Advanced Technology

wiseones2cents · 13-12-2005 3:45pm #1

many pro-capitalist claim that capitalism contributes to more higher advanced
technology. (which I find false but that is another topic).

The fact of the matter is that in Capitalism that technology is the very thing that is enslaving people. They do not produce technology to better quality for the people but to increase profits. Industrial technology, Mechanical, Electronical, ect.. have been taking away jobs from people for years. Leaving them in poverty in Capitalist societies.(Not to mention outsourcing).

You think things were bad? Japan has just Introduced a robot that can replace human labour. I hear by the year 2050 they will be able to outplay the best soccer player in the world.

Now this is an amazing discovery and I have to give credit to the Japanese where it is due.Though these robots in a Capitalsit system can be used to further steal jobs from citizens. Causing further poverty. If things continue to go the way it has, I see wide spread poverty in the developed countries.

seamus · 13-12-2005 4:23pm

Link?

MrPudding · 13-12-2005 4:26pm

wiseones2cents wrote:

many pro-capitalist claim that capitalism contributes to more higher advanced
technology. (which I find false but that is another topic).

The fact of the matter is that in Capitalism that technology is the very thing that is enslaving people. They do not produce technology to better quality for the people but to increase profits. Industrial technology, Mechanical, Electronical, ect.. have been taking away jobs from people for years. Leaving them in poverty in Capitalist societies.(Not to mention outsourcing).

You think things were bad? Japan has just Introduced a robot that can replace human labour. I hear by the year 2050 they will be able to outplay the best soccer player in the world.

Now this is an amazing discovery and I have to give credit to the Japanese where it is due.Though these robots in a Capitalsit system can be used to further steal jobs from citizens. Causing further poverty. If things continue to go the way it has, I see wide spread poverty in the developed countries.

Very negative attitude there. Perhaps the onward march of progress will allow us puny humans to kick back and enjoy life rather than having to work. Sounds good actually.

MrP

bonkey · 13-12-2005 5:28pm

wiseones2cents wrote:

The fact of the matter is that in Capitalism that technology is the very thing that is enslaving people. They do not produce technology to better quality for the people but to increase profits.

There's nothing unique about technology in this regard. A system which develops it to increase profit also grows food to increase profit, etc.

You think things were bad? Japan has just Introduced a robot that can replace human labour.

Progress has been "replacing" human labour for millenia.

Though these robots in a Capitalsit system can be used to further steal jobs from citizens.

Can? You state this as though their existence is already a fact.

If things continue to go the way it has, I see wide spread poverty in the developed countries.

And who, then, will pay for the capitalists to get richer? Those workers who are still employed, but who are economically crippled by the burden of such widespread poverty?

jc

lazydaisy · 13-12-2005 5:37pm

Also I believe technology has brought a whole new industry and labour market. Someone has to build, supply, invent, market and distribute it.

13-12-2005 6:31pm

wiseones2cents wrote:

many pro-capitalist claim that capitalism contributes to more higher advanced
technology. (which I find false but that is another topic).

The fact of the matter is that in Capitalism that technology is the very thing that is enslaving people. They do not produce technology to better quality for the people but to increase profits. Industrial technology, Mechanical, Electronical, ect.. have been taking away jobs from people for years. Leaving them in poverty in Capitalist societies.(Not to mention outsourcing).

You think things were bad? Japan has just Introduced a robot that can replace human labour. I hear by the year 2050 they will be able to outplay the best soccer player in the world.

Now this is an amazing discovery and I have to give credit to the Japanese where it is due.Though these robots in a Capitalsit system can be used to further steal jobs from citizens. Causing further poverty. If things continue to go the way it has, I see wide spread poverty in the developed countries.

Why can't technology developed by people to make profits, also improve quality of life. Why are they mutually exclusive as you seem to imply?

Tell me if this is wrong, but according to your logic the most technologically advanced countries should be the ones with the highest levels of poverty.

Do you any evidence that technological advances in the long run, increasing poverty and unemployment on a system wide basis?

If robots could do all our work for us surely we'd be able to spend our lives sitting by our robot-made pools drinking our robot-mixed cocktails.

Do you have a source for that robot that Japan has developed?

I think you've been watching too many Terminator movies.

John_C · 13-12-2005 7:00pm

wiseones2cents wrote:

The fact of the matter is that in Capitalism that technology is the very thing that is enslaving people.

Ironically posted using an internet enabled computer.

wiseones2cents · 13-12-2005 7:23pm

MrPudding wrote:

Very negative attitude there. Perhaps the onward march of progress will allow us puny humans to kick back and enjoy life rather than having to work. Sounds good actually.

MrP

Something tells me you are one of them......

Has it allowed us to kick back and enjoy? Advanced technology in capitalism has brought nothing but Unemployement unfortunately. It has replaced human labour. And only a small percentage of the population benefit from it.

I can see it being more beneficial in a socialist society.

wiseones2cents · 13-12-2005 7:47pm

bonkey wrote:

There's nothing unique about technology in this regard. A system which develops it to increase profit also grows food to increase profit, etc.

In a capitalist system if increases production but not price. Since it's always looking for more money to re-invest. Therefore it doesn't benefit the people. they are always one step ahead. So if you are poor you are out of luck.
The reason many people have these things in America is on credit. Credit that many do not pay back and claim bankrupcy. 7 years later your Credit is restored and you can do it again.

Progress has been "replacing" human labour for millenia.

True but not on the scale as it has today and only increasing.

Can? You state this as though their existence is already a fact.

I was watching the news today and seen it. This robot is remarkable. The name of the robot is Asimo(Do a search). Japan has many robots already functioning in thier society.

And who, then, will pay for the capitalists to get richer? Those workers who are still employed, but who are economically crippled by the burden of such widespread poverty?

Exactly. No one. Thats why they will collapse.

wiseones2cents · 13-12-2005 8:04pm

Deleted User wrote:

Why can't technology developed by people to make profits, also improve quality of life. Why are they mutually exclusive as you seem to imply?

Why should it be made for profits at all and not only to improve the ways of life for ALL and not only for the wealthy?Thats capitalism.

Example:America says they have the most advanced medical technology but what good is that if the majority of Americans cannot afford it?

Tell me if this is wrong, but according to your logic the most technologically advanced countries should be the ones with the highest levels of poverty.

Depends on how they use that Technology no?

Do you any evidence that technological advances in the long run, increasing poverty and unemployment on a system wide basis?

In a capitalist system yes. The majority of bankrupcies in America are filled due to medical costs.

If robots could do all our work for us surely we'd be able to spend our lives sitting by our robot-made pools drinking our robot-mixed cocktails.

Sure. If you can afford one.:rolleyes:How many people can afford many of those advanced technologies out there today?

Do you have a source for that robot that Japan has developed?

I think you've been watching too many Terminator movies.

The robot is called ASIMO. I watch more news channels than movies.

Ajnag · 14-12-2005 12:34am

How many people can afford many of those advanced technologies out there today?

How many people owned car's before the model t and after?
How many people owned cell phones in the 80s, How many own them now?

Advanced technology has to be developed first, Then the mean's of mass production have to be developed. Creating a technology in and off itself do's not provide the means to distribute it.

Example:America says they have the most advanced medical technology but what good is that if the majority of Americans cannot afford it?

In america, because they have ****ed up in developing an accesible health system. On the other hand, lack of restriction's on drug prices in america ironically means that they fund the development of the drug's we receive cheaper.

Anyway unemployment due to robot's will be the least of your worry's come the technological singularity.

lazydaisy · 14-12-2005 12:53am

Ok. You guys keep talking about the US health care. Could you please explain something to me.

When I was home in NYC I got incredibly sick. I needed two specialists and was hospitalised. I didnt pay for any of it. I didnt have health insurance either. The government absorbed the costs. Oh, and I was in a private hospital. I also needed prescription drugs which I also did not pay for.

If the government hadnt paid for it, it would have just become a write off. So I have no idea what you guys, especially wiseone are talking about.

bonkey · 14-12-2005 10:04am

wiseones2cents wrote:

In a capitalist system if increases production but not price. Since it's always looking for more money to re-invest. Therefore it doesn't benefit the people. they are always one step ahead. So if you are poor you are out of luck.

I'm teying to figure out what, if anything, this has to do with what it was apparently a response to.

The point I'm making is that there is nothing unique about technology, but your singling it out. Capitalism is the problem in your vision of the world, not technology.....so why are you looking at technology?

The reason many people have these things in America is on credit. Credit that many do not pay back and claim bankrupcy. 7 years later your Credit is restored and you can do it again.

Again...what has this to do with the point I made? How is it a response to anythnig I said, other than to back up my assertion that technology is not the problem, so what teh hell are we singling it out for?

I was watching the news today and seen it. This robot is remarkable. The name of the robot is Asimo(Do a search). Japan has many robots already functioning in thier society.

Woah there. You said the Japenese will have a robot in 50 years which will be able to do a, b and c. You then said that this robot, which is 50 years away can do things.

I was pointing out that yoru use of a present-tense definitive for something thats expected to be developed sometime in the next 50 years is misleading. You seem to be confusing the robots that are already around and those which should be around, if progress continues the way you see it.

Exactly. No one. Thats why they will collapse.

So what you're saying is that the system of capitalism which is enslaving us all will fall apart as a result of its own greed.

Whats the problem here? You don't want it to fall apart? You think we should fight it to prevent it from killnig itself, so we can remain enslaved to it?

I don't get it....first of all, capitalism is bad and enslaving us, then its diong so in a manner which will ensure its own downfall....and neither the downfall nor the continuation of this system is a good thing for you apparently?!?!?!?

jc

bonkey · 14-12-2005 10:12am

lazydaisy wrote:

Ok. You guys keep talking about the US health care. Could you please explain something to me.

Sure.

Lets start with a simple premise...

America has the best emergent care (i.e. ER-style emergency-health-care) facilties in the world, and can offer those who can afford to pay for it the best health-care.

On the average, however, American people do not receive and are not provided with the best standards of health care.

When I was home in NYC I got incredibly sick. I needed two specialists and was hospitalised. I didnt pay for any of it. I didnt have health insurance either. The government absorbed the costs. Oh, and I was in a private hospital. I also needed prescription drugs which I also did not pay for.

Emergent situation. Exactly the stuff the US excels at.

So I have no idea what you guys, especially wiseone are talking about.

Thats whats really scary. That people can look at an entire health-care system and say "this one instance where I got good treatment somehow proves/suggests that all aspects the entire system are without flaw".

It would be like me arguing that because the Christian Brother who taught me maths was a really good teacher and a great guy that all the allegations against e Christian Brothers abusing students over the decades must be fictitious.

If you want to believe that American healthcare is so great.... please.... continue to do so. Its entirely your perogative. You're wrong, but thats neither here nor there. And if you don't believe me...read the first paragraph of this. Afer you've googled up what it's talking about, come back and explain why you're right and the WHO is wrong.

jc

Hobbes · 14-12-2005 10:44am

lazydaisy wrote:

When I was home in NYC I got incredibly sick. I needed two specialists and was hospitalised. I didnt pay for any of it. I didnt have health insurance either. The government absorbed the costs. Oh, and I was in a private hospital. I also needed prescription drugs which I also did not pay for.

I would very interested in how you managed to pull that off.

I was in ER in Boston (fractured my arm). I did have insurance, it took them 20 minutes arguing that the insurance was in fact valid and them checking up before agreeing, sitting in Triage area for nearly two hours 20 mins of that was x-rays and then only being seen because one of the staff accidently whacked into my arm causing me to scream. At which point I spent all of 5 minutes (if that) with a doctor who just prescribed pain killers and sent me home.

Add to that the total cost for all that time came close to $600 and they also double billed me (which is quite a common scam).

Compare that to my visit to the ER in South Korea, despite being packed out I was seen by a doctor after 30 minutes, 10 minutes prior to that was x-rays. Total cost was 20 euros. My relations when describing Irish hospitals to them couldn't understand the alien concept of why people would be made to wait 4-6 hours before being seen.

... Personally I think if you have the money to jump the queue then yes US probably has the best care in the world.

seamus · 14-12-2005 11:21am

wiseones2cents wrote:

The robot is called ASIMO. I watch more news channels than movies.

ASIMO? You seriously think this robot is currently capable of performing manual human labour with remotely the speed, dexterity and intelligence of a human labourer?

Here's a surprise for you: Simple tasks have been, and are being done by non-human devices on an increasing basis. My Dad is an accountant. When he first started as an accountant, everything was done by hand. Even calculators were bordering on luxuries. Now accountancy firms give a computer to every individual. Much fewer people are now employed purely for the purposes of typewriting or calculating or any of the other functions which can now be done in a fraction of the time using a computer.
The same goes for virtually every other industry. In some jobs humans have been completely replaced by machines, save for a handful of individuals who maintain the old ways out of choice.

Yet more people have jobs in the developed world than ever before. Clearly the idea of "Machines replacing humans, puts humans out of jobs and makes everyone poor", has never been right, except for the hardcore of individuals unwilling to adapt.

wiseones2cents · 14-12-2005 1:32pm

Ajnag wrote:

How many people owned car's before the model t and after?
How many people owned cell phones in the 80s, How many own them now?

Oh I see. If we wait long enough 20-40 years we will get to benefit of our over priced technology that we helped pay for. Until then. It should be only affordable to the rich.:rolleyes:

Advanced technology has to be developed first, Then the mean's of mass production have to be developed. Creating a technology in and off itself do's not provide the means to distribute it.

You make it seem like Advanced Technology cannot be developped in a Socialist society. May I remind you, who made it to space first, without going into credit?

In america, because they have ****ed up in developing an accesible health system. On the other hand, lack of restriction's on drug prices in america ironically means that they fund the development of the drug's we receive cheaper.

The ones that benefit from the American health care system are the ones pumping out the mis-information and tooting it. I dont know what you mean but Canada produces drugs at way below the cost of American. Pharmaceudicals is big business in America. Its the Prozac nation. The FDA is thrown money by these business to keep it into check. WHo pays for that? The consumer.

Anyway unemployment due to robot's will be the least of your worry's come the technological singularity.

I think America's economy will have collapsedby the time that happens.

wiseones2cents · 14-12-2005 1:52pm

bonkey wrote:

I'm teying to figure out what, if anything, this has to do with what it was apparently a response to.

The point I'm making is that there is nothing unique about technology, but your singling it out. Capitalism is the problem in your vision of the world, not technology.....so why are you looking at technology?

I'm not Amish.lol If you read my posts I support Technology in Socialism. Not in Capitalism. Therefore I am not singling out technology. Only how technology is used in a capitalist system.

Again...what has this to do with the point I made? How is it a response to anythnig I said, other than to back up my assertion that technology is not the problem, so what teh hell are we singling it out for?

I am not singling it out. I am speaking about technology in regards to Capitalism. Example. I heard today that the Investors in Best Buy(Technology store) in the States are complaining that the company is over spending to please customers and that it is hurting their bottom line. Capitalists care about profits. Not the advancement of technology.

Woah there. You said the Japenese will have a robot in 50 years which will be able to do a, b and c. You then said that this robot, which is 50 years away can do things.

No I said the robot is out NOW but in 45 years from now it will be able to replace any human. Right now it can serve people,get coffee,ect...stuff like that.

So what you're saying is that the system of capitalism which is enslaving us all will fall apart as a result of its own greed.

Precisely.

Whats the problem here? You don't want it to fall apart? You think we should fight it to prevent it from killnig itself, so we can remain enslaved to it?

The problem is they are starting wars and corupting other countries(CANADA FOR ONE) just to prolong their demise. I think we should be Hurrying it's demise, So it does not spread further.I hear America was already complaining they wanted countries to forgive their debts.

I don't get it....first of all, capitalism is bad and enslaving us, then its diong so in a manner which will ensure its own downfall....and neither the downfall nor the continuation of this system is a good thing for you apparently?!?!?!?

The downfall is long over due. When it has fallen. Then I will be content.
Either that or it has to change its ways which is highly unlikely.

Hobbes · 14-12-2005 1:54pm

wiseones2cents wrote:

Oh I see. If we wait long enough 20-40 years we will get to benefit of our over priced technology that we helped pay for. Until then. It should be only affordable to the rich.:rolleyes:

Actually.. yes. As pointed out what makes an item cheap is the ability to mass produce it. Ford T is very good example of how mass production helped technology. Before that only the rich could afford the cars because it required specialised skills by manual workers.

wiseones2cents · 14-12-2005 2:04pm

seamus wrote:

ASIMO? You seriously think this robot is currently capable of performing manual human labour with remotely the speed, dexterity and intelligence of a human labourer?

Here's a surprise for you: Simple tasks have been, and are being done by non-human devices on an increasing basis. My Dad is an accountant. When he first started as an accountant, everything was done by hand. Even calculators were bordering on luxuries. Now accountancy firms give a computer to every individual. Much fewer people are now employed purely for the purposes of typewriting or calculating or any of the other functions which can now be done in a fraction of the time using a computer.
The same goes for virtually every other industry. In some jobs humans have been completely replaced by machines, save for a handful of individuals who maintain the old ways out of choice.

Yet more people have jobs in the developed world than ever before. Clearly the idea of "Machines replacing humans, puts humans out of jobs and makes everyone poor", has never been right, except for the hardcore of individuals unwilling to adapt.

It is capable of replacing a few jobs already and will replace more as the technology advances.

More people have jobs in the developped world, simply because there are more people with more credit and more resources which creates more jobs and more demand for consumption. In the under developed world their resources are taken by the developped countries and creditors.Not to mention much of America's population has been absorbed into the social services sector(non technology). Though its the American tax payer that has to support thier pay. As the labour force shrinks. So will the tax dollars to pay for them. And so will their over all jobs.

bonkey · 14-12-2005 2:14pm

wiseones2cents wrote:

I'm not Amish.lol If you read my posts I support Technology in Socialism. Not in Capitalism. Therefore I am not singling out technology. Only how technology is used in a capitalist system.

But you're singling technology out. Capitalism treats everything in a similar way.

Example. I heard today that the Investors in Best Buy(Technology store) in the States are complaining that the company is over spending to please customers and that it is hurting their bottom line. Capitalists care about profits. Not the advancement of technology.

Counter-example. I heard chefs complaining about how so much food today is "mass-produced" at farms, leading to lesser quality (wrt. taste etc.) leading to less enjoyment for food. In short, Capitalists care about profits, not about the advancement of good food.

Why is good food any different to technology in this respect?

No I said the robot is out NOW but in 45 years from now it will be able to replace any human.

You still don't understand. Right now, the robout that is out cannot do these things. In 45 years it might be able to do the stuff you're suggesting that it will be able to do.

You're casting a future possibility as a certainty.

In the 80s, I read innumerable articles about smart software which, by the turn of the century would be good enough to develop other software, effectively ending the then-burgeoning software industry and putting people like me out of a job. You know what? It didn't happen in those 20 years. In fact, it remained 20 years away for over a decade, and then people copped on to how difficult it was to get over some hurdles and stopped making stupid headline-grabbing predictions of what will happen in N years, and instead started writing about what could happen, if conditions are met and obstacles overcome. They also started looking a bit more logically at how such paradigm shifts could be properly managed, given that there would obviously be enough time to plan.

You are ignoring (or haven't learned) these lessons. You are stating as a certainty that this stuff will happen within the timescale you've chosen, and are furthermore ignoring the fact that "forewarned is forearmed" and are instead doing the equivalent of running around crying that the sky is falling.

All while also saying that the sooner the sky falls, the better.

The problem is they are starting wars and corupting other countries(CANADA FOR ONE) just to prolong their demise.

Dude. Capitalism isn't a country. Who's this "they" you're talking about? The Japanese who are inventing this wundermachine? The Americans? Is the rest of the western world not also capitalist? I thought it was the system you were complaining about, not some hithertofore unnamed nation.

Or is the sky just falling?

I think we should be Hurrying it's demise,

So the robot is good then? So why were you complaining about it?

Maybe we should support and fund its development. Hey...maybe they could start a BOINC project and we could dedicate our spare PC cycles to helping bring about the end of civilisation or something. That would be neat

I hear America was already complaining they wanted countries to forgive their debts.

Yawn. I hear the sky is falling.

Whats your point? That comment has nothing to do with the thread you've started, unless what you really meant by "Advanced technology" is somethnig like "I hate America and want to attack them in the guise of talking about the end of capitalism"

I'll come back when you have a coherent argument. I don't expect it to be soon.

jc

wiseones2cents · 14-12-2005 2:14pm

Hobbes wrote:

Actually.. yes. As pointed out what makes an item cheap is the ability to mass produce it. Ford T is very good example of how mass production helped technology. Before that only the rich could afford the cars because it required specialised skills by manual workers.

And they couldn't teach more people those specialised skills?Why didn't they just hire more people to produce more cars? Oh ya. greed. Teach too many people and they wouldn't need them now would they? Though what happened when Mechanics caught on? They raised the price of parts(Even though they are being mass produced). Build a car from parts and it costs alot more than twice the amount of a new car.

Over priced homes and overpriced car and parts = working your entire life to pay for these. Thats capitalism. Perpetual work. I hear many Americans are complaining that cannot afford to retire. Work till you die.......

wiseones2cents · 14-12-2005 2:41pm

bonkey wrote:

But you're singling technology out. Capitalism treats everything in a similar way.

No I am not. Read the over all message in my posts.

Counter-example. I heard chefs complainnig about how so much food today is "mass-produced" at farms, leading to lesser quality (wrt. taste etc.) leadnig ot less enjoyment for food. In short, Capitalists care about profits, not about the advancement of good food.

Why is good food any different to technology in this respect?

Honestly? This is a horrible counter example. Its like a mass producer of frozen foods which uses cheap food substitutes and flavouring to mimic
real food. And a Franchise begins to put real ingredients(which are more costly)into the dishes but maintains the same prices. The Investors would cry foul because their profit margins are shrinking. Thats capitalism.

You still don't understand. Right now, the robout that is out cannot do these things. In 45 yeatrs it might be able to do the stuff you're suggesting that it will be able to do.

I'm not guessing. I have seen forecasts on these robots. Apparently they will be fully functional by the year 2050.

In the 80s, I read innumerable articles about smart software which, by the turn of the century would be good enough to develop other software, effectively ending the then-burgeoning software industry. You know what? It didn't happen in those 20 years. In fact, it remained 20 years away for over a decade, and then people copped on to how difficult it was to get over some hurdles and stopped making stupid headline-grabbing predictions of what will happen in N years, and instead started writing about what could happen, if conditions are met. They also started looknig logically at how such paradigm shifts could be properly managed, given that there would obviously be enough time to plan.

You are ignoring (or haven't learned) these lessons. You are stating as a certainty that this stuff will happen within the timescale you've chosen, and are ignornig the fact that "forewarned is forearmed" and are instead doing the equivalent of running around crying that the sky is falling.

I guess only time will tell. Though if you are watching the progress of these robots it is quite remarkable.

Dude. Capitalism isn't a country. Who's this "they" you're talking about? The Japanese who are inventing this wundermachine? The Americans? Is the rest of the western world not also capitalist? I thought it was the system you were complaining about, not some unnamed nation.

I did not say that capitalism was one country. There are many Capitalist systems. America, Britain and Japan(which is an extension of American capitalism) just to name a few.

So the robot is good then? So good, we should support and fund its development. Hey...maybe they could start a BOINC project and we could dedicate our spare PC cycles to helping bring about the end of civilisation or something.

What does this have to do with me stating the Capitalists demise must be hurried?

Yawn. I hear the sky is falling.

Whats your point? That comment has nothing to do with the thread you've started, unless what you really meant by "Advanced technology" is somethnig like "I hate America and want to attack them in the guise of talking about the end of capitalism"

Yawn. We are discussing technology in a capitalist society verses a socialist society. Sorry I couldn't fit that all into the Title.:rolleyes: But if you read my opening post you will see that.

And I never said America should be attacked. At least not Physically.

I'll come back when you have a coherent argument. I don't ecpect it to be soon.

Feel free to drop in any time.

Ajnag · 14-12-2005 3:11pm

You make it seem like Advanced Technology cannot be developped in a Socialist society. May I remind you, who made it to space first, without going into credit?

And may I remind you of the fate of the head of that program, and the millions of others who ended up in the gulag's?

Also it would be of worth to differenciate between a socialist society and a communist one. Communism is a totalitarian centralised system, It's practice in russia turned out to be pretty much the same as capitalism with the small privilaged elite few gorging of the mass's. The russian model was cripled by corruption and greed, only that in comparision to the capitalist model it lacked personal freedoms and cost the lives of millions more then ww2. Also the level of difference between the rich and poor of communism far exceeded the that of the west.

You would do well to read up on orwells belifes on facism and communism and the difference between totalitarianism and transparent societys.

bonkey · 14-12-2005 3:16pm

wiseones2cents wrote:

Honestly? This is a horrible counter example. Its like a mass producer of frozen foods which uses cheap food substitutes and flavouring to mimic
real food. And a Franchise begins to put real ingredients(which are more costly)into the dishes but maintains the same prices. The Investors would cry foul because their profit margins are shrinking. Thats capitalism.

So why is my counter example terrible? It shows capitalism treats technology no differently to food - its used as a means to increase profit at the expense of the potential benefit to the consumer.

As I said...you're singling out technology, but for no established reason. None of the ways in which capitalism treats technology are unique - they are no different to how it treats anything else - a means to increase profit.

I just don't understand how you then make the non-intuitive leap to deciding that capitalists and capitalism will somehow be stupid enough to kill the golden goose, and use their profit-maximisation techniques (honed over centuries, if not millenia) to put an end to profit-generation.

After all, they haven't taken food-quality / profit-maximisation past the logical pouint where we start starving or dying of malnutrition en masse ending capitalism, have they? Why is that I wonder? Maybe its because they understand the principle of profit maximisation?

Seriously....you seem to be portraying capitalists as idiots who will bring about their own downfall. Have you stopped to consider what it says about the rest of the world, that it lets these idiots rule, or that it ever allowed such utter morons get the upper hand.

I'm not guessing. I have seen forecasts on these robots. Apparently they will be fully functional by the year 2050.
...
I guess only time will tell.

You're not guessing. You've state as fact. And then you acknowledge that its not certain and "only time will tell".

So which is it? Certain? Or "time will tell"?

I did not say that capitalism was one country.

Could you explain who the "they" ni the following sentence is:

The problem is they are starting wars and corupting other countries(CANADA FOR ONE) just to prolong their demise.

Given that Canada is a capitalist nation, you can't just be talking about capitalist nations in general with the "They". So who is it?

There are many Capitalist systems. America, Britain and Japan(which is an extension of American capitalism) just to name a few.

But up to the "they;re recruiting other nations" you've just been attacking capitalism generally....so you've not made any distinction up to now between these systems. Now all of a sudden, Capitalists are recruiting "other nations"....and the example you give is of a capitalist nation!!!!

So capitalists are recruiting capitalists to capitalism? Either that, or you stopped referring to capitalism in the general sense when you use that "they", in which case my question is perfectly valid. Or are you suggesting Canada isn't run under a form of capitalism?

What does this have to do with me stating the Capitalists demise must be hurried?

Its a suggestion as to how you can do it.

Use technology to bring down capitalism, by using technology to advance itself, to speed up the collapse of capitalism that you see the advance of technology bringing about.

If it seems a bit flippant, maybe it will give you a further hint (should one be needed) as to how seriously I'm taking this discussion.

We are discussing technology in a capitalist society verses a socialist society. Sorry I couldn't fit that all into the Title.:rolleyes: But if you read my opening post you will see that.

I've re-read your opening post. It complains about the evils of advancing technology.

If you re-read the opening post, you'll see that you don't mention socialism. Indeed, you'll find that your second contribution (which followed my opening sally) was your first mention of socialism. Post #8 if you're having problems findnig it. You'll also notive that unlike the "detail" that the first post went in to, you limited your argumetn about socialism to be "it would be better used in a socialist society" comment, which struck me as little more than a throwaway aside.

If that single line in post 8 was actually the core of your argument, I apologise for not being psychic enough to have intuitively understand that in the post I made before you mentioned it.

Further, the second reply to me mentioned capitalism, btu not socialism. In fact, the only times you've referred to socialism is in a response to someone who's already taken up points about your initial post.

So you can roll your eyes all you want, but I don't think you made it clear at all that you were discussing anythign about capitalism vs socialism. You just brought socialism into things responding to people. Then again, you also brough in people living on credit, America looking for debt cancellation, and god knows how many other things which aren't relevant to either the title nor the first post, so you'll have to again forgive me if I'm not psychic enough to determine which are supposed to be relevant and which aren't.

And I never said America should be attacked. At least not Physically.

I implied that you're using this thread as little more than a thin veil with which to attack America. Given that its difficult to use words to carry out a physical attack, I would have though it was clear I wasn't referring to one.

Hobbes · 14-12-2005 3:38pm

wiseones2cents wrote:

And they couldn't teach more people those specialised skills?Why didn't they just hire more people to produce more cars? Oh ya. greed.

Because hiring and training and maintaining costs money. Where as mass production allows you to drastically cut those costs way down.

Anyway manual labour cannot compete when it comes to mass production. Simple fact. The only instances is where custom built stuff is made and then your paying through the nose for such an item because you are using manual skilled labour.

Build a car from parts and it costs alot more than twice the amount of a new car.

Your oversimplfying the whole thing. You have to design the parts, the car, create the machinery to create the parts, create the parts, ship the parts, put the parts together into a car, test the parts and the car, ship the cars out to dealers, create marketing to promote the car product, pay your employees, pay plant costs (electricty, etc).

On top of that you have to ensure your shareholders make a profit and that you have enough profit to reinvest and to make a profit for yourself.

I'm sure I missed a lot there.

Hobbes · 14-12-2005 3:40pm

I'm not guessing. I have seen forecasts on these robots. Apparently they will be fully functional by the year 2050.

I for one welcome our new robotic overlords. :v:

What do you mean by fully functional. ^_____________^

Ajnag · 14-12-2005 10:39pm

What do you mean by fully functional.

Whorebots?

wiseones2cents · 15-12-2005 1:04am

Ajnag wrote:

And may I remind you of the fate of the head of that program, and the millions of others who ended up in the gulag's?

Thats is not the actions of a socialist society,but of a communist dictator.
Where did America get all its scientists from to begin with? From Socialist countries in the east. Russia, Switzerland, Italy, Germany,ect...All of which were socialist countries.

Also it would be of worth to differenciate between a socialist society and a communist one. Communism is a totalitarian centralised system, It's practice in russia turned out to be pretty much the same as capitalism with the small privilaged elite few gorging of the mass's. The russian model was cripled by corruption and greed, only that in comparision to the capitalist model it lacked personal freedoms and cost the lives of millions more then ww2. Also the level of difference between the rich and poor of communism far exceeded the that of the west.

Most of what you say is true except your final sentence. The level of difference exceeded the west, though not the amount of poverty. There was more economic balance so the greed was limited to the Ogliarch's. In America greed runs rampant through the entire society. With the people at the bottom feeling the brunt of it.

You would do well to read up on orwells belifes on facism and communism and the difference between totalitarianism and transparent societys.

You mean animal farm?

Actually I am aware of the differences between Socialism and Capitalism. If you read my posts you will see that. I am Pro-Socialist.

wiseones2cents · 15-12-2005 1:25am

Hobbes wrote:

Because hiring and training and maintaining costs money. Where as mass production allows you to drastically cut those costs way down.

And production and sales doesnt? All you need is resources to manufacture and a consumer and you have money. Where do you think money comes from? the air? It comes from resources.

Anyway manual labour cannot compete when it comes to mass production. Simple fact. The only instances is where custom built stuff is made and then your paying through the nose for such an item because you are using manual skilled labour.

You missed the whole point. why dont they just teach more people to make cars. Has mass production benefitted the public more or the companies profit margins? Think about it.

Your oversimplfying the whole thing. You have to design the parts, the car, create the machinery to create the parts, create the parts, ship the parts, put the parts together into a car, test the parts and the car, ship the cars out to dealers, create marketing to promote the car product, pay your employees, pay plant costs (electricty, etc)

On top of that you have to ensure your shareholders make a profit and that you have enough profit to reinvest and to make a profit for yourself.

I'm sure I missed a lot there.

First of all the parts are already designed if the product exists. Shipped? Not in a socialist society. Since there would be a car dealer on every corner. All that needs to be shipped are resources where they are needed.

Speaking of creating Machinery. In a capitalist society that cost of the machinery is put in the price of the product,as is interest payments if it is on loans. As is shipping costs, marketing, utilites, insurance,ect Not in a Socialist society. These are all subsidized.The machinery is government owned. Alot less stress in general if you ask me. And your job is secure in a communist society. Not in a capitalist society.

Not to mention the Owner of the capitalist country wants a cut, the Government wants a cut, the share holders want a cut, executives want a cut. And who pays for it? The lower end consumer.

Therefore a socialist system is far superior.

wiseones2cents · 15-12-2005 1:30am

Hobbes wrote:

I for one welcome our new robotic overlords. :v:

What do you mean by fully functional. ^_____________^

Have you seen the movie I robot? Where the robots take over.:)

Fully functional as in it will be able to do anything a man can do and better.

samb · 15-12-2005 1:48am

Oh wise one, tell us more of this truth you speek.:D

Athough I would also be a socialist to a certain extent (left of centre anyway I guess), You are missing the benefits of competion. Companies will use machinary to make products cheaper, yes for profits, but ultimately competition will mean that the consumer will get the product cheaper. Enteprise is not the cause of all evils as you seem to think.

Education, Health, Transport and maybe a few more things should be state owned though. (too much to go into now, just my position)

sceptre · 15-12-2005 3:34am

wiseones2cents wrote:

Have you seen the movie I robot? Where the robots take over.:)

Must be tied into that documentary I saw last week about some terminating machine that came back in time to kill that one of the Connorses. I for one found it highly educational.

Boggle · 15-12-2005 9:32am

I think the argument is a little over the top on both sides... Yes, automation replaces manual labour but this autromation requires volume production to remain cost-effective. This volume can only be maintained if you have demand and if the demand does not come from the developed countries then where will it come from??

Generally, while I do see opportunities for exploitation with the increasing levels of automation that will be available down the line. I would argue that a balance will always be maintained inside a country and enforced if it comes from en external source.

(Not sure I phrased this well - am a bit rushed...)

Jimboo_Jones · 15-12-2005 9:44am

wiseones2cents wrote:

Have you seen the movie I robot? Where the robots take over.:)

Fully functional as in it will be able to do anything a man can do and better.

Hey each to his own, but I'm more interest in when the robot that can everything a woman can do and better is coming out.

w66w66 · 15-12-2005 10:02am

Socialism sounds wonderful on paper. In practice though, collectivism and state ownership of the economy require central planning on an unprecedented scale, which in turn leads to a more authoritarian state. I certainly wouldn't trust the current authorities with more powers and theres no reason to believe that the authorities in a socialist state would be whiter than white.

wiseones2cents · 15-12-2005 7:58pm

samb wrote:

Oh wise one, tell us more of this truth you speek.:D

Athough I would also be a socialist to a certain extent (left of centre anyway I guess), You are missing the benefits of competion. Companies will use machinary to make products cheaper, yes for profits, but ultimately competition will mean that the consumer will get the product cheaper. Enteprise is not the cause of all evils as you seem to think.

Education, Health, Transport and maybe a few more things should be state owned though. (too much to go into now, just my position)

I will

What competition? Your price can never go lower than in a socialist society. Its already at the lowest it can go. I capitalist company has to Include Insurance,utilities,share holders,owner,taxes,marketing ,shipping, fuel, maintenance,interest costs,loans,ect...

Even in a capitalist society, everyone knows that the money is in Volume.
More Volume you sell, the cheaper the product can be sold.

The Notion that capitalism can compete with Socialism is ridiculous.

Where do you get your Moneys worth? At Mcdonalds(Capitalist style) or a Chinese Buffet(Socialist style)?

I think all should be 100% government owned. Except possibly Medias.

wiseones2cents · 15-12-2005 8:01pm

sceptre wrote:

Must be tied into that documentary I saw last week about some terminating machine that came back in time to kill that one of the Connorses. I for one found it highly educational.

Put this robots technology together with military technology and you will see the possibility of a killing machine is not too far away.

wiseones2cents · 15-12-2005 8:14pm

w66w66 wrote:

Socialism sounds wonderful on paper. In practice though, collectivism and state ownership of the economy require central planning on an unprecedented scale, which in turn leads to a more authoritarian state. I certainly wouldn't trust the current authorities with more powers and theres no reason to believe that the authorities in a socialist state would be whiter than white.

Do you know how many central planners exist in America? And it is not a socialist country. Think tanks are needed in all governments. More think tanks the more Ideas.

I wouldn't trust the currect authorities either since thier central planning is on how to make THIER life better and not the publics.

Greed is less present in a socialist society. So is more trustable.

Hobbes · 15-12-2005 8:17pm

wiseones2cents wrote:

Greed is less present in a socialist society. So is more trustable.

Name three examples.

Have you seen the movie I robot? Where the robots take over.

Ahh but we will Ismovs laws to protect us. Just tell the robot that doing your work is harming you mentally and the robot should happily explode. Although I may be wrong as I couldn't find another fictional example to counter with. :v:

Manic Moran · 15-12-2005 8:29pm

You missed the whole point. why dont they just teach more people to make cars

I'm trying to figure this one out...

Let's say there is a car facility which produces 100 man-day's worth of cars.
Before roboticisation, total production of the community is equivalent in value to 100 man-day's worth of cars. Say 1 man-day per car, so 100 cars.

They can replace all those men with machines.

Total production of the facility is now 100 man-days's worth, so 100 cars.
We have unused capacity of 100 man-days because of all the people who are now not making cars any more.
So why not have these people engaged in some other enterprise. Say software design or carpentry? As a result, we have production of 100-mandays of cars, plus 100 mandays of software.

Thus, because of the roboticisation, the community has now doubled its productivity in terms of production/manhours, which thus means that income also increases.

Where's the problem?

NTM

Time Magazine · 15-12-2005 8:45pm

Right I've counted the number of problems with your argument wiseone2cents and the current running total is 1428.

Firstly, who's gonna make these wunderobots? Workers! And who's gonna maintain them? Workers! And who's gonna design the bots that inevitable learn how to maintain them? Workers!

And here's the really fun part, absolute poverty in the Western world has decreased hundred-fold since the 1800's, the time when Marx was ranting and raving. Isn't it about time we had another famine?

Your argument reminds me of one Thomas Malthus' Food Supply Theory.

Basically this states that population multiplies itself (I have 4 kids from only 2 people etc); and that food supply only adds onto itself (one field here, another there). He said it was therefore inevitable that population would outstrip food supply.

He was wrong. And even if he was, the worst thing that would happen is that the "surplus" (we have to remain scientific here) people would die and the remainder would have enough food.

This is also the case with capitalism. Capitalists work for profit - you're right. So why would they pursue a path that would lower their profits, i.e. the over-development of technology? You're talking about economics here, and if you're going to do that you have to face economic science. If the increase in technology will eventually outstrip us of our wealth people will not do it. We can argue about the theoretical concept of if technology could outstrip in the first place, and there's plenty to be said on that; but that's just theory. Let's look at the facts - if someone is greedy and is willling to scupper the entire world economy for the pursuit of technology they're not going to be willing to hurt themselves in the process. And if they are that bad, could we really trust someone like this is a let's-all-get-along socialist system?

Money is only good to you if somebody else is productive first - there will be no demand for the magic robot that wipes everyone's jobs out and thus there will be no investment. Marx was a smart guy and made some sound economic and social commentaries. But he must have been taking the piss with that one.

Most people in Ireland are happy enough with the capitalist system. Would the establishment of a socialist system not count as slavery?

Sure Communism only killed 100,000,000 people - let's give it another try!

Oh and one last thing: it was communism that collapsed in on itself.

samb · 16-12-2005 1:59am

Angry Banana wrote:

Marx was a smart guy and made some sound economic and social commentaries. But he must have been taking the piss with that one.

Most people in Ireland are happy enough with the capitalist system. Would the establishment of a socialist system not count as slavery?

Sure Communism only killed 100,000,000 people - let's give it another try!

Oh and one last thing: it was communism that collapsed in on itself.

I agreed will everything you have said before this quote, about wiseones ridiculus political philosophy.

I believe however that you are not being fair to communism and definetly not socialism.
As you said Marx was a fairly smart guy and I am sure he would be disgusted if he could see what was done in Russia based on his ideas. That however was Stalinism which was totalitarian. The totalitarian nature of soviet russia has nothing to do with Marxist ideas, you could have a democratic communist government. It could be agrued that the reason communism has never worked is more to do with the fact that it was forced on the people of those countries and that other countries espeically America actively thwarted trade in and out of these countries (Cuba still). No political system can work in isolation (and yes before you say it, much isolation was self inflicted). No political idea killed 100,000,000 people, it was the totalitarian, atempted, forced implementation that did that, and that was Stalinism.

With regard Socialism I think that your definition is different from mine. Socialism has been used by Marx, Hitler, Bertie, Pat R, Joe Higgins etc, all of whom it has clearly meant different things. You are probably using it as Marx or Lenin may have, while I tend to think of it as being based on european style welfare state. The second biggest political grouping in the EU parliment calls itself socialist, after all. And these people are not nearly communists, they run succesful economies and societies.

Ajnag · 16-12-2005 2:34am

Simple capitalist approach to socialism......Simply approach social care as an infrasturtural issue, A healther happier better educated and maintained society will compete better on the global stage, as well as other possible advantages.

Dont really understand why this capitalist/socialist divide is so prevelent and why people are so bi-polar about it.

samb · 16-12-2005 2:47am

Ajnag wrote:

Simple capitalist approach to socialism......Simply approach social care as an infrasturtural issue, A healther happier better educated and maintained society will compete better on the global stage, as well as other possible advantages.

Dont really understand why this capitalist/socialist divide is so prevelent and why people are so bi-polar about it.

Yes very well said, I couldn't agree more. That could be described as modern socialism, and that is what I believe. Crime, Poor education, poor infrastructure, poor health, unhappy emplyees are all detremental to enteprise.
I wasn't being polar I was just trying to put these positions in perspective as you have done well. Bush and American republicans would probably consider the Fianna Fail/PD coalition as very socialist. I would like it to be only slightly more socialist. The others below seem to be comparing cut-throat capitilism, wild-west style with Communism, soviet style.

samb · 16-12-2005 2:51am

Actually I'd rather flip your statement round and say.
Simple socialist approach to capitalism.

We could agrue about privitisation of health services, transport infrastructure, education. These are debates that can be had between us in the middle

wiseones2cents · 16-12-2005 6:31pm

Hobbes wrote:

Name three examples.

Name 3 examples? I can name a thousand.

There are more people eating from the pie in capitalism therefore more greed.

Everyone in America wants to get rich over night. Thats the problem.

They'll rob there own mothers to get ahead. Not in Socialism.

Ahh but we will Ismovs laws to protect us. Just tell the robot that doing your work is harming you mentally and the robot should happily explode. Although I may be wrong as I couldn't find another fictional example to counter with. :v:

This robot's primary and only objective will be to kill you. I dont think it will be listening to anything you have to say.:rolleyes:

wiseones2cents · 16-12-2005 6:40pm

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm trying to figure this one out...

Let's say there is a car facility which produces 100 man-day's worth of cars.
Before roboticisation, total production of the community is equivalent in value to 100 man-day's worth of cars. Say 1 man-day per car, so 100 cars.

They can replace all those men with machines.

Total production of the facility is now 100 man-days's worth, so 100 cars.
We have unused capacity of 100 man-days because of all the people who are now not making cars any more.
So why not have these people engaged in some other enterprise. Say software design or carpentry? As a result, we have production of 100-mandays of cars, plus 100 mandays of software.

Thus, because of the roboticisation, the community has now doubled its productivity in terms of production/manhours, which thus means that income also increases.

Where's the problem?

NTM

Where's the problem?The problem is that people have to wait 20-40 Years in order for the mass producing technology comes about to utilize it. When they could have already possessed it at the time.

More people with more technological knowledge which means the Product's technology is more than likely to Advance at a faster rate.

EXAMPLE: A place in Russia called Sosnovy Bor. It is a center of Nuclear technology where information is shared. The educational level and living standard there is higher than the average in Russia. Almost everyone in Sosnovy Bor is connected with nuclear technology.

Once the mass production is in effect. Then they can look for jobs. If there is any....

A socialist Economy will sustain you. Not a Capitalist......

Manic Moran · 16-12-2005 6:50pm

Hang on.. Sosnovy Bor exists because of technology. Are you using it as an example of the good of technology or the bad?

Bear with me, I'm not used to looking at things from the far socialist point of view, I evidently need some handholding.

NTM

wiseones2cents · 16-12-2005 7:20pm

Angry Banana wrote:

Right I've counted the number of problems with your argument wiseone2cents and the current running total is 1428.

Firstly, who's gonna make these wunderobots? Workers! And who's gonna maintain them? Workers! And who's gonna design the bots that inevitable learn how to maintain them? Workers!

1428? Is that all?:rolleyes: Who's going to make the robots? Robots of coarse. Dont you watch Sci-fi movies?:)

And here's the really fun part, absolute poverty in the Western world has decreased hundred-fold since the 1800's, the time when Marx was ranting and raving. Isn't it about time we had another famine?

The western world inheritted a virgin land full of resources.Though most importantly, it was the only region whose economy was left intact after world war I and II. Thats how they possessed the wealth to lure geniouses from the east and advance.

If America keeps going in the direction it is headed? I'd say the famine is right around the corner.

Basically this states that population multiplies itself (I have 4 kids from only 2 people etc); and that food supply only adds onto itself (one field here, another there). He said it was therefore inevitable that population would outstrip food supply.

He was wrong. And even if he was, the worst thing that would happen is that the "surplus" (we have to remain scientific here) people would die and the remainder would have enough food.

He was wrong. Their is enough land, and technology to feed the entire planet for milleniums to come. America is too busy giving arms as aid instead of tractors and agricultural aid.

This is also the case with capitalism. Capitalists work for profit - you're right. So why would they pursue a path that would lower their profits, i.e. the over-development of technology? You're talking about economics here, and if you're going to do that you have to face economic science. If the increase in technology will eventually outstrip us of our wealth people will not do it. We can argue about the theoretical concept of if technology could outstrip in the first place, and there's plenty to be said on that; but that's just theory. Let's look at the facts - if someone is greedy and is willling to scupper the entire world economy for the pursuit of technology they're not going to be willing to hurt themselves in the process. And if they are that bad, could we really trust someone like this is a let's-all-get-along socialist system?

Advancement of technology is not about profits and resources it is minds as I have explained in the post before this. More minds that have the technological know how to advance or working on lets say cures. The more faster you will have progress. As our population grows and more minds have the know how. So will the Advancement of technology.Education is the key.
The capacity of the human mind is very under utilized.

Money is only good to you if somebody else is productive first - there will be no demand for the magic robot that wipes everyone's jobs out and thus there will be no investment. Marx was a smart guy and made some sound economic and social commentaries. But he must have been taking the piss with that one.

Your assets are either physical(as in labour)or mental(thought).
Through your assets you have productivity(In most cases you need resources). Your productivity is represented by money. Your products are exchanged with other produced assets, through money exchange.

So you should say that production is only good for you if you have a market for it.Unless you are consuming/using it yourself.

Thats like saying there will be no demand for a machine that wipes out thousands of jobs. When we very well know there is.

Marx took the ideas of another and implimented it by force.

Most people in Ireland are happy enough with the capitalist system. Would the establishment of a socialist system not count as slavery?

In a capitalist system if you dont work. You starve and freeze. Not in a socialist. Which one is slavery?

Sure Communism only killed 100,000,000 people - let's give it another try!

I am speaking about socialism. Not communism.

Oh and one last thing: it was communism that collapsed in on itself.

It was 1) War that made Russia collapse and 2) Capitalists economies that were left intact, that used its wealth to undermine it.

Hobbes · 16-12-2005 7:27pm

wiseones2cents wrote:

Where's the problem?The problem is that people have to wait 20-40 Years in order for the mass producing technology comes about to utilize it. When they could have already possessed it at the time.

ROFL.. Two words. Spinning Jenny

EXAMPLE: A place in Russia called Sosnovy Bor. It is a center of Nuclear technology where information is shared.

You crack me up... really

You do know that Russian nuclear program was created by stealing technology from the Manhatten project. Is that what you mean by sharing?

Advanced Technology

Comments