CDZ What do we do with the people who are no longer needed......

[iamwhatiseem]

In a recent episode of Anthony Bourdain's travel show, he was in China.
And it was interesting that one of his guest was one of China's top economist.
And his answer to Anthony's question - What is the greatest challenge facing America and China? - His answer surprised me..."what to do with the people who are no longer needed to contribute to the economy"...he went on to say that through technology, out sourcing, robotocs and mergers - it is a simple and increasing fact that the economy needs less people to produce and serve what the population needs and wants are. So what do we do with the increasing number of people who are not needed?

This is a fascinating topic.
Do we lower the retirement age, therefore providing more jobs to developing families?
Provide "payment" to one adult family member for staying home?
Screw them?

This isn't a future problem, in China it is a HUGE problem...and as sure as you are reading this. it will be a HUGE problem in America certainly in the next decade.
Less people are needed to service the economic wants/needs of the public. It is an indelible fact, that is getting worse.
So what is the answer?

 

[Slave2the$]

Corporations will not own the robots they have to do the work. The people will own the robots. The people will get a weekly check and go to the beach and drink margaritas. The people will be responsible for the preventive maintenance of the robots. Where I work I have 3 robots doing jobs for me. I am the only human in my area.

Anyways that was an idea for a book I had. Ehh. Actually we're all screwed. 80% will be on govt handouts in 20 years.

 

[william the wie]

This has happened before the solution of sex and drugs shifts the gene pool. Got example the peak rate of heroin use was around 1900. The alcoholism peak was around 1800. The Luddites and IWW had their time in the sun the last two times this happened.

 

[320 Years of History]

So what is the answer?

IMO, begin campaigns to dramatically reduce birth rates.

 

[yiostheoy]

In a recent episode of Anthony Bourdain's travel show, he was in China.
And it was interesting that one of his guest was one of China's top economist.
And his answer to Anthony's question - What is the greatest challenge facing America and China? - His answer surprised me..."what to do with the people who are no longer needed to contribute to the economy"...he went on to say that through technology, out sourcing, robotocs and mergers - it is a simple and increasing fact that the economy needs less people to produce and serve what the population needs and wants are. So what do we do with the increasing number of people who are not needed?

This is a fascinating topic.
Do we lower the retirement age, therefore providing more jobs to developing families?
Provide "payment" to one adult family member for staying home?
Screw them?

This isn't a future problem, in China it is a HUGE problem...and as sure as you are reading this. it will be a HUGE problem in America certainly in the next decade.
Less people are needed to service the economic wants/needs of the public. It is an indelible fact, that is getting worse.
So what is the answer?

From the far right you do not do anything at all you let the market do what it wants, in which case the rich will get richer.

From the left you reallocate incomes in which case the rich will get poorer.

The rich normally have more political influence in a plutocracy.

The USA and PRC are both by now well established plutocracies.

The USA has always been a plutocracy ever since 1776.

The PRC has evolved to become a plutocracy since Mao starting under Deng.

Both plutocracies will probably do nothing.

That's my bet.

Deng Xiaoping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[yiostheoy]

So what is the answer?

IMO, begin campaigns to dramatically reduce birth rates.

That's an ultra long term solution and it takes 50 to 75 years to have an impact.

You need a short term and a mid term solution as well.

Short term = 1 to 5 yrs.

Mid term = 5 to 10 years.

 

[yiostheoy]

Corporations will not own the robots they have to do the work. The people will own the robots. The people will get a weekly check and go to the beach and drink margaritas. The people will be responsible for the preventive maintenance of the robots. Where I work I have 3 robots doing jobs for me. I am the only human in my area.

Anyways that was an idea for a book I had. Ehh. Actually we're all screwed. 80% will be on govt handouts in 20 years.

This is an indirect vote for plutocracy.

Rich people and rich funds own stocks.

 

[koshergrl]

In a recent episode of Anthony Bourdain's travel show, he was in China.
And it was interesting that one of his guest was one of China's top economist.
And his answer to Anthony's question - What is the greatest challenge facing America and China? - His answer surprised me..."what to do with the people who are no longer needed to contribute to the economy"...he went on to say that through technology, out sourcing, robotocs and mergers - it is a simple and increasing fact that the economy needs less people to produce and serve what the population needs and wants are. So what do we do with the increasing number of people who are not needed?

This is a fascinating topic.
Do we lower the retirement age, therefore providing more jobs to developing families?
Provide "payment" to one adult family member for staying home?
Screw them?

This isn't a future problem, in China it is a HUGE problem...and as sure as you are reading this. it will be a HUGE problem in America certainly in the next decade.
Less people are needed to service the economic wants/needs of the public. It is an indelible fact, that is getting worse.
So what is the answer?

It isn't an indelible fact, god I hate it when you death cultist twits do that. What you mean when you say "less people are needed to service the economic wants/needs of the public" is "I don't want to support people who can't support themselves so I think they should die."

Just fucking say it.

 

[koshergrl]

Hitler had a solution. So did Stalin. And Mao. And Pol Pot.

God you people are fucking sick.

 

[yiostheoy]

This has happened before the solution of sex and drugs shifts the gene pool. Got example the peak rate of heroin use was around 1900. The alcoholism peak was around 1800. The Luddites and IWW had their time in the sun the last two times this happened.

I love alcohol and I do not see what it has to do with anything in this thread.

 

[320 Years of History]

You need a short term and a mid term solution as well.

Why?

 

[koshergrl]

I see the death cultists refuse to engage or actually address the issue.

So what is the answer?

IMO, begin campaigns to dramatically reduce birth rates.

That's an ultra long term solution and it takes 50 to 75 years to have an impact.

You need a short term and a mid term solution as well.

Short term = 1 to 5 yrs.

Mid term = 5 to 10 years.

So..the Final Solution?

The "Final Solution"

Or...the "one or two child policies" that China engages in?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/opinion/chinas-brutal-one-child-policy.html?_r=0

 

[koshergrl]

I mean, that is what we're talking about. Population control.

It's always worked out so great in the past. I'm absolutely confident that idiots like the OP and the other progressive douchebags posting here can make it work.

 

[koshergrl]

Then there is the Spartan method..

"Infanticide was a disturbingly common act in the ancient world, but in Sparta this practice was organized and managed by the state. All Spartan infants were brought before a council of inspectors and examined for physical defects, and those who weren’t up to standards were left to die. The ancient historian Plutarch claimed these “ill-born” Spartan babies were tossed into a chasm at the foot of Mount Taygetus, but most historians now dismiss this as a myth. If a Spartan baby was judged to be unfit for its future duty as a soldier, it was most likely abandoned on a nearby hillside. Left alone, the child would either die of exposure or be rescued and adopted by strangers."

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/8-reasons-it-wasnt-easy-being-Spartan

What is funny is that I know for a fact that most of the asshats who think that they should be able to "weed" the population out are NEVER optimum specimens of the human race themselves.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I mean, that is what we're talking about. Population control.

It's always worked out so great in the past. I'm absolutely confident that idiots like the OP and the other progressive douchebags posting here can make it work.

No, just no ... In my two suggestions ...earlier retirement and paying one spouse to stay home...not sure where you get population control out of that?

 

[rdean]

In a recent episode of Anthony Bourdain's travel show, he was in China.
And it was interesting that one of his guest was one of China's top economist.
And his answer to Anthony's question - What is the greatest challenge facing America and China? - His answer surprised me..."what to do with the people who are no longer needed to contribute to the economy"...he went on to say that through technology, out sourcing, robotocs and mergers - it is a simple and increasing fact that the economy needs less people to produce and serve what the population needs and wants are. So what do we do with the increasing number of people who are not needed?

This is a fascinating topic.
Do we lower the retirement age, therefore providing more jobs to developing families?
Provide "payment" to one adult family member for staying home?
Screw them?

This isn't a future problem, in China it is a HUGE problem...and as sure as you are reading this. it will be a HUGE problem in America certainly in the next decade.
Less people are needed to service the economic wants/needs of the public. It is an indelible fact, that is getting worse.
So what is the answer?

There are 5.8 million unpaid for jobs now. They aren't filled because people don't have the skills. It's not that we don't need people, it's that ignorant people are to lazy to learn. Look at Republicans living in the deep south.

Do these look like people with skills?

 

[rdean]

Then there is the Spartan method..

"Infanticide was a disturbingly common act in the ancient world, but in Sparta this practice was organized and managed by the state. All Spartan infants were brought before a council of inspectors and examined for physical defects, and those who weren’t up to standards were left to die. The ancient historian Plutarch claimed these “ill-born” Spartan babies were tossed into a chasm at the foot of Mount Taygetus, but most historians now dismiss this as a myth. If a Spartan baby was judged to be unfit for its future duty as a soldier, it was most likely abandoned on a nearby hillside. Left alone, the child would either die of exposure or be rescued and adopted by strangers."

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/8-reasons-it-wasnt-easy-being-Spartan

What is funny is that I know for a fact that most of the asshats who think that they should be able to "weed" the population out are NEVER optimum specimens of the human race themselves.

Page not Found.

 

[320 Years of History]

That's an ultra long term solution and it takes 50 to 75 years to have an impact.

You need a short term and a mid term solution as well.

Not every problem has an effective near or mid term solution. Not every goal is worth pushing to fruition in the near or mid term.

If I can identify a solution approach that will almost certainly work for my grandchildren, I'm of a mind to implement that approach immediately, and after doing so, continue to seek nearer term solutions. I'm certainly not of a mind to do nothing whatsoever on behalf of my "grand" descendents merely because I can think of nothing that may or will work in the next ten years to the benefit me or my kids. I'm okay with the prospect of myself enduring hardship if it means that my kids or perhaps grandkids won't have to do so as goes the matter in question.

I want nothing more than for my kids to all go to Heaven, but I didn't baptize them and then kill them while they were infants to ensure they make it there. That's a very near term solution that, according to Christianity's principles would work to get their souls into Heaven, albeit at the expense of my own doing so. And, yes, slaughtering baptized infants would put a nearer term kibosh on problems resulting from (directly or indirectly) population growth, but I doubt most folks are of a mind to apply that approach.

Option 1:

There are certainly other near term solutions. One of them is to cease and desist with the search for life prolonging drugs and treatment modalities. We could return to letting folks with fatal ailments die as they would have some 100 years or more ago, using our medical knowledge to abate their pain as needed but not to prolong their lives.

The reality humanity doesn't like is that Mother Nature has very effective ways of keeping population sizes in check. Humanity has endeavored, with some success, to circumvent nature's way of culling the less strong and making the need to be as or more physiologically and mentally strong/adept as others less of a critical factor in perpetuating one's genes. Perhaps allowing nature's methods to do as they are meant to do is the best overall and long term solution to many of the ills that beset humanity. Of course, for many folks that's a "nasty pill" to swallow, but in the ultimate irony, it may be the right one to swallow for there's little question about whether the planet needs more humans. It does not.​

Option 2 -- Apply the principle of comparative advantage to robot implementations:

Another approach might be to build robots that can terraform or locate other planets so we have places to which Earth's excess humans can go. Maybe we should set computers/robots to finding ways to perform light-speed interstellar travel or wormhole travel. This idea accrues from my belief that Strong AI is a good thing, provided we direct Strong AIs to figure out/do things that we humans simply cannot do or that we cannot do in pragmatically short time frames.

This approach also plays to the idea that rather than implementing robots to do things that people can do effectively enough, we deploy them in a sequence whereby the last things they are used to do are the things people can do. One thing, however, that is critical for this approach is that though it can yield near term benefits, it is something that pretty much be implemented sooner rather than later. Why? Because we can't very well put the genie back in the bottle once she's out.

For example, now that automated telephone response systems answer the lines at every major corporation, it's no more than pipe-dream to think those companies will revert to having humans man the customer service lines. We may, however, be able to prevent the deployment of robots into roles where they are merely better, but not better to the extent they can achieve outcomes humans simply cannot achieve.

We don't need robots that can flip burgers; people can do that just fine, even if they are less efficient at doing it. We don't need Strong AIs that can drive taxis. People do that well enough too. In contrast, we have yet to find the answer to myriad questions:

• Is there life elsewhere in the universe?
• What is dark matter? Dark energy?
• What rules need to be revised so there are no exceptions to them?
• How did life begin?
• What makes us human?
• Why do we dream?
• What can we do with all the carbon?
• What's in the oceans besides the little bit we've discovered or know we put there?
• What is a better source of energy for us to use instead of fossil fuels?

Do you get the idea? Even though we may task robots to answering those and other hard questions like them, that doesn't mean we humans need to entirely stop trying to answer them ourselves. There's nothing suggesting that we can't work in tandem with the robots to finding the answers. Indeed, even thinking about the "taxi" example, it may be that we use humans to drive taxis in high density areas like NYC and robots in low density areas that have little call for abundant public/taxi service.​

 

[320 Years of History]

In a recent episode of Anthony Bourdain's travel show, he was in China.
And it was interesting that one of his guest was one of China's top economist.
And his answer to Anthony's question - What is the greatest challenge facing America and China? - His answer surprised me..."what to do with the people who are no longer needed to contribute to the economy"...he went on to say that through technology, out sourcing, robotocs and mergers - it is a simple and increasing fact that the economy needs less people to produce and serve what the population needs and wants are. So what do we do with the increasing number of people who are not needed?

This is a fascinating topic.
Do we lower the retirement age, therefore providing more jobs to developing families?
Provide "payment" to one adult family member for staying home?
Screw them?

This isn't a future problem, in China it is a HUGE problem...and as sure as you are reading this. it will be a HUGE problem in America certainly in the next decade.
Less people are needed to service the economic wants/needs of the public. It is an indelible fact, that is getting worse.
So what is the answer?

There are 5.8 million unpaid for jobs now. They aren't filled because people don't have the skills. It's not that we don't need people, it's that ignorant people are to lazy to learn. Look at Republicans living in the deep south.

Do these look like people with skills?

If those folks are griping about not having work, I want to know why they spent what little money they had on guns, three guns no less, one of which is in a toddler's hands. Perhaps they and the ammo they fire are gifts from someone else? What they heck have they that someone would want to steal and that fleeing or hiding it can't secure? I don't really care what skills they have or lack; I can see they have no sense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In a recent episode of Anthony Bourdain's travel show, he was in China.
And it was interesting that one of his guest was one of China's top economist.
And his answer to Anthony's question - What is the greatest challenge facing America and China? - His answer surprised me..."what to do with the people who are no longer needed to contribute to the economy"...he went on to say that through technology, out sourcing, robotocs and mergers - it is a simple and increasing fact that the economy needs less people to produce and serve what the population needs and wants are. So what do we do with the increasing number of people who are not needed?

This is a fascinating topic.
Do we lower the retirement age, therefore providing more jobs to developing families?
Provide "payment" to one adult family member for staying home?
Screw them?

This isn't a future problem, in China it is a HUGE problem...and as sure as you are reading this. it will be a HUGE problem in America certainly in the next decade.
Less people are needed to service the economic wants/needs of the public. It is an indelible fact, that is getting worse.
So what is the answer?

Have them run work for or run the government