Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 13th, 2017, 02:06 PM   #21

Dan Howard's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Australia
Posts: 3,010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro View Post
However we must always be aware that a Camel is a horse designed by a committee. Camels stink, they are the worst ride ever, and they will spit on you. And furthermore they canīt pass through the eye of a needle.
But they are perfectly designed for their intended purpose, which is to live in an extremely arid environment.
Dan Howard is online now  
Remove Ads
Old December 17th, 2017, 08:53 AM   #22
Hellenist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,944
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Howard View Post
Oregon is not typical of the rest of the US. It is a trendy boom area, driving up property prices and forcing the poor out of the housing market. Immigration has swelled Oregon's population by 200,000 in just five years. If there was no immigration, Oregon's population would have declined during this time.
I didn't realize Oregon was unusual. I grew up in LA and watched a valley of orange orchards turned into a man-made world of concrete and blacktop. Many of us fled California to live in Oregon. I first lived in a small coastal town, and it was at least 50 years behind the times. It was still primitive and violent in an old fashion way.

We do not have jobs. I don't know how we are assimilating people. It is common for Californians to come here until they run out of money, and then returned to jobs elsewhere. Recessions hit us hard and this has kept the population and cost of living down. In most of Oregon, there is no high tech industry. Voting to legalize pot was an economic decision. It is better to make paper bags with hemp than cutting down trees for paper.

Competition between states for military contracts is increasing. A business in Oregon contracted to provide food. We have a strong agricultural industry.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/militar...economies.aspx

Government has a role to play in the economy.

Quote:
https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...bs-and-it-has/
President Barack Obama swept into office on a mantra of “Yes, we can.” Even though our economy was nearly two years into the Great Recession and jobs were being lost at a record pace, he projected a sense of optimism that, together, we could fix it. And history tells us that even when economic times are bleak, there are doable steps that a government can take that make a difference to get the economy back on a path of growth and job creation.

Last edited by athena; December 17th, 2017 at 09:10 AM.
athena is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 10:08 AM   #23
Hellenist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,944
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi View Post
Thank you. Well, I live in Germany and while we do have some land and water, we do not have many resources here and are quite densely populated. We are still doing quite well I think. Or look at Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands or Sweden. All of them thrive despite not having many resources and being quite densely populated. I think it is thanks to capitalism with a good shot of socialism. See, the wiki-entry on Ordoliberalism above.
Capitalism works so well because it taps into humans innate competitiveness. However, it needs to be controlled by a strong set of ethics and a state that regulates where necessary.
This is the issue. How does a nation come to have ethics? How is it determined what needs to be regulated and what does not need to be regulated?

Quote:
But that is the problem, those conditions never are the same. They are always changing or being changed (for example through innovation), and just like with the weather it's near impossible to predict.
True the weather can be hard to predict but I cannot imagine a farmer making decisions without knowing the climate, and the latest predictions, and the quality of the soil, and the water supply. For sure humanity did some amazing things without information and only praying to God and trusting in God, but they also starved to death often. We may not want to do things that way today?

Quote:
Too much data to process and interpret correctly. Not even talking about making the right conclusions out of it. At least for humans.
This might be a good reason to ignore global warming, but the result of doing so may not be what we want.

Quote:
And on the other hand a centrally managed economy is not flexible, cannot adjust and react to change fast enough - see the failure of all experiments. And looking at the last few hundred years that change is happening faster and faster. Or well, at least humans cannot manage that.
AI maybe could ...
I don't think I was talking about centralized management, so much as making decision based on information, instead of flying by the seats of our pants, and realizing too late we made a big mistake. Do we want to continue covering our farmland with shopping malls and suburban housing? Given the size of our industrial zone, how much new industry can we expect? Is our water supply large enough to support the new industry? Where will get the water if we need more of it? In the past, we didn't have to plan so carefully because it seemed our resources were infinite and that we would never see an end to them. That is no longer true. Farmers and fishermen are fighting over water rights. We are fighting over land to use or land that we should preserve. We might be able to survive with a lot less, but do we want to? Do we want to give up the park running along our river so developers can do what they want with the land? We almost lost our beaches to private developers and thank heavens we had a governor who protected our beaches for all of us.

Quote:
Well, Pandora's box is already opened. We already do AI and there is no way back. Specialised AI is already invented and so helpful in so many things, hell, there is AI that writes books and composes songs.
Read the following blog entries, really interesting perspective on the potential development of AI: https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artif...olution-1.html

Personally, I kinda fancy the idea of AI being the next step in evolution.
Interesting, you have argued against centralized planning and seem to argue in favor of AI making all the decisions. Which side of your argument is going to win?

Oh, oh, have you seen the British show "Humans"? It would be so great if we could all watch it together and discuss it. It is about robots that cannot be identified as different from humans. It presses all sorts of uneasy exploration into human behavior.

Other questions, can we reduce our taxes if AI runs the government? Who will pay taxes when AI replaces humans?

In the past landowners paid taxes and it was the communist who came up with the idea of income tax. Industry using AI can eliminate the worker and then who pays the taxes? Not the folks who can own the AI and industry, because we have to give them a tax break and somehow that is good for us.
athena is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 10:11 AM   #24
Hellenist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,944
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro View Post
However we must always be aware that a Camel is a horse designed by a committee. Camels stink, they are the worst ride ever, and they will spit on you. And furthermore they canīt pass through the eye of a needle.
I am totally not understanding the relevance of your comment. Does this belong with being blissfully ignorant and praying to God with the hope everything will come out okay.
athena is offline  
Old December 17th, 2017, 10:17 AM   #25
Hellenist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,944
Blog Entries: 2

Did everyone get, it was property owners who paid taxes and the communist invented income tax?

There is a difference between having capitalism that taxes the owners of that capital, and taxing the laborer whose wealth is not based on his capital, but on the time and energy consumed by his labor.
athena is offline  
Old December 18th, 2017, 01:54 AM   #26

bodhi's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Charlottengrad
Posts: 763

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
This is the issue. How does a nation come to have ethics? How is it determined what needs to be regulated and what does not need to be regulated?
Well, I thought the vast majority of nations signed a little thing called "the universal declaration of human rights"? Taking this as a foundation is a good first step.
The goal is to prevent monopolies/oligopolies and keep competition in each industry as high as possible while at the same time find a compromise between the needs of the employers and their employees and of course protect the environment. This is a balancing act that needs a) thoughtful law making, b) tight control of those laws and c) a capable administration.
An example of good regulation is the current call for an investigation of Disney buying 21st century Fox (which would create a behemoth controlling 40% of the American TV/movie landscape). While a sign of bad regulation is the recent repeal of net neutrality by the FCC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
True the weather can be hard to predict but I cannot imagine a farmer making decisions without knowing the climate, and the latest predictions, and the quality of the soil, and the water supply. For sure humanity did some amazing things without information and only praying to God and trusting in God, but they also starved to death often. We may not want to do things that way today?

This might be a good reason to ignore global warming, but the result of doing so may not be what we want.

I don't think I was talking about centralized management, so much as making decision based on information, instead of flying by the seats of our pants, and realizing too late we made a big mistake. Do we want to continue covering our farmland with shopping malls and suburban housing? Given the size of our industrial zone, how much new industry can we expect? Is our water supply large enough to support the new industry? Where will get the water if we need more of it? In the past, we didn't have to plan so carefully because it seemed our resources were infinite and that we would never see an end to them. That is no longer true. Farmers and fishermen are fighting over water rights. We are fighting over land to use or land that we should preserve. We might be able to survive with a lot less, but do we want to? Do we want to give up the park running along our river so developers can do what they want with the land? We almost lost our beaches to private developers and thank heavens we had a governor who protected our beaches for all of us.
I am not sure about your argument/point there. There are people who make those decisions already (central banks, politicians, CEOs) and there are different economic schools of thoughts that argue for their point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
Interesting, you have argued against centralized planning and seem to argue in favor of AI making all the decisions. Which side of your argument is going to win?
Well, I think there are arguments for and against centralised planning. I think the arguments against human centralised planning are better than for it. It's just too much information for us humans to process and interpret good enough. However, AIs are getting there. And if they do they can solve pretty much any problem we humans have. But for what do they need humans then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
Oh, oh, have you seen the British show "Humans"? It would be so great if we could all watch it together and discuss it. It is about robots that cannot be identified as different from humans. It presses all sorts of uneasy exploration into human behavior.
Heard of it but have not seen it. Not sure it is available here yet. But yeah, the importance of the question of a proper ethics for and regarding AI will surpass the same question in relation to animals quickly I think. And we can learn a lot about conscience and the human condition by studying a) us creating "life" and b) studying AIs themselves. I often regret going into banking/risk management instead of something like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by athena View Post
Other questions, can we reduce our taxes if AI runs the government? Who will pay taxes when AI replaces humans?

In the past landowners paid taxes and it was the communist who came up with the idea of income tax. Industry using AI can eliminate the worker and then who pays the taxes? Not the folks who can own the AI and industry, because we have to give them a tax break and somehow that is good for us.
Well, income tax is around longer than communism, just that it was paid mostly in work and not in money.

Bill Gates has an interesting opinion regarding this topic: Bill Gates Wants to Tax Automation, Robots | Fortune

Also, in the last industrial revolution people were also afraid of losing their jobs to machines. In the beginning this happened but after a while their were new industries which created even more jobs than before. I'm not to worried about machines taking jobs, maybe the current ones but there are gonna be new jobs.
And even if human productivity is not necessary anymore, that's IMO a positive. This would mean that machine productivity is a) extremely high and b) much cheaper than the human one. This means that "work" will be available nearly for free. And the costs of production will mainly be the cost of resources and energy. Assuming the expected breakthrough in fusion research, energy will be nearly for free as well.
There is a good chance that in a few decades we will live in a world were work and energy is for free while AIs regulate every aspect of our lives. This will so fundamental change our society I cannot imagine how it is gonna look. Are taxes even be needed then? Or money? Sounds like SciFi but we are not far from that. question is will humanity be more like in Wall-E or like in Star Trek.

I f we don't wipe humanity out before by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect or some form of a nuclear war (or getting wiped out by AI because we aren't necessary and a potential threat) I think we are on a good way of creating "paradise".

Last edited by bodhi; December 18th, 2017 at 02:00 AM.
bodhi is offline  
Old December 18th, 2017, 02:44 AM   #27

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 8,419

I am a latecomer to this thread, but I want to say my bit.
In our youth, we are all idealistic and we easily believe in Communism. We feel that economic exploitation of the poor is the root cause of human misery and once equity is established all will be well. As we grow up, we realize that things as complicated as poverty and human greed need far better solutions than killing off the rich and expropriation of their properties. We realize the human dimensions of the problem far better than in our youth; such as the desire to manage creatively our own affairs, our spiritual needs like freedom, love, companionship etc.
We see what a mess was made in the French Revolution or the Bolshevik Revolution or in the oppressive rule in the ' Worker's Paradise '.

Last edited by rvsakhadeo; December 18th, 2017 at 02:51 AM.
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old December 18th, 2017, 03:30 AM   #28

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 8,419

In continuation of my post no.27 above, I want to quote Orlando Figes from his book ' A People's Tragedy The Russian Revolution 1891-1924 ' , published by Penguin Books, 1998, ISBN 978-0-14-024364-2. He says on page 823 , regarding the Russian Revolution, that " The experiment went horribly wrong, not so much because of the malice of its leaders, most of whom had started out with the highest ideals, but because the ideals were themselves impossible.------The state , however big, cannot make people equal or better human beings. All it can do is to treat its citizens equally and strive to ensure that their free activities are directed towards the general good. "
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old December 18th, 2017, 04:33 AM   #29

Dan Howard's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Australia
Posts: 3,010

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi View Post
Also, in the last industrial revolution people were also afraid of losing their jobs to machines. In the beginning this happened but after a while their were new industries which created even more jobs than before.
New jobs were created but not as many as were lost. Just look at how the average number of work hours has dropped over the last century. The whole point of improved productivity is that you need less man-hours to produce the same thing. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether a family can be supported on these reduced work hours.


Quote:
I'm not to worried about machines taking jobs, maybe the current ones but there are gonna be new jobs.
Yes but not as many as are lost. The ratio of workers compared to non-workers has been dropping for decades and shows no sign of turning around.

Quote:
And even if human productivity is not necessary anymore, that's IMO a positive. This would mean that machine productivity is a) extremely high and b) much cheaper than the human one. This means that "work" will be available nearly for free. And the costs of production will mainly be the cost of resources and energy. Assuming the expected breakthrough in fusion research, energy will be nearly for free as well.
There is a good chance that in a few decades we will live in a world were work and energy is for free while AIs regulate every aspect of our lives. This will so fundamental change our society I cannot imagine how it is gonna look. Are taxes even be needed then? Or money? Sounds like SciFi but we are not far from that. question is will humanity be more like in Wall-E or like in Star Trek.
I also believe that this is the likely result of increased automation but there will be a transitional period involving a lot of fire and blood beforehand. Automation is happening far too quickly for us to smoothly transition into a new economy. If we don't destroy ourselves during this period of turmoil then what arises afterwards could be very good.

Last edited by Dan Howard; December 18th, 2017 at 04:47 AM.
Dan Howard is online now  
Old December 19th, 2017, 04:59 AM   #30
Hellenist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,944
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi View Post
Well, I thought the vast majority of nations signed a little thing called "the universal declaration of human rights"? Taking this as a foundation is a good first step.
The goal is to prevent monopolies/oligopolies and keep competition in each industry as high as possible while at the same time find a compromise between the needs of the employers and their employees and of course protect the environment. This is a balancing act that needs a) thoughtful law making, b) tight control of those laws and c) a capable administration.
An example of good regulation is the current call for an investigation of Disney buying 21st century Fox (which would create a behemoth controlling 40% of the American TV/movie landscape). While a sign of bad regulation is the recent repeal of net neutrality by the FCC.
How are the masses to become aware of "the universal declaration of human rights"? I think we have an intellectual war going on in the US and those who stand for liberty and responsibility are loosing.

Quote:
I am not sure about your argument/point there. There are people who make those decisions already (central banks, politicians, CEOs) and there are different economic schools of thoughts that argue for their point of view.
The rich have power, the poor do not. The US is going through a period of encouraging power and walking over those who do not have power. This may be as innocent as the mentality of affluence that has risen since the second world war and the development of the middle class? Before WWII we did not have the mentality of affluence and few people earned enough to pay income taxes. Things have changed a lot since WWII.

In Oregon, there were so many natural resources and so few people, the revenues from the resources covered all expenses. Today we have shifted from reliance on revenues from resources to reliance on income taxes.

Our consciousness has changed and our population in the West is much larger. We no longer look at our land and forest and think there is plenty for everyone. Instead of welcoming newcomers because we need more people, we realize we are in a struggle against each other for everything desirable. If government does not protect public land, it will be gone. Our failure to protect land for low-income housing means there will be none in the future.

Quote:
Well, I think there are arguments for and against centralised planning. I think the arguments against human centralised planning are better than for it. It's just too much information for us humans to process and interpret good enough. However, AIs are getting there. And if they do they can solve pretty much any problem we humans have. But for what do they need humans then?
Your faith in AI terrifies me. I think our liberty is very important and I wish everyone believed that and stood ready to defend it.

Quote:
Heard of it but have not seen it. Not sure it is available here yet. But yeah, the importance of the question of a proper ethics for and regarding AI will surpass the same question in relation to animals quickly I think. And we can learn a lot about conscience and the human condition by studying a) us creating "life" and b) studying AIs themselves. I often regret going into banking/risk management instead of something like that.
I regret everyone having education for technology instead of liberal education. Maybe liberal education would raise our concern about our liberty?

Quote:
Well, income tax is around longer than communism, just that it was paid mostly in work and not in money.
That is a nice way of avoiding the reality that income taxes are communism and that we have a had a shift in who supports our government. Paying taxes with our labor can hardly be considered capitalism.

Quote:
Bill Gates has an interesting opinion regarding this topic: Bill Gates Wants to Tax Automation, Robots | Fortune
Well, Bill Gates said something I find favorable. I have been opposed to his influence on education that I think is too focused on technology.

Quote:
Also, in the last industrial revolution people were also afraid of losing their jobs to machines. In the beginning this happened but after a while their were new industries which created even more jobs than before. I'm not to worried about machines taking jobs, maybe the current ones but there are gonna be new jobs.
That past has very little to do with the present. Oh well, our resources are finite and when they are exhausted it will be interesting times.

Quote:
And even if human productivity is not necessary anymore, that's IMO a positive. This would mean that machine productivity is a) extremely high and b) much cheaper than the human one. This means that "work" will be available nearly for free. And the costs of production will mainly be the cost of resources and energy. Assuming the expected breakthrough in fusion research, energy will be nearly for free as well.
And of what use will humans be? Your idea of heaven appears to be my idea of hell. Have you ever wondered if you are as useless as tits on a bull? Spend some time volunteering in a homeless shelter and think about the benefits of not having a job.

Quote:
There is a good chance that in a few decades we will live in a world were work and energy is for free while AIs regulate every aspect of our lives. This will so fundamental change our society I cannot imagine how it is gonna look. Are taxes even be needed then? Or money? Sounds like SciFi but we are not far from that. question is will humanity be more like in Wall-E or like in Star Trek.
Do you really think a reality that can function without humans will be good for humans? Again I will say, spend some time volunteering a homeless shelter and think about the benefits of not having a job. It is not just money that these people do not have.

Quote:
If we don't wipe humanity out before by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect or some form of a nuclear war (or getting wiped out by AI because we aren't necessary and a potential threat) I think we are on a good way of creating "paradise".
And what is good about that paradise?

Last edited by athena; December 19th, 2017 at 05:11 AM.
athena is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
compare, economic, systems



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why do we compare ourselves with other people? The Alchemist Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 11 April 8th, 2015 05:44 AM
Let's Compare Pontius Pilate solx Ancient History 10 September 25th, 2014 03:07 AM
Socio-economic systems and evolutionary theory in the study of history GoodsJL New Users 7 July 14th, 2013 02:42 PM
the economic and social systems xenocid3r History Help 1 December 12th, 2009 06:56 AM
differences in latin american societies and economic systems chrisjames0812 Ancient History 1 October 2nd, 2008 10:39 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.