Global wildlife populations have plunged almost 70% since 1970, says WWF

[Crick]

No.

Then what would you change?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then what would you change?

Move towards living in harmony with our planet.

Reduce the world population by not promoting child bearing. China managed it, it took them a long time to realize that it worked, and then they didn't like the outcome, but really with the up and coming robot revolution, we won't need loads of people being terminally unemployed.

 

[Crick]

Move towards living in harmony with our planet.

Reduce the world population by not promoting child bearing. China managed it, it took them a long time to realize that it worked, and then they didn't like the outcome, but really with the up and coming robot revolution, we won't need loads of people being terminally unemployed.

I agree that world population growth should be stopped but I'm not sure I would take China's methodology as the only effective strategy. I don't see a robot revolution affecting human population trends. No one is going to waste humanoid robots as assembly line workers and assembly line automation is already a mature technological domain. It has long been an argument that automation (including robotics) would take jobs away from people - and this has been true to an extent - but it has shown no signs of making human manual labor obsolete. We have simply found other things for them to do. Phone banks. Data entry clerks. Wind turbine assembly techs. CG movie animators... ; - )

 

[jc456]

Global wildlife populations have plunged almost 70% since 1970, says WWF

The world's wildlife populations have declined by more than two-thirds since 1970 as forests have been cleared and oceans polluted, according to an assessment released on Thursday.

Local : 2022-10-13(Thursday) 04 : 10 : 15
Remote : 2022-10-13(Thursday) 04 : 10 : 15
Found via nicer.app web apps framework

seems we're not just in an economic crisis.

Misinformation

 

[frigidweirdo]

I agree that world population growth should be stopped but I'm not sure I would take China's methodology as the only effective strategy. I don't see a robot revolution affecting human population trends. No one is going to waste humanoid robots as assembly line workers and assembly line automation is already a mature technological domain. It has long been an argument that automation (including robotics) would take jobs away from people - and this has been true to an extent - but it has shown no signs of making human manual labor obsolete. We have simply found other things for them to do. Phone banks. Data entry clerks. Wind turbine assembly techs. CG movie animators... ; - )

The thing is, at some point robots and robotics is going to be able to do a lot of jobs cheaper than people. You don't have to pay insurance, you don't have to pay a wage.

Yes, in the past we've always found automation freed up people to do other things. But there will be a point when there isn't anything for these people to do.

We're going to have automated transportation, it already exists and operational with subways.

Automated checkouts are already a thing. They're chipping away at low level jobs.

So educated people might be okay, translation tools are not good enough to replace translators and interpreters, who might be the first to lose their jobs within the higher educated portion of the employment sector.

It's going to be those people who are least adaptable, least able to do jobs. People aren't going to want to pay these people minimum wage, so what? They'll just become perpetually unemployed.

 

[elektra]

If the last shark in the world's oceans is closing his jaws on your legs you're probably thinking "Too many goddamned sharks!!!"

No, we are thinking, "poor crick"

 

[Crick]

The thing is, at some point robots and robotics is going to be able to do a lot of jobs cheaper than people. You don't have to pay insurance, you don't have to pay a wage.

Yes, in the past we've always found automation freed up people to do other things. But there will be a point when there isn't anything for these people to do.

We're going to have automated transportation, it already exists and operational with subways.

Automated checkouts are already a thing. They're chipping away at low level jobs.

So educated people might be okay, translation tools are not good enough to replace translators and interpreters, who might be the first to lose their jobs within the higher educated portion of the employment sector.

It's going to be those people who are least adaptable, least able to do jobs. People aren't going to want to pay these people minimum wage, so what? They'll just become perpetually unemployed.

What do you have here that hasn't been a point of contention in discussions about automation and labor for the last 50 years?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What do you have here that hasn't been a point of contention in discussions about automation and labor for the last 50 years?

That the future will be different. That we won't be creating new jobs, we'll be creating unemployed people with universal basic income with nothing to do all day.

 

[Crick]

That the future will be different. That we won't be creating new jobs, we'll be creating unemployed people with universal basic income with nothing to do all day.

Why? What differs now from the conditions we've experienced over the last 50 years?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why? What differs now from the conditions we've experienced over the last 50 years?

Technology differs.

You have to realize that with new machines it freed up people to do other things. Then we create machines to take over those jobs.

For certain people, there's only so far that this can go. They went from farming, to menial factory jobs to menial shop jobs, but we keep replacing those jobs with robots. At some point we're going to reach the time when we simply don't need people who offer almost nothing other than a weak brain and arms and legs.

 

[Crick]

Technology differs.

You have to realize that with new machines it freed up people to do other things. Then we create machines to take over those jobs.

For certain people, there's only so far that this can go. They went from farming, to menial factory jobs to menial shop jobs, but we keep replacing those jobs with robots. At some point we're going to reach the time when we simply don't need people who offer almost nothing other than a weak brain and arms and legs.

New technology creates new industries. China managed to employ a billion people. Are they smarter than us?

 

[frigidweirdo]

New technology creates new industries. China managed to employ a billion people. Are they smarter than us?

Yes, it has done. But at some point it's going to stop. It can't go on infinitely.
What new industries will be created? What do people need from others?

Especially when those others will come at a high price, compared to those robots.

 

[Crick]

Yes, it has done. But at some point it's going to stop. It can't go on infinitely.
What new industries will be created? What do people need from others?

Especially when those others will come at a high price, compared to those robots.

Why is it going to stop? Until computers built and programmed by other computers invent new technologies and then start new businesses to manufacture it manned entirely by robots built by other robots and sell them online delivered and installed and repaired by other robots built by other robots, we will have jobs. There will be varying levels of employment. There always are. But there will be no catastrophe of unemployment. Keep in mind that even if every job on Earth was performed by machines that required no humans in any way, someone has to pay for it. If it doesn't get paid for, it doesn't happen. At least till SkyNet goes up... ; - )

 

[EMH]

To be fair ...

A) There is no actual method to independently confirm that claim

B) They're entire existence (and all of their donations) depend on people believing this is true.


The is the agnostic equivalent of "Send all your money to Jesus because he is displeased with you".

There is a real case.

Too many humans are sucking too much fresh water from finite sources. The result is fires. Fires everywhere.

If Fox News actually cared about truth and science, it might actually answer a few questions...

But fox pushes algore's fraud and censors truth refuting it, because the climate fraud and fox are really on the same team.....

 

[Crick]

I'm pretty sure that Robert Picardo would be REALLY embarrassed if he knew about you.

Is there any point in my asking if you have a source for these claims? There is a worrying decrease in available drinking water from human abuse of natural resources (read pollution, faulty priorities, etc) but recall that we piss and sweat just as much fluid as we consume. We are not personally - metabolically - in any way that would decrease the amount available for fire fighting.

Additionally, but with even less relevance to the thread topic, Fox News is not a fan of Al Gore but has the seemingly minimal intellect required to know that arguing against AGW is a fool's errand.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why is it going to stop? Until computers built and programmed by other computers invent new technologies and then start new businesses to manufacture it manned entirely by robots built by other robots and sell them online delivered and installed and repaired by other robots built by other robots, we will have jobs. There will be varying levels of employment. There always are. But there will be no catastrophe of unemployment. Keep in mind that even if every job on Earth was performed by machines that required no humans in any way, someone has to pay for it. If it doesn't get paid for, it doesn't happen. At least till SkyNet goes up... ; - )

Yes, we will still have jobs. But how soon until robots repair other robots?
But it's not higher level jobs I'm talking about, it's low level jobs, jobs for people who are minimum wage, no aspirations, no real ability.

Where does money come from? It comes from productivity. The more food a country produces and the less people take part in that production, the richer a country can become. If robots can produce this stuff, then we can have a universal basic income where loads of people will have the choice of doing whatever they want and getting a home, healthcare and basic food for no productivity.
In the USSR and other Warsaw Pact countries they had something similar and people were uber-unproductive.


The problem comes that we already have recessions periodically where we see we don't actually need a lot of these people. So, we're half way there anyway

 

[Crick]

Yes, we will still have jobs. But how soon until robots repair other robots?
But it's not higher level jobs I'm talking about, it's low level jobs, jobs for people who are minimum wage, no aspirations, no real ability.

Where does money come from? It comes from productivity. The more food a country produces and the less people take part in that production, the richer a country can become. If robots can produce this stuff, then we can have a universal basic income where loads of people will have the choice of doing whatever they want and getting a home, healthcare and basic food for no productivity.
In the USSR and other Warsaw Pact countries they had something similar and people were uber-unproductive.


The problem comes that we already have recessions periodically where we see we don't actually need a lot of these people. So, we're half way there anyway

Excellent. You can always count on Star Trek to accurately predict the future.