CDZ What do we do with the people who are no longer needed......

[Unkotare]

So what is the answer?

IMO, begin campaigns to dramatically reduce birth rates.

Irrational and unnecessary.

 

[Unkotare]

In a recent episode of Anthony Bourdain's travel show, he was in China.
And it was interesting that one of his guest was one of China's top economist.
And his answer to Anthony's question - What is the greatest challenge facing America and China? - His answer surprised me..."what to do with the people who are no longer needed to contribute to the economy"...he went on to say that through technology, out sourcing, robotocs and mergers - it is a simple and increasing fact that the economy needs less people to produce and serve what the population needs and wants are. So what do we do with the increasing number of people who are not needed?

This is a fascinating topic.
Do we lower the retirement age, therefore providing more jobs to developing families?
Provide "payment" to one adult family member for staying home?
Screw them?

This isn't a future problem, in China it is a HUGE problem...and as sure as you are reading this. it will be a HUGE problem in America certainly in the next decade.
Less people are needed to service the economic wants/needs of the public. It is an indelible fact, that is getting worse.
So what is the answer?

It isn't an indelible fact, god I hate it when you death cultist twits do that. What you mean when you say "less people are needed to service the economic wants/needs of the public" is "I don't want to support people who can't support themselves so I think they should die."

Just fucking say it.

Some people seem proudly ignorant of both history and economics. The result is an endless supply of these Chicken Little threads.

 

[koshergrl]

I would like to know what the progressive douchebags are basing their false assertion that "it's undeniable that there are too many people" on.

Because what it comes down to is this..they can't afford the lifestyle they want, so there must be too many people. It's all about them not being able to successfully compete and achieve their dreams. They can't think of a way to fix poverty, so their brilliant solution is to kill off (or, I'm sorry, ship off to Mars) the poor people. War is unpleasant, and they're too brain dead to address it intelligently, so they maintain it's a population problem.

Their cities are too polluted (of course, generations of narcissistic, greedy, lazy progressives have controlled things there) so it makes sense that there are too many people and they should just disappear. Cuz if those other people were eliminated, why then the lazy, stupid people who couldn't otherwise succeed will suddenly rocket to the apex of society!

 

[Unkotare]

The irony of dopey threads like this is that the real challenge facing countries and cultures in the future will be declining populations.

 

[yiostheoy]

The irony of dopey threads like this is that the real challenge facing countries and cultures in the future will be declining populations.

You are correct.

However this is only true because of past excessive population.

When that past excessive population gets older, especially in the 80's and 90's, then more younger worker will be needed to be taxed to pay for the older's social support.

But this still assumes there will be work for everybody.

The Chinese philosopher was talking about LESS work for everybody, in which case there will be need more birth control, more population control, and more taxation on those who actually do work.

 

[yiostheoy]

That's an ultra long term solution and it takes 50 to 75 years to have an impact.

You need a short term and a mid term solution as well.

Not every problem has an effective near or mid term solution. Not every goal is worth pushing to fruition in the near or mid term.

If I can identify a solution approach that will almost certainly work for my grandchildren, I'm of a mind to implement that approach immediately, and after doing so, continue to seek nearer term solutions. I'm certainly not of a mind to do nothing whatsoever on behalf of my "grand" descendents merely because I can think of nothing that may or will work in the next ten years to the benefit me or my kids. I'm okay with the prospect of myself enduring hardship if it means that my kids or perhaps grandkids won't have to do so as goes the matter in question.

I want nothing more than for my kids to all go to Heaven, but I didn't baptize them and then kill them while they were infants to ensure they make it there. That's a very near term solution that, according to Christianity's principles would work to get their souls into Heaven, albeit at the expense of my own doing so. And, yes, slaughtering baptized infants would put a nearer term kibosh on problems resulting from (directly or indirectly) population growth, but I doubt most folks are of a mind to apply that approach.

Option 1:

There are certainly other near term solutions. One of them is to cease and desist with the search for life prolonging drugs and treatment modalities. We could return to letting folks with fatal ailments die as they would have some 100 years or more ago, using our medical knowledge to abate their pain as needed but not to prolong their lives.

The reality humanity doesn't like is that Mother Nature has very effective ways of keeping population sizes in check. Humanity has endeavored, with some success, to circumvent nature's way of culling the less strong and making the need to be as or more physiologically and mentally strong/adept as others less of a critical factor in perpetuating one's genes. Perhaps allowing nature's methods to do as they are meant to do is the best overall and long term solution to many of the ills that beset humanity. Of course, for many folks that's a "nasty pill" to swallow, but in the ultimate irony, it may be the right one to swallow for there's little question about whether the planet needs more humans. It does not.​

Option 2 -- Apply the principle of comparative advantage to robot implementations:

Another approach might be to build robots that can terraform or locate other planets so we have places to which Earth's excess humans can go. Maybe we should set computers/robots to finding ways to perform light-speed interstellar travel or wormhole travel. This idea accrues from my belief that Strong AI is a good thing, provided we direct Strong AIs to figure out/do things that we humans simply cannot do or that we cannot do in pragmatically short time frames.

This approach also plays to the idea that rather than implementing robots to do things that people can do effectively enough, we deploy them in a sequence whereby the last things they are used to do are the things people can do. One thing, however, that is critical for this approach is that though it can yield near term benefits, it is something that pretty much be implemented sooner rather than later. Why? Because we can't very well put the genie back in the bottle once she's out.

For example, now that automated telephone response systems answer the lines at every major corporation, it's no more than pipe-dream to think those companies will revert to having humans man the customer service lines. We may, however, be able to prevent the deployment of robots into roles where they are merely better, but not better to the extent they can achieve outcomes humans simply cannot achieve.

We don't need robots that can flip burgers; people can do that just fine, even if they are less efficient at doing it. We don't need Strong AIs that can drive taxis. People do that well enough too. In contrast, we have yet to find the answer to myriad questions:

• Is there life elsewhere in the universe?
• What is dark matter? Dark energy?
• What rules need to be revised so there are no exceptions to them?
• How did life begin?
• What makes us human?
• Why do we dream?
• What can we do with all the carbon?
• What's in the oceans besides the little bit we've discovered or know we put there?
• What is a better source of energy for us to use instead of fossil fuels?

Do you get the idea? Even though we may task robots to answering those and other hard questions like them, that doesn't mean we humans need to entirely stop trying to answer them ourselves. There's nothing suggesting that we can't work in tandem with the robots to finding the answers. Indeed, even thinking about the "taxi" example, it may be that we use humans to drive taxis in high density areas like NYC and robots in low density areas that have little call for abundant public/taxi service.​

There will probably be a really big war with Russia or China soon, and that will cut down populations nicely.

Not to worry.

 

[yiostheoy]

In a recent episode of Anthony Bourdain's travel show, he was in China.
And it was interesting that one of his guest was one of China's top economist.
And his answer to Anthony's question - What is the greatest challenge facing America and China? - His answer surprised me..."what to do with the people who are no longer needed to contribute to the economy"...he went on to say that through technology, out sourcing, robotocs and mergers - it is a simple and increasing fact that the economy needs less people to produce and serve what the population needs and wants are. So what do we do with the increasing number of people who are not needed?

This is a fascinating topic.
Do we lower the retirement age, therefore providing more jobs to developing families?
Provide "payment" to one adult family member for staying home?
Screw them?

This isn't a future problem, in China it is a HUGE problem...and as sure as you are reading this. it will be a HUGE problem in America certainly in the next decade.
Less people are needed to service the economic wants/needs of the public. It is an indelible fact, that is getting worse.
So what is the answer?

There are 5.8 million unpaid for jobs now. They aren't filled because people don't have the skills. It's not that we don't need people, it's that ignorant people are to lazy to learn. Look at Republicans living in the deep south.

Do these look like people with skills?

That young man in the photo needs to learn to keep his hands OFF the gun.

Hanging by the sling is fine.

But with his hands on the gun that is an assault.

 

[320 Years of History]

That's an ultra long term solution and it takes 50 to 75 years to have an impact.

You need a short term and a mid term solution as well.

Not every problem has an effective near or mid term solution. Not every goal is worth pushing to fruition in the near or mid term.

If I can identify a solution approach that will almost certainly work for my grandchildren, I'm of a mind to implement that approach immediately, and after doing so, continue to seek nearer term solutions. I'm certainly not of a mind to do nothing whatsoever on behalf of my "grand" descendents merely because I can think of nothing that may or will work in the next ten years to the benefit me or my kids. I'm okay with the prospect of myself enduring hardship if it means that my kids or perhaps grandkids won't have to do so as goes the matter in question.

I want nothing more than for my kids to all go to Heaven, but I didn't baptize them and then kill them while they were infants to ensure they make it there. That's a very near term solution that, according to Christianity's principles would work to get their souls into Heaven, albeit at the expense of my own doing so. And, yes, slaughtering baptized infants would put a nearer term kibosh on problems resulting from (directly or indirectly) population growth, but I doubt most folks are of a mind to apply that approach.

Option 1:

There are certainly other near term solutions. One of them is to cease and desist with the search for life prolonging drugs and treatment modalities. We could return to letting folks with fatal ailments die as they would have some 100 years or more ago, using our medical knowledge to abate their pain as needed but not to prolong their lives.

The reality humanity doesn't like is that Mother Nature has very effective ways of keeping population sizes in check. Humanity has endeavored, with some success, to circumvent nature's way of culling the less strong and making the need to be as or more physiologically and mentally strong/adept as others less of a critical factor in perpetuating one's genes. Perhaps allowing nature's methods to do as they are meant to do is the best overall and long term solution to many of the ills that beset humanity. Of course, for many folks that's a "nasty pill" to swallow, but in the ultimate irony, it may be the right one to swallow for there's little question about whether the planet needs more humans. It does not.​

Option 2 -- Apply the principle of comparative advantage to robot implementations:

Another approach might be to build robots that can terraform or locate other planets so we have places to which Earth's excess humans can go. Maybe we should set computers/robots to finding ways to perform light-speed interstellar travel or wormhole travel. This idea accrues from my belief that Strong AI is a good thing, provided we direct Strong AIs to figure out/do things that we humans simply cannot do or that we cannot do in pragmatically short time frames.

This approach also plays to the idea that rather than implementing robots to do things that people can do effectively enough, we deploy them in a sequence whereby the last things they are used to do are the things people can do. One thing, however, that is critical for this approach is that though it can yield near term benefits, it is something that pretty much be implemented sooner rather than later. Why? Because we can't very well put the genie back in the bottle once she's out.

For example, now that automated telephone response systems answer the lines at every major corporation, it's no more than pipe-dream to think those companies will revert to having humans man the customer service lines. We may, however, be able to prevent the deployment of robots into roles where they are merely better, but not better to the extent they can achieve outcomes humans simply cannot achieve.

We don't need robots that can flip burgers; people can do that just fine, even if they are less efficient at doing it. We don't need Strong AIs that can drive taxis. People do that well enough too. In contrast, we have yet to find the answer to myriad questions:

• Is there life elsewhere in the universe?
• What is dark matter? Dark energy?
• What rules need to be revised so there are no exceptions to them?
• How did life begin?
• What makes us human?
• Why do we dream?
• What can we do with all the carbon?
• What's in the oceans besides the little bit we've discovered or know we put there?
• What is a better source of energy for us to use instead of fossil fuels?

Do you get the idea? Even though we may task robots to answering those and other hard questions like them, that doesn't mean we humans need to entirely stop trying to answer them ourselves. There's nothing suggesting that we can't work in tandem with the robots to finding the answers. Indeed, even thinking about the "taxi" example, it may be that we use humans to drive taxis in high density areas like NYC and robots in low density areas that have little call for abundant public/taxi service.​

There will probably be a really big war with Russia or China soon, and that will cut down populations nicely.

Not to worry.

Well, I don't see population control as a good reason to declare war, but sure, war deaths will result in there being a smaller human population.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Could be Carousel as seen in Logan's Run. You turn 30 and your light begins flashing, time for you to go to Carousel for 'renewal'.

Or this future is already here:
Soylent — Free your body

What is most likely to happen is a paradigm shift in societies. Humans will be forced to go back to how we lived up until a few hundred years ago, where entire families including the grandparents and parents, children etc all shared a dwelling and all the living and dying in the family was normal and communal. Many Asian societies still operate like this. Western culture though generally has everyone living apart with seperate lives and the younger generations not wanting much to do with the elderly. It's a moot point, at some point water will limit human population capacity and we WILL have to decide how to handle the reality of many people not in the work force that have to be fed and cared for.

Or start enjoying Soylent right now so the transition later is not such a big shock.

 

[Unkotare]

...

The Chinese philosopher was talking about LESS work for everybody, in which case there will be need more birth control, more population control,....

Economist, not philosopher, and you are still missing the point.

 

[koshergrl]

Progressives, true to form, prove they really aren't about progress and advancing civilization, but rather are about regression and brutality.

The panic.over our so called.over.population is based on complete.nonsense.

 

[Unkotare]

Shrinking China: A Demographic Crisis

 

[Unkotare]

China’s Population Destiny: The Looming Crisis

 

[Unkotare]

Could be Carousel as seen in Logan's Run. You turn 30 and your light begins flashing, time for you to go to Carousel for 'renewal'.

Or this future is already here:
Soylent — Free your body

What is most likely to happen is a paradigm shift in societies. Humans will be forced to go back to how we lived up until a few hundred years ago, where entire families including the grandparents and parents, children etc all shared a dwelling and all the living and dying in the family was normal and communal. Many Asian societies still operate like this. Western culture though generally has everyone living apart with seperate lives and the younger generations not wanting much to do with the elderly. It's a moot point, at some point water will limit human population capacity and we WILL have to decide how to handle the reality of many people not in the work force that have to be fed and cared for.

Or start enjoying Soylent right now so the transition later is not such a big shock.

Also missing the point.

 

[koshergrl]

Episode 5: 7 Billion People: Will Everyone Please Relax? | Overpopulation is a myth

Also, the op assertion that people reach a point where they aren't needed is interesting. Who makes that call? My mom is 82. Is she needed?

 

[Dale Smith]

There is definitely a "soft kill" genocide program in place and has been for some time. The ones that really rule this world and have the majority of the wealth are not going to subsidize "worthless eaters" with the coming robotics and trans-humanism age. I have this "death by a thousand cuts" theory....not any one thing will kill but rather it's an accumulative affect. They have poisoned the water with sodium fluoride, they fed us genetically modified food, they taint the vaccines. Cancer and AIDS are man made and they have the cure for both but unless you are one of the elites., you will never be given access to it. Frequencies from our cellphones and cellphone towers attack the immune system. The same type of frequencies that attack us are the same type of frequencies that can kill cancer cells while leaving the good cells alone...unlike chemo that kills both good and bad. They are spraying us like bugs with the aerosol spraying of the skies and this shit not only lands in our food supply and water, but we breathe it in as well. Alzheimer's cases have gone through the roof because one of the nano-particulates that they are spraying is aluminum. I will provide a link by a doctor/researcher about the affect of chemtrails below. They have 17 different spraying programs with no oversight because it falls under the catch all of "national defense". In the mean time this shit is killing the plankton in the oceans and lakes which provides oxygen to sea life that we use for food. Fukishima has pretty much killed the sea life in the Pacific ocean and the corporate owned media keeps that story under wraps. The elites are killing our food supply and they are using weather modification in conjunction with the aerosol spraying to steer rain away from farms or deluge them with rain during gathering time WHILE making money on it using the derivatives market. If you know that Iowa is going to get blasted with with rain during corn harvesting? You can go ":short" and make a fortune. This is happening and this is real.

https://chemtrailsplanet.files.word...tine-geoengineering-activity-implications-for

 

[Unkotare]

There is definitely a "soft kill" genocide program in place and has been for some time......

Take your crazy idiot show to the Conspiracy Forum, you fruitcake.

 

[Dale Smith]

There is definitely a "soft kill" genocide program in place and has been for some time......

Take your crazy idiot show to the Conspiracy Forum, you fruitcake.

I have a suggestion....do some research about "geo-engineering", asswipe. Do some research about tainted vaccines....do some research about how AIDS was a man made virus that was intentionally unleashed. You can't debate me on anything I have posted until you have done your own due diligence. Your job is to prove me wrong and do so with facts and data because I have MORE than enough proof to back my claims. Your lame flames do not qualify as "debating". I know this is scary shit if you are not a Bible believing Christian but that doesn't change what we are facing. Anyone should be able to see the writing on the wall. I live and breathe this stuff so I can try and help people to prepare for the shit storm that is coming towards us. You think it is EASY to post this kind of stuff????

 

[Dale Smith]

There is definitely a "soft kill" genocide program in place and has been for some time......

Take your crazy idiot show to the Conspiracy Forum, you fruitcake.

https://chemtrailsplanet.files.word...gineering-activity-implications-for-india.pdf

 

[leftwinger]

Give the old all the heroin they want. Good clean strong opiates. Let us......er them go out comfortably num. Maybe quicker? OD? If they want it?........why not?