In a few hundred years, the coastal nations of the world will be required to move their coastal cities inland 100 miles more or less to keep their cities above water. Robots cannot do that sort of construction.
Cheers: Axil On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk> wrote: > > I am not sure that it will go anything like as far as you believe Jed, but >> some elements are already present. > > > I do not think there is any technical reason why things will not go as far > as I predict, or even farther to the "brain in the bottle" predicted by > Orwell. However, social forces may prevent it. People may decide they do > not want this. As Orwell shows, this might be a wise choice. Politics or > greed may interfere. Civilization may suffer some catastrophe, and a new > Dark Ages. > > If people such as Frank Close and Robert Park remain in charge of > scientific research, they will succeed in stopping cold fusion. Such people > at heart are opposed to all new ideas and all progress. > > To take a more extreme case, in the U.S. we are plagued with people such > as Rep. Paul Broun on the House Science Committee. He "told a > church-sponsored banquet in his home state of Georgia that the theories of > evolution and the big bang are 'lies straight from the pit of hell.'" With > enough leaders like that over a few centuries, I suppose the U.S. would > gradually devolve into something resembling Afghanistan. I am not > exaggerating. > > I assume that if Broun had his way, we would not teach these things in > schools. In Texas they are working vigorously to eliminate them. This is > like throwing acid into the faces of girls who try to learn to read, the > way the Taliban does. You cannot have a high tech society run by lunatics > who prevent people from learning the fundamental laws of science. > > > . . . maybe people would prefer to be in work, even if it is digging >> trenches . . . > > > What would be the point? In what sense would that be "work"? It would be a > useless waste of time, and an insult. Even if the task had some purpose, we > all know that a machine can do it far better. It would be like having > people work in banks keeping accounts with a paper and pencil, doing > arithmetic by hand. We all know that a computer costing a few hundred > dollars can do more arithmetic in a single second than a person can do in a > lifetime. That knowledge would make the task a crushing burden. > > We must make a "human use of human beings" as N. Weiner put it. The > problem is that the scope of human uses for human beings is getting > narrower and narrower. > > The problem was masterfully laid out by Orwell in "The Road to Wigan Pier" > (referenced above). Here is how I would describe it: > > When only a person can do a task, and no machine is capable of it, is is > ennobling work. It gives purpose and meaning to life. When a machine can do > it far more cheaper, faster and better than a human, that same task then > becomes worse than slavery. > > I do not see any easy solutions to this problem. I don't think it will go > away on its own. > > Having said that, I think there are still many jobs that can only be done > by people, and that people on welfare should be given. For example, taking > care of elderly people or children, cleaning up and repairing parks and > public places, building houses for poor people in projects like "Habitat > for Humanity" and so on. Some of this work is menial but at present no > robot can do it, so it still has dignity. > > - Jed > >
