empyblessing

This point was a more 'off the cuff' comment on my part.. Since when does the state ever reduce the manpower of a dept, particularly one that is heavily unionised? And like you suggest it's unlikely to result in any reduction in taxes or demand. My main point is that history repeatably shows us that technology and automation has always enriched us and never led to the impoverishment of people. People learn to adapt and change accordingly depending on market signals. Suggesting there is some uber tech that might suddenly cause massive unemployment, whilst theoretically possible, historically has proven to be unlikely. But if there is some anomally, rather than just 'job loss' that I haven't accounted for, then I'd be interested to hear. I see what you're saying now. Unemployment is bad for the economy and that must be a bad thing. I don't agree with that. Only under the current paradigm where being unemployed is a sin is unemployement a bad thing. The central argument is that there is nowhere left for workers to be displaced to if the service sector jobs become automated. Technology will allow for work to be voluntary not compulsory. Instead of wage slave jobs people will take up more passionate interests just as they did as children. The rise of the creative class -artists, writers, designers- will come out of this since these are the jobs which will never be automated. So no I don't support the economy. I support automating menial jobs and destroying the idea that you must work to eat.

Well less state funded jobs would no doubt be a better thing for the economy in the long run. The trouble is with this negative opinion of technology, is that 'historically' it has been proved to be wrong each and every time it has been suggested. You are effectively viewing the future in the same way the Luddites did. It's frankly impossible to know exactly what will happen, but historically it's always been a net gain each time. You would have to provide some significant counter arguments rather than just pointing out the lost jobs themselves. I've not stated that automation is a negative. It's the opposite. I was not implying that in anything I wrote. I support the full automation of everything that is possible to automate. We become happy to experience happiness directly. The ends for science is technology in all its forms. The ends for truth is happiness. If the ends of a career is fast food worker than why is the turnover rate so high? The answer is that few people want to experience being a fast food worker and instead only work these menial jobs to provide their psychical needs at the cost of time and the deprivation of their psychological needs, in most cases.

Apparently he's too busy rigging football games to cure kids with cancer.

I would love to watch some upstart fast food chain derail mcdonalds by innovating and making a totally new approach to flipping burgers especially if it advanced technology and ended a bunch of jobs that no one wants to work anyway.

I would love to watch some upstart fast food chain derail mcdonalds but innovating and making a totally new approach to flipping burgers especially if it advanced technology and ended a bunch of jobs that no one wants to work anyway.

Arius, do you believe that corporations are only opposed to automation based on financial reasons? Is it possible there is a fear of collaspe asociated with automating the service sector jobs? I don't believe fast food customers are concerned with service with a smile. I think that's a farce. If that were true than why have a driver through. If diners want good service they to go a restaurant, not mcdonalds. Besides, people quickly adjust to less automated checkouts. My thinking on automation is not keeping the same mcdonalds and putting in robot cooks but more along the lines of shrinking mcdonald'd kitchen down to the size of a vending machine that produces made to order food. They could keep the dining room or just have the vending machine accessible by car. I used mcdonalds as an example but I think a new fast food chain would be able to do this better than an existing one.

You're right. I have the most rudimentary understanding. Oddly enough, I was just thinking about how blockbuster has been shrunk down to a redbox just before I read your post. But Mcdonald's is automating very slowly. http://news.cnet.com/mcdonalds-hires-7000-touch-screen-cashiers/8301-17938_105-20063732-1.html

I believe in protecting children above all things but going to the state and expecting laws to do it will never work, not when the fundamentals of statehood is organized violence. Instead, I believe that a program of social ostracism is a more effective way to initiate social change. Scorn and shame the child abusers and those who support it just as we scorn the racists.

Automation doesn't destroy purchasing power. Purchasing power exudes directly from productivity. Automation liberates people from rote, tedious, and repetitive labor which permits them to specialize. This is how the aggregate standard of living increases. This is a good thing. Society is far wealthier today because of automobiles, planes, refrigeration, home appliances, mobile phones, and personal computers. How do you figure that unemployed workers have the same purchasing power as people earning a wage? Also, I completely agree that automation is a good thing. The prevention of it is importance to greater happiness of humankind because I've never met a child who dreamed of being a burger flipper.

Have you taken into consideration Mcdonal's not automating their restaurants when they're capable of doing so in order to prop up the dying economy? If we removed 90% of mcdonald's employees and replaced them with machines the purchasing power of everyone would decrease and thus less hamburgers and other goods that the big corporations produce would not be consumed. The reason why automation hasn't happened yet is because they (statists and corporations) don't want automation on the principal that it destroys purchasing power and thus the markets themselves. On the other hand automation increases productivity and thus profits overall. The whole system is total insanity and needs scrapped. One idea is to have a smaller work week so that increases in productivity are always met with a decrease in labor to better stabilize the transition in a voluntary labor force. More information on the four hour work day is found here. http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/blog/alex-hartley/planned-obsolescence-monetary-system-4-hour-workday

Self-driving cars are being produced now. Toyota has one. BMW has one. Google has one. Insurance companies are behind, I'm told. I find it all difficult to process. If what a lot of the experts say is true the auto car will eliminate most of the traffic accidents on the road since they are caused by driver error and not malfunction. But at that point would you even have a need insurance? WIthout state interference they could make them widespread in less than a decade. The biggest hurdle is regulation by the state. However, the technology is going to eliminate a lot of jobs. While people think the workers will just be displaced, they won't. Truck drivers. Taxi drivers. Bus drivers. Then there's the fact that this technology is not going to stop at just cars. It will be on trains, plains, boats etc because the variables in controlling a boat are as much if not less than a car. I've read that some people predict that the state will support the automatic car but I'm doubtful. If auto cars become widespread speeding tickets will drop and the need for all the visible police will be diminished. I cannot see this technology even coming close to creating more jobs than it destroys. Police will be able to decrease the number of employees if there's less of a need to write citations and less money is generated. The question that I keep having is how evil is the government. Is there a financial incentive for the state? Hell no there's not. And when I look at the garbage that gets fed to children in the form of mind altering medicines I can't help but wonder if some regulation will prevent this from happening. A group that would suppress medicine and finding genuine cures for cancer and major diseases can do anything. When I start to think of the unintended consquences of auto-cars and 3d printers everything becomes so confusing. Basically, what markets won't be effected by those two new technologies? Less accidents mean less need for mechanics, police, wreckers, road workers. On and on. And how many jobs are created by this technology? We already have automated factories. We already have mechanics but they'll be doing less business. There might be a few jobs created around the tools that are needed to repair these cars but there's no way it will offset the number of jobs it destroys.

One of the great things about the internet and the ubiqutious spread of cameras is that it allows the state's system of evil to be exposed to a greater audience than before. However, it's important not to blame a single cop. Remember, he has a liftime of abuse and neglect to generate these ravenous feelings. But if he never wore a uniform or a badge this would have never happened. It's the system which dresses killers up as guardians that's the problem. The most sickening part is that the victim always pays for the villians crimes. Will the victim be exempt from taxation that supplies police in the future? You can guarantee he won't. He'll have to pay the accomplices of this evil man for the rest of his life.

I saw it about how wives project their own insecurity onto their husbands. The wife's insecure feeling is derived from her own sense of value which is low. The husband is in equillibrium with his environment. He is a good father, a good provider, and most importantly he's as happy as the situation allows him to be. The wife claims she wants someone who has more ambition though what she really means is money. While its understanable that she wants more resources to provide for herself and her daughter the husband does not feel this way. The man is content. The woman is insecure. Both stare at each other from across this chasm and wonder why they got married. If the woman wanted a rich man than why didn't she marry him? If both could communicate better than the conversation would have been about two things. Why does the woman needed him to more ambitious? Why does the man not find out the root of why his wife is so unhappy? Part of the beauty and honesty of this film is that neither side is perfect. The man drinks and smokes and he lashes out violently when frustrated though not at her or the children. The real victim of the film is the children, of course. Just my rambling thoughts.

It's pretty moot. I live with my father. There's no way I could cut him off from my life now. I'm in the process of moving out but it takes time.

Thank you. Your help has been great. I'm already feeling better, better in fact than I have for a long time. Years have passed and I've not felt this way. For a moment I might say I was happy - unburdened - but I would not say it too loudly for fear the courage to grow might shrink and I would recoil from my reflection. I think things will improve now. I'm glad you feel so relieved, but I'm confused by this interaction. Does Stephen know more about your situation than has been posted? In particular, I don't understand Stephen's closing sentence about any effort you put in towards helping your parents or anyone who supports their position is hurting yourself. You said that your experience with your dad was very different, so I don't see what position they're united in that is so dangerous to you. Can you explain? I'm pretty sure he was confused about my dad. My dad is supporting me all the way. I noticed that too after I posted but forgot to mention it and then got distracted by some music.

Thank you. Your help has been great. I'm already feeling better, better in fact than I have for a long time. Years have passed and I've not felt this way. For a moment I might say I was happy - unburdened - but I would not say it too loudly for fear the courage to grow might shrink and I would recoil from my reflection. I think things will improve now.

Well I talked with my dad. It went much better. The two divorced 22 years ago and haven't had much contact. My father hit me once that I recall but as soon as I brought it up he apologized. It's amazing seeing the difference in reactions from my mother to my father. My dad totally destroyed the stereotype that men were less sympatheic. I feel closer to him than I have since I was a child and he shared his own story of abuse. One of the things I'm afraid of is that my mother is going to go behind my back and try to have me committed in a mental hospital. My dad thinks it's silly and that she would never do that but I'm still afraid. I have a history of mental illness. Right now the rest of the family doesn't know. I'm not sure if it's going to stay that way or not. The good thing is that I don't live with her or depend on her for money for survival. The most I'm going to lose is her affection - which I don't want anyway - and she occasionaly would give me money as well. I'm not close to anyone in the family but my dad either so I'm not stressed about being kicked out of family gatherings. I got my dad on my side. I don't use drugs and my life is pretty stable financially. So how do I feel about how things went? At first I regretted what I did and I felt a lot of guilt. While she wasn't empathic to me at all she did end the conversation in tears. Hopefully that spark of guilt will let her look within and change. After a few minutes after confronting her I already feel better, a little lighter. I'll be getting back into therapy within a week or so and I'll be able to get things together. I think longterm this is going to be really good. My dad thinks I should forgive her but I can't unless she becomes apologetic or I think I can heal because of it. Could you share more on what erasing me meant? Also, are there any videos I could show her to help her deal with guilt or denial?

I'm hurting real bad inside. I coulnd't stay calm. I kept shouting at her because I grew so angry. I had a prepared statement I made about love and abuse. I brought up the way she used to beat and humiliate me. I had no plans on doing it today but she called me after I had tolder her twice I didn't want to speak with her till I was ready. She didn't listen. My needs have always been less than hers. She couldn't admit what she did was wrong. She couldn't admit she abused her child. She showed no regret and no sympathy. She was so defensive. She told me I made up all the memories I had about her. I wanted to wait to confront her until after I talked it over with a therapist but she called and asked me why I wasn't talking to her. I wanted to her hurt her so I told her I hated her. I know she comes from a childhood of abuse as well. She wanted to go behind my back and talk to my dad. I'm 31 and she can't trust me or respect me. I feel so vulnerable now.

Yah, I thought about that too. But a scooter whether eletric or gas gan be a very cheap and fast way of travel to and from work. You'd save a lot of money and could afford one a lot sooner than a car. http://www.saferwholesale.com/category-s/31.htm?gclid=CNX1sq_6iLUCFQLd4AodxhAAYQ

have you thought about buying a scooter?

This technology will be impossible to control for the government just like it's impossible to stop file sharing of copyrights.

I understand the logic behind it. From that knowledge it will be impossible for a select group to dominate totally. An advanced civilization doesn't keep slaves, it builds them. No one really wants to do manual, repetitive tasks so the faster we can build dishwashing computers the better. There's just no way that labor is going to be a requirement for life like it is now. A reasonable subsistence will be guaranteed based on simply being born human. Basic human needs will be provided for everyone.There will be no living wages so employment will be voluntary and not compulsory for survival. If you want to elevate above the basic level then you'll have "free education" through the internet. When I think back to my childhood, I remember my parents telling me that there was no money in painting. They were right, of course. Artists today generally live terrible lives of poverty. Most quit. But I imagine jobs like artist and film maker will become much more popular when human need is seen as a given and not something as a reward for production. With production costs very low, next to zero. And productivity so high but purchasing power so low, there will have to be a great transition into a new way of thinking about work. As I wrote in my previous post, I don't think our technological growth is the biggest factor preventing this new standard of living from occuring but I believe it's the inability for the people operating the machines to adapt fast enough. While machines grow quickly, the users do not learn quick enough, particularly with older people. I don't mean to belittle anyone with that statement and I'm sure it's just a stereotype and not completely true but children are known for this flexiblity, just look at how a baby can move their legs around. They adapt. Older people don't change quite as fast as the young -- more set in their ways -- more like an oak tree with its roots firmly planted. While I do think it's important for Stefan to continue his work, I don't believe it's the impetus in itself. The change comes about because of technology which allows for more freedom and greater productivity. The philosophical framework must be there but it also must align with technology. Stefan's given examples before of this with abolition, women's rights, etc. and he's spot on.

Have you seen the short (~6min iirc) movie "I, Pencil"? Maybe that will give you some perspective on how erm, impossible the scenario is that you're talking about. I pencil was beautiful. Just watched it. Thanks. I do not see anything in it though that would prevent automation from taking all of those jobs. Labor becomes increasingly more productive due to technology. The chain saw cuts more wood than a hand saw. But what happens when we have chainsaws that don't need a lumberjack? Or restaurants that don't need servers, cooks, or busboys? All of the displaced workers of techology have been filtered through into the service sector. It is the last bastion of labor but it will disappear as well due to market demands of increased productivity. There are eight automatic checkouts at my local walmart. They were put in around two years ago. They began with only four machines. When I saw them I was instantly drawn to try it out. They were easy to use and effective. There was only one teller who oversaw the whole thing. But there was a problem. Not enough people used them. Not be superficial here but when they were first put in place what I saw was only young people would go near them. So they stayed at four for a year or so. Recently, that changed. The numbers doubled in less than a year and where there were few older people using them, I saw some of the more daring ones trying it out. Now I use nothing but those automated checkers. They're faster. They have shorter lines. Once you learn how to scan and package your items it's much more time saving and productive and we all strive for maximum efficency with our time, right? Well I talked to the manager about them and he confirmed my observations. At first people were a little reluctant to use them but as they gained confidence with the machines the word spread that they were superior. He told me that they'll probably install more machines in a year or so but they need to pay for the ones they have now. As people slowly adjust to these new machines they're just going to spread to other areas. But that's the thing about some of these automated services. The human consumers have to adapt to the new environment and for some that takes time or is impossible altogether. The real panic will start when it hits the food industry. Oh the humanity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCpPPVvGqTY googles new self-driving car. imagine the possibilties.

From my limited understanding, the current situation will go into meltdown after a new bubble or scandal as we hang on the precipice waiting for some calamity to shove it over. Some of the bubbles that have been suggested could cause the collaspe are the boomer bubble (when they all seek social security) the college debt bubbles, and a major terrorist attack on US soil. I have been preparing by buying some storable food.

Liberals can never defeat guerilla warriors because it relies on not killing the warriors themselves but the innocents who surround them and supply them with provisions. If they are willing to kill the innocents they cease to be the left. Mao Tse Tung wrote a book on how to campaign a successful guerilla war. If I recall correctly part of his strategy was to have a dedicated force within an impassable terrain who is reprovisioned through a third party source. If we look at history, in vietnam the impassable land was the jungle, the dedicated force was the communists, and the third party support was the russians. In Afghanistan the dedicated force is Islam, the impassable terrain is the mountains, and the third party support is the surrounding anti-American countries. A civil war is not a guerilla war though. A civil war is when elements of the same government resort to murder to settle their disputes over who controls the tax money. So if a true civil war took place it would be around political leaders who seperated from the central government and would already have the tax structure in their region established and would therefore be more capable of resistance through open war than a guerilla force. The NRA is not a government so it would not be any true civil war. After listening to the book Origin of Wars I believe the left and right struggle over how they see the government based on their relationship to their mothers. The left sees the state as the good mother and the right as the bad mother. So when the right gains power they go into panic mode believing that the bad mother is going to rise up once again and dominate them. The answer isn't to fight but to end the fear of the mother in the first place.