RE: Force Companies To Pay More And Jobs Are Lost

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

The downside to all this automation is the lack of real-life human interaction. AS a race, we then become more insular, intolerant and more incapable of having meaningful relationships.

Again I would turn to the excellent documentary that was sent back in time to warn us all of what the future holds. I of course am talking about Demolition Man.

Humans NEED other humans, this interdependency is what keeps us sane and functioning as a coherent society.

Automation is great, freeing up leisure time but this cant be at the expense of human connections. Of course, this also brings up the point of how to enjoy leisure time without cash and that brings us back to the advantages of a Universal Basic Income.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta



0
0
0.000
3 comments
avatar

Humans NEED other humans, this interdependency is what keeps us sane and functioning as a coherent society.

This is actually being challenged as people are getting emotionally attached, especially in Japan, to their robotic caretakers. And people for years have become attached to their pets, often using them as a substitute to human interaction.

Everything we think we know is being or will be challenged in the next 15 years. All disciplines are going to find what they held as fact is mistaken. This is in psychology, economics, finance, and the law.

...that brings us back to the advantages of a Universal Basic Income.

And the disadvantage is that it increases the power of government and people's enslavement. Do you want your income based upon political whims?

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

AS always, I appreciate you taking the time to respond @taskmaster4450 but.....

Humans need humans for much more than emotional dependency! Interdependency is created for the need by one person for something another person can produce. We cannot be individuals, living within our own tiny island producing everything we personally need.

The problem I fear with decentralisation of the human race, which is what you are saying, is that the more it decentralises, the more opportunity there is for a rogue actor to attempt to take complete control. There have to be checks and balances in play to protect people from this and the possibility that weaker members of the race get left out or left behind, we need a decentralised voluntary social network but this won't happen in a selfish, I centred world.

And the disadvantage is that it increases the power of government and people's enslavement

I feel this is a libertarian logical fallacy. There is always governance, always those who wish to be in control, to have power, normally linked to 'how much' they have. There are many forms of governance! Like there are on this blockchain for example!

AS for complete tokenisation, not going to happen. Who in their right mind would trust their entire worldly wealth to a computer network that is CONTROLLED by someone, somewhere whichever way you look at it!

WHats going to change? If a government or any other rogue actor pulled the plug on the internet, either in their own domain or maliciously in someone elses domain, you lose everything!

The future of the world must be laid in humanitarianism which basically gives each individual the right to do whatever they want, as long as it provides zero or positive effect on any other individual with whom we share the planet.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

I feel this is a libertarian logical fallacy.

Really? Have you seen what happened to the conservatives and how they are presently being treated? Do you see what the democrats in congress are saying? Did you see how social media behaved?

Do you think these democrats in congress would hesitate for a second at cancelling payments to those "right wing terrorists"?

There is little doubt they would do that. Of course, they are the ones in power and the reverse would also happen. History is filled with political retribution.

Therefore I think the point you espouse is a completely illogical fallacy that is not reflective of history. In fact, it is happening before your eyes and you seem to be ignoring it.

The problem I fear with decentralisation of the human race, which is what you are saying, is that the more it decentralises, the more opportunity there is for a rogue actor to attempt to take complete control.

This is illogical.

The idea of decentralization is that the point of vulnerability are spread. For example, food produced all over the world is not as big a threat to it produced in one area.

Decentralized systems are not the ones apt to be taken over but rather, centralized ones. This is true for governments, economies, industries, and corporations.

Interdependency is created for the need by one person for something another person can produce. We cannot be individuals, living within our own tiny island producing everything we personally need.

This is true today. But fast forward a few decades and you will have to have a completely different view. Technological innovations are completely changing how we produce things. We are seeing things becoming regionalized, which will lead to localized before, eventually, ending up personalized.

Thus, when you say that we need others for production, that is true until we do not. Think of the replicator on Star Trek, something that is not total Sci-Fi at this point. In fact, 3D printing allows us to take a digital file created anywhere in the world and print it out locally.

A couple decades of advancement, especially in the material sciences, and we will be at the point of a new world.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000