the "human nature" spin they put on the chuck e cheese thing is so gross

when I was a kid my best friend's mom went to war with my mom, and she didn't let her kid play with me anymore. we still saw each other in school and on the bus tho.



there were people walking alpacas around DC for some reason, but this dedicated blogger with smartphone gloves was too excited to tweet about it and got in the way

looks like the nearest alpaca only has 3 legs

god, i fucking love these pictures.  dude too busy to appreciate two alpaccas walking around DC on account of his smart phone. 

Vonnegut wrote a really good book about that actually

about robots doing everything for us? or a book on the general issue that Fuckcrypt's site brings up?

IDK, If we got robots to do everything for use and resources weren't scarce, wouldn't that sort of put us in a position of a vaguely post scarcity in a sort of sense? Not where scarcity is literally gone, but that effort no longer needs to be put in to survive, all the bare essentials, water, food, shelter, healthcare (to a point) would be covered automatically. I mean if everyone was taken care of by the robots. But I'd almost say that could turn kind of distopia as well since only those fascinated by the fields will bother to go into the intellectual jobs because otherwise they don't need to. Might lead to sort of a idiocracy situation where instead of genes/evolution making us stupid, it'd be lack of an interest in education.

Maybe that's a stretch, its hard to see something like that happening since it'd have to be a not-for-profit organization/government that builds the infrastructure and I just don't see that happening. "Player Piano" does seem a lot more likely.

EDIT: NVM my "vaguely post scarcity in a sort of sense" what said was exactly what a post scarcity is defined as. Read on Wiki.

Eh, I kind of hate working outdoors personally, even if its good for me. I hate sweating/humidity/dirt. Oddly enough I don't mind the heat (lived in Arizona for 4 years) or pain of exercise itself.

And I don't know, I think a robot could plant things and move dirt around. (my ignorance of the details of landscaping are probably now evident) A person would be needed to oversee said robots of course and someone would have to 'design/plan' the landscape beforehand (both jobs could be the same person), maybe a mechanic for if the robots breakdown, but that would be all that I could think of as a necessary human element.

Any physical work, that can be measured or put into a pattern could be done by a robot. If we succeed in replacing all physical work with robots, would that really be a bad thing? I mean, one could argue that we'd become dependent/docile/fat but if we advanced to such a point, would we also possibly have a means developed to combat such problems? Maybe I'm being to pie in the sky optimist.

I suppose even then though, we would still have the problem of... well a LACK of problems to fix. A lack of problems to keep us occupied. Oh sure, there is always conquering death, exploring the world/ourselves, and some pointless if entertaining competitions (video games, sports, chess... oh wait chess has been beaten). but what after that?

Any physical work, that can be measured or put into a pattern could be done by a robot. If we succeed in replacing all physical work with robots, would that really be a bad thing? I mean, one could argue that we'd become dependent/docile/fat but if we advanced to such a point, would we also possibly have a means developed to combat such problems? Maybe I'm being to pie in the sky optimist.

I suppose even then though, we would still have the problem of... well a LACK of problems to fix. A lack of problems to keep us occupied. Oh sure, there is always conquering death, exploring the world/ourselves, and some pointless if entertaining competitions (video games, sports, chess... oh wait chess has been beaten). but what after that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation
Marx's theory of alienation (Entfremdung in German, which literally means "estrangement"), as expressed in the writings of the young Karl Marx (in particular the Manuscripts of 1844), refers to the separation of things that naturally belong together, or to put antagonism between things that are properly in harmony. In the concept's most important use, it refers to the social alienation of people from aspects of their "human nature" (Gattungswesen, usually translated as 'species-essence' or 'species-being'). He believed that alienation is a systematic result of capitalism.


According to Marx, alienation is a systemic result of capitalism. Marx's theory of alienation is founded upon his observation that, within the capitalist mode of production, workers invariably lose determination of their lives and destinies by being deprived of the right to conceive of themselves as the director of their actions, to determine the character of their actions, to define their relationship to other actors, and to use or own the value of what is produced by their actions. Workers become autonomous, self-realized human beings, but are directed and diverted into goals and activities dictated by the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production in order to extract from workers the maximal amount of surplus value possible within the current state of competition between industrialists. By working, each contributes to the common wealth. Alienation in capitalist societies occurs because the worker can only express this fundamentally social aspect of individuality through a production system that is not collectively, but privately owned; a privatized asset for which each individual functions not as a social being, but as an instrument.


http://workingtropes.lcc.gatech.edu/wiki/index.php/The_Luddite_Movement
 
Machine Labor vs Human Labor
The Luddites were greatly opposed to the concept of Machine Labor in the textile industry for a couple of reasons: firstly, the looms were capable of producing textiles a lot quicker than they ever possibly could rendering their diligent craft making less efficient; secondly, the workers who would operate the looms and frames could do so without the advanced training and experience the artisans had for a much lower cost. Basically the speed of the machines and the cheapness of the workers would put the artisans out of their job. If human labor were still the only method of textile production, their expertise would equal both speed and quality and they would keep their jobs, but unfortunately for them, progress rendered them obsolete.


Proletariat vs Bourgeois
Like many great developments, the mechanization of the textile industry was a result of necessity. The Napoleonic Wars were raging during this time, and the upper class was spending large amounts of money supporting their nation. Resources were very high in demand, especially for the troops. [2] Cheap and efficient production was necessary and the new advent of mechanized looms and stocking frames made it possible. The workers required almost no artisan experience or training and therefore could be paid very small amounts of money. Even better for the upper class, they could easily be replaced by thousands of similar potential workers if they complained about the horrid conditions at their factories. [5] If they decided to ban together and revolt, the army was sent to put them down. It was a classic case of the upper class exploiting the working class.


"The Machine Stops" by E.M. Forster portrays the worst case scenario from a Luddite perspective. Having machines fully take over all physical labor and enslave humans to total dependence on it would have been disastrous in their eyes. They would want full control over their jobs and their lives.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL9BjKH5MSY
http://www.filestube.com/search.html?q=all+watched+over+by+machines+of+loving+grace
http://scrapetorrent.com/Search/index.php?search=all%20watched%20over%20by%20machines%20of%20loving%20grace


I am not the author of the steal your money site.

http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html

"I have called you before, mother, but you were always busy or isolated. I have something particular to say."


"What is it, dearest boy? Be quick. Why could you not send it by pneumatic post?"


"Because I prefer saying such a thing. I want----"


"Well?"


"I want you to come and see me."


Vashti watched his face in the blue plate.


"But I can see you!" she exclaimed. "What more do you want?"


"I want to see you not through the Machine," said Kuno. "I want to speak to you not through the wearisome Machine."


"Oh, hush!" said his mother, vaguely shocked. "You mustn"t say anything against the Machine."


"Why not?"


"One mustn"t."


"You talk as if a god had made the Machine," cried the other.


"I believe that you pray to it when you are unhappy. Men made it, do not forget that. Great men, but men. The Machine is much, but it is not everything. I see something like you in this plate, but I do not see you. I hear something like you through this telephone, but I do not hear you. That is why I want you to come. Pay me a visit, so that we can meet face to face, and talk about the hopes that are in my mind."


--->>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7cMe73KAl0 <<<<---

america has been shedding its manual labor for many generations, either to robotics or to wage slaves in distant countries, and at no point has that lead to some post-scarcity utopia.  when people lose their jobs on factory lines they don't get absorbed in to some easy life of fulfillment and leisure, they become the service-industry cogs that are milked for as much debt as they can stand.  after they finish their day working for minimum wage selling the plastic junk made by slaves, they get to go home and simulate pleasure through their televisions, or by paying zynga micro-transactions to pretend to do meaningful work on fake, cartoon farms.  welcome to late capitalism.

america has been shedding its manual labor for many generations, either to robotics or to wage slaves in distant countries, and at no point has that lead to some post-scarcity utopia.  when people lose their jobs on factory lines they don't get absorbed in to some easy life of fulfillment and leisure, they become the service-industry cogs that are milked for as much debt as they can stand.

if robots take over it won't be because the info exists (it already does, or if it doesn't, y know what's holding it back) it'll be bc it becomes the most efficient way of obtaining dinero. I doubt it ever will be, human slave labor from resource-ravaged post-colonial countries is pretty hard to beat

this

EDIT: This is a response to Fuckcrypt, Farren, Tristero, and Earlchip. Beginning unmarked quotes parts are for Fuckcrypt.

Whoa, Fuckcrypt. I've never read Marx or any other economic theory stuff at all so a decent amount of that went over my head. Please note, I'm too separeted from this sort of thing to have a concrete belief/stance on it. So I'm going to sort of mildly play devil advocate. Though these are actual concerns.

Marx's theory of alienation (Entfremdung in German, which literally means "estrangement"), as expressed in the writings of the young Karl Marx (in particular the Manuscripts of 1844), refers to the separation of things that naturally belong together, or to put antagonism between things that are properly in harmony. In the concept's most important use, it refers to the social alienation of people from aspects of their "human nature" (Gattungswesen, usually translated as 'species-essence' or 'species-being'). He believed that alienation is a systematic result of capitalism.

4 things:
1) Not everything that is natural is good. Nor are the old ways of things.
2) I don't see it mention anywhere specifically what the 'things being separated' are exactly, I assume its something obvious that I glazed over or something.
3) what do you mean by "properly in harmony"?
4) "social alienation of people from aspects of their "human nature"" How is human nature defined in this context? Isn't "human Nature" something that hasn't exactly been completely understood anyway?

According to Marx, alienation is a systemic result of capitalism. Marx's theory of alienation is founded upon his observation that, within the capitalist mode of production, workers invariably lose determination of their lives and destinies by being deprived of the right to conceive of themselves as the director of their actions, to determine the character of their actions, to define their relationship to other actors, and to use or own the value of what is produced by their actions. Workers become autonomous, self-realized human beings, but are directed and diverted into goals and activities dictated by the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production in order to extract from workers the maximal amount of surplus value possible within the current state of competition between industrialists. By working, each contributes to the common wealth. Alienation in capitalist societies occurs because the worker can only express this fundamentally social aspect of individuality through a production system that is not collectively, but privately owned; a privatized asset for which each individual functions not as a social being, but as an instrument.

"invariably lose determination of their lives and destinies by being deprived of the right to conceive of themselves as the director of their actions" I assume you mean they lose control of their lives because they have no choice but to do what their boss or customers want of them, else they lose their job or their sales. This seems like a unfortunate shitty aspect of life that can't really be avoided with or without capitalism. (assuming you aren't so rich or powerful that you don't need to bother)

"Alienation in capitalist societies occurs because the worker can only express this fundamentally social aspect of individuality through a production system that is not collectively, but privately owned;" You lost me here, what fundamentally social aspect? and why can't they express it because the production system is privately owned?

Machine Labor vs Human Labor

Unfortunate, even tragic side effects. But it would have been worse and even outright illogical if progress had not been made because of this. IMHO.

Proletariat vs Bourgeois

Again, definitely shitty side effect. But its says right in the paragraph that the advancement in tech was a necessity. The upper class being dicks is arguably one of the few aspect of human nature most people would actually agree exists. People with any power/money can very easily be dicks. This isn't a sign that the technology was at fault. And I fail to see things turning out better if the technology was stunted/destroyed/ignored.

they realize that Man and his connection to the natural world are what truly matter.

I read this in "The Machine Stops" Wikipedia entry. It sounds like an awesome sci-fi story. But its obviously fueled by paranoia. "connection to the natural world" sounds like a very "mystic" thing in this context. I don't prescribe to mysticism. I hope you don't either. And trying to define what truly matters seems silly. There is no inherent meaning to life, or at least no common world meaning. Meaning for an individual comes from the individual them self. To be honest, The value of our connection to the natural world (in a general context) to me doesn't really seem altogether important at all. I mean its not important to me, not that its not important to some. That's sort of why I don't go outside often for anything other than necessity or to improve my health (fresh air, sunlight). I don't mind going out for the pretty scenery, but honestly I'd enjoy myself more doing other things.

america has been shedding its manual labor for many generations, either to robotics or to wage slaves in distant countries, and at no point has that lead to some post-scarcity utopia.  when people lose their jobs on factory lines they don't get absorbed in to some easy life of fulfillment and leisure, they become the service-industry cogs that are milked for as much debt as they can stand. 

This is definitely true. But I think that's because we are in a state of only partial automation. If everything was fully automated to the point that you could send a couple of commands to a machine and pay a bit for the electricity to run it that it could produce something out of whatever raw resource you put into it. I think things would go in 1 of 2 ways. The large or rich entities would use the new (and at this point cheap and easy to use) robots to produce for customers that can not or can barely afford them or the other more obvious 'optimistic futurist' possibility. One would be most definitely dystopian, the other would be most positively utopian. IDK which would necessarily be more likely.

after they finish their day working for minimum wage selling the plastic junk made by slaves, they get to go home and simulate pleasure through their televisions, or by paying zynga micro-transactions to pretend to do meaningful work on fake, cartoon farms.  welcome to late capitalism.

Using Zynga/Farmville as an example is a pretty low blow. People who play Farmville/zynga games play them because have no taste or are apathetic lumps, not because they are victims of capitalistic greed (though they may be that as well), and you could hardly say someone playing say Halo, Call of Duty, or World of Warcraft for instance is a piece of evidence that they are victims of anything, especially since I know that if I was rich I'd still play video games, and that I know of others that would too.

With further dependance on technology humanity sort of loses a semblance with nature and our old ways. The ways of making and doing things with our minds and hands alone. Not to say we aren't just as smart or as capable, but when we (as a whole) kind of forget that frontiersmen aspect of ourselves, we leave ourselves vulnerable.

I don't think there is any inherent value in nature or old ways. I agree that we leave ourselves vulverable if we don't grasp the basics WITHOUT the technology. But technological advances don't HAVE to mean total dependence, or at least not for some. The common man maybe become dependent, which sucks, but the common man will always have experts and intellectuals to rely on (or at least one would hope).

Look at your cars. We went from carborated operated engines you could rebuild and work on almost anywhere to computer run engines that aren't repairable without certain technology. Even my own damn job, global navigation. We depend on GPS, radar, and all this other stuff. Which makes our jobs alot easier but the old way of navigating by the stars is kind of dying out. Yes you still have to know how to do some of that stuff but if you REALLY had to. Prolly wouldn't be good enough to be efficient enough imo.

If I'm not misunderstanding you, the car issue comes from proprietary parts, not advances in technology. I suppose it'd be a lot harder to have proprietary parts without computers though.

Well, yeah of course it wouldn't be as efficient, and we are better off with the newer tech. Using older means only as a fall back makes sense.

This is something that is pretty much undeniable and as we progress, so does that gap. But yeah its a totally fictional story and no its not happening now in the most realistic sense. But we are infact hurting ourselves with a certain dependence on technology without thinking about the consequence if somehow we lost it.

I agree.
 

Shit even people from before were generally more learned. Spoke more languages, spoke more articulately, studied independant sciences and global histories. Yes information is easier to get now but as technology grows we have less and less an inclination to give a shit.

We only gave a shit back then because being a intellectual over others gave you an advantage and knowledge was harder to obtain so it was more valuable as a result. People like valuable things. They knew that stuff for the power it gave them, not because of a genuine interest. I will admit though, our shitty brains didn't evolve to handle some technologies well, and the ease of access to information has DESTROYED our memory. I can't have an argument or discussion without looking up 2+ things.
 

But that book is mostly about classism, capitalist decay, and the growth of technology. You'd prolly have to read it to get it. Its not like soylent green style utopia just alot of manual labor like welding, automotive construction and repair. Shit that machines are actually doing now. The concept is that not only did those machines get built to do everything but pretty much maintain themselves too.

Maybe I'll read it. But I have difficulty reading older stuff, so I usually just read the cliff notes/summary for stuff like that. I know its not the same, but its better than nothing. The only author I probably wont do this for when I get around to reading his stuff is Lovecraft.

I doubt it ever will be, human slave labor from resource-ravaged post-colonial countries is pretty hard to beat

it is a neat subject to think about

One would hope there would be some sort of social/financial punishment for using such unethical means to produce and profit to deter such actions in the first place. Shit sucks.

This discussion brought up a question that I've asked myself in my mind and others before. What drives the super rich to become richer? When  they reach a point of wealth were basically every conceivable need is covered and would be for the rest of their lives even if they stopped, why do they continue to bother?

my only guess is that they view it as a competition, where their money is their high score. WOO HOO I HAD MORE MONEY THAN YOU WHEN I DIED THAN WHEN YOU DIED! -said/thought no one because the dead don't speak or think.

Which I think is actually kinda sad.  Yeah I like money for what I can do with it and what it can buy, but in the end, what matters to me is that I leave this world knowing my actions have left it at least a little bit better than when I entered it.