It wasn't that long ago that people worried a lot about robots replacing workers in a big way here in the US. Of course that didn't happen, we just sent all the jobs to other countries. Now robots are threatening jobs in those countries for real. It will be very interesting to see how the workforce there reacts when (or if) robots begin to put people out of work in significant numbers.
Will the ROBOTS self destruct/become suicidal if they fall behind on production?
[SIZE=12px]Wow, the comments in this thread have been anything but P.C. These robots won't replace workers but increase production output, which means more workers will still be needed to put together the smaller more intricate parts in the assembly line. The working conditions at Foxconn have improved but only so much as to appease international criticism, the fact still remains that no self respecting westerner would ever work in a place like that. If it wasn't for the very publicized deaths at Foxconn in the first place, the fact of the matter is Apple, HP, Samsung and who ever else uses them would have continued to turn a blind eye. I would like to see manufacturing of these products brought back to their countries of origin. Even if we don't care about what is basically slave labor then maybe how about slowing down China's grab for world domination because at this point though it's only a matter of time when China will be using us for cheap labor. So enjoy those iPad's while you can.[/SIZE]
Why would you expect the comments here to be P.C.? Must be a lot of Mac users here, I would have thought.
Seems it was easy enough for you to claim that I am incorrect about overpopulation. Let's see your data.
FYI, my numbers are giving your argument the benefit of the doubt by a factor of two. Since you did not even recognize that I would suggest you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. See, the population numbers are two years old and the arable acres are double that of the technically accurate figure. The 7 billion acres is more like the 'potential' agricultural area not the actual area. Normally not included in arable land data are, orchards, roads, structures, open space, steep terrain, grazing land, forest, etc. The real numbers are much worse than what I presented because I didn't want to be viewed as being unreasonable.
Besides arable land data there is verifiable ocean data that shows the devastating extent to which the oceans are being over fished not to mention the issues of fresh and salt water pollution. Couple that with record drought in traditional staple crop growing ares, I wouldn't be at all surprised to start to see major increase in hunger and poverty to become pervasive around the world due to food shortages in the coming decade.
Seems it was easy enough for you to claim that I am incorrect about overpopulation.
Because anyone who cares about the topic would have done the research required to know you’re wrong.
Since you did not even recognize that I would suggest you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
Says the person absolutely certain that 7 billion is too many, flying in the face of research into the subject and, you know, looking outside.
Look, you’re wrong. Blindingly wrong. Since estimates range between 4 and 20 billion, and that it’s obviously not 4 and obviously not 7, that tells us that 1. we don’t really know anything definitive about this concept and 2. we do know what isn’t the CC.
Malthus was as about as smart as the Luddites. You’d do well to not take his gospel as truth. Hint: their topics coincide pretty darn well, too.
Because anyone who cares about the topic would have done the research required to know you’re wrong.
Says the person absolutely certain that 7 billion is too many, flying in the face of research into the subject and, you know, looking outside.
Look, you’re wrong. Blindingly wrong. Since estimates range between 4 and 20 billion, and that it’s obviously not 4 and obviously not 7, that tells us that 1. we don’t really know anything definitive about this concept and 2. we do know what isn’t the CC.
Malthus was as about as smart as the Luddites. You’d do well to not take his gospel as truth. Hint: their topics coincide pretty darn well, too.
Seems it was easy enough for you to claim that I am incorrect about overpopulation.
Because anyone who cares about the topic would have done the research required to know you’re wrong.
Since you did not even recognize that I would suggest you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
Says the person absolutely certain that 7 billion is too many, flying in the face of research into the subject and, you know, looking outside.
Look, you’re wrong. Blindingly wrong. Since estimates range between 4 and 20 billion, and that it’s obviously not 4 and obviously not 7, that tells us that 1. we don’t really know anything definitive about this concept and 2. we do know what isn’t the CC.
Malthus was as about as smart as the Luddites. You’d do well to not take his gospel as truth. Hint: their topics coincide pretty darn well, too.
Sounds like you know your stuff. /s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s
Sounds like you know your stuff. /s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s
Hey, enjoy your delusion!
I'm curious. What possible motive do you have in arguing that civilization is not on the precipice of rapid decline due to overpopulation? Do you own stock in Soylent Green?
I'm curious. What possible motive do you have in arguing that civilization is not on the precipice of rapid decline due to overpopulation?
Literally everything we know about technology and human growth, which says otherwise. Screaming “overpopulation” while 140 years shows otherwise is meaningless.
Same way they did in the 1830s: they’ll get different jobs.
It’s the Luddites all over again.
once again, this work only if humans are quicker to learn the new jobs, when robots will be quicker than humans to get the new skills, humans won't have many jobs anymore.
I do not think that this is a bad thing, if we adapt the economic system accordingly.
once again, this work only if humans are quicker to learn the new jobs, when robots will be quicker than humans to get the new skills, humans won't have many jobs anymore.
Eventually all jobs that do not require creative, sapient thought will be done by machines. And humanity will be better for it.
We’ll drive for pleasure, not work or necessity. We’ll build, cook, shop, etc. for the same reasons.
Comments
You can do the math.
If only it were as easy as you were pretending.
It wasn't that long ago that people worried a lot about robots replacing workers in a big way here in the US. Of course that didn't happen, we just sent all the jobs to other countries. Now robots are threatening jobs in those countries for real. It will be very interesting to see how the workforce there reacts when (or if) robots begin to put people out of work in significant numbers.
Like the Kaiser Chiefs said, "I predict a riot."
Same way they did in the 1830s: they’ll get different jobs.
It’s the Luddites all over again.
Yesterday: Dad's Army.
Not mentioned is the possibility, and IMO likelihood, that Google technology will now be assisting in the building of iPhones.
And every Foxy Google Bot will report back to Google.
They'll know all Apple's iPhone plans in advance now.
/s
Why would you expect the comments here to be P.C.? Must be a lot of Mac users here, I would have thought.
You can do the math.
If only it were as easy as you were pretending.
Seems it was easy enough for you to claim that I am incorrect about overpopulation. Let's see your data.
FYI, my numbers are giving your argument the benefit of the doubt by a factor of two. Since you did not even recognize that I would suggest you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. See, the population numbers are two years old and the arable acres are double that of the technically accurate figure. The 7 billion acres is more like the 'potential' agricultural area not the actual area. Normally not included in arable land data are, orchards, roads, structures, open space, steep terrain, grazing land, forest, etc. The real numbers are much worse than what I presented because I didn't want to be viewed as being unreasonable.
Besides arable land data there is verifiable ocean data that shows the devastating extent to which the oceans are being over fished not to mention the issues of fresh and salt water pollution. Couple that with record drought in traditional staple crop growing ares, I wouldn't be at all surprised to start to see major increase in hunger and poverty to become pervasive around the world due to food shortages in the coming decade.
"Obama negotiates a deal to raise the minimum wage to 15.00 an hour... USA turns to robots."
Oops. I meant Star Wars "Trade Federation" droids, not the cheap-copy-of-Apple Google droids.
Roger roger.
Because anyone who cares about the topic would have done the research required to know you’re wrong.
Says the person absolutely certain that 7 billion is too many, flying in the face of research into the subject and, you know, looking outside.
Look, you’re wrong. Blindingly wrong. Since estimates range between 4 and 20 billion, and that it’s obviously not 4 and obviously not 7, that tells us that 1. we don’t really know anything definitive about this concept and 2. we do know what isn’t the CC.
Malthus was as about as smart as the Luddites. You’d do well to not take his gospel as truth. Hint: their topics coincide pretty darn well, too.
Because anyone who cares about the topic would have done the research required to know you’re wrong.
Says the person absolutely certain that 7 billion is too many, flying in the face of research into the subject and, you know, looking outside.
Look, you’re wrong. Blindingly wrong. Since estimates range between 4 and 20 billion, and that it’s obviously not 4 and obviously not 7, that tells us that 1. we don’t really know anything definitive about this concept and 2. we do know what isn’t the CC.
Malthus was as about as smart as the Luddites. You’d do well to not take his gospel as truth. Hint: their topics coincide pretty darn well, too.
This guy is a serious riot.
Because anyone who cares about the topic would have done the research required to know you’re wrong.
Says the person absolutely certain that 7 billion is too many, flying in the face of research into the subject and, you know, looking outside.
Look, you’re wrong. Blindingly wrong. Since estimates range between 4 and 20 billion, and that it’s obviously not 4 and obviously not 7, that tells us that 1. we don’t really know anything definitive about this concept and 2. we do know what isn’t the CC.
Malthus was as about as smart as the Luddites. You’d do well to not take his gospel as truth. Hint: their topics coincide pretty darn well, too.
Sounds like you know your stuff. /s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s
Hey, enjoy your delusion!
Hey, enjoy your delusion!
I'm curious. What possible motive do you have in arguing that civilization is not on the precipice of rapid decline due to overpopulation? Do you own stock in Soylent Green?
Literally everything we know about technology and human growth, which says otherwise. Screaming “overpopulation” while 140 years shows otherwise is meaningless.
Same way they did in the 1830s: they’ll get different jobs.
It’s the Luddites all over again.
Same way they did in the 1830s: they’ll get different jobs.
It’s the Luddites all over again.
once again, this work only if humans are quicker to learn the new jobs, when robots will be quicker than humans to get the new skills, humans won't have many jobs anymore.
I do not think that this is a bad thing, if we adapt the economic system accordingly.
once again, this work only if humans are quicker to learn the new jobs, when robots will be quicker than humans to get the new skills, humans won't have many jobs anymore.
Eventually all jobs that do not require creative, sapient thought will be done by machines. And humanity will be better for it.
We’ll drive for pleasure, not work or necessity. We’ll build, cook, shop, etc. for the same reasons.