So /g/ explain yourself: if population is rising and human jobs are getting obsolete by technological advancements at the fastest rates in history, what will happen to the stupid peoples?
Will there be any incentive to produce stuff for the stupid peoples if they're flat out broke and useless?
What will freaking happen to billions of peoples when there will be complete automated lines of production/building?
bum
A penny for your thought?!
The Future of Work doc:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:6253c3aeed5c18a46489e7ce6e2051f953cda775
Luckily I'll be fine.
Research jobs can never be replaced by machines until AI reaches the point where nobody needs to work
Eugenics, Agenda 23, sustainable development , people =CO2,CO2= BAD!
Sup /g/?
Nobody triggered in here? :(
>>55391093
If trump is elected he will put capitalism on life support for another 4 years or so but it's on its way out. Capitalism cannot contract. That's not the way it works. It must grow continuously or it dies.
A new system is coming but the transition may be painful.
Why the robo-purge of course!
>>55392475
what is the new system?
>>55392475
Lol.
Capitalism doesn't need growth. It does though require that competition continue. This is what we are encountering in alot of industry now. It has gotten to the point where most industry is taken over and controlled by the companies that throw huge amounts of money at r & d. This is good because we have many companies working towards higher technology. The bad part is that most competition can't reach that level. This is on fact the reason capitalism won't work. Competition is what capitalism needs but technology prohibits competition from reaching the same level.
BTW I'm a capitalist fag.
>>55392531
Basic income.
>>55392475
>>55392531
Will it be a eugenics transition since most of people work to sustain(feed/clothe/shelter) other people ?!
In that case billions will be wiped from the face of the Earth.
Techonology will never adequately replace manual labour; it'll always be more cost effective to retain an army of minimum wage slaves than replace absolutely all of them with robots.
Also: the singularity wil never happen. AI is a dead end. All humanity will be dead in a cloud of atomic dust within a century.
Capitalism can't be sustained without enough people to buy the goods, and without jobs those people won't be making enough money to be buying the goods. Universal income is the short term solution, the long term solution is a complete revolution of the economic system itself.
>>55392670
Can we start with the middle east? Pretty please?
>>55392475
> Implying you can stop the free market system.
There is a free market in fucking supermax prisons. The currency may be cigarettes and anal sex but it will still emerge naturally. Capitalism doesn't need anything to support it, it is self regulating.
>>55392652
> gubmint gib free shit pls
Fuck off commie.
>>55392652
>Basic income.
I might add:into basic sustainability and outright misery.
>>55392637
>It does though require that competition continue.
The thing is : the capitalist machine will produce but the people won't have the jobs to pay, who has the money to pay?! The 1%.
And they'll pay for whatever the fuck they want(they'll probably buy every land and building), certainly not handouts for the poor as we 've seen in the economic crisis where they profited more than in other times while the middle class and the poor struggled.
>>55392688
>Techonology will never adequately replace manual labour;
Already happened.
>>55392734
>Capitalism can't be sustained without enough people to buy the goods
It can if it has the cashflow.Capitalism at it's core it's just money transactions.
Some small countries gain a lot because they're a cashflow transit zone, producing mostly nothing.
>>55392761
>Can we start with the middle east
If that happened it'll be Syria on a bigger scale and wild Muslims at your doorstep.
Hopefully the U.S. government completes its project on ethnic bioweapons and implements population control measures on India and China.
>>55392856
Why are Mexicans still cleaning pools and picking fruit? Show me a robot that does either of those things cheaper.
Most of the world's problems stem from poverty. You can point fingers, call people lazy, say they are failures and don't deserve anything, etc. But it doesn't change the fact they're poor and turn to crime, and will mug you while you're walking home from the expensive restaurant you like. Just throw them in prison? Look how that's working out. We have the highest prison population on the planet and it's turned into a fucking industry of its own. I shudder to think of how much money the government spends on the prison population. It might actually be cheaper in some states to implement basic income. I'm sure problems won't disappear overnight, but it'll be a step in the right direction.
And for fuck's sake, legalize weed. I don't even smoke it but come on. We're throwing people in prison for something as innocent as getting stoned when it has less effect on you than drinking alcohol?
>>55392933
Actually my mom bought a pool cleaning robot a while ago, we haven't had to do anything for a long time. I was surprised how well it worked.
>>55392947
I'm guessing you still had to lift the robot in and out of the pool, switch it on, clean it, etc, never mind pay $1000+ for it. The Mexican is still better than the robot.
>>55392773
>supermax prison capitalism
>barter
Yea, the plebs will probably be left out of the modern market economy, now being done by supercomputer's ultra fast exchanges and they'll just have to deal with some sort of slum subeconomy since the elite won't be interested into mass producing food and clothes.
>>55392933
>Why are Mexicans still cleaning pools and picking fruit
Doorman and elevator attendant and many other jobs?
>>55391189
can you upload this somewhere else or something, its too slow
>>55392980
>$1000= one month's salary
The only benefit from illegal mex is the sexual harassment and the drama, if you're into that
>>55392980
It just stays in the pool until someone has to swim in it. Flip a switch once every couple of days and it starts driving around cleaning the scum off the bottom; only cost a few hundred. Mexicans might be better in the short term, but considering I don't have to deal with them, I'll take the robot any day.
>>55393000
Fine by me as long as I get a cyberpunk waifu
Best case scenario: Things like food, water, housing become a government right and you only work if you want to and are capable of doing something computers have not replaced YET.
Worst case scenario: The elite use tech to fuck the majority of humans on earth over. Mass famine and civil wars erupt only to be stopped within days by drones and robots controlled by the elite. People start committing suicide en masse and the elite laugh as the world burns.
It's probably gonna be a mix of these two scenarios.
>>55393044
>only cost a few hundred. Mexicans might be better in the short term,
A month's salary is 1000$ and let's say you pay for service, it'll get you at 200-300/month, how's that better?!
Why do you think those robots even sell and the companies don't go bankrupt in the next year?
There are people here, right now, who believe money is the only incentive for productivity and getting people out of the couch.
They walk among us.
>>55393097
What's your incentive food/grass?
>>55393097
>There are people here, right now, who believe money is the only incentive for productivity and getting people out of the couch.
It literally is, it has been this way for thousands of years and isn't going away.
Wanna eat, have a roof over your head, or have something nice for you loved ones or yourself? Go work for that dough my man.
>>55392652
Won't happen until the entire world is on the brink of collapse, and even then it won't happen until the absolute last second.
The working poor are defending the current system using propaganda from the rich. In the last election cycle, the poor were defending giving more money to the rich by repeating stuff like "they're JOB CREATORS!", as if the rich are creating jobs out of charity and should therefore be worshiped.
We live in a world where people fought better health care because "the JOB CREATORS can't afford it!". The very idea of basic income is laughed at because we don't want our precious job creators to pay more taxes. The poor would rather pay the tax themselves instead of making the wealthy pay it.
Nobody even realizes how deep the divide actually is. The amount of wealth that the people on top actually have is beyond comprehension for most people. Most of us live on budgets, some live paycheck to paycheck, some dream about home ownership but know it will probably never happen. The wealthiest people can purchase private jets and entire islands with the same consideration that we would have when buying a roll of toilet paper.
But to most people, that's the way it should be. They earned it, and we all deserve to starve. When we're all replaced by automation, we'll cry tears of joy because our job creators can reap more profits and pay lower taxes.
>>55393083
>Things like food, water, housing become a government right and you only work if you want to and are capable of doing something computers have not replaced YET.
Venus project= fantasy done by enthusiasts of the Zeitgeist movement
> The elite use tech to fuck the majority of humans on earth over.
Agenda 21,2 done by ONU
>>55393115
>>55393135
Billionaires can live in luxury for the rest of their lives without lifting a finger.
What's their incentive? More money? What does that mean to them other than dopamine release?
Use your brain.
>>55391221
I think itd greatly reduce the amount of years needed to retire but not outright banish work. I bet not working would have a huge psycological effect on people.
>>55393137
>Won't happen until the entire world is on the brink of collapse
It's already being implemented almost everywhere.
>basic income
can become very small if it's not corrected by inflation and/or other price fluctuations
In my country qualified or not if you're on the lower class job you'll get basic income and even if it's a free market, all employers push for the minimum income and in the end the worker has to work somewhere.
>>55393176
>Billionaires can live in luxury for the rest of their lives without lifting a finger.
Most people aren't Billionaires you fuck. In fact like 90% of people on earth live on less than $2,000 a month.
>>55393176
>More money?
Yea since more money, in their case=more power and influence.
>>55393217
>Most people aren't Billionaires you fuck
>>55393236
>Yea since more money, in their case=more power and influence.
>>55393180
>greatly reduce the amount of years needed to retire but not outright banish work
Age of retirement has been raised throughout Europe.
>>55393255
more money:
Pleb=more food and/or services/goods
Elite=more power/influence
What didn't you understand?
>>55393315
What did you not understand about money not being the only incentive?
>>55393355
>What did you not understand about money not being the only incentive?
Not him but for most people it is. Why are you even mentioning billionaires when they only make up less than 1% of the human population?
>>55393355
>money not being the only incentive
>money being most of the incentives directly/indirectly
>>55393372
>Why are you even mentioning the 1%
Because they have most of the money i.e. the future of the world.
>>55393372
>>55393375
I'm struggling to understand how you can't see the elephant standing right in front of you blowing water at your faces.
>b-but money is involved therefore it's the only incentive!
>>55393429
I know there are things that money can't factor but my point is that most things in a human's life are influenced by money.
>money being most of the...
In an ideal world, we'd either be working less for the same pay, or be getting paid more. Technology and automation has allowed for massive productivity gains for the average worker.
In reality, business owners have absorbed those productivity gains, which has led to the increasing income disparity we see today. Workers are expected to maintain the same hours and pay, while the productivity increase has led to jobs being cut, since the same performance can be had out of less workers.
I believe that this will continue until we reach a critical point of unemployed people, not able to feed/house themselves. At some point there will be a big angry mass of hungry people, which has historically shown to be dangerous to the wealthy. At that time there will probably be some sort of basic income implemented to pacify the population.
>>55393455
I suppose we understand each other then, but I question how much incentive is driven by money alone. If anything it's an intermediary, rarely the true incentive.
>>55393533
>critical point of unemployed people, not able to feed/house themselves.
While the employers already bought everything and most of the plebs are on rent.
>will be a big angry mass of hungry people,
Like the French/Russian revolution.
>>55393549
A very powerful indirect incentive.
>>55393533
This shows the root of the issue. Unless there's basic income at some point (or something along those lines), who will buy the products? At some point the products need to be either given away for free or stolen by mobs of people who can't afford it.
The very way our economic system works right now it's not adapted for what the future inevitably brings. The cycle grinds to a halt when wealth accumulates to the few, and before you know it you have a French Revolution, or maybe even something worse.
>>55393594
>>55393614
I'm hypothesizing that the wealthy have learned that big hungry mobs are traditionally dangerous to them.
My guess is that they will implement some sort of handouts/basic employment, where people don't feel like it would be worth it to start a revolution. If your family has a roof over their head, food in their bellies, and entertainment, is it worth risking death and destruction?
>>55393676
IngSoc will save us all!
>>55393614
The rich won't have any incentive to make the products in the first place cause they won't be interested in PEOPLE.
Why make food/clothes for people that make food/clothes or construction equipment that has a fully automated line of production?Why even bother making FOOD for people that can't get a foot in the door of the automated economy ie are completely useless?
Stock prices for making food/clothes etc will drop cause the money is in the hands of the rich anyway and being that worthless they'll go bankrupt in the new economic ecosystem and people will starve.
>>55392531
Weeeeell, uhhh ahem so it's like when you make a product and then sell it for money and we'll call it capi- errr socialism or something like that.
>>55393676
>will implement some sort of handouts/basic employment, where people don't feel like it would be worth it
If a revolution will be occurring the politicians' heads will roll as per usual.
The rich never made their fortunes doing that instead they did it by being a bunch of cut-throats.
And even if they give handouts that would be to buy some time to figure out how to get rid of the RISK.
>>55393811
I wouldn't doubt that those in power know the earth is becoming overpopulated, and aren't actively searching for a method of population control.
A massive war would serve well, but it carries the risk of total nuclear destruction. A biological weapon may work.
>>55392072
Yeah but thats because yuros are literal brainwashed retards that dont have kids at all
>>55392688
it's already replacing manual labour
To be honest our entire lives depend on money that will become more and more untill indeed a revolution happens my guess we are not far from that actually if you look around.
I assume they will adopt population control rules before it actually happens but that could stir up also a revolution.
>>55394038
But what if I fell like burning hella DVDs? :^(
>>55391093
>what will happen to the stupid peoples?
Hopefully? Natural selection
>>55394441
>uneducated?
>>55394117
>it has been replacing manual labor since the invention of the steam engine
Democracy will make sure that stupid people don't die out. Democracy is based on the majority opinion, which is predominantly made up of people of intelligence that is average or below.
This majority opinion will vote in its favor, so as a result, a democracy favors the stupid man - and if the stupid man wants jobs, democracy will give it to him.
One way I see of stopping this negative cycle is by introducing corruption. Corruption allows people with power (i.e. the world's elite) to influence the democracy's decisions in ways beyond their raw numerical quantity. In essence, corruption multiplies a social class's population by its power, thus equalizing the scales.
So if you want the idiots to die out and technology to replace them, embrace corruption.
>>55394649
Look at the ultimate democratic country, the US, 2 major parties all bought out at every move, whether campaigns or legislation.
>>55394735
The US is an oligarchy though, with tough controls to prevent the people from getting too much power. The militia is one of the last resort controls (contrary to popular belief, the 2nd amendment isn't there to make sure that people can overthrow their government, but so that they can't).
An actual democracy would be a better example, although most today are heading towards some sort of corporatocracy.
>>55394854
>actual democracy
When did that lasted a long time in human history?
>>55394866
There are actual democracies everywhere today with their own faults. "Actual democracy" sounds like I'm being reductive, but I was trying to generalize. Direct democracy for example isn't ideal either. 3 wolves and 1 sheep voting over what's for dinner.
>>55394735
>ultimate democratic country, the US
Not even close
>>55395000
Well they started this modern democracy, if it weren't for them we probably have some monarchic republic with the rich being the only voters AT BEST.
>>55394985
>Direct democracy for example isn't ideal either. 3 wolves and 1 sheep voting over what's for dinner.
This. The only purpose of laws is to counteract our natural inclination towards egoistic choice and force us to adhere to a system that has a better collective gain (at the cost of worse individual gain).
In the absence of laws, a society becomes evolutionarily unstable and regresses towards a chaotic anarchy, which prevents progress and will eventually cause it to be wiped out by more developed nations.
In the wolf/sheep example, the majority would be happy for a day and then starve out because sheep no longer exist. Laws that humans choose for themselves (i.e. egoistically) have the exact opposite effect of what a law is supposed to have.
For example, if everybody votes to abolish taxes (egoistic choice), the entire population would suffer as a result (since taxes are the binding mechanism that force us to care about the whole). This is why democracy is fundamentally flawed. If people knew what was good for them, governments wouldn't be required.
>>55395104
>laws is to counteract our natural inclination...
But the laws convey the most general wish of the whole population e.g. look at the US population, the majority is christian and the laws were designed in such a way.
>>55393180
Yeah we would all be happy and fulfilled persons. Crazy evil shit right?
>>55395181
What is secularism of which the States are founded?
>>55395196
We'd still work though. Just on our hobbies.
Humans can't generally sit still doing nothing.
>>55395220
this. I'm basically a NEET (*) and spend most of my free time contributing to free software.
(*) Technically enrolled at university but I don't really give a shit about it
>>55391221
While job is gonna die sooner than research, it's still gonna be after the ex-wageslave uprising.
I wonder if some people are even capable of doing nothing all day, especially if they spent decades following instructions.
>>55392688
>it'll always be more cost effective to retain an army of minimum wage slaves than replace absolutely all of them with robots
It's not my argument, but:
>it'll always be more cost effective to breed an army of horses than to replace absolutely all of them with cars
>>55395220
>Humans can't generally sit still doing nothing.
>>55395529
>It's not my argument, but:
>>it'll always be more cost effective to breed an army of horses than to replace absolutely all of them with cars
Wrong! To buy and maintain horse for the same power output as cars is probably hundreds of times more inefficient regarding cost.
>>55395660
>I don't understand scale
>The word "general" confuses me
Let me help you a little. Most but not all.
my year long experience in being NEET will sure come in handy then!
>>55391093
>Eugenics
>>55392789
good goy
>>55391093
>What will freaking happen to billions of peoples
Let's be real, the only immediate problem is the white people. The chinks and poo2loo's are already starving, to them it's not gonna be much worse, and might be countered by the extra amount of food available from the west.
That leaves us with 500 million white people. Lets strike 150 million off that, the people in countries falling because of non-robot issues (Mass immigration in europe), plus people already living on welfare. So that's about 350 million.
Lets go all out and say 90% are now not only useless, but unable to even contribute, even in giving them slave labour they only hinder work as a robot could have been in their place.
270 million people, fed, housed and watered. Mass suicides for all those brought up to think without contributing to society they'd be not useless, but that uselessness was inherently negative.
Many drugged up beyond reason just to keep happy. Some content with their own creativity, many more content with nothing more than the content of the creative (See what I did there I'm so fucking clever).
Throw in VR to the mix. I for one sat down once and played viscera cleanup detail for six hours straight.
That's a start.
>>55391221
Again with the (all those brought up to think without contributing to society they'd be not useless, but that uselessness was inherently negative.) thing, mr poster man >>55391221 is just an example of this.
>>55396249
THIS!
>>55392789
They're called gibmedats, and for the better part basic income would start off as free utilities and soylent, constructing free housing for the renters and paying off the property of those on home loans. After that, so long as the gubmint builds their own soylent factories (Read: NOT nationalisation of farms and shit) "Basic income" is sustainable. Sure, start talking about traded currencies and you're fucked.
>>55392789
Everyone is going to encounter extended periods of unemployment at some point in their life. it is a standard passage even in successful careers. We have to stop blaming the individuals for this and tackle the problem as a society.
>>55396249
Your literally smoking crack
>>55392773
You're taking a microeconomy where anal rape is exchanged for addictive substances as an example that free capitalism works.
I think this says a lot about the sociopathic nature of libertarianism.
>>55391093
Programmers will be obsoleted last by definition. (Because once software can write software, it's singularity time; job security shouldn't be your greatest concern at that point. If you survive, you'll probably enjoy some form of postscarcity.)
>>55396381
>soylent
well memed
>>55392652
>>55392856
>>55393137
http://alrenous.blogspot.ca/2016/05/basic-income-impossibility-theorem.html
>>55396498
being a bunch of skynet bitches is what you tech freaks want anyway.
>>55396542
why do conservatards always break down basic economic theorems as if they were the only person in the room who understood them?
everybody knows that basic income is liable to make the value of money drop. that is not a big enough obstacle to stop considering it as a solution
eventually, underemployment will become such a widespread issue that it will become the only way for society to be humane. the benefits outweight the consequences, unless you only consider its effects from the point of view of a middle class office worker who went to college on daddy's wallet and who never encountered adversity in their life
>>55396589
>tech freaks
Where do you think you are?
>>55396604
>based Alrenous
>conservatard
Oh, how you are mistaken.
>as if they were the only person in the room who understood them?
Because apparently it's necessary. His claim is not just that
>basic income is liable to make the value of money drop
but rather that it will always drop the value of money enough to defeat its function - to provide a minimal standard of living for everyone - unless there is a cost to it. Sterilization could be that cost. You get the income as long as you can provably no longer have children. It's simple to verify and permanent, so no large bureaucracy is needed. What's there not to like?
>>55396589
>tech freaks
I'm sorry, I thought this was the technology board.
Most of the "people" you're talking about are actually shitskins. Most of them are only alive because the western world feels sorry for them and provides food and clean water for them. It's a known fact that shitskins can't grow a significant amount of food without whitey's help so once the Western world is forced to deal with the Islamic question or succumb, there will be a mass die off of shitskins simply due to a lack of food. This is a good thing, they are largely a waste of resources and land.
But afterwards and once automation takes hold in the Western world I can see minimum income becoming a thing.
>>55396690
>>55396607
I was just saying that you guys would suck a mechanical dick just cause it has high benchmarks!
I look forward to the moment where every person in the world is designated free housing, energy, food, communication and transportation, and working is only to obtain luxurious and unessential assts.
>>55396607
>>55396690
No comment about:
>skynet bitch
>>55396716
>>>/leftypol/ and enjoy your Zerzan there.
>>55396713
that's some wild jazz, as per now d world beats natality any rates even with the high infant mortality
>>55396762
>d
3d
>>55396311
>>55396406
I was hoping to get more of a absolutely positive and absolutely negative response.
I'm literally smoking crack, sure, but lets pretend I'm also somewhat influential. Right my wrongs.
>>55396779
Yes, 3d is rather more fertile than 2d.
>>55396682
>Because apparently it's necessary. His claim is not just that
Yes it is. And everybody knows. You don't have to tell us what we already know. We are beyond this part of the thought process.
>but rather that it will always drop the value of money enough to defeat its function - to provide a minimal standard of living for everyone
Minimum income is meant to fill the gaps between employment, not to replace work. With the current system: Employment followed by welfare, you get people who become unemployable because they are on welfare (a taboo for employers), and can't afford their rent, end up in the streets or become criminals. The cost of basic income would even out the inequalities caused by the job market. We would all work as much as we would have worked without it, we would get a little less out of our work, but in exchange it would also mean people don't end up in the streets or turning to crime because the job market ignored them for over a year.
> unless there is a cost to it. Sterilization could be that cost. You get the income as long as you can provably no longer have children. It's simple to verify and permanent, so no large bureaucracy is needed. What's there not to like?
You're fucking insane. Basic income is meant to ensure income for when employment isn't sufficient. It's being proposed because the job market is not providing enough good jobs anymore. There should be no cost to it, especially not social darwinist you fascist sociopathic twat. Jesus fuck.
>>55396806
>more fertile
not really, they're dumb as fuck and won't control their genitals, fucking like dirty rats
>>55396515
Generall all-use term for nutritionally complete diet replacement made as cheaply as possible. In this context, not a specific product.
That should clear up your confusion.
>>55396762
What do shitskins need to reproduce? Well, like any other mammal they need food, water, and the opposite sex. Severely limit food and water and jamal and his 15 chillens will all starve to death, their numbers won't mean jack shit and will work more to hinder them than help them.
>>55396249
You don't get it, I think. You can enjoy doing research even if you can't compete with the machines in doing it. It is intrinsically rewarding to many humans to find out new things even if they are not contributing to society this way.
People have thought and written about this whole business. Read http://lesswrong.com/lw/xy/the_fun_theory_sequence/.
>>55396729
The latter is a worse offense. Skynet is already real, it's just not public about it.
>>55396682
God, just see >>55396381
Basic income doesn't even need to be monetary.
>>55396858
>>55396498
>Programmers will be obsoleted last by definition
Nah. Pajeet-tier programmers will be among the first to be obsolete. Simple software is very easy to create automatically (building websites, or simple apps). Just tell Siri what you want and it will create an app for you which does that.
But completely automating physical tasks is a lot harder. Building houses, streets, etc. Repairing stuff, cleaning. Not to mention that it requires expensive hardware. Those kind of jobs will too be safe for the foreseeable future.
>>55396716
I'd suck one anyway.
Actually, depending on definitions, I kinda already do.
>>55396858
Yum!
>>55396802
>I was hoping to get more than an absolutely positive and absolutely negative response.
fixed
>>55396916
>Building houses, streets, cleaning
You'd be surprised.
>>55396988
You might be able to make machines to automate parts of it, but not the complete process.
>>55396883
I know, I know.
You make a good example for both sides of the argument though.
On one hand, you're obviously content just researching for the sake of researching, no monetary incentive involved. On the other hand, you phrased it as if it was job security that mattered. As in "I'll be fine, I'll still have a job", which was a nice way to demonstrate that even the people now that are happy to work for the sake of work are still hung up on the old work to live ideology.
>>55396916
>Pajeet-tier programmers will be among the first to be obsolete.
That is true, but not for the reason you suggest it is.
>Just tell Siri what you want and it will create an app for you which does that.
Not really. There is a lot to software development that you can not automate sufficiently without an artificial general intelligence. The historical trend has been that software products replace writing custom software (e.g, the spreadsheet replaced a lot of entry-level contract programming and the same goes for WordPress). This is business as usual in the industry.
>Building houses, streets, etc.
Those are getting automated soon with concrete printers and self-operating construction vehicles that will follow self-driving cars. Interior decoration, not so much.
>Repairing stuff, cleaning.
Now we are talking. Small-scale, cheap, varied work that requires manual dexterity is going to last for a while. Your barista isn't going away just yet.
>>55396904
>>55396958
You're a couple years out of date there citizen!
(No pun intended)
>>55397066
>you phrased it as if it was job security that mattered
Where did I do that? >>55391221 isn't me.
>>55397020
YOU'D BE SURPRISED!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXJbNY6-ejM
Supervision will be needed just in case.
Assembling houses and even hotels made out of parts is even easier.
Plenty of cleaners for any budget.
Lots of road building machines got automated , not fully, give it 2 years or 4.
>>55397100
>>55397159
Why was there no movie of it in action?
Also, that's just a robot to lay bricks. There is A LOT more to building a house.
It will be possible, sure, but it will be a very long time before completely automating it becomes viable.
Jobs are a thing of the past soon for the low-middle classes.
Think about the millions of pajeets that will happly do cleaning work or make clothing.
Tech industry will get flooded more and more because its the only thing that really makes the money ( they tell you that now )
Forget working in a fast food place as kid because that is getting automated right now.
Forget buying cloths in a store because buying on internet is cheaper and also don't need people to do that stuff.
Forget working in general in 10-30 years.
>>55397245
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SObzNdyRTBs
https://www.google.com/search?q=printing+houses
>>55397283
Also those millions of pajeets will be gone as soon as a robot can do it faster & cheaper ( not long anymore )
>>55397283
Programmers will still sweat like pigs working.
>>55397114
>Research jobs
>JOBS
>can never be replaced
>REPLACED
Something something rather than I don't care if I'm not the best or even useful at something, I can still enjoy it.
I fear the elites and their Agenda 21 might prevail, because so far it seems like everything is going according to their plan. The world is beginning to panic and food prices keep rising, not to mention their attempt to take peoples guns away while confusing people with their genders to slow down the population growth. I get the feeling that Trump might be in on the plan, that this plan is so bulletproof that not even Alex Jones can see the Trump card being played.
All this talk about automation and our place in society leads me to believe that we might be wiped out. There are top tier economists who say that a basic universal income under a socialistic government will inevitably collapse just like the Soviet Union. Which leads me to believe that "their" plan to reduce Earth's population down to 500 million could occur.
>>55397306
Will they go without a fight?
>>55397331
not really. robots will eventually be able to program/repair themselves.
>>55397335
>to slow down the population growth.
They're not confusing the 3d world, they multiply like mice.
>>55397204
It's totally just algae bro!!! xD
>>55397376
Doubt it , in the next 10 years anyway.
>>55397283
>Tech industry will get flooded more and more because its the only thing that really makes the money
Not a concern because IQ is normally distributed.
>>55397397
>>55397335
>All this talk about automation and our place in society leads me to believe that we might be wiped out. There are top tier economists who say that a basic universal income under a socialistic government will inevitably collapse just like the Soviet Union. Which leads me to believe that "their" plan to reduce Earth's population down to 500 million could occur.
They are already doing that,look up population control.
>>55397425
>Now with more girls
That's kinda hot
>>55397430
>500 million could occur.
Is the actual number on the Georgia guidestones.
>>55397439
>>55392947
I do concur with some of your points anon, but the consequences have become so developed intergenerationally. Literacy, numeracy, concentration, critical thought/reasoning (Higher cognitive function) in environments of poverty and become bred out of entire social groups that don't require it for success. Their numbers skyrocket because they are more impulsive but their skills become static.
>>55391093
>peoples
My bet is that the doomsayers in this thread are wrong because they only have rhetoric and no numbers, and probably don't understand that if we were approaching overpopulation basic goods would skyrocket in price.
Let's see.
>>55400881
They shall be put to the sword. There's absolutely nothing you or me can do to stop this considering we'll probably be among them.
>>55391189
no seeds
