3 ms·

I think the biggest potential threat here is the rising skill requirements. AI / robots are eliminating the least skilled jobs, and creating highly skilled jobs

by JDDunn9 10y ago

I think the biggest potential threat here is the rising skill requirements. AI / robots are eliminating the least skilled jobs, and creating highly skilled jobs. Out of work truck drivers aren't going to get jobs working at Google's self-driving car team. No new jobs will be created for humans that a robot could do, just like no one thinks about using a horse to power a machine. At some point, the bottom 10-20% in intelligence and education could be unemployable through no fault of their own.

wolfgke 10y ago
> At some point, the bottom 10-20% in intelligence and education could be unemployable through no fault of their own. If their parents are not people of high intelligence, these people should rather complain to their parents that they gave them birth: Knowing that in the future a lot less people of bottom but much more of high intelligence are necessary, the parents willingly produced children of genetic material that is probably badly suited for the future. Thus the "bad guy" is not the political system, but people of low intelligence producing children of low intelligence (in statistical average).
- jonathansizz 10y ago
  So you're advocating forced sterilization of undesirable segments of society?
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    I am against forced sterilization (this would be a violation of the basic right of physical integrity). This does not contradict that it would perhaps not a bad idea to give a financial incentive for sterilization (though I have to think more about the best way of implementing this). Nevertheless I see the much larger problem in the fact that many pairs choose to bring children to the world because this is the action that is encouraged in society (most people are simply conformists). If we could make it the default that it is frowned upon if a couple, for which it will be rather likely "from available data" that the children will be in a bad position in future society, nevertheless decides to have some, I think a large part of the problem would be solved. I also would encourage children from the bottom quantiles of intelligence or earnings to say clear words to their parents that they are part of their problem.
    - jonathansizz 10y ago
      So you know that most people have children merely to conform to societal expectations? It couldn't be any other reason, such as an innate drive? But it's comforting to know that you wouldn't force sterilization upon them, but instead merely encourage their children to reproach them for having brought them into the world. Maybe these children could also volunteer for euthanization to reduce the burden on society imposed by such worthless individuals? This would also have the benefit of making the idiotic, conformist parents remorseful for having indulged in their mindless rutting.

by JDDunn9 10y ago

wolfgke 10y ago

> At some point, the bottom 10-20% in intelligence and education could be unemployable through no fault of their own. If their parents are not people of high intelligence, these people should rather complain to their parents that they gave them birth: Knowing that in the future a lot less people of bottom but much more of high intelligence are necessary, the parents willingly produced children of genetic material that is probably badly suited for the future. Thus the "bad guy" is not the political system, but people of low intelligence producing children of low intelligence (in statistical average).

jonathansizz 10y ago
So you're advocating forced sterilization of undesirable segments of society?
- wolfgke 10y ago
  I am against forced sterilization (this would be a violation of the basic right of physical integrity). This does not contradict that it would perhaps not a bad idea to give a financial incentive for sterilization (though I have to think more about the best way of implementing this). Nevertheless I see the much larger problem in the fact that many pairs choose to bring children to the world because this is the action that is encouraged in society (most people are simply conformists). If we could make it the default that it is frowned upon if a couple, for which it will be rather likely "from available data" that the children will be in a bad position in future society, nevertheless decides to have some, I think a large part of the problem would be solved. I also would encourage children from the bottom quantiles of intelligence or earnings to say clear words to their parents that they are part of their problem.
  - jonathansizz 10y ago
    So you know that most people have children merely to conform to societal expectations? It couldn't be any other reason, such as an innate drive? But it's comforting to know that you wouldn't force sterilization upon them, but instead merely encourage their children to reproach them for having brought them into the world. Maybe these children could also volunteer for euthanization to reduce the burden on society imposed by such worthless individuals? This would also have the benefit of making the idiotic, conformist parents remorseful for having indulged in their mindless rutting.