is no price to pay.

They'd best pray there is no afterlife (or just stop the pretense of being religious and admit they are atheist), because there will be a lot of people waiting for them if it does turn out to be real.
 
Thing is we have enough resources we are just careless with how we use them. So billions don't need to die to make things run more smoothly. Mother nature will end all the discussion pretty quick when the next plague comes around.
 
Wish it would be a plague that hits the "decision-makers" first.

Anyway, I assume that if the trend in robotics and computer improvement continues it will eventually lead to a technological singularity and that self aware machines at some point decide for themselves and "retire" humanity.

Perhaps a somewhat pleasing thought for most of us, that the remainder of humanity will probably be forced to hide most of the time to avoid the Hunter-Killer drones that will be hunting them, leading a life full of stress and worry while searching for supplies.
 
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/18/elon...sal-basic-income-heres-how-it-would-work.html

I'll let Elon Musk, Godfather of Neo-Liberal Techno-Dreamers, explain for me. But basically, technological development is reaching the point the group can finally benefit from the prosperity brought about it and it's a good thing. The population of the Earth must be checked and lowered but that actually tends to happen by itself as more prosperous couples have fewer kids.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
So I assume based on that it would be best if a large portion of the "useless" people would just die.
But seeing as most will probably not be willing to commit suicide, I guess some sort of drastic population reduction through warfare or a bio agent would be the next best thing.
Click to expand...
basically deus ex.
 
We need a fully technocratic society with the 1% living as a closed off high tech caste living for researching transcendence and the rest living in a medieval technology level, religiously indoctrinated to abhor technology and love an ascetic livestyle. You'd need a fully realised industry 4.0 structure for this, of course.
 
Hassknecht said:
We need a fully technocratic society with the 1% living as a closed off high tech caste living for researching transcendence and the rest living in a medieval technology level, religiously indoctrinated to abhor technology and love an ascetic livestyle. You'd need a fully realised industry 4.0 structure for this, of course.
Click to expand...

Or as other countries call it, "How the First World relates to the Third World."

R.Graves said:
basically deus ex.
Click to expand...

I'd laugh but the rich have tried to kill or sterilize the poor en masse many times.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
So I assume based on that it would be best if a large portion of the "useless" people would just die.
But seeing as most will probably not be willing to commit suicide, I guess some sort of drastic population reduction through warfare or a bio agent would be the next best thing.
Click to expand...
You know what's funny, a very sick individual of the German Green party made the serious sugestion that nuclear weapons should be used against over population ... well that was in the 1970 or something.

TorontRayne said:
Thing is they don't need to kill you. They can make life hard enough for you to cease being a problem.
Click to expand...
Eh, even a few 'rich' people are realizing that things shouldn't get to much out of hand. The point is, history is not on the side of the rich and elites once all the shit really hits the fan.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014

Now, of course I am not saying this HAS to happen ... but people that have nothing to lose, are really hard to fight off. And a nation like the US, that is so weaponized? That's kinda like a recipe for disaster. And if the rich think they could move to some remote island or succesfully protect them self, well they should think again ... well who's going to defend them? Mercenaries? The military? Which one? And against thousands if not milions of people? It sometimes takes only one man, to start everything, as we have seen trough out history.


CT Phipps said:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/18/elon...sal-basic-income-heres-how-it-would-work.html

I'll let Elon Musk, Godfather of Neo-Liberal Techno-Dreamers, explain for me. But basically, technological development is reaching the point the group can finally benefit from the prosperity brought about it and it's a good thing. The population of the Earth must be checked and lowered but that actually tends to happen by itself as more prosperous couples have fewer kids.
Click to expand...
Dunno, overpopulation is an issue, but probably not as much as everyone thinks it is.



I personaly think that humanity is at a turning point right now facing a very unique challange.

The decisions we make as society right now, could really lead to a Star Trek like future, where most if not all of our needs will be solved trough technology, possibily creating some kind of future where there is no real need for money or large wealth anymore, since everyone can get what is needed for a decent live. Work? Why the fuck should I clean your toilt! Or drive your car! Rich bastard! Get your self a robot.

Or, we start a really violent and large conflict, one the world has never seen before - I wouldn't be surprised if it will be some kind of religious war even ... You know a Nuclear War of some sort turning large parts of the world in to radiated wastelands.

Maybe, if a large part of the population really has no reason to work anymore, but still enough funds to have a decent live maybe this would lead to a real thrive of our species. Who knows? The Greek reached the peak in their culture, when they had slaves doing most of the very harsh labour for the population mainly providing the citizens with food, giving people enough time to actually spend time on mental activites rather than spending your whole day for gathering food.

Robots and Computerprograms, could really become our 'new' slaves. Who knows? Maybe it will lead to a whole new era of enlightenment.
 
The Robopocalypse will not be about machines getting too smart or self aware ,but by out of control capitalism that loses it's own porpouse and we automatizing things we shouldn't with incompetently done machines. It's gonna be the lamest apocalypse scenario.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Maybe, if a large part of the population really has no reason to work anymore, but still enough funds to have a decent live maybe this would lead to a real thrive of our species. Who knows? The Greek reached the peak in their culture, when they had slaves doing most of the very harsh labour for the population mainly providing the citizens with food, giving people enough time to actually spend time on mental activites rather than spending your whole day for gathering food.

Robots and Computerprograms, could really become our 'new' slaves. Who knows? Maybe it will lead to a whole new era of enlightenment.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, while doing research for my history degree, I read a bunch of books and articles on slavery's effect on population health and intelligence. Sparta enslaving their surrounding city states and reducing them to Helots transformed their entire culture and ultimately ended up making them unable to expand because they had to focus so much on keeping their people in line. Rome's economy becoming slave dependent resulted in long term and widespread social unrest that the whole "bread and circuses" platform was designed to combat. The American South claimed that their intellectual accomplishments would be greater for being freed up from work but the only great writer of the South was Edgar Allan Poe as basically, slave owners focused on enjoying themselves over doing anything.

Necessity is, of course, the mother of invention and the greatest scientific accomplishments were driven by need or war or struggle.
 
Crni Vuk said:
The decisions we make as society right now, could really lead to a Star Trek like future, where most if not all of our needs will be solved trough technology, possibily creating some kind of future where there is no real need for money or large wealth anymore, since everyone can get what is needed for a decent live.
Click to expand...
Not going to happen, you can't change human nature. By feeding and providing everyone with free stuff without any effort on their part you'll only create incredible population boom, with billions uneducated folks multiplying at frightening rate. Your system would collapse shortly after reaching the growth limits set by drinking water supplies.

Unless global population would accept responsible policies such as birth control, the resource shortages and wars are inevitable. Since most of the world population is deeply religious and cannot accept such a blasphemy as birth control, the humanity has to learn its lesson the hard way, by wars. Inshallah!
 
Look at the video from Kurzgesagt posted above regarding overpopulation, it's an issue but it can be managed.

As far as human nature goes, you can't 'change' biology that is true. But you can change behaviour - see
Pavlov and conditioning for example, and you can take a look at how humans learn and how to make the greatest use of it, this is also backed by neuroscience, like the German neurologist Gerald Hüther.



We're living in an intrinsic system where success is measured by the job you have, how high your education is, how well you're a part of the society, it tickles all the dopamines in your brain telling you what to do. And your job in many ways determines your social and economical status. And this idea already starts within the educational system.

School children are graded on how much knowledge they can aquire what ever if they needs it or not or if they even want it or not, and schools are organised in a way that every student has to become a part of it or he will get scolded and punished. Free thinking, individualism, creativity and curiosity are frowned up on, it's not even possible to spend time to promote every student to learn on his own pace for example, as the speed is predefined by the class. Every Students which is to slow will simply fall behind, geting bad grades and end up frustrated, but it is also a huge issue for those students which are simply to fast. Even teachers dedicated to change or improve something, can't do it as it's not possible for the teachers to act as 'individuals' here. Both teachers and students are objectified and if they don't become a part of it, they often run in to trouble.



And that has lead to a situation where the teachers hate it, the students hate it and the parents hate it.
However, the Montessori education follows a different approach:

"Her [Montessori] approach was characterized by an emphasis on independence, freedom within limits, and respect for a child's natural psychological, physical, and social development".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education​


That's why I said, changes have to be made NOW, or at least thought about. Basic income, individual education, stronger regulations on financial transactions and better protection for the environment and so on.

But what ever the solutions might be, if there even are solutions, as you say, one thing is absolutely clear. As the philosopher David Precht said, "Technical progress is the only progress of mankind which is irreverisble", you can't reverse the invention of the nuclear bomb, or computers for example. So this new automatition and globalisation are on it's way what ever if we want it or not.
 
I always figured that a communist society could work, if it were run by an artificial intelligence designed to care about the greater good.

I mean, if you think about it the reason so many communist society's failed is because an extremist took control of the vanguard, and abused there power(Eg. Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao). If it were an AI making sure that everyone is cared for, it's far less risky.
 
Communism can't work, doesn't matter if it's run by AI or humans as communism has NO sense or place for the individual - even less than our current system and that's saying something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top