4 ms·

Yes.If we could scale the number of robots that work autonomously to pickup/kill weeds then the amount of herbicide could be reduced significantly.

by a012 2y ago

ysofunny 2y ago
the real economic issue is which is cheaper, people or robots? keep in mind that robots are made by people, which strongly suggests using people directly is cheaper the real social issue is you must meddle with the self-development of said people in order to keep it cheap, simply put you must make sure those people stay poor. in modernity this happens across countries (i.e. my theory that countries as a whole are kept poor). I call that practice neocolonialism
- BenjiWiebe 2y ago
  Why do you suppose that robots being made by people means that using people directly is cheaper? By that logic, no factories or anything would be automated, as it would be cheaper to use the people directly rather than having people build the automation. Why do farmers even use tractors? Someone had to build that tractor. Wouldn't it be cheaper to hire the people to plant the crop directly?
  - ysofunny 2y ago
    because a robot costs the cost of the robot plus the cost of the people making the robot whereas people only cost what people cost. the real reason we do have technology is because keeping people poor is terribly evil, and doing that only to have cheap things is somehow even worse. which is the real point I'm making by the way moreover, we're all missing another subtle point I omitted. herbicides are even cheaper than people, robots, or any combination of them. but as it turns out, killing the soil is also a pretty bad thing to do.
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      this site has really gone downhill
    - ajmurmann 2y ago
      > moreover, we're all missing another subtle point I omitted. herbicides are even cheaper than people, robots, or any combination of them. Is this because herbicides are not made by people?
      - ysofunny 2y ago
        it's because herbicides are easy to "cook" in very large batches
- gwbas1c 2y ago
  > keep in mind that robots are made by people, which strongly suggests using people directly is cheaper It's much, much cheaper to pay someone to operate an excavator than to hire many people to dig the ditch by hand. This is how modern economies improve everyones' lives: labor-saving devices.
  - ysofunny 2y ago
    nevermind that whole tired thing about how forcing people to stay poor is evil
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  I have a modest proposal. Instead of using people to grow food we could instead just eat people. That would solve unemployment, world hunger, and overpopulation.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwway120385 2y ago
    Ah, a Jonathan Swift fan I see.
  - adolph 2y ago
    To get around legal issues one could just focus on fetuses instead of birthed persons. Pluses include: fetuses are a renewable resource; if harvested early enough, bone tissue is not crunchy; no need to clean out fecal material from the abdomen. This will probably be especially helpful in future space exploration.
  - hi_hi 2y ago
    You kid, but there's this drink, Soylent Green. They actually sell it!
    - cjbgkagh 2y ago
      In the UK there was a lasagna meat scandal when the beef was found to be mostly horses. I think it was from redirected medical controls. The general reaction was, well at least it's meat. I wonder if economic and food standards will declined so badly that by the time something like Soylent Green becomes a reality the general reaction will again be, at least it's meat and not those bugs they keep trying to feed us.
- fkyoureadthedoc 2y ago
  > keep in mind that robots are made by people, which strongly suggests using people directly is cheaper Possibly the biggest logical miss I've ever seen on this site. This would only be true if one person built one robot ever, and that robot was only as efficient as them. Now would something like this https://carbonrobotics.com https://carbonrobotics.com be cheaper than dumping chemicals on your field? I don't know. We could certainly do without the negative downstream effects of various pesticides and weed killers though.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > keep in mind that robots are made by people, which strongly suggests using people directly is cheaper And that is why my roof is held up by people I hire to hold it up. Bricks would complain less and would be more reliable, but they are more expensive than people because bricks are made by people. Except that is not how the cost of things works, is it?
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    > And that is why my roof is held up by people I hire to hold it up. Bricks would complain less and would be more reliable, but they are more expensive than people because bricks are made by people. I should have downvoted you for this: I laughed so hard it woke my wife from a nap in the next room.

Yes.If we could scale the number of robots that work autonomously to pickup/kill weeds then the amount of herbicide could be reduced significantly.

by a012 2y ago

Yes.If we could scale the number of robots that work autonomously to pickup/kill weeds then the amount of herbicide could be reduced significantly.

ysofunny 2y ago

the real economic issue is which is cheaper, people or robots? keep in mind that robots are made by people, which strongly suggests using people directly is cheaper the real social issue is you must meddle with the self-development of said people in order to keep it cheap, simply put you must make sure those people stay poor. in modernity this happens across countries (i.e. my theory that countries as a whole are kept poor). I call that practice neocolonialism

BenjiWiebe 2y ago
Why do you suppose that robots being made by people means that using people directly is cheaper? By that logic, no factories or anything would be automated, as it would be cheaper to use the people directly rather than having people build the automation. Why do farmers even use tractors? Someone had to build that tractor. Wouldn't it be cheaper to hire the people to plant the crop directly?
- ysofunny 2y ago
  because a robot costs the cost of the robot plus the cost of the people making the robot whereas people only cost what people cost. the real reason we do have technology is because keeping people poor is terribly evil, and doing that only to have cheap things is somehow even worse. which is the real point I'm making by the way moreover, we're all missing another subtle point I omitted. herbicides are even cheaper than people, robots, or any combination of them. but as it turns out, killing the soil is also a pretty bad thing to do.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    this site has really gone downhill
  - ajmurmann 2y ago
    > moreover, we're all missing another subtle point I omitted. herbicides are even cheaper than people, robots, or any combination of them. Is this because herbicides are not made by people?
    - ysofunny 2y ago
      it's because herbicides are easy to "cook" in very large batches
gwbas1c 2y ago
> keep in mind that robots are made by people, which strongly suggests using people directly is cheaper It's much, much cheaper to pay someone to operate an excavator than to hire many people to dig the ditch by hand. This is how modern economies improve everyones' lives: labor-saving devices.
- ysofunny 2y ago
  nevermind that whole tired thing about how forcing people to stay poor is evil
cjbgkagh 2y ago
I have a modest proposal. Instead of using people to grow food we could instead just eat people. That would solve unemployment, world hunger, and overpopulation.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- throwway120385 2y ago
  Ah, a Jonathan Swift fan I see.
- adolph 2y ago
  To get around legal issues one could just focus on fetuses instead of birthed persons. Pluses include: fetuses are a renewable resource; if harvested early enough, bone tissue is not crunchy; no need to clean out fecal material from the abdomen. This will probably be especially helpful in future space exploration.
- hi_hi 2y ago
  You kid, but there's this drink, Soylent Green. They actually sell it!
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    In the UK there was a lasagna meat scandal when the beef was found to be mostly horses. I think it was from redirected medical controls. The general reaction was, well at least it's meat. I wonder if economic and food standards will declined so badly that by the time something like Soylent Green becomes a reality the general reaction will again be, at least it's meat and not those bugs they keep trying to feed us.
fkyoureadthedoc 2y ago
> keep in mind that robots are made by people, which strongly suggests using people directly is cheaper Possibly the biggest logical miss I've ever seen on this site. This would only be true if one person built one robot ever, and that robot was only as efficient as them. Now would something like this https://carbonrobotics.com https://carbonrobotics.com be cheaper than dumping chemicals on your field? I don't know. We could certainly do without the negative downstream effects of various pesticides and weed killers though.
krisoft 2y ago
> keep in mind that robots are made by people, which strongly suggests using people directly is cheaper And that is why my roof is held up by people I hire to hold it up. Bricks would complain less and would be more reliable, but they are more expensive than people because bricks are made by people. Except that is not how the cost of things works, is it?
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > And that is why my roof is held up by people I hire to hold it up. Bricks would complain less and would be more reliable, but they are more expensive than people because bricks are made by people. I should have downvoted you for this: I laughed so hard it woke my wife from a nap in the next room.