| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Automation and Employment
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Automation and Employment

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Poll Question: Your choice for the unwanted labour
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
0 [0.00%]
1 [50.00%]
1 [50.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10388
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Oct 2015 at 13:07
I "may" ask myself??  I am glad I have your permission<grin>

I guess you are right about spiritual poverty, although I seem to have heard it both ways.

There was a story on PBS about entrepeneurs, in it they mentioned a MBA professor from 60s? or 70s??
This professor required his class to get the Wall Street Journal.  The most important section in the WSJ (and by extension, any newspaper) for the professor was the obits.  Reading the obits allowed the reader to see what happened in the past, and by extension, imagine what might be possible in the future.
Of course, a fair number of businesses are founded by High School educated self-starters, or college drop outs, not MBAs.

We don't think of imagination as a faculty, but they did in the Middle Ages, something that worked with reason to get things done.

There is luck of the draw and luck of the play. Luck of the draw is what hand you are dealt in life, luck of the play is what you do with that hand.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Oct 2015 at 16:00
I admit to being a bit lazy here and simply pursuing my own agenda but honestly I suspect that the required social engineering required to mitigate some of the problems associated with automation is impossible.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10388
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Oct 2015 at 15:59
I think progressives have a positive view of human nature, they sort of believe that things will naturally get better over time.  The problem with that view is that people often disappoint them when people don't react in the "enlightened" way they expect.  But why should they plan, when things are going to get better anyways.  I mean the progressive needs to plan, but look at situation that is truly messed up, and they don't know where to begin, whereas a Lincoln or a Churchill (both depressives) thrive in such an dark atmosphere.
I tend to think social engineering is manipulative and should be used sparingly.  Although someone like Rahm Emmanuel believe that one should "never let a crisis go to waste."  In other words, anything to push through as much manipulative legislation as possible, undoubtably, with little concern for unintended consequences.  He and President Obama believe they can always "manage" that too.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Oct 2015 at 17:02
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I think progressives have a positive view of human nature, they sort of believe that things will naturally get better over time.  The problem with that view is that people often disappoint them when people don't react in the "enlightened" way they expect.  But why should they plan, when things are going to get better anyways.  I mean the progressive needs to plan, but look at situation that is truly messed up, and they don't know where to begin, whereas a Lincoln or a Churchill (both depressives) thrive in such an dark atmosphere.
I tend to think social engineering is manipulative and should be used sparingly.  Although someone like Rahm Emmanuel believe that one should "never let a crisis go to waste."  In other words, anything to push through as much manipulative legislation as possible, undoubtably, with little concern for unintended consequences.  He and President Obama believe they can always "manage" that too.

Don't take this the wrong way but all we do here is point out the obvious.  The same is true of most political commentary outside this forum.  There seem to be and abundance of truths but translating them into meaningful policy agendas is almost impossible for either the left or the right.  We simply lack a coherent objective that everyone can agree on.  

Earlier I mentioned the pyramids as an example of meaningless objectives that created a positive feedback of social cohesion.  What kind of pyramids would people be willing to build today? 
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10388
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2015 at 08:47
The "obvious" is usually obvious only after the fact.  To me, alot of what we talk about as "true," is merely correct (that's not disparaging it).  Truth is something much more rarified or revelatory.  

It is a giant gordian knot, and we can pick and pick at it, and may untangle a little bit, but unless we take Alexander of Macedon's cheating solution and cut it, we will never get it untangled, and you know, maybe that was the point of it.

There is an old assumption that unemployment can't get below 5%, I have read in the past that that is not necessarily true, and that pre-return Hong Kong had no minimum wage, and basically universal employment.  I seem to remember PJ O'Rourke refers to it, maybe in "Eat the Rich"?  Of course, whatever else happens with automation, unskilled laborers are going to have problems.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2015 at 11:19
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

I see no positive message from progressives.  All they talk about is giving things up like SUVs and 5000 sq ft homes.  I see no reason why people should not have luxury vehicles or large homes if they want them.  Hobby farms and other waste of real estate is a different issue.  We should be asking ourselves not what we have to give up but how people can have the things they want without negatively impacting the environment.  For example in my profession most progressives are infatuated with mass transit.  Mass transit is only really desirable as a last resort in heavily populated areas with definite destinations.  We should have a better dream than being packed on outdated transportation like sardines and look to a future where individual transportation is more like that seen in I Robot which is serves both environmentally friendly efficient transportation needs and individual freedom.  The same is true of energy use if the radical environmentalist had not stood in the way of nuclear power we could already be operating thorium reactors and on our way to clean energy abundance. 

I see this same negativity when discussing automation.  Automation should not mean fewer jobs just different jobs.  Anyone who believes that there is a lack of meaningful jobs to be done simply lacks imagination.

I really detest the term income inequality,  why should incomes be equal?  Income disparity is a much better term which implies that rewards for labor are out of wack.  Automation does threaten to place people out of work or increase the disparity in incomes leaving the "capitalist" totally in control of production.  Perhaps we need another French revolution to clean out the top parasites.  

I have some images of "freedom" when you talk about public transport. Riding 100 feet over the streets of Bangkok, taking in the sights in air-conditioned comfort, chatting with locals, and marveling over the improvements of the skytrain system over the colossal traffic jams of the past, is one. Another is sitting on an eight lane freeway near Miami, crawling ahead in a sea of cars inching along, frustrated drivers (usually alone in their cars) pounding their steering wheels or honking. The thing is, being free as an individual can be a different equation from a community being free, and certainly the mega-communities of our 21st century in particular.

When imagining in the context of employment, I can well imagine current trends continuing, for quite some time, as many do not see a problem, some do but are OK with it because there are benefits for them, even if they are a small minority, and some are afflicted with apathy to the point of withdrawal from the debate.

You can imagine plenty of jobs, but I'm left wondering what ones exactly. Those that subscribe to the notion of the invisible hand creeping through the market place, and determining right and wrong in mystical fashion, would have no need of such extraneous folks, as their profits would be elsewhere, and their sympathies likely obscure, if not disagreeable. Those that would draw them into the public sector, FDR style, would face the same problems seen today, the rants and ravings of Tea Party style hysterics. Expansion of the economy, you might say? Yes good, but we are already seeing expansion, and it is based on technology, not on the need for labour. 
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2015 at 11:30
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

The "obvious" is usually obvious only after the fact.  To me, alot of what we talk about as "true," is merely correct (that's not disparaging it).  Truth is something much more rarified or revelatory.  

It is a giant gordian knot, and we can pick and pick at it, and may untangle a little bit, but unless we take Alexander of Macedon's cheating solution and cut it, we will never get it untangled, and you know, maybe that was the point of it.

There is an old assumption that unemployment can't get below 5%, I have read in the past that that is not necessarily true, and that pre-return Hong Kong had no minimum wage, and basically universal employment.  I seem to remember PJ O'Rourke refers to it, maybe in "Eat the Rich"?  Of course, whatever else happens with automation, unskilled laborers are going to have problems.

Unskilled labour is going to have problems, but the salient point here is that the definition of unskilled (or at least skills no longer in any great demand) labour in the later 21st century will include such as: accountants, bookeepers, salesmen, retail clerks, truck drivers, taxi drivers, cooks, legal aids, production workers, and likely very many more. 

When the great masses of workers who are no longer required are set "free", a few, tiny few, will find their place in the sun as IT people, or whatever. Very many will have no place to go. And I doubt very much that many Americans will be content to eat their rice bowl on the crowded sidewalk, while their betters stride by, Hong Kong style, and not have some controversial thoughts.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2015 at 17:05
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

 
I have some images of "freedom" when you talk about public transport. Riding 100 feet over the streets of Bangkok, taking in the sights in air-conditioned comfort, chatting with locals, and marveling over the improvements of the skytrain system over the colossal traffic jams of the past, is one. Another is sitting on an eight lane freeway near Miami, crawling ahead in a sea of cars inching along, frustrated drivers (usually alone in their cars) pounding their steering wheels or honking. The thing is, being free as an individual can be a different equation from a community being free, and certainly the mega-communities of our 21st century in particular.

Be that as it may from a personal perspective I still see mass transit as a 19th century solution in the 21st century.  My prefered mode of transportation is walking but it is hardly practical at the moment.  For the future I see automated small vehicles as preferable to other options and believe it only requires a little imagination to see the advantages.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2015 at 18:04
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

You can imagine plenty of jobs, but I'm left wondering what ones exactly. Those that subscribe to the notion of the invisible hand creeping through the market place, and determining right and wrong in mystical fashion, would have no need of such extraneous folks, as their profits would be elsewhere, and their sympathies likely obscure, if not disagreeable. Those that would draw them into the public sector, FDR style, would face the same problems seen today, the rants and ravings of Tea Party style hysterics. Expansion of the economy, you might say? Yes good, but we are already seeing expansion, and it is based on technology, not on the need for labour. 

I think you have to be very careful not to confuse 18th century economic philosophy with the modern concept of bottom up design.  Controlled evolution is becoming fashionable in many fields as a way of dealing with complexity in a holistic way.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_evolution

I would also caution against applying simplistic moral concepts to supply and demand.  It is seldom the case that society's evils are driven more by supply than demand.

While we may agree that the financial sectors are more detached from accountability and simultaneously more in control of production than historically it is equally evident that those same institution are not sophisticated enough to even determine there own future.  The two big to fail bankers are not only the victims of their own greed but of their own ignorance.  While conspiracy is probably the right term to use in describing the relationship between the haves and the have nots economies remain driven by consumerism.  Automation may eliminate the consumer but that is not the trend.  The current financial crisis is one of a consumer oriented economy in which the consumers are short of cash.  I suppose if you are a truly negative person you could see that as a positive thing as it limits environmental damage.   Ultimately however technology is the only way out of overwhelmingly negative environmental impacts.  That new technology is driven by consumer demand is self evident and income disparity becomes a major hurdle.  There are tools to address the issues such as progressive taxes and educational funding but I don't think there are any quick fixes in the long run.

The mythology of the invisible hand is not so much that blind design is undesirable as that it is unworkable in a top down social structure.  Swarm intelligence requires some sort of cohesion between the members of the swarm.  Our societies have little collective commitment or sense of individual obligation which is the first requirement of civilization.  As a species we have not evolved to work in groups larger than a few individuals and no amount of social engineering is going to change that.  Moral concepts of course work outside the realm of genetics but can be similarly viral and that should be our first goal.  

What progressives have been doing is blaming the queen for the collapse of the hive.  The corruption however is evident in all members of society.  The workers can produce new queens but only if they themselves are committed to the well being of the hive.  The failure of socialism is to not recognize that the queen was never in charge of anything other than supplying the demand for workers.  Complex organisms simply can't function in a top down structure due to complexity.  That of course doesn't mean no "intelligent design" is required it just means that it's limitations must be considered.      

          
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2015 at 17:39

I am not so sure that automation is the main or only cause of unemployment.

By far the largest cause of unemployment in the west of the last decades has been globalist free trade and cheap labour imports competition which causes cost cutting and restructuring and relocation and mass layoff and mass unemployment. Immigration also causes unemployment (despite claims that immigrants "create jobs" and demand). For evidence see wikipedia timeline of NZ: NZ's unemployment rate doubled in just a few years of new right Rogernomics [counterpart of Reaganomics?]


Though it is true that technology has taken alot of jobs from certain sectors like agriculture/farming. Even in supermarkets they replace with "self service". There was a letter from post office that they were cutting posties to once every two days due to digitalisation (emails/texting) (though i still have troble stopping corporate junk mail!)

With the "surplus" people put out by automation the problem is certain people are selfish slavers. Instead of spreading out the work and profits and leisure more equitably the rich ruling classes want this pool of unemplyed for cheap labour / slave-for-dole. There is no "wisdom of the market", they are selfish slavers. Who are the robots working for?
 Even in Justinian 1's (Byzantine) time they enslaved unemployed into public works.
More suggested in Henry 8th's time a 6 hour work day.
Bring back trade/craft apprenticeships. I have a friend who is "over qualified and underexperienced".


People are selfish. They want their tax cuts, which means persecuting beneficiaries. But they don't care that the corporate share holders brag that they "don't work (hard) but their money works for [them]", or that taxes are just replaced by line charges (which go into shareholders pockets not into maintenance) and userpays.

I gues i best like the subsidise all who do at least something pro-social.
Akolouthos is right that "pro-social" must be according to not just self [or others] but also according to others [or self] too (or 2 or more witnesses). I believe my studies are pro-social, yet i recognise that they are not productive and ideally i wish i could have some casual work like farm work (hay stacking).


It is true that the problem is "spiritual" not just physical.
There is never going to be any "world peace solution utopia" (though they will acheive a false appearance peace for some/many). The problem is inside all of us. And certain selfish people in power. Natural borders are there for reasons.


The government here in NZ are really harshly persecuting some unemployed beneficiaries by their welfare reforms and work testing.
I have heard that in UK they are making unemployed and sick pick up rubbish, work tetsing even people dying of cancer, forced euthenasia, moving to compulsory treatment of sick, and call beggars "lazy". I have heard there are homeless people in the USA. So it is not so easy for some beneficiaries (not all are partying daily), and the beneficiaries are not the only badies. People that work are not grateful for having a job etc but have to persecute people worse off.
Its all punishment, fear, threat, force, dis/incentives, isolation, etc, not any help, positives, reward, etc. But also just throwing money at things is no use when other things are needed.

Capitalism and "socialism" are two side of the same coin and capitalism/corporatism is just as bad if not worse. Corporate welfare is also problem not just "welfare state".


My father did lost of voluntary work for people but was treated like crap still.
My grandfather broke a strike because he had agreed to work for his fare to come to nz from uk, but he was run out of town for it by unionists which stress broke the marriage and wrecked my fathers and hence my life.
I have made many historical discoveries and done hard work on them and not even had any mere appreciation for them.
I have a friend who is "over qualified and underexperienced", but i don't see the self-rightouess "morally fibred" right giving her a job.

I agree that we would be in trouble without the
"garbage people, the farmer, the construction worker, the auto repair technician, the truck drivers, electricians, plumbers, oil workers, police, firemen, engineers, rail workers, water and gas service personnel, highway maintenance, customer service, grocery clerks, and the host of other people that keep you alive."
Many people do work (hard) and are not really paid or treated well for it. We should have policies that do best for workers and for all except total unrehabilitaible badies (top baddies, middle baddies or bottom baddies).
But are the government and corporatists and right also really & truly thankful for them? And at least those workers are paid for it, and have wives/husbands [women don't like unemployed], etc unlike some of us beneficiaries (we suffer enough for it). And do these workers who know about evils like fluoridated water and sprayed food and food full of sugar care about other fellow citizens by not speaking out?

Btw there should be no "minimum wage". There should be profit sharing and merit pay.


"Are there not prisons, work houses, [mental units, slave for dole schemes]" - Charles Dickens.

"Work makes you free" - sign of gateway of Nazi concentration camp.

"Working for NZ" - NZ National Party. They are really working for corporatists/capitalists.

"Give 10 prisoners $1 and one prisoner will come out with all $10".

To the corporates we are all just consumers/customers/clients/numbers & cattle.

What about collective/social responsibiity not just individual responsibility. They always going on about responsibility but there is also lack of rights.


"Even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat" ~ Lilly Tomlin.


"Work to live not live to work"


Full employment has some good to it, but it also has some bad. No point everyone just spending all their time working ((&) for others). What about cultural and academic and inventive pursuits?  Didn't they find in the USSR that farmers did less work for communal than for private? Well similiariliy we all must have some self interests/hobbies/leisure not just all work.

"Men are tired to disgust of money-economy. They hope for salvation from somewhere or other, for some real thing of honour and chivalry, of inward nobility, of unselfishness and duty." - Spengler.

"We hang minor thieves and tip our hats to major ones." (- German proverb.)

"Freedom to starve!" (- German farmer at end of WW2 'liberation'.)

"charity begins at home".

"love of "Money"/Mammon is the root of all evil". - Bible.

"under a good king the peasants rejoice".

Hunter S. Thompson wrote, “Some people get rich and others eat sh*t and die.”

Even the Neanderthals took care of their elderly/sick.

"We hang minor thieves and tip our hats to major ones." (- German proverb.)


"Of the 22 civilizations that have appeared in  history, nineteen of them collapsed when they  reached the moral state the United States is in  now." (- Arnold J. Toynbee.)

"the one who looks after a widow or a poor person is like a fighter [same rootword as jihad?] who fights for Allah's cause".

"The real USA unemployment rate is 30%."


It is a lie that women dream to be a solo mother. I haven't had any women offer me to nooky nooky. But women do want to be secure or rich when it comes to choosing a partner. And there is nothing wrong with raising (healthy, 2 hetero gender parent) children. Marriage and family and raising children should be encouraged (but that should not mean punishing people who are unfortunate to be single).


All laws are covered in one law:
"do unto others as you would have done to you".
"love your neighbour as yourself".

The reasons i am not able to work include:
- bad condition/sicknesses (ocd, aspergers, ptsd, anxiety, misophonia)
- bad accomodation situation (& location)
- my studies
- i refuse to work since i am 42 and single.
- governments fault for causing/exaserbating unemployment by free trade etc.
- i am not able and refuse to work on fluoridated water.
- prefer a job suit my ability and character.
- no one has helped or offered me anything that i am able to do.
- abit late to be doing re/training etc at 42.


I was only able to skim both pages sorry. (I am only on dialup and they persecute me (more) if i spend too much time online. It already took over an hour to skim-read them!)

Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2015 at 20:20
Originally posted by truthsetsfree truthsetsfree wrote:


 

Thanks for your comments.  Simply put the problem seems to be that we have no pyramides we collectively wish to build.  I hope you find something "meaningful" to work at in your life. 
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2015 at 23:57
You are right (& is better than my dumb). I just want to say that I don't think/feel that i rejected this community (meaningfulness/together/pyramid/Babel), but that it rejected me (or God/Nature made me a reject) (despite what fault/bad of my own). And, the problem with pyramids is that it is abit like slavery, especially for us who are dumber/lower. (And it is not like we have any much choice of who/where we are born into.)

Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Oct 2015 at 14:01
Originally posted by truthsetsfree truthsetsfree wrote:

You are right (& is better than my dumb). I just want to say that I don't think/feel that i rejected this community (meaningfulness/together/pyramid/Babel), but that it rejected me (or God/Nature made me a reject) (despite what fault/bad of my own). And, the problem with pyramids is that it is abit like slavery, especially for us who are dumber/lower. (And it is not like we have any much choice of who/where we are born into.)


Yes building pyramids is like slavery if you are not committed to the same objectives as the rest of society.  In your case however I would say that society is not committed to employing you.  Which I suppose is the topic of the thread.  
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Oct 2015 at 21:36
It seems our dearly beloved Conservative Party has the solution here in England. One of their MP's, Jeremy Hunt, has declared that anyone who is willing to work for the National Minimum Wage has no self esteem and ought to work like chinese coolies. Personally I find that incredibly insulting and arrogant. However, as much as this often underlines the attitude of the rich and successfu, the writing is on the wall. Those who do not meet the demands of education or training, or simply have the misfortune to fall from grace, will end up as cheap manual labour. Nothing new there then. 
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Oct 2015 at 13:49
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

It seems our dearly beloved Conservative Party has the solution here in England. One of their MP's, Jeremy Hunt, has declared that anyone who is willing to work for the National Minimum Wage has no self esteem and ought to work like chinese coolies. Personally I find that incredibly insulting and arrogant. However, as much as this often underlines the attitude of the rich and successfu, the writing is on the wall. Those who do not meet the demands of education or training, or simply have the misfortune to fall from grace, will end up as cheap manual labour. Nothing new there then. 

Nothing new is a reasonable position on this issue as I'm sure that even in an automated world slave labor still has an attraction for the rich. 
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Oct 2015 at 19:47
It's more to do with commercial opportunism. With an educated and trained elite, the great m,ajority of unskilled labour needs something to do and of course as they become desperate someone will find a role for them, albeit for their profit and not the labourers. Ye gods... I'm sounding like a communist.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2015 at 03:47
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:


Yes building pyramids is like slavery if you are not committed to the same objectives as the rest of society.  In your case however I would say that society is not committed to employing you.  Which I suppose is the topic of the thread.  


Sorry if this is abit paranoid, i probably misunderstood. Whatever right/healthy/true/good this "society"/"community"/"rest"/regime/"elite" have or supposedly have, and whatever bad/dumb/wrong/sick/unskilled/needs i have, this regime still has alot of evil/bad/wrong/cirminal/slavery (not just "like" slavery) objectives/etc, and i am not all wrong/bad/sick/dumb i have some right. This society is committed to enslaving people, or at least to tax cuts and benefit reforms. And it is abit late, they should have made sure my upbringing and education were not messed up. I have my studies to do but they hinder me. I need to not be sick (not just medication/treatment but other options) before i can be employed. Everyone should be able to find their best "niche" that suits character and ability. Maybe when alot more people are put out by automation then they won't be so harsh on beneficiaries as they have been. Cut all MPs salaries & perks. End of my participation of this thread/topic (unless there is more that makes me paranoid to have to reply to).

Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Oct 2015 at 01:22
Quote This society is committed to enslaving people

What? The modern west? Nonsense. Twenty years ago I worked alongside someone who regularly procaimed we were living in a tyranny. Why? He was a free man, with legal rights and protections (which have increased in Britain since then it has to be said). The trouble was he wasn't personaly respected, being something of an idiot and not especially capable at work, never mind his personal habits and appearance, so he felt personally powerless. But his perception of influence does not apply to society as a whole.

The same issue often covers a great many of the alternative crowd who keep wittering on about conspiracies and so forth. I wrote this a while ago...

Public perception of current affairs is often skewed according to various factors. I remember an Iranian immigrant who was in my engineering class at College in the 80's. He was convinced, completely and absolutely, that the CIA was responsible for every bad thing that happened in the world. I told him that couldn't be the case. There's only so many CIA agents, only so much money to fund their activities, and there's plenty of other agencies at work, never mind the unexpected twists of fate. He simply couldn't understand why I was saying that.

That sort of thing isn't unusual. A forklift driver I spoke to a couple of years ago, as british as you can get, had exactly the same beliefs. He could not accept that 9/11 was the work of a slightly amateurish terrorist team. No, he insisted it was CIA black ops, without any inkling of commonsense or understanding of the politics, science, and forensics of the event. Another british warehouseman the same day insisted that the Falkland War was about getting bases in Chile. Pardon me? Well, a serviceman had told him that and it was from the horses mouth as far as he was concerned, never mind the complete implausibility of that particular leg-pull and all the evidence that it was a military expedition to oust Argentine occupation of a British dependency.

The reality isn't enough. Some people want to believe they know more than what the media tell us or perhaps more importantly, that they know more than you or I. Now I have to accept that even the western free press isn't entirely honest and objective all of the time, but then, neither are their sources. In some cases, information is withheld to prevent undesirable circumstances, or indeed discoveries that the authorities don't want scrutinised. That's normal security procedure for any country but it doesn't help convince people that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is being related.

In the search of this kind of 'knowledge advantage' these people will believe anything if it provides an alternative explanation that puts their favourite bugbear into question. The upshot is that if you believe a certain agency is a bad thing, you tend to believe bad things about it. The islamic activists already know this - it's why they press the propaganda button at every opportunity. Hitler had asserted that the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it was true. It must be said he ought to know. However that strategy can backfire. The West never did find evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.


Technically here in Britain we're voting for party political control with the Prime Minister assuming almost the powers of head of state until re-elected or unelected, not only by the electorate themselves, but their own party members in seperate votes. Whilst this system is hugely frustrating to those of us that don't like the policies these party leaders pursue or activate, we also have regular opportunities to oust them.  Tyranny? No, because tyranny does not regard the wishes of the population, or even an established electorate, as having any meaningful impediment to their rule.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Oct 2015 at 05:00
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote This society is committed to enslaving people

What? The modern west? Nonsense. 

This attitude that we are all slaves of the "system" is why I mentioned the pyramids.  At one time it was general held they were built by slaves all though there was no evidence to that effect.  I assume that people felt nobody would build such a structure for a king unless forced to do so.  We now know that the pyramids were built by labors who were engaged in a collective religious enterprise.  The same pattern of monument building can be seen in europe where the relatively poor built cathedrals to honor their God and society in the late "dark" ages.   You could say both these peoples were slaves to religious ideology but that would be missing the point.  In both cases building a monument without any practical value was an act of social solidarity and "nation" building.  Internally it was an act of devotion and externally it said we have the power to transcend basic needs.  

In the modern world we measure a society to some extent by how much excess wealth it has to spend on what Lyndon Johnson called the "great society".  The elimination of visible poverty became our new cathedral not built of stone but of words and legislation in which the value of human life is enshrined.  The fact that pyramid builders were better fed than villagers and received medical means that social welfare is not a new idea.   What is different in the modern world is the lack of social commitment to volunteer for the work required to build a "great society".  Our "kings" feel little obligation to the workers and the workers feel no "religious" commitment to the goals of society.  Work has become a meaningless means to an end.  In times of war or other social calamity some of the ancient spirit of social solidarity returns but it lacks the same cohesive sense of shared values.

If we are going to over come the challenges of unemployment we need to rediscover the meaning of work.  Work even the most menial of employments should be a "spiritual" experience of commitment.  Achieving this objective is of course not going to be easy in a complex economy but without it we become a collection of sociopaths in an impoverished landscape drained of emotional or "spiritual" meaning.  It isn't a question of socialism or capitalism but of social solidarity.  Without it we are slaves to the lesser angels of our nature.

   

  
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Oct 2015 at 16:34
I accept that i am to some extent wrong/bad/dumb/sick and maybe don't have any much spiritual work ethic/digity/commitment/attitude due to either/both not proper upbringing and/or bad nature/genetics; and yes this "society"/system is not all wrong/bad and may have some right. But i don't think i am all bad/wrong, and i think this "society" is not all right/fair. I have enough trouble just surviving my condition and situation each day (even if it is maybe half my own past-present fault possibly). So i agree it is not just the workers no commitment to common social but also the kings no obligation to common social.

"Freedom" is half not true. Eg they fluoridate our water. "Freedom to starve". We are not all sovereign independent states, we are effected by laws/rules and others actions and inactions from the government and corporations down to the neighbours. The law was/is never there to protect us from wrongs done to us, but is always there being hard/harsh on us for rules. This "society" believe that nazis and beneficiaries and moslems etc can be conspirers but don't believe the west can be. Who knew at the time that Roosevelt was in a wheelchair? The voters are influenced by the media and by dirty selfish tactics like "tax cuts".

i'll just add this as edit post so as to not wreck the since arrived at rough agreement (that everyone at all levels has to be rebirthed [from inside out] and be all in it together).
sorry if this is maybe slightly off-topic but i am just commenting on the pyramids not slavery.
there has been slavery throughout world history.

Early (Southern) United States had negro slaves.
This modern western globalist coporatist regime has "slave for dole" and (Asian) coolie sweat shops.
Robots are sort of slaves.
Atlantis Account says Athens saved Mediterranean from being "enslaved" by Atlanteans.
West Africa had slavery/slaves.
[?Bantus had Congolese slaves?]
Irish had slavery (eg St Patrick).
Medieval England/etc had "serfs".
Victorian England had white slavery.
Germanics/Norse had slavery (theows/thralls).
Nazis spoke of "breaking the thralldom of interest".
(Nazis had sign "work makes you free" over concentration camps.)
(Hitler said history went from human labour/slavery to animal labour/slavery to technology/machines/automation labour/slavery.)
Some say that Slav/Serb means slave/serf.
Communists had forced communes.
Romans had slaves/slavery (and bond-slaves).
"Slave oared" ships/galleys. ["Natural born slave"?]
Greeks had slaves (e.g. helots).
Egyptians had slaves (e.g. the Hebrews were slaves in Exodus [when the 12th dynasty brick pyramids were built]).
Bible has hewers of wood & drawers of water.
Bible says some Japhethite nations traded in slaves.
Bible has slaves in Revelation/Apocalypse.
Sitchin claimed Sumerian has gods creating man a a slave.
Koran says Moslems/Arabs had slaves.
Sumerians had slaves (wardum)?
Scythians had (blinded) slaves.
Buddhists of south-east Asia had slaves.
Maoris had slaves ("3 castes tangata ranigtira, tangata Maori, slaves").

It doesn't seem good to me, though it wasn't necessarily all bad like some freed slaves after a while if they were good.


Edited by truthsetsfree - 14 Oct 2015 at 20:39
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10388
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Oct 2015 at 17:00
Johnson's "war against poverty" is really a war against the poor.  It used to be that one could be poor, but respectable.  If someone was poor, that just meant that their ship had not yet come in.  But, if you are poor today, that means something is "wrong" with you, somehow you are deficient, a dope, a pawn that is manipulated by others.  _I_ am not saying that there is anything wrong with someone who, in lyrics of the Kinks, is "a cut price person in a low budget land."  A man's worth should not be a function of economics, and that is what Johnson's war against poverty did, it said that if you don't have "enough" in your bank account, well that is a problem for all society.  And guess what?  One can never have enough, desire is open ended and breeds jealousy in keeping up with the Joneses.  You want to fleece the rich, to give to the poor?  The rich at least know how to use money, the poor don't, in a year, the rich will be rich again, unless one takes efforts to impose "fairness" on the situation.  Put the poor in charge, not so that they will lead to a better world, but so they can play "the dog in the manger."  A dog cannot do anything with a manger, but he can lie in it and snarl at the horse, or the cow, who could, if they could get past the dog, actually eat the hay.  
There is one other thing that I believe people miss about the rich, lots of time they're messed up about money, and they are just acting out their neuroses.  No, nobody (personally) needs $10,000,000, but if you grew up with nothing, then maybe psychologically you don't ever feel secure.  Of course, nobody just "has" $10,000,000, they invest it, and buy artwork, and collect toy cars that kids used to ride on the sidewalk, because when they were that age, they were working two jobs.  In other words, they "use" it for neat toys and to get more wealth.  One can always "say," "I wish I had $10,000,000," but along with the money, comes that insecurity, it is a complete package, and I personally wouldn't want to pay the price.  
I think Trump is very typical of a certain kind of rich that is incredibly insecure, about wealth, about women, and we shouldn't entertain him about his insecurities around power.  He definitely has no concept concerning, "enough," although I am sure he wouldn't have a problem taking it away from anyone else, (to show his largess in redistributing the wealth).
Earlier I have said get rid of the minimum wage, I say that again now, but I also add that perhaps work should be divorced from income, to some degree.  Of course, one could still work for profit, not because people have to "have" things, but because people have to "do" things, the free market is a way to get big things, imaginative things, done.  If one just relied on the government, well we would probably still be using punch cards.  Money is a way to allocate resources, a much better way than by committee.  Now,
bureaucracy has its point.  Bureaucracy deals well with non-economic values, a police department deals with justice, a school with education.  A police department is restricted in its resources, and some way must be found to designate what each incident requires in terms of resources.  Rules and experience help determine the action of each individual, all the way up to the top of precinct captain, or commissioner.  One doesn't break out the crime lab or set up a perimeter every time some kid gets caught with firecrackers.  Well maybe for other "values" (I hate that word), we could set up some bureaucracy for those.
What if artists or philosophers lived in a common hall, like a monastery?  Clean, heated, small 'cells,' common meals.  There would have to be some discipline, some accommodation of one's neighbors, but it need not be religious (although I would say it could be, depending on the rules of each institution.  If you're an artist you should be for beauty, if you are a philosopher you should be for truth, but if you figure out some way to make money, good for you, go forth and prosper.  Until you go, you're welcome to share a table and ideas with you fellow tablemates,  Understand that there is some risk of sharing one's ideas with others, and use your discretion. 
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Oct 2015 at 17:02
Originally posted by truthsetsfree truthsetsfree wrote:

I accept that i am to some extent wrong/bad/dumb/sick and maybe don't have any much spiritual work ethic/digity/commitment/attitude due to either/both not proper upbringing and/or bad nature/genetics; and yes this "society"/system is not all wrong/bad and may have some right. But i don't think i am all bad/wrong, and i think this "society" is not all right/fair. I have enough trouble just surviving my condition and situation each day (even if it is maybe half my own past-present fault possibly). So i agree it is not just the workers no commitment to common social but also the kings no obligation to common social.

"Freedom" is half not true. Eg they fluoridate our water. "Freedom to starve". We are not all sovereign independent states, we are effected by laws/rules and others actions and inactions from the government and corporations down to the neighbours. The law was/is never there to protect us from wrongs done to us, but is always there being hard/harsh on us for rules. This "society" believe that nazis and beneficiaries and moslems etc can be conspirers but don't believe the west can be. Who knew at the time that Roosevelt was in a wheelchair? The voters are influenced by the media and by dirty selfish tactics like "tax cuts".


Of course your are right that it is very difficult to change a society from the bottom up.  All I ask is that you consider how starting at the top without addressing all elements of society may be equally difficult.  We are either in it together or we will continue to fall short of our objectives.  

The other point I wanted you to consider is that for all we know a poor farmer was happier working on the pyramids than the average middle class office worker is today.  We are social animals and happiness is difficult to find in isolation.  We are so focused on our individual relative wealth we forget that the things that really make us happy are free.  

While I'm generally conservative universal health care may be an exception.  An unhealthy society is well an unhealthy society Big smile   I would rather pay for rehabilitation than condemn someone to a lifelong system of state support.  The cost however is staggering as we are approaching a health care system that consumes 20 percent of GDP.  A degree of patience and a recognition of the significant hurtles may be required under these circumstances. 
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Oct 2015 at 17:20
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Johnson's "war against poverty" is really a war against the poor.  It used to be that one could be poor, but respectable.  If someone was poor, that just meant that their ship had not yet come in.  But, if you are poor today, that means something is "wrong" with you, somehow you are deficient, a dope, a pawn that is manipulated by others.  _I_ am not saying that there is anything wrong with someone who, in lyrics of the Kinks, is "a cut price person in a low budget land."  A man's worth should not be a function of economics, and that is what Johnson's war against poverty did, it said that if you don't have "enough" in your bank account, well that is a problem for all society.  And guess what?  One can never have enough, desire is open ended and breeds jealousy in keeping up with the Joneses.  You want to fleece the rich, to give to the poor?  The rich at least know how to use money, the poor don't, in a year, the rich will be rich again, unless one takes efforts to impose "fairness" on the situation.  Put the poor in charge, not so that they will lead to a better world, but so they can play "the dog in the manger."  A dog cannot do anything with a manger, but he can lie in it and snarl at the horse, or the cow, who could, if they could get past the dog, actually eat the hay.  
There is one other thing that I believe people miss about the rich, lots of time they're messed up about money, and they are just acting out their neuroses.  No, nobody (personally) needs $10,000,000, but if you grew up with nothing, then maybe psychologically you don't ever feel secure.  Of course, nobody just "has" $10,000,000, they invest it, and buy artwork, and collect toy cars that kids used to ride on the sidewalk, because when they were that age, they were working two jobs.  In other words, they "use" it for neat toys and to get more wealth.  One can always "say," "I wish I had $10,000,000," but along with the money, comes that insecurity, it is a complete package, and I personally wouldn't want to pay the price.  
I think Trump is very typical of a certain kind of rich that is incredibly insecure, about wealth, about women, and we shouldn't entertain him about his insecurities around power.  He definitely has no concept concerning, "enough," although I am sure he wouldn't have a problem taking it away from anyone else, (to show his largess in redistributing the wealth).
Earlier I have said get rid of the minimum wage, I say that again now, but I also add that perhaps work should be divorced from income, to some degree.  Of course, one could still work for profit, not because people have to "have" things, but because people have to "do" things, the free market is a way to get big things, imaginative things, done.  If one just relied on the government, well we would probably still be using punch cards.  Money is a way to allocate resources, a much better way than by committee.  Now,
bureaucracy has its point.  Bureaucracy deals well with non-economic values, a police department deals with justice, a school with education.  A police department is restricted in its resources, and some way must be found to designate what each incident requires in terms of resources.  Rules and experience help determine the action of each individual, all the way up to the top of precinct captain, or commissioner.  One doesn't break out the crime lab or set up a perimeter every time some kid gets caught with firecrackers.  Well maybe for other "values" (I hate that word), we could set up some bureaucracy for those.
What if artists or philosophers lived in a common hall, like a monastery?  Clean, heated, small 'cells,' common meals.  There would have to be some discipline, some accommodation of one's neighbors, but it need not be religious (although I would say it could be, depending on the rules of each institution.  If you're an artist you should be for beauty, if you are a philosopher you should be for truth, but if you figure out some way to make money, good for you, go forth and prosper.  Until you go, you're welcome to share a table and ideas with you fellow tablemates,  Understand that there is some risk of sharing one's ideas with others, and use your discretion. 

I think you may have missed my point a bit on the war on poverty.  It was a monument first to Johnson's ego and second it celebrated the power and wealth of the U.S. not unlike medieval cathedrals.

It also so seems that you missed my point on why it is not about capitalism or socialism but about find employment meaningful not finding meaningful employment.  I'm arguing that a very small change in social solidarity at all levels of society would have a significant impact on every problem we face.

When you talk about the rich you sound a lot like the French aristocracy before the revolution.  If we truly had a system of merit then I would have no issue with your position but that is clearly not the case.  Intrenched interests have always been the enemy of efficient capitalism and it's a problem that I have no solution to.  I also don't have a solution to welfare parasitism.   All I'm arguing is that all levels of society could be a little more mindful of their obligations.

Socialism or more specifically liberalism has become a parody of religion and I would suggest that maybe even the absurdity of scientology reflects how the enlightenment has fallen into difficult times.  Humanism it seems does not have the properties needed for social solidarity that religion provided in the past.  What we don't need is a revival of religion but we do need something to take it's place.  The French revolution selected reason as their god and we all know how that worked out.  I'm open to suggestions here?    
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Oct 2015 at 20:48
I think i can roughly agree that everyone at all levels (incl me) has to be rebirthed [from inside out] and be all in it [common interest] together. Maybe this has been the problem ever since Tower of Babel (or the Fall). I find it extremely hard though whether because not proper uprbringing or bad nature/genetics. If only we could all have our own fig tree and vine, and work of our hands.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10388
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2015 at 14:29
I am not saying that the following is the origin of religion or how it works, but just entertain the idea, that religion has an origin in human sociability, or rather insociability.
Imagine that you live in the mountains or the desert, and basically you are outnumbered by the people of the plains, and out matched military-wise as well.  But you can come up with a belief system which is almost impenetrable to outsiders, and in the process of learning that belief system (or practice, or whatever), outsiders become assimilated.  Wouldn't that be useful in preserving one's identity, in the face of the mobs and crowds of the cities of the plains?
So wolfhound, you want to get rid of religion because it is not "reasonable."  It is precisely because it is not reasonable, or at least unreasonable in a certain way, that it is useful.  
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2015 at 15:06
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I am not saying that the following is the origin of religion or how it works, but just entertain the idea, that religion has an origin in human sociability, or rather insociability.
Imagine that you live in the mountains or the desert, and basically you are outnumbered by the people of the plains, and out matched military-wise as well.  But you can come up with a belief system which is almost impenetrable to outsiders, and in the process of learning that belief system (or practice, or whatever), outsiders become assimilated.  Wouldn't that be useful in preserving one's identity, in the face of the mobs and crowds of the cities of the plains?
So wolfhound, you want to get rid of religion because it is not "reasonable."  It is precisely because it is not reasonable, or at least unreasonable in a certain way, that it is useful.  

I don't think I care if we get rid of religion or not.  I'm not a Dawkins or a Marxist.  What I want is for people to accept that faith does not trump evidence in scientific and political issues.  If the problem of faith was limited to religion then perhaps I would be a strong advocate of ridding the planet of it.  The truth is that there are so many things that people take on faith that religion has to be seen as only a small part of a larger problem.  I mentioned the French for a reason as their god of reason turned out to be very unreasonable indeed.  Having faith in reason can be as dangerous as faith in anything else.  The problem exist when you use your faith to dominate or suppress others.  Keep your faith to yourself just like they taught you to keep your hands to yourself when you were in kindergarten.

If people want to get together and engage in emotional masturbation by sharing their faith that's fine as long as they do it as consenting adults with some respect for privacy.  

My family is catholic and I engage in their rituals just like I may enjoy engaging in the spirit dance with some stone age tribe.  I would even swear on a bible in court and I don't feel the least bit hypocritical.  Social rituals are important and good manners are not unimportant.  Good manners however do not extend to my political beliefs nor require me to support suspending abortion or other positions the religious hold sacred.

I said earlier we need a replacement for religion because religion is just not  "preserving one's identity" in a way that promotes social harmony.  I believe it is just a matter of time until the U.S. has the same number of atheist as Europe and Japan.  Religion is dying a natural death it doesn't need me to help it along.  What replaces religion? 

"So wolfhound, you want to get rid of religion because it is not "reasonable."  It is precisely because it is not reasonable, or at least unreasonable in a certain way, that it is useful."

That is of course a great insight but it is not a process that is limited to religion the same thing can be seen in "secret" societies, sports, and politics.   Keeping your identity as you say is becoming very hard to do in a world homogenised by mass media and mass marketing not to mention the internet.  It is not however individual or tribal identity that I'm concerned with but the lack of social cohesion that results from the old rituals disappearing.  We very much need a rebirth of good manners to counter the silliness of things like the politically correct movement which is ironically divisive.  
  
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1285
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2015 at 23:45
Quote Robots are sort of slaves.

Nope. They are not. They are machines and have no personality other than behaviour programmed into them by us. This idea that robots are some sort of 'species' crops up all over the place, from big screen animations to Star Trek, and indeed, Isaac Asimov wrote a whole series of novels based on the concept of robots in general use within society. It's merely anthropomorphism, the putting of a human face on something non-human, that underpins this sort of idea.

You could argue that life is nothing more than biological machinery and I have toaccept that is broadly true (on the cellular level, incredibly so - each of our cells has a swarm of little protein 'robots' carrying nutrients and such to where the cell needs them. Bizarre, but apparently true. They even have simple limbs to get around).

Worse still, the boundary between animate and inanimate matter is not well defined. There are materials that display properties they really ought not to without falling into the animate category. But then, we're made of the exact same materials as the rest of the universe, so for my part, understanding what life is encompasses huge subleties. I think the mistake many people make is to assume, as you might readily do, that we are all unique coherent biological constructs. It can be shown that we are in fact a colony of specialised cells whose function is the sum total of their parts. Nature doesn't program us to react to others in that light - we see human beings and behave instinctively toward them. However, this recognition is a biological convenience rather than any true perception.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Oct 2015 at 08:41
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote Robots are sort of slaves.

Nope. They are not. They are machines and have no personality other than behaviour programmed into them by us. This idea that robots are some sort of 'species' crops up all over the place, from big screen animations to Star Trek, and indeed, Isaac Asimov wrote a whole series of novels based on the concept of robots in general use within society. It's merely anthropomorphism, the putting of a human face on something non-human, that underpins this sort of idea.

You could argue that life is nothing more than biological machinery and I have toaccept that is broadly true (on the cellular level, incredibly so - each of our cells has a swarm of little protein 'robots' carrying nutrients and such to where the cell needs them. Bizarre, but apparently true. They even have simple limbs to get around).

Worse still, the boundary between animate and inanimate matter is not well defined. There are materials that display properties they really ought not to without falling into the animate category. But then, we're made of the exact same materials as the rest of the universe, so for my part, understanding what life is encompasses huge subleties. I think the mistake many people make is to assume, as you might readily do, that we are all unique coherent biological constructs. It can be shown that we are in fact a colony of specialised cells whose function is the sum total of their parts. Nature doesn't program us to react to others in that light - we see human beings and behave instinctively toward them. However, this recognition is a biological convenience rather than any true perception.

Nicely written.

It all gets a bit philosophical I'm afraid Wink
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Oct 2015 at 11:26
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote Robots are sort of slaves.

Nope. They are not. They are machines and have no personality other than behaviour programmed into them by us. This idea that robots are some sort of 'species' crops up all over the place, from big screen animations to Star Trek, and indeed, Isaac Asimov wrote a whole series of novels based on the concept of robots in general use within society. It's merely anthropomorphism, the putting of a human face on something non-human, that underpins this sort of idea.

You could argue that life is nothing more than biological machinery and I have toaccept that is broadly true (on the cellular level, incredibly so - each of our cells has a swarm of little protein 'robots' carrying nutrients and such to where the cell needs them. Bizarre, but apparently true. They even have simple limbs to get around).

Worse still, the boundary between animate and inanimate matter is not well defined. There are materials that display properties they really ought not to without falling into the animate category. But then, we're made of the exact same materials as the rest of the universe, so for my part, understanding what life is encompasses huge subleties. I think the mistake many people make is to assume, as you might readily do, that we are all unique coherent biological constructs. It can be shown that we are in fact a colony of specialised cells whose function is the sum total of their parts. Nature doesn't program us to react to others in that light - we see human beings and behave instinctively toward them. However, this recognition is a biological convenience rather than any true perception.



(I don't like they way "nope they are not" seems/comes across to me, but maybe you are just being casual or similar. I have had troubles elsewhere with smart-ass internet forum posters and/or academics who think they are all-right gods and i am just an all-wrong dog. People who are deep/high in Arthurian/Sumerian knowledge have used words/attitude like that to me/others.)

Yes they are not human/personalities. Maybe they are maybe they aren't *sort-of* (abit like) slaves/servants (to us if not to themselves). Others have said they are [abit like] slaves.

"Life" is like nothing more than machinery when i think of how humans have enslaved other humans and how we use animals.
They say "*More than* the sum total of the parts". Nature is not God. Human instinct is part fallen. No wonder people are so mean/cruel/cold.

Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Oct 2015 at 12:27
Originally posted by truthsetsfree truthsetsfree wrote:

Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote Robots are sort of slaves.

Nope. They are not. They are machines and have no personality other than behaviour programmed into them by us. This idea that robots are some sort of 'species' crops up all over the place, from big screen animations to Star Trek, and indeed, Isaac Asimov wrote a whole series of novels based on the concept of robots in general use within society. It's merely anthropomorphism, the putting of a human face on something non-human, that underpins this sort of idea.

You could argue that life is nothing more than biological machinery and I have toaccept that is broadly true (on the cellular level, incredibly so - each of our cells has a swarm of little protein 'robots' carrying nutrients and such to where the cell needs them. Bizarre, but apparently true. They even have simple limbs to get around).

Worse still, the boundary between animate and inanimate matter is not well defined. There are materials that display properties they really ought not to without falling into the animate category. But then, we're made of the exact same materials as the rest of the universe, so for my part, understanding what life is encompasses huge subleties. I think the mistake many people make is to assume, as you might readily do, that we are all unique coherent biological constructs. It can be shown that we are in fact a colony of specialised cells whose function is the sum total of their parts. Nature doesn't program us to react to others in that light - we see human beings and behave instinctively toward them. However, this recognition is a biological convenience rather than any true perception.



(I don't like they way "nope they are not" seems/comes across to me, but maybe you are just being casual or similar. I have had troubles elsewhere with smart-ass internet forum posters and/or academics who think they are all-right gods and i am just an all-wrong dog. People who are deep/high in Arthurian/Sumerian knowledge have used words/attitude like that to me/others.)

Yes they are not human/personalities. Maybe they are maybe they aren't *sort-of* (abit like) slaves/servants (to us if not to themselves). Others have said they are [abit like] slaves.

"Life" is like nothing more than machinery when i think of how humans have enslaved other humans and how we use animals.
They say "*More than* the sum total of the parts". Nature is not God. Human instinct is part fallen. No wonder people are so mean/cruel/cold.

 Don't take it all so personally.  It's the internet after all.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.