دفترچه

(08-18-2015, 10:07 PM)Nilftrondheim نوشته: [ -> ]I didn't read what others wrote (procrastinating like a pro), but a work  free society might be possible if it only supplies human needs. Not  wants, needs. I might "want" a fuckin' continent in my possession! There  is no limit to human desires. But needs, that is reasonable. Food,  water, air, power, communication, and transportation. You might object  including "air" in the list but what inevitably follows such a society  is space colonization! Yes, a space habitat, whether in orbit or on a  body, should supply it's inhabitants with those needs. Unless we develop  such closed ecosystems here on Earth, we can't afford space  colonization. In short, efforts to colonize Mars will inevitably lead to  a work free Earth, and a work free Earth will lead to an explosive  space colonization. Food is the biggest issue here. If you ever look  into the numbers, it's mind blowing. But as Mars One program states, it is is possible to feed one man indefinitely from only 50-80 m^2 of hydroponics. Obviously, there will be no meat

I hadn't seen this post for some reason. That's indeed correct, supplying basic human needs through automation is something completely, indisputably possible with today's tech and the only reason we're not doing this, is that our priorities, as human beings, aren't set right.


Universal Basic Income (UBI) might be the stepping stone to this ideal.

People aren't wired to think about these matters unfortunately, I've seen many, many people who have difficulty grasping that between all and nothing is plenty of other points. Nothing needs to be perfect, we don't need suddenly to have 0 work as a society, rather, we need to have the vision that all basic needs of a human being must be provided for, with no questions asked.

There's another bunch of idiots in the opposition to this as well, often coming from capitalistic backgrounds who are dismayed by this notion and usually come up with silly arguments such as: BUT THAT WOULD MAKE LIFE BORING.

Translation: My boredom is more important than your freedom from work.

To this bunch, the correct answer is usually saying "freedom > boredom, therefore, fuck off".

(07-31-2015, 07:25 AM)Nocturne نوشته: [ -> ]

I don't think (technologically speaking) we are quite there yet, I mean even if we had the technology (which we don't) think about the cost, cost of replacing a human with a machine still far exceed the cost of hiring a human to do it, and I don't think it has anything to do with capitalism, the technology is not mature enough, and when a technology isn't mature and is still cutting edge, the cost is higher than it should be and loosing that much money doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Technology is more than enough mature, look into the production of PS5, it's nearly all automated.

We can build such a marvelous, technologically complicated device fully automated, but we can't have machines do farming and agriculture right?

We have self-driving cars now, nearly about to unleash flying cars, yet we can't automate the most basic and mundane stuff? Unlikely.

Many things that we as human beings are doing are pointless and stupid. With enough investment we can have drones do forestation (as well as afforestation), instead, ironically, we have evolvivg killing drones, the latter being an order of magnitude perhaps more complicated than the former.


The problem here mostly lies in incentives.

(11-28-2020, 10:50 PM)Mehrbod نوشته: [ -> ]There's another bunch of idiots in the opposition to this as well, often coming from capitalistic backgrounds

The underlying presumption behind this idea is if we abolish mundane tasks (easier said than done), we can give all more free time to people, and they most likely utilize this for the benefit of mankind. Give us just one reason to why it can't be turn around to become something like Deep Web 2.0? I know, they gave us Privacy Freakz, Whistleblowers, White Hat Hackers (pros), but I trust you remember Pedophiles, Hitmans, and Silk Road (cons).

Nobody deny the possible benefits, but in most situations, profit/loss is never zero-sum or symmetric (one side is more harmful than the other). So in the face of new things, first we must take consider the worst case scenario, 'cause for 'expecting the worse' we may gain nothing, but in 'hoping for the best' we may lose everything. In any case, those who talk about the problem of evil are not saying 'why there's evil in this world' but instead 'why the evil is more dominant'. "A complex system can fail in an infinite number of ways" John Gall declared, "and the larger the system, the greater the probability of unexpected failure". Or in another words, It's so much hard for anything to makes us immortal yet exceptionally simple to makes us dead. BTW, going the extra mile is worthless when we imagine about what ISIS, "Emam's Line", etc. can do with their new free time. Surely they will remove more people from the, according to their own terms, "page of location" & "page of time".

Furthermore, what will happen about Power Process? I hope you don't forget about what's revealed to our lord and savior, Uncle Ted, on the Mount Sinai? Verily to Him do we return!