(no subject)
Recently I have seen many Cisco commercials about machines fixing machines, and how this is the"human network". Putting this together with the unemployment rate, I have been asking this question: How do we replace jobs people can do with machines, then blame those people for not working?
I know some people have this utopia idea of a world where people don't have to work. I also know people believe that everyone needs to work for what they get...including food and shelter. These two things seem to be contradictory.
This transition to no one having to work has to be a slow one. Having the people whose jobs are easily replaced blamed, ridiculed, starved/killed, for not working when the reason they are not working is because society has chosen to make their training obsolete is ridiculous. Some people will be able to stop working before others...and it makes sense that the simplest tasks are the first to go because machines for these tasks are easiest to design and create.
On one hand I feel like big business should have to continue to support people they replace with machines...that is the point right? We live in a country where you can go to Sam's or Cosco and see massive amounts of food...and we have starving people everywhere. It is ridiculous.
That being said, I think that this would halt innovation. If people feel rewarded (more profit, less expense, for innovation they will innovate. If that does not happen then the immediate motivation to innovate does not exist.
I wonder what the solution to this situation is. How can we continue to innovate and create, while allowing the people who are mechanically or agriculturally gifted to not be punished or obliterated by this technology?
For me, I don't get the goal of not-ever-having-to-do-anything. It sounds kind of...unfulfilling. As someone who has spent quite a bit of time in forced retirement lately...I do not get it.
Anyway, it just seems like a bad situation with no easy solution. What do you think?
I know some people have this utopia idea of a world where people don't have to work. I also know people believe that everyone needs to work for what they get...including food and shelter. These two things seem to be contradictory.
This transition to no one having to work has to be a slow one. Having the people whose jobs are easily replaced blamed, ridiculed, starved/killed, for not working when the reason they are not working is because society has chosen to make their training obsolete is ridiculous. Some people will be able to stop working before others...and it makes sense that the simplest tasks are the first to go because machines for these tasks are easiest to design and create.
On one hand I feel like big business should have to continue to support people they replace with machines...that is the point right? We live in a country where you can go to Sam's or Cosco and see massive amounts of food...and we have starving people everywhere. It is ridiculous.
That being said, I think that this would halt innovation. If people feel rewarded (more profit, less expense, for innovation they will innovate. If that does not happen then the immediate motivation to innovate does not exist.
I wonder what the solution to this situation is. How can we continue to innovate and create, while allowing the people who are mechanically or agriculturally gifted to not be punished or obliterated by this technology?
For me, I don't get the goal of not-ever-having-to-do-anything. It sounds kind of...unfulfilling. As someone who has spent quite a bit of time in forced retirement lately...I do not get it.
Anyway, it just seems like a bad situation with no easy solution. What do you think?