At our stage of philosophical evolution...

...we are not able to take full advantage of where we are in our technological evolution.

Right now, we could get to the point where we could produce machines that could produce machines that would provide almost all of what we need for everyone on the planet to live a decent (money) problem free existence.

But the fact that we are philosophic Neanderthals would still have us demanding that EVERYONE work for living.

We are actually doing it now.

We have enough mechanical advantage so that maybe 5% of the people (using machines, computers, robots) could easily produce everything we need for the existence mentioned above to be.

Yet...most people conceive of the situation as "how do we create the jobs so that everyone can toil"...rather than "how do we take advantage of this great thing that has happened."

Just sayin!

 

And then we become the Eloi?

 

Wow, you could sell this knowledge for trillions! If only all these corporations knew that the only thing stopping them from producing machines that produce machines to allow for limitless production is a new philosophical outlook.

 

Maybe they physically could, but why would they?

 

For the same reason many people work now...to get MORE.

 

Yes.... here is that idea expressed in a quite similar manner from the point of view of a Chassidic Jewish writer:

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2811/jewish/Sighting-Moshiach.htm

Ecclesiastes 10:19 "A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things."

Genesis 11:6 "And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do"

This will give you a good hint as to they why of the way things are?


https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/politics/item/abraham-lincoln-and-john-f-kennedy

 

One reason would be for a substantially higher income than the segment of the population that is much less productive.

 

We are not in a position technologically yet to accomplish what you suggest and societies worldwide are not ready regardless....we are not even done killing each other yet and still believe in "Gods". Perhaps in another couple centuries, nut not at this point.

 

I see what you are saying, Tec.

Few comments:

One...we definitely have not stopped killing each other yet. We have one more international war left in us. I hope we skip it.

Two...I don't care what people "believe" or guess about the truth of REALITY. Whatever IS...IS. We can live through guesses for and against gods.

Three...cannot take centuries for this to happen. Maybe cannot even take decades. We need this yesterday. Or all hell is gonna break lose.

It's being talked lots these days. When I began talking about it...almost nobody was doing so.(Wrote my first essay on this in 1994/5) We have got to move in this direction now.

 

Is there any evolution of philosophy that is going to change that?

 

Perhaps, yes. But none that I can think of.

But so what?

 

I think you’re grossly exaggerating our capabilities here. While there could well be some further automation we could implement if we overcame some of our emotional resistance to them but we’re still technically a long way from achieving the level of complete automation you’re suggesting here.

You also have issues of who would be willing to be the “5%” who do all the work while everyone else does nothing, all receiving the same benefits and I’d also raise the question as to whether the aim would be to generate everything we need or everything we want because they’re two vastly different prospects.

 

That reference deserved much more credit that it received.

 

I just think the issue isn't really philosophical. Philosophies which deal with what you say have not done well, in a way, natural selection has worked against them. It doesn't seem like evolution of philosophy will address the problems you talk about.

 

Now it is an economic evolution we must adjust to and we are looking at an ice berg. A few years ago the top jobs in most states were either farming or manufacturing. Now it is truck driving in most states. When self driving vehicles comes along a few will transition to green energy jobs and high tech jobs but that will plateau. Then you have a lot of white guys in MAGA trucker hats sitting at home drinking beer, polishing their Glock and thinking about skills and paying the bills.

 

I think I am not grossly exaggerating our capabilities here.

One of us I wrong. Naturally, I think it is you.

No problem?

The people who would be willing to be the 5%...would be the people willing to be that 5%...and who would be competent (and lucky) enough to be allowed the right to work.

Where did that nonsense come from? Did you invent that on your own?

Without getting too pedantic...what we want is also what we need. We humans need what we want.

But, to make it easier to understand...I mean what we need and what we want...with emphasis initially on what we need.

 

I think it will. I think we MUST evolve to the point where we can see this situation (lots of automation at the cost of high paying jobs for people with limited abilities) as a blessing rather than a curse.

 

Yes...... that is pretty close to what some near death experiencers were shown would happen by around the year 2185.

https://www.near-death.com/experiences/exceptional/howard-storm.html#a04

 

The fulfillment of Ezekiel chapters 40 - 48 by a Gentile will be significant.

(Just scroll down within this post to see his article in full):
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...theory-of-m-w-p.548225/page-4#post-1070398509

 

Do you have any research or data supporting the idea that we could automate 95% of all job roles across every field and industry around the world? As I said, I totally agree there is a lot of scope for further automation but I don’t see the basis for it being viable at the extent you’re proposing, especially not immediately. I work in software develop, a field ripe for (even more) automation and even there I don’t see how it could deliver the same output with a 95% cut in the workforce.

Maybe I presumed the underlying social structure implied by your idea. You spoke about money no longer being a problem but you don’t explain how people would receive the resources they need and want if they’re not earning a wage. I took it that the products of the automation would be shared on an equal manner (hence wondering how the 5% of workers might be encouraged to work) but if you’re suggesting something different I’d be interested to hear.

That is totally unrealistic. Humans can physically survive on a very basic set of food, warmth and shelter but we want entertainment, socialisation and, significantly, variety. Providing those things is actually one of the areas where automation and removing the human inputs can prove much more difficult. If your proposal was focused on only delivering the basics of survival and minimised the requirement to provide anything beyond that, it would become more viable but less appealing.

 

The basic hindrance to human advancement is the refusal of humans to understand who and what they truly are.

 

Joe...let me start by quoting Richard Bach, "Argue for your limitations...and sure enough, they're yours."

If we say we cannot do it...WE CANNOT.

Anyway...

1) Do you have any research or data supporting the idea that we could automate 95% of all job roles across every field and industry around the world?

Response: No, I do not. But I can tell you with 98.7% certainty that 94.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot. If you want to hone in on the 95%/5% rather than taking that comment as meaning "a lot"...fine with me.

But it really does not make sense.

2) "...especially not immediately."

Response: If we do not do it "immediately" (see response above)...we will deal with problems the way France did in the late 16th century or the way Russia did in the early 20th.

3) Maybe I presumed the underlying social structure implied by your idea. You spoke about money no longer being a problem but you don’t explain how people would receive the resources they need and want if they’re not earning a wage. I took it that the products of the automation would be shared on an equal manner (hence wondering how the 5% of workers might be encouraged to work) but if you’re suggesting something different I’d be interested to hear.

Response: At no point have I ever suggested everyone should have equal. The people who "work" will earn the right to work by being more productive than other humans and machines...and will be rewarded with the many OTHER THINGS than cannot be shared. They will go to the operas, to the ball games and allowed other luxuries.

As for how...you are essentially asking, "Even if we could produce more than enough for everyone, how could we distribute it reasonably?"

If we cannot answer that MUCH SIMPLER QUESTION than "how do we create enoguh decent paying jobs"...we ought to purposefully start a nuclear war and destroy humanity, because that would be what humanity deserves.

I, by the way, think we can devise a system of distribution that would work.

Lemme stop for now. I'll consider your comments in return.

 

Sure, but take that to extremes and you’ll be jumping off the roof because “There’s no reason I shouldn’t be able to fly!”

I didn’t say we cannot do it, only that I’m not yet convinced. I asked you to explain exactly how you think we could, to try to convince me. I mean, if we’re just asserting that we can do it without any logical basis, why not go for 100% automation?

I didn’t ask for statistics, I asked if you had any technical basis to support your statements. It would be a perfectly valid to answer; “No, it’s just my uninformed opinion.”, though that wouldn’t really get us anywhere. You could just be wrong and you’re in no position to argue otherwise.

I’m still not clear how you expect the economic or social structures to operate. You’re talking entirely about outcomes but saying nothing about how they could be achieved.

Maybe we could but it appears you haven’t yet. You’re proposing the biggest economic and cultural shift in the history of the human race and this aspect would be a vital element of that, probably more so than actually automating production. If you can’t address this aspect, you have nothing more than an abstract utopia fantasy.

 

That has NOTHING to do with the quote, "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they are yours."

But I can see you are determined to argue for the limitations of humanity...and I don't have time for that kind of nonsense.

You didn't say either of those things...and I did not say you said either.

You are all over the place with bullshit, Joe.

Pick out a sentence with which you disagree and tell me why you disagree with it.Maybe we can eliminate the bullshit.

I do not care that you are not clear. Take that to someone else.

Find a sentence and tell me why you disagree with it...and we can talk.

Take any sentence...and let's discuss it. We can move on to the other sentences after we deal with the one.

 

“Right now, we could get to the point where we could produce machines that could produce machines that would provide almost all of what we need for everyone on the planet to live a decent (money) problem free existence.”

I’m not convinced we actually do have the technical ability to completely automate almost everything the entire world population needs as you describe. There are lots of things we can automate (much of which we already do) but also a lot that we can’t, can’t as efficiently or reliably without human interaction or prefer not to for abstract emotional reasons. We could do a lot more but I’m not sure it could reach the extent to allow the fundamental cultural shift you describe, especially not world-wide. Can you convince me otherwise?