Originally posted by avalanchethecatWhy assume that you can spend your extra fifty years in retirement? Why assume that you would even want to?
Just what we needed, now everybody can have a fifty year long retirement. Not sure what sort of a pension we'll be getting though...
Of course with the coming robotic revolution we may all be in for early retirement anyway in which case we need to rethink the economic system anyway.
And don't rush out and start taking Metformin as there are significant possible side effects.
http://www.drugs.com/metformin.html
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
I am always amused that whenever the subject of life extension comes up people
immediately start talking about 'living forever'... As if the ability to live longer than
~80 years suddenly implies living for an infinity of time. With nothing in between
worth mentioning.
I don't want to live for an infinite amount of time, or rather I cannot imagine wanting to
continue existing for an infinity of time.
I would very much like to live for [at least] several thousand years.
I cannot imagine myself getting bored of existence in that time.
As twhitehead says, barring an apocalypse of some kind, advances in robotics and
AI will lead [in the not particularly distant future] to almost everything we need to
survive as a civilisation being automated with only limited oversight required by
any sentient agents. Such oversight being more like playing a game [like Civilisation]
than what we currently think of as work.
And thus such current concepts as 'retirement' and indeed 'employment' are going to
be a thing of the past anyway.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis post reminds me of an animation movie of a while back, "WALL-E".
Why assume that you can spend your extra fifty years in retirement? Why assume that you would even want to?
Of course with the coming robotic revolution we may all be in for early retirement anyway in which case we need to rethink the economic system anyway.
And don't rush out and start taking Metformin as there are significant possible side effects.
http://www.drugs.com/metformin.html
Pixar's and Disney's animated science-fiction love story was set in the year 2805. The almost dialogue-free tale told about the title character, the last lone garbage-compacting robot on Earth named WALL·E (short for Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-class) (voice of Ben Burtt).
For seven centuries, the industrious robot had been cleaning up Earth's harmful trash (with the aid of his cockroach friend) after inhabitants were evacuated to live on the giant orbiting spaceship AXIOM until Earth was habitable again. The ecological robot (similar to the robot in Short Circuit (1986) and to Spielberg's E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)) was composed of a pair of binoculars (for eyes), with a turtle-like body and tank treads for locomotion.
In the film, WALL·E fell in love with EVE (short for Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator) (voice of Elissa Knight), a sleek, white-shelled probe droid-robot that was sent to check on the progress of the clean-up and to locate plant life.
Another robot on the spaceship, among many, was named M-O, concerned about wiping up the "foreign contaminant" tread tracks left by WALL-E, as well as the one-eyed, tyrannical AUTO-pilot, HAL-like robot (voice of MacinTalk)- finally shut off by the corpulent Captain (voice of Jeff Garlin).
Loved it.
And is that what will become of the human race in the future?
Originally posted by pawnpawI have no idea. What I do know is that many jobs are being replaced by computers and robots and the trend will continue. The result is fewer jobs to go around, lower salaries in general and greater profits of business owners. This leads to the current increasing wealth gap between the super rich and everybody else. Sooner or later the situation will come to a point where the majority are no-longer willing to put up with it and things will have to change. We could either get more socialist and have say a universal basic wage, or we could have a violent revolution or something else may happen. It remains the case that in the near future the vast majority of work will be carried out by computers and robots and the current economic system found in most of the largest countries will simply not work any more.
And is that what will become of the human race in the future?
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatYou are partially correct. It must be noted that many of the 'fears' in the past were fully justified and many people did loose their jobs to robots. This often did not destroy society because it tended to be gradual and affect one sector at a time. One could argue though that a number of revolutions in the past can be attributed to this (including communism). However, the overall effect is already, at least in part, a reality ie incomes are stagnating and the wealth gap is growing. There are also good reasons to think that it will only get worse.
Hasn't this "fear" been around for many decades already without it ever becoming a reality?
The biggest unknown is the price of energy. If we ever find a source of energy that is significantly cheaper than what we have now, it would accelerate the effect dramatically.
To some extent there is a feedback loop ie as robots take jobs putting people out of work, wages fall and thus people become more economical to keep using. So for example, in China today wages are rising and so manufacturing will start to replace cheap labour with robotics. If they do it too fast wages will fall again making labour more economical but also making for a very unhappy workforce. If the change is too sudden however you can expect unrest.
Notice how even the US saw some unrest after the 2008 crash which was essentially a readjustment to the new reality of fewer jobs and lower wages. The reason for the slow recovery is that US companies were force to cut costs and did so by getting rid of unnecessary workers, replacing workers with machines or outsourcing the labour to other countries. There is no good reason for them to reverse those moves so the jobs will not be coming back.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut older workers have experience that younger ones don't and that has to mean something for the work force. If a drug like that came out and didn't cost a million dollars a pill, laws would be enacted such as the age of retirement would now be say, 90, instead of 60 or 70.
You are partially correct. It must be noted that many of the 'fears' in the past were fully justified and many people did loose their jobs to robots. This often did not destroy society because it tended to be gradual and affect one sector at a time. One could argue though that a number of revolutions in the past can be attributed to this (including commun ...[text shortened]... es. There is no good reason for them to reverse those moves so the jobs will not be coming back.
People who live long have an obligation if they are healthy, NOT to just suck on the government teat but to get jobs, perhaps teaching, whatever. Just having an anti-aging drug and living out the next 50 years in Venice Beach watching the young girls would be non-productive for society. If I had such a drug, I would do SOMETHING, start a company, re-form my old band 'Southwind', be a wall mart greeter, teach guitar at a local community college, learn a language, start writing, SOMETHING.
And I am FROM Venice Beach🙂
Originally posted by sonhouseI agree, and I implied as much in my first post. That doesn't however solve the problem I have been talking about since where there simply won't be any worthwhile jobs for them to do (or for anyone else for that matter).
But older workers have experience that younger ones don't and that has to mean something for the work force. If a drug like that came out and didn't cost a million dollars a pill, laws would be enacted such as the age of retirement would now be say, 90, instead of 60 or 70.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd of course that issue goes way beyond who lives how old, much deeper societal problems there. Whatever the drug costs, in poor countries, it will probably be beyond the reach of most people anyway, besides the logistics problem even if it were free.
I agree, and I implied as much in my first post. That doesn't however solve the problem I have been talking about since where there simply won't be any worthwhile jobs for them to do (or for anyone else for that matter).
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseNo, it would not be impossible in poor countries. Distribution of AIDS drugs has been quite successful once the prices became reasonable. A drug that can add 50 years to your life should be seen as a human right and should be distributed to all. Withholding it should be seen as equivalent to withholding AIDS drugs or malaria drugs. After all, ageing is a deadly hereditary disease that has reached epidemic proportions.
And of course that issue goes way beyond who lives how old, much deeper societal problems there. Whatever the drug costs, in poor countries, it will probably be beyond the reach of most people anyway, besides the logistics problem even if it were free.
However we need to wait for the results of those human trials before we know if this particular drug is effective. It has significant side effects which may outweigh the benefits, or may do so for some groups of people.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, ok, I get that you would [and should] want to 'do something'...
But older workers have experience that younger ones don't and that has to mean something for the work force. If a drug like that came out and didn't cost a million dollars a pill, laws would be enacted such as the age of retirement would now be say, 90, instead of 60 or 70.
People who live long have an obligation if they are healthy, NOT to just suck on ...[text shortened]... l community college, learn a language, start writing, SOMETHING.
And I am FROM Venice Beach🙂
But if that something is 'work in the economy' and we have an economy with
space for fewer and fewer workers, then all you working is doing is preventing
younger people trying to join the workforce from getting a job. [something we
already see happening].
In addition to twhitehead's great video, I wanted to add this one
Humans Need Not Apply
Which I have posted before, but I'm sure many people here haven't watched it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe problem is, that a robot running on electricity is only costing you pennies per hour
You are partially correct. It must be noted that many of the 'fears' in the past were fully justified and many people did loose their jobs to robots. This often did not destroy society because it tended to be gradual and affect one sector at a time. One could argue though that a number of revolutions in the past can be attributed to this (including commun ...[text shortened]... es. There is no good reason for them to reverse those moves so the jobs will not be coming back.
rather than pounds per hour for a human being.
Energy would have to increase in price by a couple of orders of magnitude for the costs
to be comparable. And I don't think that's going to happen. [at least not in any kind of long
term way. Their might be a price shock or two where such things occur.]
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeIn my case, even at age 74, I have skills not many people have, young or old. I have a feel for troubleshooting electronic and mechanical problems. So I am working full time still and solve problems daily that not many other people can solve. The proof in that statement is the time my present company took to find someone of my skill level. They interviews dozens of people and they chose me in spite of my age, now having been at my company for 5 years.
Well, ok, I get that you would [and should] want to 'do something'...
But if that something is 'work in the economy' and we have an economy with
space for fewer and fewer workers, then all you working is doing is preventing
younger people trying to join the workforce from getting a job. [something we
already see happening].
In addition to twh ...[text shortened]... h?v=7Pq-S557XQU
Which I have posted before, but I'm sure many people here haven't watched it.
Of course being in the US certainly helps but I am for sure not taking the place of a young person simply because not one person in a thousand can do what I do. This is because of my life long employment in diverse fields such as cryo temp equipment, ion implanters, electron microscopes, mechanical pumps, fluid transport, electronics of several generations, work at Goddard Space Flight Center on Apollo tracking and timing, underwater hydrophones, digital data links, RF power systems, microwave communications. I have done all of that and more.
That is not mere boasting, I have a proven track record in my field.
But for say, construction, or assembly jobs, certainly young people can do just as good a job as an elderly person and have more stamina.
You're all mental, in a very admirable way, and of course i respect that. Now me, I want to retire as soon as possible and live in indolence and luxury for as long as possible. I wish to wallow in my greed and idleness while fattening on the government's saggy breasts. Tomorrow's World promised me years ago that the biggest problem we'd have in the future would be finding things to do with all the leisure time that computers and robots would free us up to enjoy. WHERE'S MY 4 DAY WEEKENDS YOU LYING SWINES?