Why is Cred Forums so ignorant when it comes to technology?

Economic inequality creates the dregs when it is done away with we will live happily among peers. Racial theories are pseudo science and imbecilic

>Here's a bunch of predictions with no basis
>FACT

No Finland you are the gook

Conservatives donate ten times the money and time as liberals. Computers let us keep track...

>compassion and kindness don't exist here.
>You should be more compassionate and kind like Sweden or Germany
>Don't you want to let syrians play VR GTA in your country?

Go back to your sociology class

>AI and robots will create about as many jobs as they obsolete, FACT

That will also be done by AI and robots, FACT

And the 1% of jobs that won't be done by AI and robots? They require an IQ of 120, minimum.

No no no no no.
Humans DO NOT need a life span of 1000s of years.
God damn, this planet is over populated cause you dumb eaters keep living longer.
>WAH, me-ma died! It's my life goal to never lose another me-ma, Im going to become a doctor and help people live longer!

What a scary fucking thought.

Your species needs to go back to 40-50 years of life tops.

I got a rich grandpa who refuses to fucking die and I sure could use an inheritance.

>I sure could use an inheritance

A fucking leeching leaf.

Grow the fuck up. You look extremely naive to a cynical European who has seen literally billions in welfare handed out, to people who have come here and had their arses wiped by our state yet STILL fail and still cannot manage to be civilised.

As a programmer I can assure you that non-tech-literate people (aka the majority of the population) grossly overestimate how capable current AI tech is. We're still a ways away.

>AI and robots will create about as many jobs as they obsolete, FACT.

Not according to MIT. To some extent yes but human beings need expensive and time consuming training/education. When you've finally trained for your new job it may have already been taken over by automatization.

Basic income will become necessary to some degrees inorder to control the population. We're basically animals so give us food, shelter and keep us entertained and we're pretty much happy. In economy based on robotics that shouldn't be very expensive at all.

You're an idiot if you think everyone on earth can manage as artist because that's pretty much the only field left after the robotic revolution really starts going.

But look at this way. It was the capitalist system producing the communist dream without the need for bloodshed. Incredibly ironic huh?

And the robots will have machine gun arms and be programmed to shoot conservatives FACT
>My mum said I'm handsome FACT
>I took a class with the katana so I can kill all you conservative jocks FACT

Fact: A thing that is known or proved to be true
You are wrong. FACT

Poor guy doesn't have rich relatives.
Boo hoo for you poor guy.
My NEETness will turn into playboy living once the old bastard takes a dirt nap.
Just because someone is old, doesn't mean they're "nice"
Murders turn old, pedos turn old, rapist turn old.
Not every old person is your me-ma and pawpaw you emotional faggots

Computers already make more accurate diagnosis than doctors.

While i agree it could well be over 100 years off before all jobs are replaceable, the problem isnt really when that happens, the problem is when it does happen will the society that exists at the time be able to cope with it?

It takes time for society to change, the sudden shock of being in a society where labor and 'brain power' really dont mean anything and only hard natural resources count could not be handled by our current society, it would just cause massive unrest.

We need to change to a society that can handle that BEFORE it happens, not when and certainly not after.

>your species
get off the computer you fucking moose

A moose on a computer, what a funny thought

There is literally a logical problem with expecting AI to program AI, it involves replicating the mind of a programmer (or something with the ability to program) perfectly. In order to replicate something perfectly, or to create a perfect representation of something you must understand it in entirety. Consciousness is a hard problem of philosophy such that Heidegger deliberately making no sense is probably the best way to describe it. Colin McGinn describes this as the Mysterianism principle, that is the question of consciousness is unsolvable by the human mind, which I'll expand upon with that it's because it introduces an inherent conflict of interest. You are yourself studying yourself, there is no way to do this in a pure fashion.

>require an iq of 120
Oh you remember this argument, don't you? This is why feminists are being used to crash standards in STEM via diversity policies.

>bread and circuses argument
Do we have to?

Simply see it like the industrial agricultural revolution, we could harvest grain using scythes... Or we could use tractors. I vote tractors.

1 >No, online, mechanical services currently exist as a optional service, these things can work perfectly in a contained environment suited for them. Otherwise they're practically fucked. So AI and Robots have a long fucking way off.

We've already got basic income, it's practically useless and most of the programs surrounding it don't give a shit about your livelyhood. Instead of some idiotic socialistic measures, you've got to realize capitalism has already won. Sitting around pissing off your employers, or making them leave your country isn't going to be getting you any jobs, pay, or employment.

That last thing is just silly. You think the rich give a shit about average people and this shit won't just be brought out?

Unless you've got the dick to actually revolt, realize there's much better altnernative then basically pissing all over your employers, which is more then likely not going to result in you getting the favourable treatment.

I don't care if the robots take all the jobs as long as they do it in the US.

That's not funny
I am mooeriurssee
fuck these hoovesasdjkk

>projecting this hard

Anyone is capable of reading /r/futurology it doesn't make you enlightened.

Most automation people are very, very, very optimistic. You think most jobs will be gone in the next 9 years? I think by you may see the first self driving trucks being tested if you're lucky.

Most of it is a NEET fantasy.

"NO MOM I'M NOT MOVING OUT! Just wait a few years until robots have taken our jobs and I get my basic income then get my own place!"

This. If anything I feel we need a comprehensive analysis and plan regarding technological progress for the future of the country. I think with the right ordering of tech advancements we could more safely ease ourselves into that future. In practice that would mean something like the government specifically funding "groundwork" tech so that it's finished in time to support the tech that causes more radical changes to society.

>perfectly

It doesnt require it to be perfect. Robots can even work less efficiently than humans, they can work around the clock.

Besides some people enjoy their 'work' as a hobby. The idea is to get to a point where only the people who enjoy doing something need to do something. There will be programmers messing with AI trying to make a name for themselves. Humans inherently need to work, and will do so on their own accord if left alone. Its just that the concept of a job will die. People will do what they are more passionate about and produce better things for it.

>wanting 3rd world shits to breed explosively and overpopulate civilized nations with their savagery

only whites and asians can pull this off, and there will be no need for large numbers brown skinned min wage foreign labor so they can live in slums outside a wall
>the plot of elysium

>Men will be happy to be equal to their peers
Yeah, this is the most delusional communist meme. Men will always strive power, to pretend otherwise is to be willfully naive.

Self-driving trucks are already being tested on the road, you idiot.

>Economic inequality creates the dregs

That's a pretty big assumption, let's say that we define a dreg as someone who takes from society (both culturally and financially) more than they contribute. Now we visit three different examples:

Sally is the daughter of a multimillionaire, get whatever she wants, etc. She's a spoiled brat, joins up with different SJW groups and actively causes unrest between races, genders, etc. in addition to this, she never gets a real job, and sucks away money from her rich father, producing nothing (cultural production -1; financial production -1)

Alex is a perfectly average guy from an average middle class household. In highschool, he gets mixed up in the wrong crowd, and becomes a druggie, proclaiming as a prophet of cannabis how it can "give you mind powers and make you fly". He later grows up to become an eternal burger flipper. (Cultural production -2; financial production 0)

Dequan is an inner city denizen, who has grown up poorer than average, without a father. His whole life he's been involved with gang violence and drugs. He's jobless, and when not robbing or being a criminal, he is living off of welfare. He dies young. (Cultural production -3; financial production -3)

So as you see even in the case of perfectly average financial situations, shit people can still be brought up.

And if your argument is that socialism will make all issues go away, lurk more.

>Simply see it like the industrial agricultural revolution, we could harvest grain using scythes... Or we could use tractors. I vote tractors.

And since the tractors don't require human operators anymore what are we going to do with the unemployed population that is getting hungry and desperate? At some point they will start wrecking shit up no matter how many drones they are up against.

That's what they want you to believe, however the truth is that democrats are no different.

This is why sanders should have won.

We need gun socialists. Free guns for everyone!

> 2025
Doubtful it will be that soon. Just like every other doomsday and technology prediction ever made. SF getting flooded by melting ice, overpopulation, AI sentience for the 50 millionth time.

i finally get the finland autist meme after reading this post

Doctors are still needed to interpret data from machines, most cancer NNT (which do exist) are only about 90% accurate. An oncologist is still needed to gauge the patients progress and add a human touch.

Perfect is just a word. The fact remains that consciousness is a hard problem and programmers simply won't solve it before philosophers do. Consciousness and self awareness is required to program, which raises questions about people simply incapable of programming.

Expecting passion as a sole motivation is like expecting prostitutes to fuck for fun. I'm sure they do it, but it is their job after all. Even with basic income, they'd much prefer to make more money than less.

I mean, I program for fun, but I'd rather be getting ~700$ a week for it instead of the 100$ from welfare (which I don't collect for libertardian reasons).

Again, you and I both know the only real issue with technology in our society is expecting humans to be able to perform the new jobs. At the moment, the inability of white men to attain STEM employment is entirely artificial. It's designed specifically to dissuade them due to the fear some people have that only white men are actually good at STEM. If these jobs are meant to replace most other jobs, they fear only white men will work and only white men will be capable of being wealthy.

Few people enjoy trucking, the kind of people who do actually enjoy shitposting, watching tv and eating whilst their codriver is driving.

Well, no, at least one agriculturalist is required to gauge the health of the crops.

Again, skilled unemployment is entirely artificial. Again, blaming this on the system is disingenuous because without diversity policies it's unlikely we'd have a skilled unemployment problem

I mean without drivers. Aircraft are on autopilot the vast majority of the time but obviously they still need pilots.

Another fucking commie who was thrown out through the door, climbing back in through the window.

People will never learn.

>supply of labor goes up
>price goes down
>demand comes back up

All we need to do is eliminate the minimum wage and other pointless regulations then problem solved

Being paid for not working gives literally no reason to work you half-nigger commie fuck

>And since the tractors don't require human operators anymore what are we going to do with the unemployed population that is getting hungry and desperate?
They find other jobs

>FACT

Machines arent perfectly accurate, but neither are doctors. Machines are more accurate than doctors.

Programming isnt magical you dont embeu the program with some sort of 'spirit' you jackass its a set of simple instructions and most of it is pieced together by blocks of pre-written code. A computer to simply identify a problem and select which blocks of pre-written code to put in which order is very simple.

People do things because everyone does something. People dont just sit there staring at a wall. We have to do things. $700 or $100 are meaningless concepts because there will be no money at all, thats one of the consequences of automation. Theres no need for it because money exists only to help stand in for bartering in situations of scarcity. When labor and thought are no longer something you need to trade for, all thats left is hard resources. The options are global unrest and potential extinction or a system where every person, as their birthright for being a human, owns 1/whatever billionth of the total resource of the planet. Managed by AI. Maybe some leeway for kickstarter-esque funding of large projects as a sort of societal voting system. Moon colony or mars colony? Which do you dedicate some resource to?

Auto pilot only keeps the craft at the altitude, just like real self driving cars only keep the car at the same speed within its lane.

I'm probably the best programmer/engineer in this thread and I'll never trust a computer algorithm to slam on the breaks and save a dumb kid's life.

>molymeme argument
Can we be friends? Let's be friends.

We can also be friends, although I think regulations need to be wisely used instead of a forbidden. I see nothing wrong with forcing equal opportunities by punishing companies with diversity policies, similarly punishing anti disruption practices and other anti competitive practices. This is why I'm a moderate libertarian instead of a pure libertarian, some government force is needed to keep the playing field equal.

On topic for the thread, by dissuading workers from certain demographics in STEM they've crashed the standards and increased unemployment overall by making outsourcing more inviting. Instead, all people should compete equally and this will allow the maximum amount of people to attain jobs.

There is literally no issue because the market forces will either drop prices, increasing demand, or increase competition increasing productivity.

This is a win win situation.. if everyone is allowed to compete equally.

>When labor and thought are no longer something you need to trade for,
That is never going to happen
There will always be demand for labor

>There will always be demand for labor
Labor will be the first to go.
When i was a kid the idea of a robot that could even walk on two feet seemed like something that might never happen, now we have them. They are clunky but in another few decades they could be more lithe than an actual human.

pekka, dont be overoptimistic, humans are driven by greed, and they will use these "advances" to serve their own interests
>Rejuvenation therapies will allow everyone to live for thousands of years and not just the rich
this is unethical, against the laws of god and nature

It all works until you meet customers or patients in x industry that want a human to talk to.

There's great applications for ai but people make technology to get better at something not to replace humans. And if they do people will vote and anti robot laws will be passed.

>inb4 I'm saying robots are good thing

But honestly, technology has made us all so degenerate (me especially) that we look to robotic tech breakthroughs than human interaction to solve problems.

>robot gf instead of real gf
>robot workers instead of having more babies
>shut in playing Vidya all day instead of outside

Etc etc etc...

Oh yeah, whatever happened to that new Top Gear anyways?

>Machines arent perfectly accurate, but neither are doctors. Machines are more accurate than doctors.
Not really.. also, you can't hold a machine accountable whereas that's a big part of why doctors get the big bucks: they are accountable.

>Programming isnt magical you dont embeu the program with some sort of 'spirit' you jackass its a set of simple instructions and most of it is pieced together by blocks of pre-written code.
Mate.

As if I haven't already argued exactly that?

>People do things because everyone does something. People dont just sit there staring at a wall. We have to do things. $700 or $100 are meaningless concepts because there will be no money at all, thats one of the consequences of automation. Theres no need for it because money exists only to help stand in for bartering in situations of scarcity. When labor and thought are no longer something you need to trade for, all thats left is hard resources.
Post scarcity also doesn't real. I used those numbers just to demonstrate that even with welfare no one actually wants to be on welfare. Expecting technology to obsolete the entire economy is a bit naive, to be honest.

>The options are global unrest and potential extinction or a system where every person, as their birthright for being a human, owns 1/whatever billionth of the total resource of the planet. Managed by AI.
Doomsday scenario. Great.

>Maybe some leeway for kickstarter-esque funding of large projects as a sort of societal voting system. Moon colony or mars colony? Which do you dedicate some resource to?
Neither? This is the planet that created us via its environment, it's in some way sacred because of that. Seeding other planets is important, but abandoning this one is sacrilege. There is literally no other way I can argue this besides this quasi religious argument.

I agree, but it's important to recognise that this labor will change. From scythes to tractors.

If I can't fuck the robots I don't care about the robots.

>FACT
>FACT
>FACT

You can already fuck a blow up doll, if you catch my drift (as in sex toys already exist), but you'll never have a meaningful relationship with a computer and that's a fact. Again, you have meaningful relationships only with your equals who are by definition conscious, this isn't something programmers are about to solve any time soon.

What if there aren't any other jobs available? Just asking theoretical questions here. I don't know what's the situation by the time this happens but neither do you. I'm just saying it can't hurt to have a plan B can it?

>meaningful relationships
Who said he wanted a meaningful relationship?
If I could get a maid bot that also has functioning genitals, I don't think I'd care about meaningful relationships anymore.

I cannot wait for the day when they have functional uteruses too.

The only thing creating unemployment now is the government interfering in the labor market

>Post scarcity also doesn't real.
As ive said, scarcity will become the only thing that is left. Which is why the options i give you when labor and smarts are no longer commodities that people can barter with, and only natural resources exist, are exactly two.

1. People try to kill each other for those resources, because the only way to gain anything is to take ownership of it, no way to earn it other than violence.
2. We decide everyone owns everything equally.

Thats it. You cant tell that person who wants some resource of his own to go and shine shoes and start a business until he can buy some. There are shoe shining robots and all production and services are automated.

And this is what the elite areup to, playing everyone off of each other and working hard to convince everyone they need jobs and job production is so important when they aremaking cycles of jobs that support each other but dont actually produce anything out of the cycle. They want to keep people buisy and enslaved to them so they can hold the power.

Because they have no innate right to rule, they usurped all the monarchs, their power comes only from money and they need to perpetuate a system of wealth inequality to retain their status.

Why should a person not own a fraction of humanities total resource by virtue of being human?

Humans had to work to survive around the clock when we first showed up. Survival was full time. As technology advanced and we invented civilization and agriculture we had to work less and less. People had free time. They were able to work less and still survive.

The problem is as technology keeps advancing, and people need to work less and less, they are working the same amount, but all the extra profit goes to the people on the top now. They want the people to spend all their time working because they are afraid of what might happen if people had enough time to take a look around and see the system for what it was.

A side effect of keeping people working the same amount of time even though less and less work is required to support society, is that fewer and fewer jobs actually need to exist. And so all elites 'left' and 'right' ramble on about 'job creation' so they can continue to control the population. Its to the point they blatantly think fabricating jobs that dont even need to be done is great, and they've actually got people believing them because theyve bought into this ideology that if they are being suckered everyone else needs to be suckered too.

>but all the extra profit goes to the people on the top now
People consume far more than they did 50 years ago

The two lines in your post. The quote and the reply, are not logically related in any way.

As many have said in this thread, there will always be jobs, it's just a question if the people that are around are capable of fulfilling those jobs.

At the moment the only barriers for STEM workers are entirely artificial or are intellectual barriers.

Because it'll always feel hollow. With weed and my superior mind, I can imagine sex with as much realism as I need, but I'm still lonely.

I still want that girl to pillow talk and make the :3 face when I say I love her. That will never be meaningful from a machine, it's barely even meaningful from a chantard.

It's not coming from the government, it's coming from sociology educated HR workers. Stop the statism paranoia.

You're imagining a situation that's both unlikely and implausible.

>until he can buy some
That's what leverage is for.

>not own a fraction
I think people should only own what they will to own, being given things for free incentivises nothing and promotes the very laziness you're raging against.

It's when people are given things that they might not deserve, at least not relative to others, that standards begin to go askew and overall quality is lost. Competition isn't just something the elites use to "control" us, it's the very reason to seek motivations.

Capitalism (especially against feudalism) is a very beautiful thing, it both distributes goods and services as well as provides motivation.

People are working the same amount and consuming more
How is this hard for you to understand
You want a 1950s lifestyle you can have it on a part time job

>sociology educated HR workers.
Who only exist because companies dont want to deal with lawsuits for violating labor laws

Actually, due to rising unemployment which no one wants to talk about, we're working less. Again, this is an entirely artificial problem that could be easily solved by a conscious GOVERNMENT push against the current state of Marxism. By punishing diversity policies and unequal opportunities, chances are people will simply hire graduates instead of outsource when they want a job done cheaply but not necessarily with the utmost professionalism.

Instead, HR workers only hire based on diversity lines, whether there's a policy or otherwise, and will pass along candidates which are poor (both by local and international standards) making middle managers say "fuck it, let's hire some Indians."

This is the true inequality of our economy.

No, they exist because of the assumption that sociology is a decent degree that teaches real skills in understanding people. It is, in fact, simply Marxism.

There are more lawsuit questions in drafting diversity policies than hiring or not hiring sociology graduates. This is why not every diversity policy extends further than the HR worker's mind. There is no way to even prove that it's happening this way and they're free to bin all the white male resumes with nothing more than an "oops" if they're caught.

Again, this is the only real economic problem with technology: if the workers of tomorrow are hindered from working.

>At the moment the only barriers for STEM workers are entirely artificial or are intellectual barriers

You do realize that most of the population has no skills in STEM -fields? How do you suppose the rest of society is going to deal with that problem.

At first I was going to argue against your notion of government interference causing job market dysfunction but then I realized that you are partly correct. By deregulating job markets the minimal wage will go down to levels were there is no incentive to work to jobs as opposed to committing crimes. But If those jobs are necessary the wages will rise until they find willing work force to do them. Meanwhile you made the society more crime ridden and unsecure but ultimately markets do react to social needs. It's just going to cause more human suffering in the meanwhile so basically this matter where a person is just as free to choose their own brand of ideological poison.

>why am I so much smarter than everyone?

FTFY

People are working the same amount and more relative profit is being made but they are receiving a smaller percent of it

This means they should be working less, and making the same amount they currently make.

consumption doesnt need to enter the picture

>only own what they will to own
If a person builds a house with their own two hands they have taken away the potential for someone else to build a house in that spot. They have breathed common air to fuel their muscles, used resources that can not be used again as easily. They do not own the house, they simply have a larger claim to it than anyone else.

People are driven by competition, which is why i clearly state that people will always work. You need to make the distinction between work and job. Jobs (usually) involve work, not all work receives monetary compensation.

An article i read a while back pointed out that the richest people spend the most time working, and the unemployed spending most of their time playing video games tend to report happiness.

The article acted confused but it made perfect sense to me. The article wondered why the rich people didnt take more time off to relax and enjoy themselves.

The reason is simple, both groups were working, and doing the work they enjoyed. The rich people just happened to be doing work that was also a job. Both were doing the same activity, competing to make a number go up, whether its a bank account or a character level in some mmo, its competition that drives it.

The only disparity is that some work is compensated, some isnt.

(cont)

Science fiction.

>No, they exist because of the assumption that sociology is a decent degree that teaches real skills in understanding people. It is, in fact, simply Marxism.
No companies are just worried about lawsuits over "wrongful termination" "hostile work environment " or some other bullshit
Nobody actually thinks they boost productivity
>there is no incentive to work to jobs as opposed to committing crimes
I like how in all of these mass automation fantasies the price of goods and services never comes down

Now you will argue that some work 'contributes' something and other work doesnt. The point of this thread is that while that may be the case now, it wont necessarily always be the case. Even if you dont think everything will be replaced by automation, you would be a pretty stubborn fool to think that many things will not, and that we will just magically come up with new things to do. War or guaranteed basic income. The option will have to be picked sooner or later. And no its not an edgy "we can just kill all the unnecessary people :^)" solution either, since the amount of work to keep society running is based on the size of society. Fewer people means fewer work, and so on, until the last man left alive does his 30 minute work day telling the machines that support him what to do to keep him alive till a natural death.

We could instead taper off the amount of time people need to work every day. We should have been doing that by now, but the problem, as i explained, is that all this extra profit is going to the top. When companies could be hiring twice as many people to work half as much time but still paying them the same annual salary, its just been pooling at the top.

No, raising minimum wage is a retarded idea, that accomplishes nothing. A maximum wage however would fix a lot. Say, 3x the average wage of the company.

>I like how in all of these mass automation fantasies the price of goods and services never comes down

So significantly that you can manage to live what we consider middle class lifestyle on burger flipping or equivalent job? Possible I guess but if that's the case why can't we just go straight to basic income or such if it's that cheap? If it isn't about the actual cost of basic income then it's about ideological choices.

>Le peaceful cynical old man will solve our problems

Kill yourself, there is nothing moral about a Kike socialist

Because why would I want to give you money to do nothing?

you got people on this website that think 2000 year old book has all the answers.

what the fuck does the bible know about websites? nothing. the bible doesn't teach anything about the maths required for this or any other modern technology

but people still believe an old book has magic powers

When machines help us do our work things get easier for the workers and cheaper for consumers. Unless you let things get out of hand you really wouldn't need things like basic income. Just invest your money in robots.

>you would be a pretty stubborn fool to think that many things will not, and that we will just magically come up with new things to do.
No we will just do more of those things
Middle class people who build maintain and program the machines will servants yachts and larger homes

He is more pro gun than either shillary or trump.
Guns is most important thing.
Both murica and china, two most powerful nations on the planet, agree. (political power comes from the barrel of a gun - chairman mao). You can either have noguns and become china, or all the guns and be free.

Up to you. Everything else is a secondary concern.

I'm getting a Bachelor's on IT, I'm good.

>believing there will be a middle class
heh

Yes, I know. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics are very diverse fields of study, meaning there's lots of choice for the population.

You've already pointed out that not everyone is intelligent enough for STEM, I also understand that but that's simply competition. What they're doing instead, crashing standards by implementing diversity policies, will simply have a dysgenic effect. What we need to do is incentivise intelligent and create a eugenic effect for intelligence, that way we can always ensure the new population is capable of the new jobs.

Literally walls of text that's starting to offend me.

I'm unemployed and as miserable as you could imagine someone willing to post like this on Cred Forums would be. I just want to be recognised for my true talent as a programmer.

Don't gauge happiness. A rich fool will always be unhappy and a poor enlightened person will always be happier. The money doesn't buy happiness argument shits me because poverty always seems to afford misery. How interesting that not having enough money to have a social life will inevitably make you miserable.

I don't think anyone believes diversity policies increase productivity, those who argue that are usually feminists with cringeworthy understandings of economic.

The motivations are entirely ethically motivated. This is basically why it resists absolutely all arguments that are also ethically motivated, such as for equality.

Literally no one believes that the bible has anything to say about the internet. That's just you and your athiest strawman yelling at eachother.

What if the machines start doing work that we don't want them to do?

Dont be offended. Awaken to the oppression of the system and become a gun socialist. All things owned by all people, enforced by force. As we conquer the stars and subjugate non humans.

ok then what will the skilled people that are still needed to maintain automated society be?

>federal ban on assault weapons

Fuck off

OP is a faggot, FACT

the only way adopting AI workers would change the world would be by accompanying it with basic income
Otherwise this is no different than companies like Ford or Toyota hiring thousands of employees because robots are better at building cars than humans.

Basic income imo is what we need to implement in order to start talking about equality and further advance our technology once we no longer have to worry about starving to death

Good. Then the ~90% of people who aren't useful for anything but labor can return to being peasants and the elite can become wizards. You will love it Cred Forums, you can be a traditionalist Christian peasant in a high-trust white society with a role in life laid out for you and no need to worry about degeneracy.

Nice argument

Fact: planet earth and all its inhabitants are actually a single organism
Fact: the only goal of planet earth is immortality
Fact: humans are the earth, and when humans build robots/AI, it's actually the earth creating them
Fact: it is the destiny of the planet earth to be only inhabited by robots/AI in order to efficiently colonize the universe before the eventual collision with the andromeda galaxy and/or the explosion of the sun in our solar system, thereby achieving the ultimate goal of immortality.

>AI and robots will take most jobs, FACT
>Basic income or such will be needed before 2025

people still use fax machines now in 2016....

We already have a basic income, we just call it a different name and hate on people who use it. The dole.

told they are middle class

I honestly never thought i would be making this 'anti bourgeois' argument. Guess im a commie. I think state oversight is a horrible idea though and that while money should be eradicated the idea of a sort of currency of opinion to manage things through supply and demand with 'money' that does not correlate to any actual value, is a fantastic idea..

Whats a 'small government communist' called, Cred Forums?

>FACT

Yeah, no.

If you had said 'Robots will significantly change the way we will work in the future', you might have been right (not entirely, because most of this stuff is little more than speculation).

Anyway, your overly optimistic outlook tells me that you don't know the difference between the mechanical and the organic. The former is very deterministic, the latter on the other hand has been specifically developed to handle sudden shocks and unpredictable behavior, something computers are notoriously bad at handling.

So, in other words, don't bet on your technological utopia, it will most likely never happen

>A kike socialist who wants the US to become more European will protect our gun rights

stop posting and lurk more

Thank goodness, I've waited for this so long.

Only way to survuve goyim is to be rich by the time this shit comes :^)

'assault weapons' are now banned.
Great soccer mom victory! Hurray!

Except theres no such thing as an assault weapon :^) Weve just banned something that doesnt exist for popularity points FEELTHEBURN (^:

>told they are middle class
But what kind of lifestyle will they have?
Why wouldn't they be able to afford cheap unskilled labor?

How can meatbags even compete?

To keep me from wrecking your shit and raping your wife and daughter?

That's ultimately why we pay taxes to begin with. First it was just to keep us safe from those who wished to harm us but since the population exploded we decided it's far more efficient to bribe them enough to keep them happy enough and doing nothing..

Also the most violent bastards used to be employed by the state as warriors and tax collectors. Now we leave them in the gutter and wonder why is it that they go abeshit if they don't get what they want when they want. That's also something libertarians always seem to forget. State keeps the violent ones in check by monopolizing violence but this requires funds which must come from somewhere so the state uses that monopoly of violence to extort you from some of you money..

Always remember that if someone really wants to gauge out your eyeballs with a teaspoon to use your still living heads eyesockets as a fleshlight NAP isn't going to mean shit for them.

this

we were applying the same "racial" theories to poor european fucks 200 years ago, basically to justify class distance with some natural cause.

>inb4 mehmet
>inb4 cuck
>inb4 i'm pro immigration

You forget that I can afford private security

He is literally more pro 2nd amendment that shillary or trump, this is fact. Trump is all on board for much more restrictive background checks because though i love trump for his meme potential hes basically lead around

Sanders has literally said guns are important because the people need them to retain power. This is a classic socialist viewpoint. Real socialists are always pro-gun.

Theres no socialists in america, just left leaning corporatists and right leaning corporatists, whos leanings are only lies to try and extort votes anyway.

Sanders wanted to ban semi automatic guns
He was never pro gun he just said what he need to get elected

You know that it'll be stupid shit like California right? Just because you an I know that "assault weapons" aren't real doesn't mean they know that. They will ban pistol grips and other similar things just like the last assault weapons ban.

>Basic income or such will be needed before 2025, FACT

No, basic income will not be required, and in any case if it was there would not be enough corporation tax money to pay for it.

If masses dont have jobs (because AI) or money (because taxes will not be enough for basic income), then land ownership and self sufficiency will again be important.

I hope you are alive in large countries with lots of arable land.

suck my dick ahmed. To explain shit to dumb niggers like you would take ages

Until that security company decides to extort you for almost everything you have. Has happened in third world countries where governments are nearly non-existent.

People are cruel and brutal towards eachother and as much as you dislike the government it's still your best bet for safety. I know you americans tend to be more libertarian than us yuropoors for several reasons but mainly because your government is a bloated incompetent piece of corrupt shit but that still doesn't mean you should get rid of all government interventions and regulations.

>But what kind of lifestyle will they have?
Its relative. Extremely poor people live a lot better than extremely well off people did centuries ago.

But you should be concerned with more than simple comfort. Its about power and not having your life dictated to you.

The thing is a lot of the central values i hold, seem to be held by people arguing for radically different systems, i think they are simply shortsighted and dont understand that some things they take as granted are actually unnecessary things. Money simply does not need to exist and is used only as a tool to opress.

The kind of thing i am advocating is where each person has the ability to be in as much control over their own destiny as anyone else. You do this by essentially turning every single human on a planet into an investor. They are born and are allocated their share of the only thing that really matters, resources.

Money existed as a necessity and as labor and intelligence will become less and less important it can just simply stop existing. There is no need for something to bridge the gap between kinds of worth because the only worth will be resources.

People can dedicate their abstract fraction of what they own towards the kinds of advancement for humanity they want to see, and the machines will manage the specifics of it.

This is of course a far off vision, but getting there requires many small steps, and as i said before the main concern is that we wont be there socially when we arrive there technologically, and all sorts of trouble will arise.

because those countries are poor shitholes
Since everything is so cheap because of automation I can pay them enough to live a comfortable life
Because there is so much labor I can chose to only hire people of good moral character

>Because there is so much labor I can chose to only hire people of good moral character

Do you have some kind of God-Complex believing that your that omniscient? Jeez.. I think there is no arguing with someone who has such delusion of grandeur.

>Science fiction isn't science reality, FACT.
YET

It is called not being an autistic retard

...

t. someone who is, or never has been around a bunch of niggers, even rich ones.

And there are a finite amount of resources. Also west Africa's 70 avg. IQ will never advance and can never advance.

Chris Evans removed. FACT.

Joey Tribbiani still in. FACT.

Diversity still mandated. FACT.

The only one being autistic here is you. I'm only criticizing your ideal society by pointing out that the very thing you say makes communism not work also makes libertarian utopia just as non-functional. That is the human nature. While communism will not work due to greed and laziness libertarianism will not work due to human greed and inherit violence.

>I'm probably the best programmer/engineer in this thread and I'll never trust a computer algorithm to slam on the breaks and save a dumb kid's life.
This.

>Nothing's easier to screw up than a computer, and they want one in charge of a vehicle?

Rejuvenation therapies is the only thing I really want out of those three, once you are not limited by your own biological clock there is an infinity of opportunities that opens for you. I'd live in a shitcan on Mars for centuries no problem

Where did I ever say anything about a libertarian utopia
All I said that is in time of cheap abundant labor you can be selective about who you hire

I misinterpreted your ideological believes since I was hungry and tired after a long shitty day at work.

Now that I've eaten I'm less confrontational and man enough to say I'm sorry for making presumptions about you.