If technology gets to the point where robots are so advanced where they can do the work of your average unskilled labourer for cheaper... what would happen to all the labourers? I mean, people worry now about regional outsourcing... has anyone ever contemplated robotic outsourcing?

I think this really puts a huge dent in the case for Capitalism.

_________________
transientb.bandcamp.com

It's been the major concern of labor unions for the last 30 years. Though maybe that's putting too broad of a point on it.

_________________

Well lots of people would lose their job (if the bots get really handy)
and we'll become (more) lazy and stuff (too lazy to type more)

_________________

creds 4 this awesome piece of art go to

Grandmort visited on my b-day | Click to reveal hidden content

Last updated: 2015/01/25 13:38

I guess most of the un-educated labourers will get fired.
education will be more and more important, since getting a degree will be the only guarantee for a job.
Maybe the best solution would be to forbid companies to use robots for work that a human can do as well, just to make sure that not everybody ends up without a job.
I hope that robots will never reach that level of intelligence, to prevent all this from ever happening.

_________________

I can't say I think that makes any sense. That precedent would pretty much dismantle every industry ever... ever. Mechanization of labour is not inherently a bad thing. But it will destroy capitalism.

_________________
transientb.bandcamp.com

That's not what I meant. I mean that there must be certain laws that forbid factories, etc...
of letting ALL of their work done by robots. The situation as it is now is ok, but if robots could do everything we can, it would be cheaper to fire every employee you have and hire robots instead. I'm not talking about the assembly of cars, but about designing furniture (yes I know, retarded example)

_________________

So you're saying that we are all here on this planet just to have a job?

I thought that all this technology was supposed to allow us to work less, so that we could attend the truly important things...

We're on this planet to live a life. What kind of a life you live is your choice.
but since society forces us to pay for everything we need (except air), we need money, and therefor we need to rob a bank, or have a job.

And yes, all those new inventions could have resulted into less labour. But instead of working less, we simply do more in the same time as 10 years ago, cuz everything is going faster and faster.

_________________

So we're expanding at an accelerating rate.

When do the wheels come off and we fly into the air?

I think you are mixing up mechanization of labour with the advance of technology. Advance of technology doesn't necessarily mean less work for us. Things like blackberries, cell phones, etc. really complicate our lives, and don't contribute to less labour being done. What I'm saying is... in terms of producing goods. There theoretically will be a point where the vast majority of people (worldwide) that constitute the workers class are going to be left with no jobs because technology will have advanced so far that all labour can be done mechanically at the push of a button. Someday it will happen too. Agriculture, construction, mining... it could all be done absent of human labour.

At that point, it will be impossible to for capitalism to exist. Workers will literally have no way to make money, there will be a large majority of people who will have no access whatsoever to a way of life. On top of that, there will be nobody to consume these goods anymore. Rich people need to get rich by selling stuff to working class people. Nobody will be able to turn a profit anymore. Capitalism is over. (Perhaps this is one of the causes of the current crisis). Can you imagine how society will radically change when that point arrives?

People aren't going to just destroy robots (maybe some will), because, if production can be done in a way that is both automatic and sustainable (in terms of natural resources), it will mean that we will mean that people will generally have to work less (if at all), and can devote their time to being creative, self-improvement, eductation, whatever. What I do think will happen is that at that point, is a complete radical restructuring of the economy. The only way that people will be able to pay to feed themselves is if they elect a government that effectively replaces the institution of private property for social ownership, and democracy is extended past not only the sphere of politics, but the economy.

I'm not saying this is good or bad. I'm just saying what I think will be. I just can't conceive of any other way that society could possibly be structured. Maybe a reversion to some sort of feudalism, or anarchy. But I really think that inevitably capitalism is on its way out. And this is assuming that we don't all die from peak oil and/or nuclear war.

_________________
transientb.bandcamp.com

I understand your point of view, and it is possible that something like that will happen.
But I think you shouldn't be too fast proclaming that capitalism is on it's way back.
Marx doomed capitalism a 100 years ago, but the revolution never came, or was only temporary. His system showed just as much gaps as ours
I'd rather say that there are 2 possibilities:
-We do nothing, and hope that the things to come are better then what we have now,
-or we do something about it (i've mentioned this in previous posts)

and now i have been posting far too much on my own...

_________________

Watch this post-capitalist futurist worldview, where machines drive the workforce and humans don't need jobs... because there is no concept of "money", not even of wealth. A resource-based economy:

[googlevideo]3932487043163636261[/googlevideo]


It's recommended that you understand how money is created and how the "capitalist"(/Communist) system (more accurately, a word that was deleted from history, "usury") actually works. The second film in the series deal with that. Zeitgest Addendum (also available in many languages other than English):

[googlevideo]7065205277695921912[/googlevideo]

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

The Zeitgeist Movement suffers from the same naivety of Marxism - namely, the fallacy that the social order can successfully be centrally planned, and that this mode of organization is superior to one based on humans spontaneously responding to human needs. There is nothing new about the idea of a "resource-based economy," especially when you compare their historical narrative to Marx's materialist narrative. They claim to be above politics and religion, but in reality this manifests as a shadow projection against religion with a very specific political agenda of promoting their techno-utopian vision of governance.

Furthermore, their anti-spiritual, purely scientific-materialist philosophy severely limits any change they could ever hope to accomplish, because it is already the current paradigm. The fact that they tell the astrological story of Christmas, explain how Jesus is a Sun God archetype that exists in virtually all the world's mythologies, and then try to act like those facts somehow "debunk" it is to me tragically ironic. Not to mention that they get Jiddu Krishnamurti to talk about the crisis in consciousness, and then try to convince me that a "resource-based economy" is the solution...The message is staring them in the face, in their own materials, and they somehow miss it.

That being said, Zeitgeist is an interesting phenomenon. As it stands right now, the Zeitgeist Movement is a laughing stock (have you read their forum? It is full of the worst kind of bickering). Yet it has still woken a lot of people up...but only partially. I think it will serve as an example to future movements for how not to stage an internet revolution.

The social order could successfully be centrally planned if the main incentive, wealth and "power", wasn't there. But the concept of a resource-based economy is obviously way ahead of its time, since the wealthy and powerful are not about to give up their status. Marxism sounds like a great idea, as does capitalism. But only in theory. In practice it has always been ruled from the top by a wealthy elite: the money changers.

_________________

Are you a patriot? Then spend 1 hour reading this site.

-___-

_________________
You know our choice to choose, and to reject, prevents our seeing simple truth? - Broderick "Brodi" Ford