Humans Are Rapidly Becoming Obsolete

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
705
For manual tasks, humans are rapidly on the way to becoming obsolete and Google subsidiary Boston Dynamics is leading the way:


While many fear the humanization of robots, I believe they provide an opportunity to solve many socio-economic and environmental problems.
First, they get rid of the need for people to do manual labor so there's no reason to increase the population (or use immigration) to have a supply of workers.

Secondly, they don't need food, housing, transportation, or water so there's much less environmental impact and most of the problems associated with human population will disappear. Imagine this happening in California: Less traffic on the streets and freeways, no more water shortages, reduced garbage and solid waste, and the cost of housing and real estate will drop like a rock.

By the way, I'm not worried about robots threating my livelihood because part of my occupation has been to increase productivity through various types of automation.

As replies to this topic come in, I'll tell you more about how robotics will directly benefit me and I also have a clever story about competing for employment.
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
14,260
As humans do become obsolete, what level of social welfare are we prepared to support to deal with that circumstance. If people are not needed to work, what should they be doing?
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
7,489
Donald trumps nightmare. But more to the point, if our robots fight our wars, are we off the hook in a humanitarian sense?
The robots soon will be upset with people pushing them down with sticks and start the robot apocalypse on mankind.


“I don’t always experience a robot apocalypse, but when I do I give them a head start to help their self-esteem.”
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,012
The robots soon will be upset with people pushing them down with sticks and start the robot apocalypse on mankind.


“I don’t always experience a robot apocalypse, but when I do I give them a head start to help their self-esteem.”
I was really wondering what your caption was going to be as I read the first sentence. Very nice. He is one of my heroes.
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
705
As humans do become obsolete, what level of social welfare are we prepared to support to deal with that circumstance. If people are not needed to work, what should they be doing?
The answer is not having (or simply having a lot fewer) children.

With more robotics coming on line, there's no reason for a baby.
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,210
The answer is not having (or simply having a lot fewer) children.
I thought war accomplished that goal. The rich get richer and the poor get dead. We don't need robots to do that.
If we go with the robot method...Skynet. The robots get richer and everybody gets dead.:D
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
14,260
The answer is not having (or simply having a lot fewer) children.

With more robotics coming on line, there's no reason for a baby.
It's not about kids at all. The economy can be completely supported by a small workforce and lots of machines, aka robots. So what are people supposed to do with themselves if there is no need for them to work. Do we euthanize them? Do we educate them? Do we let them write, and paint, and sculpt? How about letting them all become criminals so they can steal from the remaining wealthy people. How much would it be worth to prevent that?
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
705
I thought war accomplished that goal. The rich get richer and the poor get dead. We don't need robots to do that.
If we go with the robot method...Skynet. The robots get richer and everybody gets dead.:D
Actually, war is a form of destructive population control VS constructive control -IE- "Family Planning". If immigration is not included, the U.S. population is decreasing and it's an example of homoeostasis.

However, big business is promoting open-ended population growth and consumption with more people paying rent, buying more gas, and more groceries.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,012
As humans do become obsolete, what level of social welfare are we prepared to support to deal with that circumstance. If people are not needed to work, what should they be doing?
I agree that it is an important question. Hawkins thinks AI is the bigger issue. Maybe not today or in 10 years, but look how far electronics has come in the last 100 years. Think how little humans will be needed 100 years from now. Robots with IA - heck, why will I be needed around this house?
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
705
It's not about kids at all. The economy can be completely supported by a small workforce and lots of machines, aka robots. So what are people supposed to do with themselves if there is no need for them to work. Do we euthanize them? Do we educate them? Do we let them write, and paint, and sculpt? How about letting them all become criminals so they can steal from the remaining wealthy people. How much would it be worth to prevent that?
My idea is to use more family planning so the population drops to an amount more compatible with demand.

Yes, some people can be retrained to do more advanced jobs and those working in some form of technology will always keep climbing the learning curve. As an example, I started in the elevator business and mass transit working on switched resistance control, but I've upgraded to the current state of the art motor control. I also devote at least 3 hours per day to studying what's new.

However, those proficient in only administrative tasks or manual labor don't have an upgradable knowledgebase and they are also the ones who are rapidly reproducing. Sorry for being cynical and politically incorrect , but that's the reality.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,012
My idea is to use more family planning so the population drops to an amount more compatible with demand.

Yes, some people can be retrained to do more advanced jobs and those working in some form of technology will always keep climbing the learning curve. As an example, I started in the elevator business and mass transit working on switched resistance control, but I've upgraded to the current state of the art motor control. I also devote at least 3 hours per day to studying what's new.

However, those proficient in only administrative tasks or manual labor don't have an upgradable knowledgebase and they are also the ones who are rapidly reproducing. Sorry for being cynical and politically incorrect , but that's the reality.
"Demand"? Demand for what?
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
14,260
You absolutely cannot control population quickly enough to make a difference unless you're willing to have a draconian police state and execute people for violating the no children policy. It didn't work for China and it sure as hell is not the solution for too many people with nothing to do. In fact that might actually result in a population increase. Ironic -- eh?
 
Top