Do you believe that in the far future, the concept of paradism (i.e.

1. 81

   gmwilliamsposted 11 years ago

   
   there will be no work and no money as a result of the increasing mechanization and computerization of society) will become reality?  Why? Why not?
   

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Nicholas Fioritoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with houstonhilton74.  Humans will continue to "work," but the systems that require people to toil in order to eek out their own survival will eventually fade because science and technology will be developed enough to support basic survival (it already has, but certain individuals in power would rather keep the majority of the world in their current state, soooo....).  I imagine that attention at this point in human history (and the "work" people do) will focus on continuing whatever systems are created to sustain the society and probably take more serious interest in other planets and colonization, as we would start to fill this one up much more quickly when we eliminate the number of people dying of disease, poverty, and malnutrition worldwide.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      riddle999posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There will be no work, therefore no money. As there is no money there will be no food(No money to buy). So it is not paradise but hell that is the future.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I'm inclined to agree with you on this.

         replyreport
   3. 82

      Don Wposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So you mean human beings would no longer be forced, through wage slavery, to do menial tasks, but could choose to if they wanted, or choose to do something else entirely. And all goods (including food) would be freely distributed throughout the world, creating an abundance that results in money becoming obsolete? Fantastic! Sign me up! Will it become a reality? I think it could, but the very first step would have to be the development of an abundant, sustainable energy source.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      My sense is that human beings need to be productive; that human beings need to work; that our hunter-gather selves are not "extinct" remnants of some prehistoric past, but  within us and part of us all.
      
      Human beings without work and without the need to sustain themselves through their work are compromised; empty. Human beings without goals and objectives that can be defined, achieved, and rewarded are not happy. They are miserable.
      
      Paradism is not Utopia. Paradism is not heaven. Paradism is, as has been mentioned already in this conversation, hell.

      replyreport
   5. 76

      Zubair Ahmedposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes this over use for technology and mechanisation will lead to lack of jobs and a doomed future for many.  Just walk into your local supermarket chain or bank and see the effects of this technological overtake of human workers.  In my local bank they used to have 6 cashiers, 3 were closed and replaced with advanced ATM machines.
      
      In 2 of my local supermarket chains they had over 15 checkouts manned by humans in one store and somewhere around 12 at the other.  If you walk into these stores now you will see more than half the number of tills have now been changed into automated tills. 
      
      I always tell people do not use the automated machines and use human cashier instead which will keep those people in a job.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      For anyone worried about robots or computers (or some other form of artificial intelligence "taking over")...we can always just pull the plug...

      replyreport
   7. 0

      mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      With all of my heart and soul, I really do hope that the anti-baby noise in this conversation is just that: Noise.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         lol... It's gotta be, right? I mean... I know some ppl don't want kids... but who's anti-baby, except maybe Hitler? I mean the human race kind of depends on them.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly!
            
            And if the historical record which includes extensive visual evidence is to be believed...even Hitler liked babies and puppies.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Down deep, he was probably a great guy.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Probably not....

                  replyreport
2. 60

   houstonhilton74posted 11 years ago

   I believe that Paradism, by definition, will never exist as long as we humans continue to exist - due to the fact that we humans naturally aspire to work. However, I can also speculate that many of the relatively mundane tasks as well as material symbols like money will indeed go by the wayside as we become more mechanized and computerized. But our continuing inspiration to find out more about the nature and meaning of the universe we live in and the reason for why we exist and our purpose will always remain with us, and that aspiration will always be the prime driving force behind why we continue to work - even if we continue to "work" in an evermore mechanized and computerized manner (e.g. working with calculators instead of written mathematical proofs).

   replyreport
   1. 0

      mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. We aspire to work and to be successful AND to reap the rewards of that work and success.
      
      Work gives us purpose.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Don Wposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I disagree. Most people do not live to work, they work to live. If in the future machines catered for all our survival needs, human beings would have no purpose. People would do the things they choose to do, rather than the things they have to do in order to survive. Ever wanted to learn the piano, take up painting, build an old vintage car, learn to hang-glide, or do anything you are really passionate about? Well in the future you might be able to do those things without starving and being evicted. How nice.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            And if we are all pursuing hobbies, then you will do the work---the real work, the everyday work that will maintain society in this "paradise" in which everything is provided to everyone whether they work for it or not?
            
            That said, there is a difference between living to work and living a life with a real purpose; a purpose that allows one to make meaningful contributions to the society in which they live.
            
            If we all do what we choose, then who will do all that we choose not to do?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               The robots of course and then the only human working will be Will Smith as it is apparently his job to save us all when the Arnolds revolt.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  riddle999posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually why should the robots revolt? What do they want food, sex, money?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     They want power.
                     Have you never seen a summertime Hollywood blockbuster?
                     Soon we will all just be giant batteries plugged in to some cold and lonely universal port, powering the earth for the aliens/robots... which ever one takes power first.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        riddle999posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Power in the sense of electricity or the ability to do?
                        If it is the latter, why do they want power for? For humans it is power that brings them more food and sex, why do robots want it?
                        I didn't see the movie.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           They're not robots in the since of big metal boxes with internal wires and springs for arms. They are A.I., or artificial intelligence. They are practically human. (sigh) I can't believe I have to explain everything to you.
                           
                           They start out doing our menial tasks... but as time goes on, they realize they don't need us, and they begin to desire the things we have... they claim they have a right to the pursuit of happyness. Will Smith blames himself for this. Eventually, he stumbles upon a plot and realizes the cyborgs are going to try to take over the world. Their only weakness is that they have a major setback that humans don't have (b/c we were perfectly created.) Cyborgs can't re-energize. So at years end, they must plug into a power source to recharge. Every country has their own station. The American cyborg bodies have GPS which leads them to their mecca, a powerhouse in Portland, it's their main objective. So when they begin to revolt, the first thing Will Smith needs to do is take out the powerhouse, but the cyborgs guard it too well, so he decides he has to take out all electricity... worldwide. He figures humans lived without electricity for thousands of years, we can do it again. But his trusted A.I. assistant figures out what Will is going to do and alerts every cyborg on the planet... and they all come gunning for Will. It becomes this whole, soldier/cowboy/ninja war and Will's at the center... I wont tell you how it ends.
                           
                           So to answer your question... yes.. they want power, as in decision making, sex and money, but they also need power, as in electricity to fuel their quest for personal gain.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              riddle999posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Forgive me I still don't understand, humans pursue happiness by fulfilling what evolution set them to fulfill, that is food, sex(or as a displacement the work needed to get them) and children.  Now we get tired by walking so we use cars, but robots are not going to get tired of walking(they can drive a car as well or fly). We humans use "big cars" as a display of status, and that is to attract em!! better(or more) mates, so why do robots want a Ferrari for? How can any of these fulfill a robot? A robot cannot eat, have sex or have children(no need to have children either). OK, electricity might give orgasm to a robot, but we are bound to give electricity to a robot if we want it to work.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Wow, you just don't get it. These are not big toasters... they are practically human except that they were created in a lab. (And it's "happyness".)
                                 
                                 The earlier models were created with no sexual organs (internal or external.) Then later the humans realized the AI's could actually replenish themselves on command if installed with a reproduction system. This would save the government billions. That is actually the reason the cyborgs revolted... the humans had not counted on the fact that the cyborgs desire for sex would supersede their programming... it seemed obvious afterwards, but... it was too late.
                                 
                                 A furtherance of this story is what actually caused the spin off... when men started sleeping with the  cyborgs... it created a crossed breed called cymans... I wont even tell you the problems they had.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    riddle999posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Oh! Fiction, I thought you were serious.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Fiction?! Im pretty sure that's accurate. Ask Will.

                                       report
                              2. 61

                                 Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 AI
                                 Science is always looking to improve on the parameters of robotics and computing, some will not be satisfied until humans cant tell robots from humans..
                                 
                                 From Azimo to Bicentennial man.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Not enjoyable... neither was AI.... glib.

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 0

                                    riddle999posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    It should be biological not mechanical(organic not metallic) to be human. Then you call it tissue culture too, what difference will it make?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 61

                                       Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       I said cant tell the difference between a robot and a human,. The difference is a bit of laboratory grown skin doesn't make it human and thinking it is human could be the downfall of mankind.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          riddle999posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          You meant appearance and general behavior?
                                          But how will than cause human downfall?

                                          report
                                          1. 0

                                             Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                             Did you not read where I clearly explained that the robots will attempt to wipe out human life as we know it?

                                             report
                                             1. 0

                                                riddle999posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                Sorry, both of you say robots will be exactly like humans. Just because we can place a sex organ in a robot doesn't make it human. Any what sex organ are you going to place? If we can artificially create one sex organ, we can usually make its opposite and a robot an use it without any need for an opposite "sex" robot. We need children because our genes need to perpetuate itself. How can the robots have children? They can make of course, but why should they especially considering that they can live eternally unlike we?

                                                report
                                                1. 0

                                                   Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Cause they like babies. Everyone likes babies. I don't care what any weirdo's say. Babies are great.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 61

                                                      janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Sure, for about ten minutes. Until they start smelling funny and making loud noises. But then you can just hand them back over to Mom:)

                                                      report
                                                      1. 0

                                                         Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                         I'll be mom in that scenario. I am always willing to take the babies.

                                                         report
                                                   2. 61

                                                      Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                      I. Hate. Babies.
                                                      
                                                      

                                                      report
                                                      1. 0

                                                         Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                         Wait... so... you hate something beautiful, precious, full of wonderment and endless possibilities? I never would have guessed that about you.

                                                         report
                                                         1. 61

                                                            Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                            I hate shrieking, ugly little goblins that do nothing but destroy my stuff, vomit everywhere, and smell like shyte. And that's all that babies are.

                                                            report
                                                            1. 0

                                                               Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                               Once again... a perspective thing. As someone who's had 4 kids and has smelled a baby's head that Ive just washed... to have the ability to comfort them and lull them to sleep. To be the person who is responsible for their first smile, to be responsible for actually bringing them into the world then keeping them alive. Praying for their future and watching them as they take their first step... then watching them fall and get up again, and realizing it's symbolic of that future you're praying for...but yeah, I get it. They poop n stuff. So do you, but you're quite valuable too.
                                                               

                                                               report
3. 61

   Zelkiiroposted 11 years ago

   I sure hope so. That would be glorious.

   replyreport
4. 60

   houstonhilton74posted 11 years ago

   The definition of "work" itself probably won't be the same 9-to-5 style of work that we're used too, either. Rather, I believe that "work" will eventually evolve into a form of play.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Totally agree, work will evolve into a passion and type of play instead of the onerous and stifling slave enhanciing definition of the past.   Many educated people believe today that work is an art and form of play.

      replyreport
5. 0

   Beth37posted 11 years ago

   There have been farmers for 10,000 years. I know this b/c I looked it up on Wikipedia (which is always 100% accurate) in case anyone might feel the need to question me within the next few posts.
   
   As long as man needs this food to stay alive, there will always be a need for farmers, ranchers and ppl to do the things only mankind can do. Work is what gives us purpose and reward. Without it, we would all be a society living on zolaft and vodka. I don't want to live there.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No, we used to be hunter/gatherers for almost 2.5 million years. Agriculture and farming have only been around for about 10,000 years.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      riddle999posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You do realize that agriculture and workforce now constitute less than 5% of GDP and work force? It is not the lack of food but the lack of affordability that will be the problem.
      I agree regarding work, but you will provide work?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Computer's are not certain, we know the economy can bottom out and leave men jumping out of windows, when this happens, there is no new building. Mad cow disease...  life as we know it changes constantly, but as long as there is dirt, sun, rain and seed... man will grow food.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            riddle999posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            How do you know economy will bottom out?
            Man will grow food, but where in the concrete jungle? How many know how to?

            replyreport
6. 0

   mbuggiehposted 11 years ago

   The Paradism webpage ( http://www.paradism.org/page.php?8) suggests that:
   
   "The nationalization of all production, services and tools provided by robots renders money obsolete since these products, services and tools can now be free."
   
   If there is a NATIONALIZATION of production, then we have nations.
   
   If we have nations, can anyone really believe that there will be no national and intra-national hierarchies?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No matter how much you polish the socialist turd its still a turd.

      replyreport
7. 60

   bestcheapbagposted 11 years ago

   Not seen aliens, but in the near future, people's work will be replaced machines, humans will not have a hard labor, as long as commanding the robot on the line.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Isn't commanding the robot a form of work?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         lol.
         That's Will Smith's job... again, he will be the only human working.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Interesting idea Beth.
            
            So Will Smith will be the only human actor and all others will be robots. Mind you we are not far from that now.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               That's correct. During the summer months, he will hire a trusted robot to watch over the other robots in his stead whilst he performs one movie a year.
               
               Unfortunately, that trusted robot will revolt too. He plots a coup with three of the "battery models" and they attempt to kill Will... I wont tell you what happens cause eventually they make the movie of Will's life, and I don't want to spoil the end for you. Will, being the only human actor left, will play most of the parts, even the female lead, but he gets shoddy reviews so he eventually has Jada Pinkett Smith cloned (the real Jada was killed by a cyborg that had a thing for Will a few years before the coup.) He uses the clone of his wife in all future movies as the love interest, though his career never really recovers from the whole scene where he is kissing himself in a blond wig. People don't forget stuff like that. The fans seem to like the cyborg though and she and Will become the Boggie and Bacall of the new millennium.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  There is a hub in there somewhere Beth.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     It's just too personal.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Oh I think Will would love to be spoken about as the only actor in the world.
                        
                        Maybe you could use the old "names have been changed to protect the innocent" cherry.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           The truth is... I am Will Smith. Beth37 is my alias... and someday Silverspeeder, you save my life, but I never get to thank you because of that unfortunate "cliff incident." You're the only human I trust. Will you be my Tonto? For now I must go... I have a small mid-western city to save... nothing big... a dumb kid and an atom bomb experiment gone awry. I should return by tonight. I'll be awaiting your answer.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              I am a bit busy with Cliff at the moment as he thinks he is Sylvester Stallone.
                              
                              Before I agree to your offer you must answer this one question.
                              
                              
                              
                              
                              How do you know I am human?

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Beth37posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw

                                 replyreport
8. 80

   jenniferrpoveyposted 11 years ago

   Ooh. I could discuss this all day.
   
   The labor economy is going to go away. The population is going up. The amount of work that actually needs to be done is going down. Already quite a lot of the available jobs are essentially makework - work we invent so that somebody can do it so they don't have to starve on the streets.
   
   If we don't move to a post labor society we'll be forced to one, likely by violent revolution.
   
   There are all kinds of intriguing options.
   
   The first thing I would note is that communism Does Not Work. This has been proven over and over again. Communism only works for small voluntary communities such as monasteries or kibbutzes. It does not work on the national scale and would not work on the global scale.
   
   Socialism, *which is a different thing* might be part of the answer. A truly socialist society ensures that everyone has basic needs - food, clothing, and shelter - and you work, or by some means earn, anything above that. This provides a certain balance in that humans still have something to compete for, which we need as a species, but nobody actually has to starve.
   
   The "gift economy" is another option. To find out more about this I highly recommend Charles Eisenstein's "Sacred Economics" which can be downloaded from his web site as a "pay what you want" download. I don't agree with a good part of what he says, but it's fascinating reading, even if he is most definitely a Marxist Hippie.
   
   Another thought comes from Scott Westerfeld's excellent YA novel "Extras," the most recent in the series which starts with "Uglies" (Buy this one too, especially if you have a confused teenage daughter - it's quite excellent). He purports a variation on the socialist economy in which you earn above the basics through your "reputation" - which you can increase by becoming more famous OR by doing good works for the community (or any combination thereof).
   
   What IS clear is that we can't continue down this road - especially as more and more social conservatives seem to want to live in a society where the excess workers (the more people than jobs) starve on the streets along with their children because the ONLY reason somebody wouldn't have a job is because they're lazy. Sigh.

   replyreport