Tell me, /tg/, what will happen once we delegate almost all of our jobs to robots?
You know, in all sci fi humans apparently stay relevant despite all those super advanced robots that coexist with us. Meanwhile what we see now is that soon enough the robots will truly spell doom for our race just by making us obsolete.
How will post-economical society look like?
Will we all just spend our days shitposting on a Taiwanese quilting mailing list?
>>43738595
For one, all the poor people we're already not paying will get no paid more and then we'll have a bunch of burger flippers and janitors mad at us. But assuming we use robots for actual practical jobs like shit that gets people killed on a regular basis, then we'll also have disgruntled police, security, bomb squads, construction workers, and fire fighters all out of work and looking to do something with their gratuitous beef that we previously could only make use of by throwing them at shit in hopes they'd die less quickly that other people.
In a sci-fi setting I worked on, I theorized a future for a humanity who would be otherwise irrelevant compared to the superintelligent AIs and automated systems that could fulfill all their basic needs effortlessly.
With prior notions of worth and value discarded, uniqueness and reputation become key. Sure, everyone can just mass produce a chair. But what chair do you pick? Hundreds of thousands of people might be designing a variety of them on a publicly rated marketplace, but choosing the most popular ones might be seen as gauche, just going with the flow. If you're really hardcore, you might even get a unique, hand made chair- Perhaps less efficient or optimal than a manufactured one, but given value purely because it was made the old fashioned way.
Which leads nicely into reputation. Wearing the best clothes or having the best design of body markings? That's a reputation. Being the belle of the ball, the top of your sport, a compelling writer... That's reputation. And below the top level will be hundreds of thousands of people in every creative industry struggling and striving to rise up, to reach an audience.
This is where I see the future of humanity after being made irrelevant. Either mastering unusual and inefficient ways to do things purely becase we can, or becoming utterly committed to a creative infrastructure.
>>43738616
Don't worry, mate, soon your job will be as irrelevant and automated as a cashier's or driver's.
>>43738595
>"Among the viable of all economic delusions is the belief that machines on net balance create unemployment." -Henry Hazlitt, 1946
Economics in One Lesson, The Curse of Machinery, page 41:
http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf
>>43738595
Machines still can't solve a captcha, I don't think anyone's going to be in a rush to replace all firefighters with them. The trend will probably be more akin to the airline industry - advances in technology aid the pilots without replacing them.
IDK man I guess we'll just sit around, smoke dope, browse the internet and fuck sex robots all day.
>>43738841
>1946
>"thinking that domesticating animals will allow your wife to stop pulling a plow is a delusion" - Oog Grong, 18 000 BC
Seriously, have you missed creation of computers that happened in the meantime?
>>43738654
I ALMOST don't want to tell you to read the Culture series.
>>43738920
I have, but my thoughts tend in a slightly different direction. The Culture feels too... Controlled, almost. The vision of the future I see is closer to barely restrained anarchy, humans on the edge of what we'd understand as sanity bouncing around like ping pong balls in their carefully sculpted playground, not really potent enough to cause any real damage, instead expending all their energy on fruitless struggle against and between themselves and others.
>>43738912
Computers are just another machine. You didn't read the economics lesson.
>>43738595
Didn't the 2000AD comics focus on this thought?
I mean they mixed in a bunch of insanity to allow creation of the Judges and the world being blown up, but as I recall the basic premise was that with most of the work force becoming automated, most people had to live off of welfare that barely covered their costs of living, and if they wanted nice or expensive stuff like business owners and people with irreplaceable jobs had, they either needed skills, connections, or crime.
A very large group decided crime was the most fun and cost-effective of the options.
>>43739008
If you hadn't noticed, most economics before the 2000's is basically considered a nice try that doesn't really work. By economists. Too much theory backed by too little data, coupled with a LOT of cultural and philosophical baggage.
What it sure as fuck didn't do was PREDICT. All good science makes predictions, and then change when they are no longer true. Economics is finally doing that. 1946 was back before most current statistical methods and data gathering tools existed to disprove the ivory tower cruft.
>>43739008
No, computers are not just another machine. Computers are machines that can learn. An engine is just an engine and it can't be anything more than an engine. A computer, though, soon might be smarter than you are. There are self improving algorithms. And this is the path that will make anything that a human can do obsolete. Because those machines won't be mere machines anymore.
>>43738595
So there are basically 2 scenarios if this happens.
The first scenario is the scarcity problem, and its the one that most dystopian futures focus on. If we replace the workforce with robots but dont actually generate enough resources for people to live comfortably and/or dont solve the economic disparities inherent in a divided society, you wind up with a place where some people are still under the boot of people with more power and are being exploited. And now the exploited people have infinite time to contemplate how shitty the situation is. I will leave you to ponder how they are likely to express that, but frankly this is the boring scenario.
The much more interesting robot future is the post-scarcity scenario, where robots have advanced to the point where we can use them to support every need of the human race. The robots are not taking jobs, they are freeing up time for people to do far more interesting work. Everyone is educated because there is no risk sending your children to spend their early days learning as much as they can. Food, lodging, fuel, and data are all free, and people are able to work on whatever projects amuse or interest them. Rewards for work come in the form of fame and accolades for successful ventures and the opportunity to work on larger and more influential projects.
Seriously, think about it. If tomorrow the government gave you a robot, and said the following: this robot is yours. It will never break. It will never run out of fuel. You dont need to pay for anything it does. But it will work 24/7 to earn money for you. What would you do? would you get mad that suddenly a robot was earning you money, or would you take the money it was earning, and go live a better and more interesting life? You have to ask yourself, who would be angry or disenfranchised in such a peaceful and Utopian future, where humanity is finally united in one tribe, each one working in their own way to a better future?
>>43738595
The Culture.
>>43738940
Damn anon, nice comparison. You've got a way with words.
>>43739008
The economics lesson focuses on the thought of one work cutting machine per industry, and relies on training and skills actually being taught to the newly unemployed instead of just picking some kid with college papers.
In theory this still holds up well today, but with computers as well as machines that occupy several areas of several work forces, the fear isn't about these burger flippers losing their jobs, it's about several entire industries losing their jobs and only needing a small amount of maintenance men to deal with anything since the machines build and maintain each other for the most part.
It's farfetched at the moment, but a fear none the same, a fear that the lesson could never predict as something that could exist outside of science fiction.
>>43739151
The first scenario is the likelier scenario, imo, and if you don't address the divide people are going to be forced to abandon the current industry and survive off grid. Then corporations realize by putting people out of jobs, they lose their customer base and dial back the autonomy.
>>43739151
The answer, of course, is people for whom peace is a curse. The warlords and warmongers, weapons dealers and psychopaths, and those deluded by warped religion or failed ideologies. Basically anyone who would be violent or disruptive for a non-logical cause. At the dawn of this age, these people would be marginalized and would likely fight back even though it would be in their best interest to integrate with society, because this new society cant coexist with the world they built in their heads.
They live in a world where their horrible actions are justified by their beliefs. Its ok if we kill other muslims, bomb innocents, and corrupt an otherwise fairly peaceful religion, because our path is the real one! Its fine if we murder and enslave black people, because they are not real people! Anyone who has tried to justify their injust or evil actions with ideology will have a hard time adjusting to this new world.
And so, we have two groups. The majority of peaceful people who just want to pursue their interests or make the world better, and the violent backwards people who want to kill them to justify their existence. This means that someone would have to protect most of humanity from those backwards elements....
And you basically wind up with the Overwatch story, I just realized -_-.
>itt we post on 4ch about how humans are still relevant
Wouldn't replacing all jobs with machines mean the majority of people won't have money to take advantage of machine labour and product, thus depriving these autonomous industries the necessary capitol to sustain themselves?
>>43738595
Once our work is all taken by robots, things will be so cheap that people on welfare can still buy things. Assuming we mean all jobs that are necessary for society to function and not creative jobs like the arts or humanities. It will be a Gilded Age sort of society, because the corporations and shareholders will still make a decent amount of money versus the dolists, unless there remains places where work just can't be done by robots because its too expensive or difficult to do so, but things won't actually be so bad for the average person because everything will be affordable.
>>43738595
The really important thing is not that machines will take away jobs from factory workers and truckers. Computers already start to get creative: they already are able to compose music, create works of art, design other machines and so on. Fuckers are getting smarter and smarter. So laugh when you still can at those dumb brutes made obsolete by factory machines before a robot takes away your job as well. Machines can be engineers, journalists, even lawyers.
>>43739274
Finland is already thinking about social wage - you get some money just for the fact that you are a human.
>>43739319
Oh? I hadn't heard about that. Glad to hear some countries are thinking ahead.
>>43738595
It'll be shit for a while, especially for the poor, and then we'll adapt. Same as every other industrial revolution that ever happened.
Replacing human workers with machines is nothing new.
>>43739353
http://www.basicincome.org/news/2015/06/finland-new-government-commits-to-a-basic-income-experiment/
>>43739241
You have no idea how people work, your examples are skewed, and are all around naive.
>>43739382
To be fair he is probably 14.
>>43738595
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
>>43738595
people really like to overestimate the concept of superiority and obsolescence. we'll never be obsolete until we invent true intelligent AI, for one, and even after that, the existence of people who are smarter or stronger than you doesn't preclude you from finding happiness or meaning in life. plus we win at life as a species at that point, we created superior life and officially stuffed it in dad's face. I'd be okay with walking peacefully into the night in a universe filled with our glorious progeny, to be hailed as the legendary progenitor species millennia later.
>>43739241
"people for whom peace is a curse" is a propaganda meme, used by people who prefer deniable manipulation to overt dictation, i.e. people who prefer constant low-level conflict to brief high-level violence establishing authentic order.
This is particularly visible in attacks on "failed ideologies." For example, ISIS is considered a warped religion by devotees of Western secular liberalism, but ISIS is flourishing. Far from being non-logical, it's a ruthlessly axiomatic execution of core Islamic tenets, and it's leader al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic theology - most critics claiming he's wrong have never studied Islam outside a 15 minute wiki skimming. Moderate Muslims are famous for losing theological debates with radicals, for the simple reason the Koran isn't on their side.
Then there's the Paradox of Automation. For every percentage of humans in a system replaced by automation, the remaining quantity of humans not only requires more skill but also becomes more important to the system as a whole.
Realistically, human work is not dying out anytime soon. Simple proles are easily bought off with welfare schemes like basic income; but they don't then invest in education and other classic upper-middle-clas WASP values like liberal arts - they spend the money on drugs, fast food, and other petty entertainments. The feedback loop powering automation is this: automation frees lower classes to indulge in venality, which destroys the upper classes' respect for them, since they can no longer accept lower classes as peers and fellow content builders. Then the upper classes, importance magnified by the automation paradox, build even more automation to protect themselves from the now degraded proles.
Scarcity isn't dying either. The biggest impacts on human lifestyle budgets tend to come from fundamentally scarce resources - housing relies on land, utilities need good water table respiration cycles, etc.
>>43739241
This is going to blow your mind, but psychopaths love peace. It keeps people from calling them out or dealing with them violently, so they can exploit their superior manipulative abilities with minimum risk.
Cooperative, straightforward, self-sacrificing people win wars because they have higher-trust norms. Psychopaths lose wars everytime.
>>43739382
Provide examples or prove that you are talking out your ass. No one said he was saying that was a likely scenario either, just a more interesting one.
>>43739090
>If you hadn't noticed, most economics before the 2000's is basically considered a nice try that doesn't really work.
Yes, there was the Keynsian model and all other models that either did not work or had proponents who felt that the economy exists to scam everyone in favour of the rich.
>>43739134
>Computers are machines that can learn.
Get that magical thinking out of your head - Even a water clock can storage stuff and use it to compute a function. The height of computer-learning is captcha, which is millions of people telling a computer cluster that it's doing it wrong over and over and over again until it has enough right stuff in its container to compute something useful.
>>43738595
The current real world income/asset inequality between top earners/owners and the bottom ones already means that, in practice, a minority of the population can afford to feed and house the majority, if they just feel like it.
Robots taking jobs is not a problem in itself, like everything else it all depends on how we handle it.
A lot of sci-fi literature have more centralized power in governments (which makes sense, no matter if it's corporations that have effectively grown into governing bodies or governments being more and more controlling) and the people have a kind of "citizen wage" as a means of keeping people alive and keeping people from committing crimes of desperation at least, while people who want to earn more on top of that either own property/manufacturing or get relevant/rare skills in order to have more opportunities.
In practice the whole doomsday scenario about AI's who decide they don't need humanity any more is very unlikely due to how "AI" has to work in practice.
We have free well because we're a product of evolution and have evolved in all kinds of random ways that would have been a terrible idea to add as design features to robots or computer system.
An AI consists of what whoever programmed it put in there, most fiction with evil computers conveniently skip over the step where someone makes them that way, or gives them the means to make themselves that way, because it doesn't really make sense.
The only evil AI doomsday scenario that works in practice is if a human deliberately sits down and makes an AI that way, and it's very unlikely that that would over night become some kind of global phenomenon.
>>43739662
>neoliberal economy
>not a scam
wew
This, though
>>43739720
It's motherfucking 2015 and I can't style a select field in a browser without some massive hacks. I'm not so optimistic about the whole tech progress.
>>43739495
Except for all the places where ISIS regularly violates some of the most sacred laws of their supposed religion. Dont murder your own people. Dont attack others unless they start it. Dont selectively teach parts of the book and ignore the others. But all that is irrelevant really. Its a failed ideology because it doesn't serve any good purpose in the world other than justifying the murders of others and dragging their society backwards.
To say ISIS is thriving is bullshit as well. In the 50 odd years we have been looking at these warped islamic ideologies, what have they produced? No new science, no new technologies, barely any art and what art they do produce is viciously repressed and forced to be circulated in secret. Their people are by and large uneducated and poor by a standard that would be shocking even in most 3rd world countries, and their best and brightest leave TO LIVE IN OTHER PLACES. And this from the culture that basically invented mathematics and scientific inquiry.
And it will stay that way, because even if you are unwilling to believe all of that, believe this: they dont let women do anything but have children. That means they will always have half as many thinkers, builders, leaders, and designers as any society that doesn't follow such a failed ideology.
By what measure other than a brief spurt of military victories would you call them successful?
>>43739841
You are simply making a huge number of (retarded) assumptions here.
You visualize some kind of intelligent super being without thinking about how it was created.
A program is a machine just as much as a tractor is, it's functionality is limited by whatever was put there by it's maker.
There is no such thing as "A general AI", you can't make arguments purely based on fiction. There's this really weird assumption going on in AI related fiction that someone pushed a button and made a computer person that can do anything it wants because apparently it has the capability to do everything and totally override every other system, which does not really make a lick of sense when you consider that it, originally, has to be created by a human, or by another AI created by a human.
Code is not a brain, it doesn't have whim or genuine emotion no matter how cool that concept is in fiction.
>>43739841
Again, there are some things that cant be computed, because there are no algorithms that can solve the problems. Among those are unaccountably infinite sets (as opposed to countably infinite sets), actions of biological beings, and why Justin Bieber is still making music.
>>43738595
Maybe this answer was already given but I think it might be because most of the irrelevant humans just don't exist anymore in those futures. The only people who are still around are those with skills that can't be replicated by a machine or require human thought and their families.
If the irrelevant people are not all or mostly dead then chances are that they are just forced to live out of sight and out of mind. Kind of like in that Elysium movie.
>>43739813
>In the 50 odd years we have been looking at these warped islamic ideologies, what have they produced?
>By what measure other than a brief spurt of military victories would you call them successful?
Your parochial values are showing - I like to blame this mostly on leftists, but it's a problem in virtually all Western factions. You're incapable of understanding diversity exists. ISIS doesn't care about your measures of success such as cool new TV screen technology, it cares about its measures of success.
Like most terrorist groups, ISIS is similar to a MMO guild. It's about obtaining meaning. Specifically, meaning actualized through social proof, resulting in the relative inefficiency of most terror attacks combined with a high rates of martyrdom.
Our society is terrible at producing meaning, which is why recruiting is so easy.
>Except for all the places where ISIS regularly violates some of the most sacred laws of their supposed religion.
I already preempted this, but maybe you didn't read it. You have zero credentials and are outside your field; ISIS is a major organization that's a world leader in Sunni theology, well-stocked with religious PhDs. It's like a retard seventh grader telling CERN they're wrong and need more Troll Physics.
>And it will stay that way, because even if you are unwilling to believe all of that, believe this: they dont let women do anything but have children. That means they will always have half as many thinkers, builders, leaders, and designers as any society that doesn't follow such a failed ideology.
Speaking of science, this is wrong too. Men have a much flatter IQ distribution than women, i.e. women are mostly average while men make up the majority of geniuses and retards. By upping the reproductive cycle, they can actually produce a higher productive IQ-fraction.
Of course, they won't do this, because they don't care about science beyond the bachelors in engineering level. They have different values.
>>43739928
I'm reciting the mainstream consensus of AI scientists.
I realized you may not be familiar with AI design efforts and might therefore think I'm using lots of assumptions, that's why I included a famous book to introduce you to the topic so that you don't call basic facts retarded assumptions and look silly.
>>43739090
This is the dumbest thing I've read on 4chan today.
>>43739813
>Except for all the places where ISIS regularly violates some of the most sacred laws of their supposed religion.
>Dont murder your own people.
They're an offshoot of Wahabitism mixed with apocalyptical Shia ideas about the end times and the return of the hidden prophet, Anon, run by people who used to work for Saddam's Secret Service.
It's the perfect shitstorm of everything terrible the region cooked up post-WW2 with our money, training and implicit support.
>>43739982
ISIS exists for few years by now. And in few years they will either get destroyed or implode like a Jonestown on steroids because their way of living is impossible to sustain. Yeah. Khalif might not care about my car or my tv. But soon enough he will get ripped to shreds by his soon to be disillusioned followers when he will start to fail his impossible to fulfill promises. By your logic fucking CWC is an epitome of success.
>>43739982
I see, so you are basically a liar:
1) you havent shown any real value that the society has produced. Murder and warefare are inherent value-loss actions. You are spending resources to kill other people rather than produce goods or advancements. Calling me parochial doesnt change that, nor does you trying to dodge reality by saying they "create meaning"...which is an amazingly meaningless statement. People find meaning in random events for gods sake, meaning is not a relevant product.
And I am not the one judging ISIS. Is the Islamic Scholars who are doing that. I was paraphrasing an open letter from the top Islamic Scholars of the world to the leaders of ISIS. You can read it here: http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/
And finally, your pseudoscience about women is laughably wrong. I have to assume you are just bullshitting out of your ass, because pretty much every study on the subject of women and intelligence has shown that women are generally slightly smarter than men on the whole and show a similar level of variation. Even if they didnt, simply not allowing half your population to participate regardless of how smart or dumb they are is always going to be a loosing proposition. Walking with one leg is always harder than with two, and nothing has shown that women are somehow incapable of producing worthy leaders, thinkers, builders, or even fighters.
In summary, you are just restating the same bullshit justifications that every 2-bit warmonger tries on for size. "You dont understand us because our culture is different" is a bullshit argument when ISIS is beheading people who dont agree with them. Murder is murder no matter where you are.
But then again, you don't really believe that, you are just trying to get people's goat on 4chan.
>>43740149
Wahabitism existed since the 18th century and constantly got its shit slapped by more sane regimes until the British told the US to never stop throwing money at them ever.
Likewise, the core of ISIS can easily survive and just try over and over again until the Brits, the Russians, the French or Space Aliens feel that they need a terrorist regime to rule all of the Near East.
>>43739982
>I already preempted this, but maybe you didn't read it. You have zero credentials and are outside your field; ISIS is a major organization that's a world leader in Sunni theology, well-stocked with religious PhDs. It's like a retard seventh grader telling CERN they're wrong and need more Troll Physics.
That's fucking retarded. It's like saying that criticizing stalinist russia as not socialist is wrong because they were the biggest country calling itself socialist.
>>43740032
Must've missed all your other posts.
Or hadn't you noticed that not a single classical school of economics has been able to consistently predict future economic events? All of them either shotgun, predicting dozens if not hundreds of things that don't happen for every one that they happen to get right, or don't make useful predictions at all.
If they can't even get IF A, THEN B right more often than a coin flip, something is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with the theories they are operating by, and most people entering the field realize that.
Deciding that since machines caused huge disruption but eventually there were enough jobs for everyone, that therefore, somehow, there is a fundamental feature of some sort in economics enforcing it, is utterly devoid of not just proof but evidence in it's favor. Yes, we have a single useful example of things not going *completely* apeshit, but so many other things happened we have no idea if that was luck or causative.
>>43740241
So they existed for 200 years in vegetative state and only can be even noticeable if you keep throwing money on them? Fuck me, that is truly something to last ages.
>>43740164
>I was paraphrasing an open letter from the top Islamic Scholars of the world to the leaders of ISIS.
Come back after the Saudis start signing it.
>1) you havent shown any real value that the society has produced. Murder and warefare are inherent value-loss actions.
They use that to shift good from the dead to the living and they apparently provide a relatively corruption-free bureaucracy along with that. That's literally everything these people ever got from their former governments, only better.
Humans will merge sentiences with machines, and then have the same old day jobs.
If you thought your job was shit before, get ready to be running 40 of them across 37 different platforms, all in customer complaints.
>>43740338
>Come back after the Saudis start signing it.
Saudis are not muslim. They worship only the power of almighty cash.
>>43740331
>So they existed for 200 years in vegetative state
Nah, they constantly try to conquer the Arab penninsula, Mecca and other holy sites and destroy every building that's older than 100 years and all sites of worship they did not approve of during those 200 years. They just got their shit slapped repeatedly by the Ottomans and Egyptians until the Brits took over.
>>43740338
>Corruption-free
BUAHAHASHAHAHAHAHSHSHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHhuuueeeeHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>43740327
Are you conflating the broader field of economics with the specific subfield of predictive modeling? There have been advances in the latter, but I've never met an economist who says "Everything pre-2000 was wrong." Unless you're one of those ultra-heterodox Resource Based Economic's guys or something. Either way, some sort of citation would be appreciated.
>>43740398
>relatively
It apparently went from the old standard that was: "pay off that guy because he got connections to family x, pay off all the people in the bureacracy dealing with your case, that guy because he got connection to the military and that guy in your family because he got connections to people in your family. Now you can build a house." to: "rarely pay off one person."
>>43740446
It's not because they are less corrupt. It's because they simply destroyed most of the bureaucracy. When the criminals are ruling the streets there is relatively little crime.
>>43740446
Oh you sweet summer child. The one is just an older version of the other. Right now their populace doesn't have any money for bribes and the leadership is fighting to survive against basically the entire world. But those corrupt political systems were born out of these same militant warped Islamic systems that produce dictatorships. As they have more time, they will take more bribes and continue to marginalize or kill anyone who doesn't like it.
>>43740482
I think they have channels of appeal in their system though and a codex of law that's accessible to all, which isn't how regular criminals run their shop.
>>43740505
...anon, there's a reasonable level of corruption at which it exists, but the rule of law is still in effect, which is what the IS is allegedly providing. And there's a level of corruption comparable to what Russia, Syria under Assad, Egypt and other nations in the region where paying off people is the only thing that actually works.
It's a choice between having a medieval code of law vs living in utter lawlessness. It's not even anarchy, it's just plain being forced to ignore and break the law in order to get a fraction of what would rightfully be yours.
The Luddite's Fallacy is an incredibly bullshit concept because computers are machines which work without anyone operating them. Replacing all menial laborers is already doable. It is just economically prohibitive. With time, as the tech gets cheaper, it is more or less inevitable. What isn't inevitable is AI research continuing to advance at its current pace but even now AI can replace many blue collar jobs such as tech support, QA, accountancy, and even the rote paperwork work given to junior lawyers.
Given a "worst case" scenario of no further advancement in tech or AI and the price of the technologies in question going down at the current rate most humans in the world will still have no prospect for employment because all of the mindless busywork will be done by machines and society cannot support infinity doctors and writers.
If AI does advance as we predict it will then eventually computers will do literally everything.
>>43738595
Some religious nutters lead a crusade against the robots and then proceed to get so high that they can do the maths required to make an FTL jump.
>>43739928
>A program is a machine just as much as a tractor is, it's functionality is limited by whatever was put there by it's maker.
Yes, but one can write the program so that it modifies itself according to certain criteria. After enough iterations the program might be unrecognizable by the author and function in a very different way. This is a problem we already run into with machine learning (which many big corporations, such as Google, make extensive use of). When you notice unintended behavior but don't actually know for sure what's the process the computer is using to get results things can get messy. An engineer has to sit down and figure out what the computer is actually doing by reading its self-modified code.
>>43738841
Mechanisation creates unemployement on the basis that the new jobs related to the mechanisation process and it's maintenance aren't necessarily created in the same amount as the jobs they replace.
You're only gonna need so many programmers, engineers and factory managers anon.
>>43740786
that's only a problem on a capitalist system.
If all the work is done by machines I don't see why should humans work. We all could have our basic needs covered and only work to exchange luxurious things like art. I really don't see the problem with a (mostly) no jobs society.
>>43740710
They have specific people for the Maths. The Navigators can just see forever.
>>43740698
>Replacing all menial laborers is already doable.
Well yeah, we can build for machines. It's just kinda pointless because most public spaces and resources have to be used by humans as well and those public spaces are subject to noisy event such as the climate, animals and planning that did not take the needs of robotic systems into consideration in the first place.
The current big business in robotic is making bots smart and receptive enough so that they can work without being strictly isolated from humans on the factory floor. That's something we were plain unable to pull off until very recently.
>>43740894
I agree that basic income is basically (fufufu) the only reasonable economic model in a world where the majority of humans have no employment prospects. What interests me is what will all of those people do with their lives now that they don't have to struggle for sustenance? Furthermore, what will humanity as a whole do when computers completely replace humans? This is not such a stretch. There are already programs which compose bland but decent music. In the end there may come a time when machines replace all artists.
>>43738595
>Almost all of our jobs
Glad you left this rejoinder. There's one thing robots will never be able to take away from us, and that'sbuilding beautiful walls.
>>43740942
live the NEET dream. You do whatever you like, for self-fulfillment or to get some non basic stuff you like.
Having machines making art wont stop people making art, because most artist love doing it in the first place.
>>43740942
Some of them will usher in a new age of art, learning, and understanding. Others will passively benefit from that new age. Still others will just fuck around like dumbasses, but that's okay, because that's all those people are doing now anyway.
There will also be a massive rise in over-reactive SJW bullshit, because a lack of real problems is what leads to people pretending their first-world problems are actual problems. When your life is otherwise good, the smallest little things seem like a huge fucking deal, so we'll have to deal with a lot of pampered whiny dumbasses who can't handle being called dumbasses.
That's okay, though, because I'd rather have to deal with whiny dumbasses than starving children.
>>43740769
>Let's create systems we are unable to troubleshoot
>We will literally be unable to find out what is going wrong once they're in operation!
>TFW the future will have AI mods who actively moderate every thread on every board at any given time, making sure no one strays off-topic or shitposts
What's the point of being a NEET if you can't shitpost on 4chan?
>>43741029
We CAN troubleshoot them. It is just done manually by an engineer which takes the time to read the code the program wrote to figure out what it's doing. The danger is in the programmer who writes the self-modifying code fucking up and allowing them code to develop in an undesirable way.
>>43740965
Plattenbau-style construction based on prefabricated concrete slabs can probably be mostly automatized.
It's just that the result will be shit architecture and houses will end up having a lot of space between them to account for the needs of their automatic builders.
>>43739171
America is doomed.
>>43738595
well, our economic system is kinda falling apart, and people are already speaking of the possible end of stock market captalism for a "share" economy
>>43739151
B.. bu...but technology BAD!
>>43739434
>people really like to overestimate the concept of superiority and obsolescence. we'll never be obsolete until we invent true intelligent AI, for one, and even after that, the existence of people who are smarter or stronger than you doesn't preclude you from finding happiness or meaning in life. plus we win at life as a species at that point, we created superior life and officially stuffed it in dad's face. I'd be okay with walking peacefully into the night in a universe filled with our glorious progeny, to be hailed as the legendary progenitor species millennia later.
this!
>>43739748
>The current real world income/asset inequality between top earners/owners and the bottom ones already means that, in practice, a minority of the population can afford to feed and house the majority, if they just feel like it.
Can they? can they really?
https://youtu.be/661pi6K-8WQ
>>43740164
>Even if they didnt, simply not allowing half your population to participate regardless of how smart or dumb they are is always going to be a loosing proposition. Walking with one leg is always harder than with two, and nothing has shown that women are somehow incapable of producing worthy leaders, thinkers, builders, or even fighters.
In strict numerical terms, a society with half the thinkers and twice the children will produce a lot more thinkers in the long run.
>>43739151
I think post-scarcity is a lot tougher to achieve. Energy needs for a machine society are far more intense and concentrated - and that's on top of the vast amounts of energy already spent simply growing food to feed people. The idea of a robot that never breaks and never runs out of fuel is mythical; machines wear down with age, and even nuclear sources of energy require expertise and maintenance.
>>43739982
I agree with the idea that modern society fails to produce meaning, but the IQ argument is a correlation/causation problem - men have simply had more opportunities in history to exhibit genius or retardation compared to women.
>>43739574
You are talking about sociopaths. We have them by the boatload in all societies but in more advanced and peaceful ones, they stand out more.
Psychopaths? I doubt they love peace.
>>43741344
Man, is there like an internet-rule about how everybody who posts links does so in the hopes that nobody opens them?
Because that vid's some dude pointing out that running a continent-spanning country that's supporting global military deployment of its forces and the militaries of semi-allied and semi-hostile nations while underwriting free cheques for multinational companies is more expensive than running a global for-profit company.
>>43741487
If women were just as capable as men, why would have society evolved in the first place to favor men?
Checkmate, feminists.
>>43741396
>In strict numerical terms, a society with half the thinkers and twice the children will produce a lot more thinkers in the long run.
That is a true point.
Of course the problem is that thinkers don't come entirely from birth. It is a combination of born talent and upbringing. Moreever, those who are so overflowing with talent that their genious shines through their upbringing are going to be killed for heresy when they use their brain.
>>43741244
>"share" economy
Elaborate? Things like Uber and AirBnB, or something else?
>>43741521
Did you miss the part where all foreign aid and all foreign military deployments are canceled and what a tiny infinitesimal fraction of the expense that reduces?
>>43741560
comunism
>>43741527
Because men are, on average, larger and stronger and for most of human history that meant they got what they wanted.
>>43741527
Because when you go from a hunter-gatherer society to an agriculture society 2 things happen:
1) land is suddenly valuable, and men are more useful than women in fighting over land
2) land is inherited by your children, so as a man you have to make sure your children are actually yours and not some other dude's, so you need to exert control over the woman/women you are sleeping with
>>43741666
Satan confirms that even if men and women are equal mentally, men are superior.
>>43741701
1) Men were just as important in hunter-gatherer societies because men did the hunting; the societies that only had nuts and berries to eat generally didn't do so well.
2) Why do you assume that inheritance necessarily has to be patriarchal.
>>43741575
>Did you miss the part where all foreign aid and all foreign military deployments are canceled and what a tiny infinitesimal fraction of the expense that reduces?
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/feed-your-family-on-10-billion-a-day.html
They cut the cost of deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's it.
>6:00 PM July 2
>Well, I guess maybe there are a few items we can cut from the budget. Those quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Why don't we end all funding for those wars, and bring our troops home to march in the Fourth of July parade? That would save us $105 billion Afghanistan and $159 billion in Iraq, a total of $264 billion - enough savings to cover us until...
So holy shit, I missed something that was never mentioned to begin with? I lay defeated before you, Anon. Do what you must.
>>43741666
Newton often attributed his scientific accomplishments to his superior upper body strength. It is now generally accepted that no woman could match his iron grasp of physics without the use of steroids.
>>43741058
Australians and fins will find a way
>"The Triple Revolution" was an open memorandum sent to U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson and other government figures on March 22, 1964. Drafted under the auspices of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, it was signed by an array of noted social activists, professors, and technologists who identified themselves as the Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution.
>The statement identified three revolutions underway in the world: the cybernation revolution of increasing automation; the weaponry revolution of mutually assured destruction; and the human rights revolution. It discussed primarily the cybernation revolution. The committee claimed that machines would continue to reduce the number of manual laborers needed, while increasing the skill needed to work, thereby producing greater unemployment. It proposed that the government should ease this transformation through large-scale public works, low-cost housing, public transit, electrical power development, income redistribution, union representation for the unemployed, and government restraint on technology deployment.
http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm
>>43741701
>1) land is suddenly valuable, and men are more useful than women in fighting over land
I... are you literally so dumb as to not realize that agriculture is a more efficient way of land use that requires less of it to feed more people?! The fight only follows a few generations down the line when that efficiency results in higher population growths for the settled community, but only if they explicitly decide to breed well beyond their reproductive needs.
Even fucking Zardoz got that right when it had the roving Brutal Exterminators target the farming communities.
>>43740362
Eh, for one guy to run all that he'd take as much processing power as a team of guys doing just one thing each. I imagine we'd take very competent people and just make several copies of those.
Everyone will be a consumer. Most will either be unemployed, entertainers or pursue lofty things like arts or highly theoretical sciences, while a minority of technicians holds more resources but also more responsibilities.
That's one of my most positive visions.
>>43741859
The fuck does to to do with anything? Anon's point was that agriculture encourages development of patriarchal society.
>>43741881
>entertainers or pursue lofty things like arts
But probably mostly for their own amusement. If everyone is an artist, no one is.
>>43741735
1) Men and women were both important to hunter-gatherer societies. Hunting can give a lot of food but there is a risk of not getting any food at all. Gathering will give less food but is a more secure source.
2) Not necessarily, but that's what happened in most societies, didn't it?
>>43741859
Of course war doesn't break out instantly, but as the populations grow. War is really only an option for large agriculture societies with bodies to spare, a hunter-gatherer group can't afford to waste people fighting.
>>43741921
We'll all be part of the same fanfiction site.
Seriously though, people want to reach out to others and art is just some means of doing that. "Hey mom, I made you a macaroni picture!" It would be just that, scaled up to all of humanity, or a big chunk of it anyway. Art, historically, was that scaled down to the cultural elites. Today the cultural elites say art is ink blots. So what would be the big loss?
>>43741735
>>43741926
There's only one society I'm aware of that persisted into the near modern era that had a system of inheritance you could call 'matriarchal', and that was one particular ethnic group of Chinese. As I understand it, property and land was owned by a 'household', an extended family usually run by the eldest female relative. Sons from the family would marry into other families and have children, but then afterwards return to their own house where they would care for their sisters' children. When the eldest female died, the running of it would pass to the next eldest female. I think that system probably died out in one of the Chinese revolutions though.
As for hunter gatherer societies, those that exist today are often much more egalitarian than surrounding agricultural societies. It could be because as long as you have large enough territory to range over, the hunter gatherer diet is potentially more nutritious than subsistence farming, but involves travelling around more, so they couldn't afford to have able individuals sitting around regardless of gender - and as everyone was getting exercise and nutrition, they'd be closer in relative strength. The tighter-knit nature of hunter gatherer society and the need for everyone in the group to more or less get along in order to survive would mean that hierarchical structures would be harder to form.
>>43741926
>Of course war doesn't break out instantly, but as the populations grow. War is really only an option for large agriculture societies with bodies to spare, a hunter-gatherer group can't afford to waste people fighting.
...a non-settled group can't afford war because they don't have the means to produce and store a surplus in gear and food required to fuel it. I mean other than through raiding people who have it. And even then it's probably not worth it given that their way of land use generally provides them with almost zero-risk means of attaining what they need to live.
Furthermore, the land management strategies used by hunter-gatherer societies we know are both so large-scale and comparatively cheap enough for them to be able to afford to avoiding other groups. Settled communities can't do that - their land management strategy takes less space, yes, but the effort they put into that is a whole lot higher.
But then again, actual hunter-gatherers are fuck rare. Pretty much all human cultures we know do or did practiced gardening or animal husbandry to some extend, which fucks over everything we're talking about here.
>>43741859
>>43741926
>>43742081
Also, while agriculture provides a higher calorie intake per unit area of land it's less nutritious - wild nuts and berries have more vitamins than grain, not that that matters particularly in this discussion I suppose - and also requires you to stay in one place. If you're a hunter gatherer and don't like your neighbour, you can up sticks and wander away. A farmer doesn't have that privilege so if you don't like your neighbour one of you has got to go, and by way of example large acts of inter-communal violence don't appear that frequently in Europe until the native hunter gatherers are displaced by farmers from the south east (which also means that most people today complaining about Syrian refugees are themselves the 3,000 year descendants of nomads from the fertile crescent.)
Furthermore, a higher rate of calorie generation means you can support a larger population - and by the time you've got to that stage of development, everyone around you has too. Once everyone has staked a claim to some territory, if you, the chief of the tribe or possibly head of several neighbouring tribes, want to expand your area of influence you need to start taking out competitors and you've luckily got a large pool of young men to help you do it.
>>43742122
This guy knows.
>>43742386
>(which also means that most people today complaining about Syrian refugees are themselves the 3,000 year descendants of nomads from the fertile crescent.)
So? That doesn't mean they should accept more of the fucks.
The same thing happened with Texas and Mexico; Mexico allows a bunch of Americans to settle the Tejas province, they rebel, and Mexico ends up losing all of their northern territory. Just because that happened, doesn't mean America should suddenly open the floodgates to Mexicans.
FYI, land conflicts between settled- and non-settled communities will most likely happen in the commons. That's non agricultural land used in lifestock-keeping or for hunter-gathering activities of the settled community. And in those conflicts, the settled community will probably have an edge as they can support both population growth and members being dedicated to nonproductive activities for longer periods or at higher frequencies than the hunter-gatherers can.
>>43741921
>>43741997
Don't forget as well that in such a society, better nutrition and more stable lives would mean more people could reach their intellectual potential and the level of education would increase across the previously 'lower' classes. Such people wouldI hopebe more inclined and better able to appreciate works of art and literature and so be more likely to want to produce them themselves. Then again, it's just as likely for everyone to end up playing video games all day. I know that if I and everyone I know no longer needed to work, I'd set up a week-long D&D game. We'd have pizza every night... truly it would be a utopia.
>>43741739
>They cut the cost of deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's it.
no
>4:00 PM December 25
>Merry Christmas! Just one more week to go. In the spirit of the season, let's give the surviving conservative wingnuts a few of the budget cuts they've been bitching for, like getting rid of foreign aid. This saves $50 billion - getting us to...
>4:00 PM December 30
>>43741997
>Today the cultural elites say art is ink blots.
Anon, those are just plebs who have been told that they're cultural elites, but are actually just parts of a money laundering scheme.
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
Not like I was ever gonna make anything of myself anyway.
>>43742430
I never said we should, just that it's ironic.
Ultimately everyone's an African descendant, so can't we just get along?No, the human brain is hardwired to generate an 'in-group' and an 'out-group' instinctively based on any perceivable difference, and assign positive qualities to the former and negative qualities to the latter.
There's a reason why, in many languages, the word for the language's native speakers means 'the people' - because anyone else isn't.
>>43742595
Ultimately everyone descended from microorganisms. We should have learned to just get along with smallpox.
>>43742430
Didn't the US claim that the Louisiana purchase included Texas as well? It's kinda hilarious to blame this on settler infiltration alone when those were actually backed up by a colonist nation that was aggressively and systematically pushing for the expansion of its territory at the time and had already voiced a legal claim on the disputed territory previously.
>>43742595
>Ultimately everyone's an African descendant
Neanderthal cross-breeding :^)
>>43742595
>spoiler
But anon, what about people who hate themselves and define "a person" as "anyone who isn't me?"
>>43742689
The Neanderthals were from Africa too, originally.
We're all just homos together :^)
>>43742680
No, not at all; The Louisiana purchase is actually what little land the Spanish had left in NAmerica which was then traded to Napoleon, who then sold it to America for dirt cheap. Seeing as how Mexico already layed claim to Texas, Spain couldn't have legitimately given stewardship of it to the French.
To be fair, though, it wasn't all America's doing. The Mexican government outright gave the American settlers land and citizenship, as well as deferred taxes, because they really wanted the land settled. Before American settlement, there were only something like 3,000 Tejanos in the province, by the time of the revolution, there were 35,000 Texans and 8,000 Tejanos.
>>43742673
Remove bacterium REMOVE BACTERIUM
>>43742722
Well, it's north east Africa, so it's okay.
>>43742702
Well, this is increasingly a problem due to our society no longer catering to the instincts we've retained. Humans are 'meant' to be part of a social group about 150 strong, with several tiers of fewer and closer friends - but a lot of people probably don't have this. Being socially isolated - even if there are people you interact with and see every day, but aren't actually close to - has profound negative effects on a person's mental wellbeing. Similarly, the nuclear family is a very modern invention and the shrinking of one's in-group to essentially one's spouse, children and maybe a few friends means that one's dividing line between 'my side' and 'their side' is drawn pretty close, sometimes not even encompassing the whole family - mother-in-law jokes are common enough. This doesn't have to be the case, but for it to not be generally requires everyone's in-groups to expand to encompass strangers - it's doable and often common in small, well off towns where everyone has one or several factors in common, but in the inner city every stranger is a potential attacker and humans are very risk averse, especially when dealing with unknowns. People who actually have come to see everyone who isn't them as an enemy tend to make the news, often only briefly, or else hide in a basement or attic all their lives.
>>43742741
>smallpox and rinderpest eradicated
YOU'RE NEXT POLIO
>>43742925
How do you think if human society would change if humans were able to have meaningful social connections with, say, a thousand people, but didn't require to know that maybe people and only required a core group of ten.
>>43739495
>>43739982
One of the smartest comments on the subject I've ever read. Well done.
>>43738595
>Meanwhile what we see now is that soon enough the robots will truly spell doom for our race just by making us obsolete.
I'm happy to hear such a qualified, expert opinion like yours, OP. It's refreshing to see someone who is actually immersed in what they are talking about.
>>43741531
Which is why historically Islam has produced so little science, knowledge or technology, current exaggerated claims of an Islamic "golden age" notwithstanding. Today Islam produces almost zero science and technology, despite accounting for 24% of the world's population.
>>43739090
>most economics before the 2000's is basically considered a nice try that doesn't really work
>not even a decade past 2000 we have the worst financial disaster in nearly a century, that nobody predicted except the sort of motherfuckers who predict economic doom pretty much every year.
Tell me, when exactly did economics start successfully predicting shit?
>>43741859
Agriculture means land ownership now matters. It's a more efficient use of land, but the land has to be cleared, possibly irrigated, tilled, and planted. Hunter-Gatherers, and Pastoralists, can always just leave but Farmers will starve to death.
>>43741058
We will need to adapt. It will be a responsive shitposting.
Coming from a post-communist country I can assure you there is always a way to shitpost despite censure.
>>43738654
I dunno if we need machines for that. I mean, a lot of people are deciding that kind of thing is more important these days anyway. Hand made stuff, and all that. Personally I've been daydreaming about it because I'd rather work with my hands all day than do the job that I have now. Downtime is great for reading, but once you've burned through your whole 'to read' list and have to look at your day-to-day pays the bills but does nothing for you job doesn't feel great.
I think we're going to have basic income long before robots took yer job. Not out of any sense of welfare of course, it'll just be another roundabout source of corporate welfare because there's too many poors not buying enough.
At least I hope they do because it's going to be ugly when the whole service industry and basically anything that involves driving is replaced overnight.
>>43744227
How much citizens wage is enough? Just enough so that minimum wage jobs are enough to push you over the poverty line, or enough to where you don't need to work at all for housing and food.
>>43739151
I don't think the Luddites would have had a problem if the mill owners gave all the town's weavers shares in the profit.
>>43738595
Yeah good luck replacing the IT department.
>>43738841
>Luditte fallacy fallacy.
>>43744384
The other one. We could now quite easily replace 50% of workers with robots now, it's just not economically viable. Yet.
Do you want 50% of your population to live on the verge of extreme poverty? This could rise a couple of problems, mostly in form of very pointy sticks directed at those who drove them to that state.
>>43743259
that nobody predicted
Seriously?
>>43744556
No more than 30 years, bro.
Arts and stuff connected with arts will be probably the last to go. But I would be surprised if they couldn't make it in the next century.
>>43744597
Yes, but is it also good to pay people simply for existing? I don't know about you, but having a hedonist underclass that only consumes (I don't expect more than 1% of them to be worthwhile artists) doesn't seem good.
I mean, unless you can shove them all through university in proper degrees that are actually necessary, and wouldn't just devalue whatever fields are left after the automated revolution, there's really no point to keeping them around.
>>43744658
And what are you proposing? Mass killing? Class cleansing? That's a rather new idea, even Pol Pot wasn't so straightforward about it.
>>43739274
Yes. It's a major concern
>>43744658
I'd rather a bunch of hedonists than a army of angry men with pointy sticks that have nothing to lose.
>>43744384
Well if we're having it mostly for cynical reasons it'd have to be enough to make you feel like you don't have to save by not going out and spending your money. Enough extra cash handy that you feel comfortable actually paying for music, going out for dinner, seeing a movie, the yearly iteration of trendy electronics, etc
I couldn't even guess how much that would need to be or even if it would be designed to be a livable source of income.
>>43739434
That doesn't even matter. What kind of society can last under 25% unemployment? 30%? 40%?
"Everyone" won't be replaced, just enough people to collapse the current system.
>>43744715
Obviously not, but it's still a problem, regardless of any obvious solution. If anything, an automated nation, where all unskilled labor is performed by machines, should seek to reduce their unemployed underclass (that ISN'T actually doing anything worth while, like art or what have you) over time, or at least prevent it from growing proportional to the populace.
Something as simple as "Hey, we'll pay you to have one or less children if you're unemployed, and we'll pay you to have two or more if you are" could possibly be sufficient.
>>43744771
Angry men with pointy sticks can be shot at with little moral concern, not so with cancerous hedonists.
>>43744783
I mean, I can definitely see the hedonist underclass as being the primary motor of the economy, but my worry is that they'll eventually outpopulate the employed upper class. Once you get to the point where, say, 90% of humanity is just lazing around, funneling resources through themselves and the machines while 10% actually maintain the machines and do stuff, you have to wonder why the 10% just don't fuck off and make their own self-sufficient nation without the hedonist underclass.
What's wrong with everyone neeting it up?
And why not just create laws preventing a certain amount of automation if it's such a problem?
>>43744857
>What's wrong with everyone neeting it up?
Despite what they may think, NEET's don't actually do much. If they did much, they wouldn't be NEET's. It's a rather ignoble end for humanity, don't you think?
>And why not just create laws preventing a certain amount of automation if it's such a problem?
Because intentionally limiting humanity's potential because of temporary social concerns is just as bad.
>>43744894
>It's a rather ignoble end for humanity, don't you think?
So? Who says we have to go out with a bang?
>>43744850
you have to wonder why the 10% just don't fuck off and make their own self-sufficient nation without the hedonist underclass
https://archive.is/kmzrA
>we have to stop them from leaving
>>43738709
Well, you're forgetting that shitposting on 4chan isn't a job.
Neither is being really mad at the people who actually do something with their life.
>>43744894
I'm well aware that NEETs don't do much, I'm just asking what's wrong with it if this situation should arise.
Ignoble end is certainly true. However, how much that may matter is questionable.
So fuck the poor then. Screw them, there will always be poor people in every society, that there might be more is of no great consequence.
>>43744943
Until the poor decide to band together and burn the rich like they did a million times by now.
>>43744915
>So? Who says we have to go out with a bang?
Anyone who likes a good story, and I'd prefer that we not go out at all.
>>43744916
Exactly; having a sufficiently large underclass would act as an economic engine, justifying a large industrial base and resources for the people actually pushing humanity forward; but if you have too many I'd imagine a majority of resources would just be going towards keeping the plebs happy with breads and circuses, rather than science, expansion, exploration, and so forth.
>>43744964
They can't afford guns with no job.
>>43744943
>I'm just asking what's wrong with it if this situation should arise.
Libertarians attain a power base among disgruntled NEET's who are tired of being chattel-in-all-but-name, and they ruin everything forever.
>that... consequence
Having some poor people is good because they buy things, and they buy more things if you give them money. Since the middle class can't handle all the service workers that would have to enter it, paying the poor to buy is the only option.
Of course, you don't want TOO many poor people, just enough to keep the economic engines where they are now, and at a steady growth.
>>43745020
Then they'll steal. You think angry people care that their tantrums take more effort than actually working for a living?
>>43745020
>They can't afford guns with no job.
Keep in mind that we're contemplating a future with a basic income/ citizen's wage, and that we're imagining the second amendment still exists (as it should, since guns are fun and police-androids can't be everywhere at once)
>>43745020
Nigger, they outnumber you 1 to 10 if not more, what they don't have they will steal, people with nothing to lose can and will do everything to survive. Desperation is a wonderful motivator.
>>43745039
Then from a purely economic view, won't the situation resolve itself?
Machinery used increases, workers laid off, lower consumption, factory shuts down from lack of revenue, worker's reemployed because of insufficient funds to afford high tech assets, cycle starts again.
>>43745045
Shoot the robbers too. Or go MGS with ID tracked guns.
>>43745056
Screw you you Imperialist American Pig fucker.
>>43745072
Fair point.
>>43739240
>Then corporations realize by putting people out of jobs, they lose their customer base and dial back the autonomy.
See that can't work, every corporation would need to adhere to that policy and any that don't will profit off the workers in the other companies. Some corporations will fully automate and make savings, therefore out competing their rivals.
>>43744850
You could probably argue it's already a minority of people actually doing productive labour and keeping the lights on. We also already have a hedonist class that fuels its own extravagant little economy, just look at the "Rich Kids of Instagram".
I think you have a warped view of life if eating out and seeing a movie regularly counts as hedonism because it's that level of extra income I'm talking about. Getting as many people as possible spending like the so called middle class used to.
>>43745106
>Then from ... starts again.
Except a cycle isn't what should happen, we should strive for a steady upward climb. Reducing industrial capacity just because no one as the forethought to imagine anything other than what we have now is just idiotic.
>Screw you you Imperialist American Pig fucker.
>implying imperialism is bad
UNITED
STATES
OF
TERRA
>>43745171
I'd like to point out that your first point is already evident in the world right now what with eating up all the nonrenewables and building too much etc.
>>43745072
Niggah, I don't care how many hunting rifles your redneck ass steals when the tanks, drones, and carpet-bombers start rolling through.
Civilian uprising is solely a redneck fantasy, it's flatly impossible without the backing of the (bought and payed for by the rich) military.
And before you start bawling at me, go look up some videos of the first machine guns versus native tribesman.
one emplaced man kills an army of a few hundred. This is military versus civilians.
>>43745211
Where did I ever say that non-renewables are good? A larger industrial base is good, so long as it's sustainable.
In short, nuclear, nigga.
>>43745216
>thinking they won't steal military stuff
>>43745243
No no no, I mean, people are genuinely stupid enough to consume like crazy with no thought as to future consequences. I fully realise people should have some consideration of the future and their effect on it but you know.
>>43745216
>thinking the military of any nation isn't one budget cut to veteran's services away from a coup
Why do you think they always get pandered to across the political spectrum?
>>43745253
>thinking they'll be able to use it
real life isn't CoD or GTA kid, you can't just hop in a tank and suddenly be an expert, nevermind the physical qualifications and training needed for troops.
And anything beyond hand-level weaponry takes logistical backing, which is even more unlikely to fall into a chaotic anarchistic civilian uprising's hands.
I could go on but I'll just tell you to head on over to /k/ and try and convince them that a bunch of rednecks and/or poor city hipsters could beat a trained and armed force.
>>43745318
Veterans services is already shit everywhere, and guess what nothing happens. fucking NOBODY panders to veterans, because vets are either old as shit, too injured to fight, or never wanted to fight and just wanted to suck govt teat forever.
The actual budget goes toward, again, supply and logistics.
Also, you mention other countries, and as much as it is a joke America is really the only one that matters in this situation. Everyone else has been Keked out of civilian weaponry down to a psychological level, there is even less chance for civilian uprising.
hell, the countries that have had uprisings only fell because foreign powers (good ol US and Russia) heavily backed them.
>>43745264
Tell me, does a mayfly, on the single day it is able to mate before dying, concern itself with what may come in a week's time?
It does not.
Humans are short-sighted because we often do not live to see the long-term consequences of our actions. Too often it is our children's children who must clean up our messes, because we are too busy being dead to do so ourselves.
>>43745318
Plus the military draws a lot of its ranks from the poor who might have issues fighting other poor folks from their own country.
>>43745432
Hasn't ISIS stolen some tanks?
I know they have former military btw.
>>43745440
Which is exactly why we end up with cycles as I described.
>>43745456
>implying the poor don't love cannibalizing their own
>>43745440
Which is why the selfish should be payed to not breed, and the slefless be payed to do so. With luck, those traits will turn out to be partially due to genetics.
>>43738595
Well, the best-case scenario would obviously be to phase out the idea that you have to have a job in order to live a good life and at the same time make your education system good enough for people to actually be able to deal with that.
>>43745500
You can't just breed mortality out of our systems.
>>43745500
Eugenics, here I come.
Not that I disagree in principle, but slippery slope and all that.
>>43745940
Says you.
>>43746020
If anything, it will make for an interesting history book. Besides, it's voluntary.
>>43746071
>Besides, it's voluntary.
Won't that just lead to a "rich people can afford to be assholes and still have children" type situation?
>>43745500
Our desire to reproduce existed for millennia before we invented money and economic incentives, so I don't think you're going to succeed at paying people not to breed.
Also, I'd love to see how you would get society to agree on selfless and something to incentivize. It'll probably devolve into Future Republican Equivalents and Future Democrat Equivalents trying to rig social incentives to breed the other party out of existence. Sociogenetic gerrymandering, if you will.
>>43746220
Yeah, but rich people are assholes and have children regardless; poor people would likely care more about their autismbux than having kids.
>>43746232
>Sociogenetic gerrymandering, if you will.
Sounds like the plot of a sci-fi novel; you've got me on board, let's do it.
>>43738912
The fact that animals can pull plows greatly increased the food supply, which resulted in an increase in available jobs.
>>43746232
>Our desire to reproduce existed for millennia before we invented money and economic incentives, so I don't think you're going to succeed at paying people not to breed.
Plenty of first world countries where people are not breeding all of their own.
>>43746375
Yes, and? Is that result of a directed social policy, or are there other reasons people have chosen not to do that?
The fact that something exists does not grant societies the ability to make it on purpose. The sun exists, too, but that doesn't mean we can build a usable fusion reactor.
So far, almost everybody in this thread vastly overestimates automation and has absolutely no fucking idea what comparative advantage is.
The "humans have an absolute disadvantage in everything" case will never happen, and even if it does humans will always have a comparative advantage in something as long as scarcity exists. If scarcity doesn't exist, congratulations, all economic questions are now completely meaningless because you can't have an economy anymore.
>>43746431
>The sun exists, too, but that doesn't mean we can build a usable fusion reactor.
Theoretically, we can, and we're pretty close to doing so.
The question is not "if"; the question is "when".
>>43746444
There's also a tremendous possibility of oversupply you know.
>>43746431
It's the result of something. You said that the desire to reproduce was basically to deeply entrenched to be affected by anything, didn't you?
>>43746450
>Theoretically, we can
What's that even supposed to mean?
>and we're pretty close to doing so.
Let me guess, about twenty years?
>>43746450
Either you don't know what "usable" means or you don't know what "can" means.
Fusion power has been just a few decades away ever since people first had the idea. It's basically the most famous running joke in physics at this point.
>>43746493
Nope. Read >>43746232 again. You missed the
>I don't think you're going to succeed at paying people not to breed
part.
>>43746431
Except we can see that people having a higher standard of living often results in them having less children. So, by paying them money (increasing their standard of living) for a set obligation (don't have kids), they should be less inclined to have children anyways.
>>43746461
Oversupply lowers prices in the long run, which is actually good.
>>43746517
>Let me guess, about twenty years?
Yep, until it happens over night within the next eternal twenty years.
>>43746538
>It's basically the most famous running joke in physics at this point.
So? Just because it's fallen outside it's original "few decades away" timeframe doesn't mean that we haven't made incredible strides in the technology, nor that it's impossible.
Machine image recognition was once thought to be something that could be solved over the summer by a graduate student, but it turned out to be much harder than expected. Have we got simple and "capable" versions of it now? Yes.
>>43745456
>militaries recruit from poorfags
You're half right. The US military for example recruits a lot of logistics people, mechanics, cooks, etc from the poor - but the combat arms people who do the actual fighting are disproportionately rich and educated (and white) compared to the national average - they're often drawn from the upper-middle class.
Think Kruger from Elysium. Poor people mostly care about having jobs because just getting by is a new experience for them. Upper-middle class people care about experiences, values, and other stuff like that because they're already used to a certain minimal level of money, so they're the people who create warrior-cult style values, martial traditions, etc.
>>43745432
The big difference between foreign insurgencies and domestic ones is that domestic ones can attack a military's infrastructure base directly.
>>43746599
And what of the salaries of workers?
>>43746632
A technologically advancing economy is deflationary. Worker's wages stay the same, but the goods they buy get cheaper.
Unfortunately, mainstream fiscal policy tends to be inflationary, because inflationary policy enhances liquidity [especially short-term] which enables political flexibility.
>>43746540
Sure, and that's why wealthy people like Saudi princes have few--wait, shit.
You are correct that high standards of living and low birth rates are correlated in many cases. There are also many cases where that does no hold true, as in the post-WWII baby boom in the US and the Saudi royal family. The idea that a society can raise or lower fertility by adjusting an economic lever is such an oversimplifcation of the relationship that's it not even wrong.
>>43746602
You're missing the point. The moral of the story isn't that fusion power physically impossible (we already know it's not, just go outside in the daytime and try not to look directly at the big reactor). It's that people keep treating it like a solved problem when it's the single best lesson that things aren't as easy as we imagine them to be.
As Jan van de Snepscheut put it,"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."
>>43738595
>post-economical society
>>43746677
That presupposes the worker always stays in the same job though. What if he gets kicked out in favor of physical assets?
>>43746677
But inflation is good as long as it's low because it encourages investment and increases the velocity of money.
>>43746720
Indeed, the correct term is "post-scarcity".
>>43738595
paradise.
>>43746696
>It's that people keep treating it like a solved problem when it's the single best lesson that things aren't as easy as we imagine them to be.
I never said that it was a solved problem, only that it's something we're working on, are close to understanding and applying, and showing that a lot more things are in our reach than are out of it.
I doubt human society is out of our grasp.
>>43746749
Deflation encourages investment in capitalized assets; inflation encourages investment in financial instruments.
Deflation is better IMO, but the drawback is that it requires substantial setup time before providing a good return. In a politically unstable environment like most first-world democracies, where policies change year-to-year, politicians prefer inflation, because it enables safely running a deficit.
Ofc, that's bad for businesses investing in expensive hard assets (hence the failure of infrastructure sectors to match growth in high-speed low-regulation sectors like software), but the penalty for not ruling is being ruled by your inferiors.
>>43746725
Deflation incentivizes investment in assets like workers, because time scales expand to the point where an industry can run it's own apprenticeship models (think modern German industry) without fear of being undercut. Technicians receive a higher level of education, job security, and respect; and in turn they provide a higher level of skill.
>>43746787
>I never said that it was a solved problem, only that it's something we're working on, are close to understanding and applying
See >>43746450
>Theoretically, we can, and we're pretty close to doing so.The question is not "if"; the question is "when".
The category is "Distinctions without Difference. Let's continue for $400, Alex!
>I doubt human society is out of our grasp.
It's only about 20 years away, amirite?
>>43746957
>The category is "Distinctions without Difference. Let's continue for $400, Alex!
"when" does not mean it's a solved problem.
>It's only about 20 years away, amirite?
Yep :^)
>>43746957
WHY IS THE SHADOW WRONG
>>43746888
How the fuck does deflation encourage investment in capitalized assets? I've literally never heard that in my life.
>>43745216
Seriously? how on earth do you believe this?
when a proper civillian uprising occurs the military becomes an OCCUPYING FORCE. Look how well that goes for it in the middle east. any industrialized country the occupying force would be doubly fucked, exponentially with second amendment america
you can't have a tank and a drone on every corner and you can't mass kill people who could be innocent in the modern world. The civillian uprising would be over with the civillians won within weeks in america, if that as a military coup would be far more likely than them turning their arms on their family and countrymen(plus they know they are fucked and would want to curry favor with the new leaders).
>>43746232
>implying the drug war wasn't *exactly that already*
![79cd4be5850891c05bd8bed6fc71c00a[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/KHgLjCD.png "79cd4be5850891c05bd8bed6fc71c00a[1].png")
>>43738595
>Tell me, /tg/, what will happen once we delegate almost all of our jobs to robots?
We'll have to mature and or develop as a society faced with the fact that human labor will mean very little or absolutely nothing in the face of advanced mechanization and that if we want to remain relevant we will need to acknowledge our unique skill-sets and abilities.
I'm just thinking aloud, but we will never be able to out compete machines in terms of brute force: they will be able to make, produce and replicate almost all of the goods and services that helps operate modern society and vast portions of the human population will be unemployable.
The only things I can imagine that will justify human labor are the things that only humans want and only humans can do and all these things are attached to sentimentality. People will pay for human service, human art, human made products for the novelty and sentimentality of it and that's it.
Almost everyone will be unemployed and the only industry not dominated by machines will be cottage companies.
In such a future the destiny of the human race will be in the hands of whoever is in charge and I doubt it will be a smooth ride if it's humans: I can only imagine it will be PEOPLE who artificially extend the demand and societal expectation that if you don't "work" you don't "eat" even though you no one has to work to eat.
You DO need to work to eat in today's society.
You would not need to work to eat in an advanced automated society: You would not need to work ever.
Ultimately it will come down to how the world handles their species "retirement".
>>43747104
>Look how well that goes for it in the middle east
Not very well, since we're actively fucking shit up there instead of focusing on rebuilding infrastructure and turning the dune coons into good little Levi's wearing Americans.
>Libertarians and rebels actually believe this
>>43739151
Why is it generally assumed that a post-scarcity scenario would make everyone an artiste-scholar-entrepreneur? Most people are dumb and lazy, and having all the wealth they could ever want won't change that. We'll end up with throngs of depressed couch potatoes, drowning their desperation to find meaning and distraction in a sea of noninteractive mass entertainment media. Only a handful will rise above that and pursue creativity and self-realization. It's what we are seeing in the first world, which has been some sort of post-scarcity approximation for many in the last few decades.
>>43747265
In short: The future won't be the Enterprise pushing the boundaries for all; rather it will be the Enterprise fleeing the Idiocracy.
>>43747265
The assumption is that these people have shit lives because they're too busy trying not to starve or go homeless. Giving these people room to find and develop interests in the world will deepen their inner lives.
Maybe not everyone will become Michelangelo, but they will be more likely to pursue hobbies if they're not coming home too exhausted from a shift at the dildo factory to do anything other that down a fifth of Night Train while they pass out watching Law and Order: Barratry Unit.
![f8fc3334bd2a715c2382e21a0eb6d22b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Vzy4Vo1.jpg "f8fc3334bd2a715c2382e21a0eb6d22b[1].jpg")
>>43747224
Like-wise though if we're talking about a future with sophisticated A.I robots I'm pretty confident the ride will be a lot smoother and sufficiently more satisfying for interesting and ironic reasons: I don't think Robots will ever be able to give themselves satisfying purpose.
I mean that in a spiritual sense. If sophisticated A.I Robots are ever conceived to the point where we have humanoid people-bots living a long side us I think they will be plagued with their own sense of identity and purpose, BUT unlike us they will be able to find spiritual satisfaction in the arms of humanity.
Like how people find self-actualization through looking into themselves, into nature, or seek spiritual mumbo-jumbo, I find it very likely that robots will look towards humans for their own meaning of life.
They say that people need a certain amount of tress in their lives to be able to life healthy, satisfied, long lives and that people who are truly carefree or even those who are retired and without purpose usually die sooner than those who keep busy constantly. Humans will be that controlled amount of chaos and "healthy" level of stress that will give intelligent robots purpose and meaning: Humans want conflicting things, humans are unpredictable, individualistic, stupid, & ornery.
I imagine a future were sophisticated and highly intelligent robots will willingly allow themselves to be dressed up in maid outfits and play pretend on the basis that it is something they could never conceivably pontificate or do on their own accord and it excites and pleases them.
I imagine the beneficial and symbiotic relationship between our species will be summed up as:
The Human wants something impractical & outlandish and their Robot companions and colleagues will comply- not because they are slaves to humans, but because they are enthralled by the unknown and arbitrary; something they cannot replicate.
>>43747357
Be that as it may, most people actually are just that shallow. That's not to say it is a bad thing, but even people who have more time on their hands hardly pursue a meaningful life.
'I just don't have the time to better myself' does not factually apply to 99,9% of the population. Most just don't want to.Myself included
>>43747357
I see your caged butterfly and raise you a trailer trash tv addict.
>>43747472
>>43747524
Again, not everyone is going to change the world. But the hierarchy of needs is a real thing, and surely a lot of the reason people live in trailers and spend their leisure time on cheap entertainment on television is that they can't afford to do anything else.
Being able to afford to live somewhere near actual opportunities would let people learn a language or help out at church or even just check the news a bit.
Even a caterpillar would be a better caterpillar if it isn't spending its whole life working three shitty part time jobs.
>>43747265
You're right that post-scarcity will look more like a trailer park than an art gallery. But the reason this isn't social doom is that the economy today (mostly) runs on the contributions of people at the statistical tail, not the median; unlike say the 1940s when average people could still contribute just by plugging away. Losing the whole median to gain a tiny fraction more at the right side of the bell curve is a economic bargain worth making - the trick is stopping the median from retaining enough political power to oppress the golden goose.
Fortunately, machine learning applied to automated surveillance and weapons promises the smart and rich a game-breaking advantage over the masses. Future combat is going to be knights vs peasants all over again, except knights will be operators, kings will be CEOs, and armor will be databanks full of proprietary algorithms.
>>43747694
Are you saying Ayn Rand was... objectively right?
>>43738654
>In a sci-fi setting I worked on, I plagiarized The Diamond Age
>>43747694
In other words, life goes on exactly the same as today, except worse. Which is very far from utopia - the proposed scenario.
Now, I agree with you to a point, but it is social doom. What your propose is complete decadence, rather than progress. It is not sustainable.
>>43747679
But people can already help out at church. They do check the news, for a given value of it, and take away the minimum which agrees with their belief. Even, a good amount of them studied another language in school. Its not a matter of opportunities, its a matter of desire to go further. Which does not exist.
>>43747731
I was thinking Nassim Taleb, or maybe Nick Land and John Robb.
If you've read William Gibson's new book The Peripheral or the Mirrored Heavens trilogy, that's the setting I'm feeling.
>>43747814
The catch with my scenario is that the median is the part of society that generates common culture, especially moral values; as well as translating between IQ levels. After about a 20-point gap in IQ, people can't communicate well with each other, which is why most politicians and business leaders are moderately above average, but not highly intelligent. They're as smart as they can get while still being able to chat with the average dudes who make up 60% of the voter and worker base.
A fractured population is still sustainable though, through assortative mating, which college has arguably already created. Smart people breed less, but they breed with each other, so their kids are more likely than before to be smart. Despite the smaller population, it's still possible to sustain the minimum level pool of intelligence needed to run technological society.
Hopefully, genetic engineering will democratize high IQs; but it doesn't have to.
>>43741487
>the IQ argument is a correlation/causation problem - men have simply had more opportunities in history to exhibit genius or retardation compared to women.
Not at all true. The flatter IQ distribution's completely uncontroversial in psychometrics.
>>43747814
>Opportunities to improve ourselves already exist.
Of course they do. The problem a post-scarcity society solves isn't the absence of opportunities, just the absence of resources to take advantage of those opportunities. If you're working and commuting to three part time jobs, you have less time for hobbies, volunteer life, raising your kids. That's not even getting into the fact that most hobbies cost money, whether that's art supplies, language lessons, lab space, or whatever else.
Even working one job can be exhausting. You will feel drained at the end of the day after, say, doing the work of three people because the boss is cheap and won't backfill workers who leave.
Look into modern research on willpower, poverty, and self-control depletion:
https://newrepublic.com/article/89377/poverty-escape-psychology-self-control
>>43748059
Self control depletion is a intuitively useful theory, but reviews of meta-analysis have shown it replicates poorly and has extreme statistical bias.
See http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00823/abstract or http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9098499&fileId=S0140525X13000952 .
>>43748205
Yes, and the article I linked to acknowledges that this view is not universally held. By the way, your summary of the first article is an oversimplification--they state that the studies could be improved, not that they have "extreme statistical bias." This is still a fairly new theory that is still the subject of active research, not something conclusively disproved.
Poverty is complicated, and no one phenomenon explains all of it. The idea that decision making takes resources that could be used for other tasks is not a new idea, nor is it a controversial one.
>>43748389
Throwing out a token reference to dissenting reviews in order to dismiss them as "oversimplification" or "improvement is still needed" is a deflection.
The fact is that the file-drawer effect in willpower depletion studies is confirmed to .999 (http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/~w3psyuli/PReprints/IC.pdf); while actual effect size is near zero.
Unfortunately, this level of defensiveness (and this dearth of scientific credibility) is common to psychology. The whole field is in the middle of a replication crisis and they're too busy circling the wagons to protect their memes to do the hard science needed to verify hypotheses.
>/tg/ - post-scarcity social theory and empirical integrity of psychology and sociology
I love you guys.
While I admire the enlightened debate this topic has inspired, can I say OP's pic has now provided the basis for the mindset of a Doctor character who's more than willing to replace people's limbs and other broke bits and pieces?
>>43749306
"Sorry, but it's been a busy week. You want the broom or the mop for a new leg?"
>>43738595
>>43745432
Do you also suddenly expect everyone in the military to be on the government's side? Guess what. Not everyone is gonna be a redneck on the insurgents side.
>>43738595
I'll work out more. Take up botany and sculpting.
Oh anddevelop a serious Opium Addiction
>>43744850
Who the hell is going to pull the trigger? Do you think military will sympathise with some rich fucks they've never seen or with their family and friends who are supposed to be shot for doing nothing?
>>43741396
This doesn't follow, because it assumes your population of productive innovators/thinkers is a flat percentage of your total population. Growing the population may result in a shrinking number of thinkers if it results in resource scarcity: 10x the children might mean nobody can afford to go to school anymore and so you have virtually.
Certainly I think you'd find this holds up in the real world too: I haven't looked at the stats but between countries I think you'd find a very strong negative correlation between children per family and education level (obviously for a variety of complex reasons).
>>43750900
>so you have virtually.
Virtually 0% of the population as thinkers, is what I was trying to say.
>>43745216
War on terror?
![1418346559152[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/oRwrE4R.jpg "1418346559152[1].jpg")
>>43741531
>>43743251
The problem isn't so much that Islam oppresses scientific knowledge as much as it doesn't fit in paradigm. As much as the Golden Age was exaggerated, Islam really was at the top of its game back then. Why didn't the Scientific Revolution take place there? Where is the Moroccan Newton or the Syrian Pascal? The Iraqi Galileo? The Pakistani Descartes?
We need to look to the two most important theologians of the Islamic and Catholic traditions to understand this: Al-Ghazali and Thomas Aquinas respectively. Let's start out with Thomas Aquinas, a man with such a great respect for Aristotle -a pagan!- that he never referred to him by name and merely called him "the philosopher". His works are riddled with Aristotelian thought and even the "unmoved mover" argument is copied to a certain extent. Of course the Catholic tradition already incorporated Greek thought, but Thomas Aquinas really cemented the marriage between the two.
Compare Al-Ghazali, a man who literally believed causality is an illusion and everything that happens is the will of Allah. In such a world view, where does scientific thought fit in? Why would a Muslim, assuming he's isolated from Europe's scientific revolution, even begin to express natural events in mathematical formulae when he a priori believes there is no clearly defined reason to be found? You don't start measuring things you believe cannot be measured, you need to have a pre-established faith in the measurability of the world.
No wonder that in a thousand years, the Arabic world has translated less books than Spain alone (a country with >1% of the world's population) in a year.
http://www.altalang.com/beyond-words/2009/08/10/a-note-on-arabic-literacy-and-translation/It doesn't help that the few universities they do have generally use French or English as languages of instruction
tl;dr: It's not just oppression, it's mindset
I for one am looking forward to when humanity is finally destroyed and our electronic successors take this fixerupper off our hands.
>>43739434
> be hailed as the legendary progenitor species millennia later.
Do you think that highly of your own simian ancestors anon?
>>43739748
Never heard of the idea that a smart machine would be used to design an even more intelligent machine and so on and so forth until it was beyond human understanding?
>>43750873
>Who the hell is going to pull the trigger?
What, do you really think that generals would be so stupid as to deploy (loyal) soldiers in their state of origin?
>rich fucks they've never seen
They've sworn an oath of loyalty to the united states
>shot at for doing nothing
"angry men with pointy sticks"
Last I checked, rebellion isn't "doing nothing"
>>43753357
Have you ever heard how communists wanted to police people using army? They knew that opening fire to their own will be a disaster, so they would park the army on rebellious territory and just show how scary they are with their tanks and shit.
Whenever they actually opened fire it was a total disaster for them. Sometimes you've gotta learn from the past.
>>43753532
>They knew that opening fire to their own will be a disaster
Which is why you don't open fire on your own, you open fire on rebels. Rebels, as per definition, are no longer of their nationality when they rebel.
>>43753584
You seriously have no idea.
When your uncle joins the rebels, they are no longer just rebels.
Unless your uncle is a shit head. But if we're talking about 50% population, then your mother, father or sister will join them. Before shit hits the fan you're gonna learn this and that about them. Now, go and kill them, go on. Those who take up arms because they are starving.
Come on, communists tried to paint opposition as rebels founded by Americans. It didn't work.
>>43753618
I don't know if I would shoot them, I would likely request to be redeployed in this hypothetical draft, but I wouldn't support them.
>come on.. didn't work
That's because they're communists, nothing they do expect for Slavic space magic works.
>>43738595
We will have no more problems with finding a good group. GURPStron 4000 will take care of that.
>>43753639
>I would likely request to be redeployed in this hypothetical draft, but I wouldn't support them.
That is not how that works. Like at all.
>>43754162
Any officer worth their salt wouldn't deploy soldiers in their home states.
