Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Future of Not Working

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 279 posts

Re: The Future of Not Working

#241

Post by Razengan »

pokemongoaway wrote: post #182
Razengan wrote: post #135

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

What reverses sterilization? Money? The possession of a certain ideology? Do you trust government in creating ideal criteria for which germ lines should live on - when the human genome project was such a failure?

It could just involve the signing of a simple document that says you and your partner are ready to raise a child together, and preemptively agreeing on who will get custody and who will pay how much should you divorce in the near future.

The only criteria a government needs to check is whether the couple has lived together for a certain amount of time (say 1 year) without an incident of domestic abuse etc. or a past criminal record involving child abuse.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#242

Post by [deleted] »

apozem wrote: post #224
Razengan wrote: post #135

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

> Don't want so many people? Mandate reversible sterilization at birth. No. Forced sterilization is eugenics, and we've seen what happens with that [1]. Eugenics is unconscionable for moral, ethical, legal and humanitarian reasons. When you give government or the private sector or any human being the ability to control other humans' reproduction, that power is ripe for horrific abuse. We know this because that's exac…

[deleted]

Re: The Future of Not Working

#243

Post by kaybe »

taway_1212 wrote: post #146
chrispeel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The doc [1] below agrees that there are about 700m in extreme poverty now, which it defines as living below $2/day. If we gave each of those people $2/day, we'd need $550billion/year. So yes, $66b seems low for the $2/day threshold. I wonder if this $66b is for those who are below $1/day. Looking at the plot in [1], we can guess that the number at $1/day is much lower; $66b would give 181 million people a dollar a da…

I think that $2 is purchasing-power-parity adjusted (they talk about "international-$"), which is even less in real dollars. For an anecote on PPP vs real dollars, I remember that in the eighties in soviet-ruled Poland, an average monthly salary amounted to about $20. At the same time, the average standard of living was not that bad: most families had flats with central heating (no air-con though), education up to un…

You don't really need aircon in Europe. It's still extremely uncommon to have in private quarters.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#244

Post by kaybe »

thehardsphere wrote: post #180
marmot777 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define simplistic terms? If you were hungry and someone gave you enough money to eat, that would be a solution regardless of how corrupt your government. I don't know where you live but I'm in the U.S. where it's obvious the number of jobs is going to decline relative to the number of people who need them. Resources won't necessarily decline along with the jobs so I see this as not just applicable to the d…

> How do you define simplistic terms? If you were hungry and someone gave you enough money to eat, that would be a solution regardless of how corrupt your government. Let's work through an example. North Korea is one of the poorest countries in the world, and many people starve there every year. It's also a ruthlessly oppressive totalitarian state; the government decides who can enter and leave the country. The gover…

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39088777

Looks like they only paid $90 for the assassination (and materials I guess)).

Re: The Future of Not Working

#245

Post by ue_ »

Razengan wrote: post #135

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

Is this serious?

The solution to fewer people needing to work is reversible sterilization at birth? Not bringing down the system that puts people in destitution, poverty and at risk of death beacuse they cannot find a job?

Capitalism is the cause of the inequality, not overpopulation. There are more than enough resources.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#246

Post by ue_ »

cannonpr wrote: post #143
Razengan wrote: post #135

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

I do wonder about the "not everyone can contribute" perhaps they can't contribute in building cars, but with a cultural shift and education, well there are a lot of avenues of research and mathematics that only require thought and basic tools like chalk. I tend to view an unemployed human as an awful waste of computational resources. This ofcourse assumes we haven't figured out strong AÍ or we don't want to, cause th…

>I tend to view an unemployed human as an awful waste of computational resources.

Is this a joke? It sounds like something so detached from the reality of humanity that it's something only an engineer or computer scientist would say. An unemployed human isn't a 'waste' of anything; the fact that the human does not need to be employed but is still suffering at the hands of capitalism is horrible.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#247

Post by ue_ »

paulpauper wrote: post #15
Clubber wrote: post #6

The people with the wealth pay people for one reason and one reason only: they have to. Once they no longer have to, they will lobby the government to continue to lower taxes and squawk about laziness, welfare queens, and all that garbage. This will go on for a few decades until there is an uprising of sorts, then those with the money will return to giving everyone else crumbs, or just enough to quell the uprisings.…

Marx predicted that...hundred forty years ago. Hasn't happened. History suggests revolts occur when basic needs are unmet, usually after a nation falls into debt and ruin as a consequence of war

>Marx predicted that...hundred forty years ago. Hasn't happened.

Marx didn't predict that there would be an endless cycle of appeasement. He predicted that there would become a state of automation so advanced that the capitalist mode of production no longer suits the people under it who are being driven to more and more low-standard jobs. The idea that if something doesn't happen in 140 years then the predciton is false is truly a fallacy.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#249

Post by brianwawok »

apozem wrote: post #224
Razengan wrote: post #135

With almost 8 BILLION people on this planet soon, not everyone can meaningfully contribute to something that can't be done more efficiently by automation (which is also cheaper for everyone and easier on the environment) or done away with entirely. See [1], [2], [3] for examples from our not-so-distant past. You just cannot expect everyone to "earn" money while expecting technological progress to continue unabated. D…

> Don't want so many people? Mandate reversible sterilization at birth. No. Forced sterilization is eugenics, and we've seen what happens with that [1]. Eugenics is unconscionable for moral, ethical, legal and humanitarian reasons. When you give government or the private sector or any human being the ability to control other humans' reproduction, that power is ripe for horrific abuse. We know this because that's exac…

There is a range between eugenics and no population control. I.e. free birth control, no tax breaks past 2 children, etc. Even a small change in birth rate makes a big change in 200 years.

Re: The Future of Not Working

#250

Post by temp-ora »

chillwaves wrote: post #220
temp-ora wrote: post #91

we do not use money because it makes sense. money exists in the form it takes today because of human nature. we think someone has to earn their food. we think a homeless person deserves a handout because they look like they are at least trying to get on their feet (or not when they dont). machine intelligence is not the only problem that our wealth distribution system is facing. we have faced massive inequality befor…

> the automation of jobs will result in the smartest and fasted humans owning the vast majority of wealth and influence while the rest of us sit in mud. So you are arguing the rich are rich because they are the smartest? I would tweak your assessment. The rich are rich because wealth perpetuates the capture of wealth at a rate greater than the expansion of the economy.

having wealth is one half of the equation when it comes to self perpetuation of wealth. being very smart is the other half. look at people who win the lottery. they spend it all away, often becoming broke. and the people who get wealth in the first place are more likely to be smart. smart people end up getting a lot of money because they are smart. and they use it to stay wealthy because they are smart.
Post reply on HN