4 ms·

> A hand-made item This is just a marketing gimmick (in case of products that we have technology to produce also by machines) in the times we live in to make y

> A hand-made item This is just a marketing gimmick (in case of products that we have technology to produce also by machines) in the times we live in to make you pay more for a product. > Why just physical goods? Because you can automate production of almost all physical goods. A lot of services also, but to certain degree, simple tasks only, state space is just too big in case of more complex services for today technology. > depends what you mean - at what technology level? Can modelling be automated? maybe. Can barista-ing be automated? Maybe. Can programming? To some degree.. That's why I was not writing about services but physical goods because in case of services it hugely depends, some can't be automated with our current understanding of the world around us. > luckily, most needs are finite. This is false. 'The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.' - Gandhi You need to take humans into the equation. Make everything for free because it's automated and you will see 7 billion orders for Ferrari, Lamborghini etc. You have enough factories to make those in 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? Take physics into equation and amount of factories/transportation for all the resources and parts to make those products, just those products, what about other things? This will not scale on earth. > So there is something you'd pay people to obtain - land rights. Most people on earth do not own any land at all. > A short transfer of all land to the elites later, and you have enough space for anything. Read history, this would end like it always do, elites that would try that would be eliminated and replaced with new elites from proletariat. Remember that elites are protected by police and law only because other people allow that, not because this is something written in stone. Earth was already ruled by kings, they owned most of the lands, look how it ended.

Chris2048 9y ago
> This is just a marketing gimmick as are entire industries. Human life is ultimately meaningless, so all human pursuits are too. Restricting this argument to utilitarian good begs the question - to what aim? Aesthetic good exist at the top of any manufacturing chain. > Because you can automate production of almost all physical goods But, wasn't the argument a "what if" scenario in which no-one could get jobs? So physical goods are all automated - just means jobs exist in other areas now. > - Gandhi I don't rate the guy, but it sounds like he's talking about the worlds current resources, not future resources. > You have enough factories to make those in 10 years? everything is automated, remember? So the factories are made by factory-factories... > Read history I don't buy this kind of prediction based on historical analysis. > elites are protected by police police have always been human - will this be true in the future? > Earth was already ruled by kings, they owned most of the lands, look how it ended. How?
- lossolo 9y ago
  > ... Human life is ultimately meaningless, so all human pursuits are too. ... I don't know what you want me to reply to that? You want to talk about philosophy ? Meaning of life? How meaningless is your life or mine in context of the universe? Lets just focus on the merit of this discussion because this goes beyond what we discuss here. > I don't rate the guy, but it sounds like he's talking about the worlds current resources, not future resources. Amount of ignorance in this comment is staggering. I think you don't understand at all what he meant. What he said doesn't have anything to do with any point in time. He is describing human nature. > But, wasn't the argument a "what if" scenario in which no-one could get jobs? So physical goods are all automated - just means jobs exist in other areas now. Where I wrote "no-one"? I didn't. Don't make arguments that fits your thesis based on things I didn't wrote. > everything is automated, remember? So the factories are made by factory-factories... Do you understand that there are laws of physics that makes certain processes take time? That producing, transporting, manufacturing takes time? That makes some resources harder to get than other? That make scalability problems on our planet and automating factories will not change that? That there are limited amounts of natural resources? > How? How many kings with real power you see now? How many monarchies compared to hundreds-thousands years ago? If you didn't pay attention at history lessons you should read some history books, it will help you to understand how world works and why it works the way it is. > I don't buy this kind of prediction based on historical analysis. This only proves your ignorance.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > You want to talk about philosophy ? Meaning of life? No, since I just stated there is none. I disagree this goes beyond the topic - If you want to disregard things as "meaningless", anything can ultimately be disregarded. Even basics (food shelter etc) serve no purpose that to preserve life - and what is the meaning in that? All human pursuit is meaningless, as such, all things are for their own sake. So, what are your assumptions about what does, and does not have worth? > Amount of ignorance in this comment is staggering ok. I don't care what he meant, because the fact he said it is meaningless. Why not argue for yourself than appealing to authority? If I "don't get it", it's because you decided to communicate with a vague quote. > Where I wrote "no-one"? I didn't "no one to buy this things from you when everyone will automate everything, then most people would have no job" -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14769844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14769844 Which is what I originally responded to - that no one will have jobs/money. Don't respond to threads if you lack the context. > scalability problems on our planet and technology improves, so what limits still apply in the future? You don't know. > How many kings with real power you see now I still see power, so who cares what they are called? Modern elites are far more powerful. > you should read some history books since I said I didn't care for historical analysis, I don't agree. > This only proves your ignorance. Nothing is proven but your arrogance. You claim I'm ignorant, then provide nothing more. Read the last paragraph of section 7 here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#ScieKnowHistPred https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#ScieKnowHistPred Historicism has is generally not seen as valuable or valid anymore; if you disagree the burden is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

Chris2048 9y ago

> This is just a marketing gimmick as are entire industries. Human life is ultimately meaningless, so all human pursuits are too. Restricting this argument to utilitarian good begs the question - to what aim? Aesthetic good exist at the top of any manufacturing chain. > Because you can automate production of almost all physical goods But, wasn't the argument a "what if" scenario in which no-one could get jobs? So physical goods are all automated - just means jobs exist in other areas now. > - Gandhi I don't rate the guy, but it sounds like he's talking about the worlds current resources, not future resources. > You have enough factories to make those in 10 years? everything is automated, remember? So the factories are made by factory-factories... > Read history I don't buy this kind of prediction based on historical analysis. > elites are protected by police police have always been human - will this be true in the future? > Earth was already ruled by kings, they owned most of the lands, look how it ended. How?

lossolo 9y ago
> ... Human life is ultimately meaningless, so all human pursuits are too. ... I don't know what you want me to reply to that? You want to talk about philosophy ? Meaning of life? How meaningless is your life or mine in context of the universe? Lets just focus on the merit of this discussion because this goes beyond what we discuss here. > I don't rate the guy, but it sounds like he's talking about the worlds current resources, not future resources. Amount of ignorance in this comment is staggering. I think you don't understand at all what he meant. What he said doesn't have anything to do with any point in time. He is describing human nature. > But, wasn't the argument a "what if" scenario in which no-one could get jobs? So physical goods are all automated - just means jobs exist in other areas now. Where I wrote "no-one"? I didn't. Don't make arguments that fits your thesis based on things I didn't wrote. > everything is automated, remember? So the factories are made by factory-factories... Do you understand that there are laws of physics that makes certain processes take time? That producing, transporting, manufacturing takes time? That makes some resources harder to get than other? That make scalability problems on our planet and automating factories will not change that? That there are limited amounts of natural resources? > How? How many kings with real power you see now? How many monarchies compared to hundreds-thousands years ago? If you didn't pay attention at history lessons you should read some history books, it will help you to understand how world works and why it works the way it is. > I don't buy this kind of prediction based on historical analysis. This only proves your ignorance.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > You want to talk about philosophy ? Meaning of life? No, since I just stated there is none. I disagree this goes beyond the topic - If you want to disregard things as "meaningless", anything can ultimately be disregarded. Even basics (food shelter etc) serve no purpose that to preserve life - and what is the meaning in that? All human pursuit is meaningless, as such, all things are for their own sake. So, what are your assumptions about what does, and does not have worth? > Amount of ignorance in this comment is staggering ok. I don't care what he meant, because the fact he said it is meaningless. Why not argue for yourself than appealing to authority? If I "don't get it", it's because you decided to communicate with a vague quote. > Where I wrote "no-one"? I didn't "no one to buy this things from you when everyone will automate everything, then most people would have no job" -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14769844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14769844 Which is what I originally responded to - that no one will have jobs/money. Don't respond to threads if you lack the context. > scalability problems on our planet and technology improves, so what limits still apply in the future? You don't know. > How many kings with real power you see now I still see power, so who cares what they are called? Modern elites are far more powerful. > you should read some history books since I said I didn't care for historical analysis, I don't agree. > This only proves your ignorance. Nothing is proven but your arrogance. You claim I'm ignorant, then provide nothing more. Read the last paragraph of section 7 here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#ScieKnowHistPred https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#ScieKnowHistPred Historicism has is generally not seen as valuable or valid anymore; if you disagree the burden is on you to demonstrate otherwise.