Welcome to the Lounge

Munchies_Matt5-Dec-17 3:22

5-Dec-17 3:22

No, a realist. If you keep the peasants fed and watered they are a content bunch.

Eddy Vluggen5-Dec-17 3:36

5-Dec-17 3:36

Munchies_Matt wrote:
No, a realist. If you keep the peasants fed and watered they are a content bunch.

Again, I already mentioned that Maslow disagrees; the pyramid is also nothing new, and I'm not going to discuss its validity. Just pointing out that food and drinks is not enough.

..if they were, America would have lots of content people. No one would complain about not having internet, when given bread and water.

And did you seriously expect to be fed? Why? We already have cuter pets Smile | :)

If you're superfluous, you can try to fend for yourself, as always was the case in history.

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

Munchies_Matt5-Dec-17 3:57

5-Dec-17 3:57

Eddy Vluggen wrote:
food and drinks is not enough.

Isnt it?

It is for me. The four 'f's. Food, family, friends, and f***ing. Thats all a peasant needs (and me too. Smile | :)

)

Eddy Vluggen5-Dec-17 5:17

5-Dec-17 5:17

Munchies_Matt wrote:
It is for me.

Psychology disagrees; lock up a person with family and friends, give them food. Lets see how long you want to remain there in that Utopia Smile | :)

Munchies_Matt wrote:
Thats all a peasant needs

"Did the Lord say that machines ought to take the place of the living; then what is the substitute for bread and beans? Do engines get rewarded, for their steam?"

Yes, the owner of the steam-engine will have the engine pay taxes, so you can laze about and do nothing. And we'll all live happily ever after Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

Munchies_Matt5-Dec-17 5:21

5-Dec-17 5:21

Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Yes, the owner of the steam-engine will have the engine pay taxes, so you can laze about and do nothing. And we'll all live happily ever after

Precisely.

Eddy Vluggen5-Dec-17 5:27

5-Dec-17 5:27

Looks like an awfull lot of people are going to be awfully dissappointed Laugh | :laugh:

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

Munchies_Matt5-Dec-17 5:28

5-Dec-17 5:28

Look at the change since the 18th century.

Mechanisation = wealth for all.

Why wont that trend continue?

Eddy Vluggen5-Dec-17 5:43

5-Dec-17 5:43

Munchies_Matt wrote:
Why wont that trend continue?

I'm saying that the trend will continue; with no new income-taxes on property. And this "wealth for all" might not be so very inclusive at that point in the future, just as it is not now. Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

Munchies_Matt5-Dec-17 5:45

5-Dec-17 5:45

Compared to the 17th century it is inclusive now.

Eddy Vluggen5-Dec-17 5:53

5-Dec-17 5:53

Only for a small part of the world; other parts still know slavery, so we can remain "inclusive" in our small part.

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

Munchies_Matt5-Dec-17 21:44

5-Dec-17 21:44

We arent talking about slavery, we are talking about technology and its impact on wealth and lifestyle.

It is inclusive. Even those in the poorest parts of the world still benefit from technology, and it makes their lives easier. From a diesel pump in rural india, to a fridge in vietnam.

Do try to stay on topic Eddy, it makes debating so difficult when you dont.

Eddy Vluggen6-Dec-17 0:52

6-Dec-17 0:52

Munchies_Matt wrote:
Do try to stay on topic Eddy, it makes debating so difficult when you dont.

So we're not talking about slavery? Damn, misleading title you have there $Shucks | :-\$

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

BillWoodruff4-Dec-17 1:20

BillWoodruff

4-Dec-17 1:20

Munchies_Matt wrote:
So we all effectively live like a plantation owner of the past, off the backs of the labour of slaves, just metal in this case, and free of the moral implications.

The past ?

«While I complain of being able to see only a shadow of the past, I may be insensitive to reality as it is now, since I'm not at a stage of development where I'm capable of seeing it.» Claude Levi-Strauss (Tristes Tropiques, 1955)

kalberts5-Dec-17 0:34

kalberts

5-Dec-17 0:34

The golden suits in the first "The Yes Men" movie are still worth a good laugh ... with a bitter aftertaste.

ZurdoDev4-Dec-17 1:27

ZurdoDev

4-Dec-17 1:27

Munchies_Matt wrote:
doctors

A lot of what doctors do can be replaced by robots now.

Munchies_Matt wrote:
lawyers

Unfortunately, they will always be around because our laws are too convoluted.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.

There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

Munchies_Matt4-Dec-17 1:56

4-Dec-17 1:56

There is an online doctor in the UK now. ie, a program that goes through symptoms and prescribes drugs.

Nathan Minier4-Dec-17 1:28

4-Dec-17 1:28

Okay...

I mean, if the premise of using a machine to perform a job has exactly the same moral equivalency as refusing people liberty and dignity while profiting off their labors, I think you need to re-evaluate the lens that you're viewing this through.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli

Munchies_Matt4-Dec-17 1:57

4-Dec-17 1:57

Nathan Minier wrote:
has exactly the same moral equivalency

I did say 'without the moral implications' of slavery. So no, I am not.

Nathan Minier4-Dec-17 2:12

4-Dec-17 2:12

Yeah, you did say that, but what basically defined a plantation owner (as opposed to a farmer) was exactly those moral implications.

I'm wrestling with any way to make that equivalency, to be honest. I think a better metaphor might be in order.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli

Munchies_Matt4-Dec-17 2:15

4-Dec-17 2:15

If the use of a term defines the morality of a practice and not the practice itself then you are on trouble. No wonder you are wrestling!

Nathan Minier4-Dec-17 2:30

4-Dec-17 2:30

The term does not exist in a vacuum, especially when the literal definition is tied explicitly to a practice. Someone is not dubbed a "Murderer" because they made coffee this morning; it's because they murdered someone.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli

Munchies_Matt4-Dec-17 3:49

4-Dec-17 3:49

But a robot is no more related to plantation ownership than coffee is to murder.

Nathan Minier4-Dec-17 4:40

4-Dec-17 4:40

And there we shall agree to disagree.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli

Munchies_Matt4-Dec-17 5:33

4-Dec-17 5:33

WTF are you on?

HOw is a robot actually like slavery? Do you actually think machines have rights, have feelings?

Nathan Minier4-Dec-17 9:30