Why do machines and robots have to take our jobs, why?

Post Reply New Topic

It's hard to believe, though, that machines could fill all these jobs that require human attention to specific detail. Even in self-checkout lines in stores, there has to be a human in attendance if and when the machine can't read a barcode, or stops working. There will always have to be people preparing food, especially for specific changes in orders. There's only so much a machine janitor can clean without a human eye and decision making. And what's to become of all those people if they lose their jobs to machines? I remember when it had been promised good paying service jobs would replace industrial jobs, but this would ultimately be a betrayal of all those workers. There is no reason for labor to support capitalism if capitalism leaves them behind.

Correct - one person with a key card attending four or five self-checkouts.

Taking up about the same space as one till...

I'm reminded of the old joke that the factories of the future will be staffed by one man and one dog, with the man's job being to feed the dog, and the dog's job being to bite the man if he tries to touch the machines. Sounds about right.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. A person doing a menial job is a mind wasted. That mind could be doing something using their intelligence and creativity. By performing manual labour they are wasting their mind. Better for a machine to do that work and thus free their mind up for more intelligent and creative work.

The bottom line: people have to be trained in the new technology.

If the world's economies are automated with robots or some such things, what would happen to the people? Some globalists suggest kindly that Earth would become a Nirvāṇa of sorts with humans wandering the world searching for enlightenment while machines took care of us all. Putting aside the idea that humans haven't yet perfected free energy, flying cars or even peace amongst themselves, what certainty do we have that this kind of heaven on Earth would work? Other globalists, like Bill Gates and Ted Turner, are much more boldly forthright by admitting that much of the world's population would need culling (murdered) because we all would be seen as redundant, useless eaters.

So, while the idea of machines serving people seems nice, remember the moral of the Twilight Zone story titled "To Serve Man" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man ) where superior beings visited Earth with a book that human leaders believed was about how people would be cared for ... only to learn a little too late that the book was, in fact, a cookbook, not a treatise for friendship.

Beware hucksters who promise you the world.

Something like 2/3 to 3/4 the jobs in the third world could be eliminated in short order by automation, reality is that there is not going to be any UBI or safety net there so what will happen to these people?

If this future comes to pass to then there will be a mass culling all across the globe of the 'useless eaters' I think, maybe smashing the machine isn't such a bad idea.

And, the easiest way to murder the people? Convince them to "go cashless" and watch them see their tiny pieces of plastic be "turned off, accidentally, of course. Oops, so sorry."

People need to read or reread Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World.

I'm going to be honest...and some people will not agree with what I say.

I do see elements of "1984" in how Trump and his staff handles things. It's not even his policies, necessarily, it's how he handles such things as the opposition press.

I don't see the eugenics of "Brave New World," though...and I hope I never do.

Trump isn't who you should be worrying about, it's this elitist class who hate him(and the American people) the most for screwing up all their meticulous planning.

Bill Gates said (at minutes 4:29) during a 2010 TED Talk that "[t]he world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent..." ( https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates/tr ... anguage=en ).

Read that again if the meaning is lost on anyone.

In this case, Gates was advocating lowering the birth rate worldwide. He was advocating that people do this voluntarily--just have less kids!

I don't believe he had any eugenic or "Brave New World" intentions at all, though it could be interpreted that way.

https://www.quora.com/What-does-Bill-Ga ... h-services

It sounds counter-intuitive, but the more likely kids are to stay alive, the more likely that populations are to stabilize. In other words, if it is quite likely that your kids will grow up and have kids, the more likely that you will just have one or two kids and use birth control to avoid having any more kids. If you are poor and there are diseases that may kill your kids due to the lack of adequate vaccines or other measures, you are more likely to have a lot of kids in the hope that one or two will survive and care for you when you get old.

Last edited by BTDT on 28 Feb 2017, 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

How would vaccines "lower" world population by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent (according to Gates' quote)?

Economists say that populations stabilize when economies are industrialized. When nations have no industries, the resulting poor families are left to have more children in the hopes that some of them might live to adulthood and care for the families (more like-minded people foraging to survive). Industrialize the world's nations and watch the bogeyman of overpopulation fade.