well, what remains as threats? Humans, Nature, the universe.

also forgot: boredom

What do we want? PEACE ON EARTH! How do we do it? NUKES!

catchy aint it?

if you have a society of zero need i think the best example of the resulting population can be derived by observing how people who right now do nothing for their own survival yet live with their needs provided for them

adult children

they create a threat, hence why humans are still a threat

so there is still something people need to labor towards to stay alive

protection from other humans, nature, the universe, and boredom.

so people need labor in order to prevent becoming adult children which threatens human survival?

think about it, we are still animals. We'd still be living in the same area, and the one thing this workless world would not have in infinity is space

unless you go into space

what do people who dont have the capability of providing any meaningful assistance toward protection from other humans, nature, the universe, and boredom do in the society without a working class?

which is kind of needed to mitigate the universe as a threat to humanity although its still a threat until we create god status, if we can.

well, they either get killed by one of those things, or some other human protects them from those things

as they don't need to work for food, housing, clothing, or medical help

basicly those who cannot do, do nothing?

although anyone short of a vegetable should be able to help with one of those things

because you may not realize a society which has no need for a workingclass actually adds a new group to the "disabled" of society

because the workingclass provides a role in society to provide protection against other humans, nature, the universe, and bordem yet can not rise up to the middle class for various reason, the most common reason being lack of capability

if you create automation to the extent that all basic needs are met for your society theres very little positions for the roles of those who are literally incapable of doing any more

the goal of automation is to make all of the human race the "disabled" class

that doesent particulerly interest me

you can't stop it outside a 1 world government, and even then, a 1 world government would probably have every incentive to make such a world

frankly its not dignified but more so if you look at the way people who never have to provide for themselves well into their 30's. it creates worse humanity

humanity has pretty much defined its existence on outsourcing our labor to machines, only to make new machines to outsource the new task we set that freed up labor to

the only other defining characteristic of humanity is fighting each other

it may very well be right that humans are killed off by machines, but not because the machines went haywire but because that is the exact thing we program them to do

just another exampling of outsourcing our labor to a machine.

yes i agree that it is humanitys basic function to create ways that a single farmer can increase the ammount of production they can yeild to the ultimate goal that only a single farmer is nessicary to create any degree of production, a farmer named ceo

perhaps is something we should at some point fight against, for a balance, to spare our more basic animal characteristics

in order to fight automation, you would need every human everywhere to agree not to pursue automation.

and the very automation we seek to avoid would be one very very useful for exploring space i would imagine

its not nesicary to explore space, it simply cuts down as it does for all things, the number of people you need thus the space you need to provide

proper automation could give you ships that can provide for a person without that person ever needing contact with another person

very small ships

actually i was thinking more when settling new worlds, where such tech could be sent in advance to create a settlement for people before they touch down, decreasing risks of settling new worlds

you wouldent need everyone on earth to avoid pursuing automation to prevent automation from supplanting labor in every world society, you simply need most people to want it to not supplant labor in every society, the tech can be known without being used but in a capitalism its guarenteed to take over

there is too much incentive for automation, too much usefulness, for you to effectively stop it.

because ultimately capitalism doesent care about anything more than production

you'd literally have to tell people that you could eliminate the fear of going hungry if you no longer have work but you are afraid of what happens when people don't work

try selling that to people "hey, you could be lazy but we don't want you to be"

make work great again

try not to sound like a tyrant

if religion was still populer you could try that

yeah, make work great again "oh, but if you become a "disabled person".... well you have to worry about hunger again

all a society needs in order to prevent themselves from being lazy is to see labor as something it wants to do

its too hard a sell. you can't stop automation. there is too much potential good.

people will figure something to do with their labor

they always do and always will

people want to work, but they also don;t want to worry about starving.

they also want to play

it doesent matter if you cant stop automation, all that matters is that if you have a brain you should probably try to stop automation, because you know the results that will insue if you no longer have a working class

you sound like an old man, lamenting the creation of the calculator.

at best 10 to 20% of the population becomes adult children. every result worse than that is how the rest of society reacts to adult children

look at the west, it has a problem of declining birth rates

so maybe the problem of a helpless class sorts itself out through depopulation due to low birth rates

I'd read a very good argument on calculators.

it would

People lamenting the invention of the calculator were concerned that people would forget how to do math themselves.

however there would still be people born by the elites who have a higher chance of being disabled as being disabled in a automated society is a lot easier

People today may still use a calculator for 4+4, or 2*18 or the like

Not because they can't figure out that the first is 8 or the later is 36

But because it speeds the process up

The calculator enhances a person's abilities.

I think there are two paths AI can go.

There's the direction of Automation, where human capability is replaced by machine precision

what if you created a device that made it so that you no longer have to do math at all? like unless you want to do math, every math you could want to do is done before you even knew a math was needed to be done?

thats automation

Where human production skills are waylaid by systems that do it all for us.

we already have that Arch, its called a computer

Naah, that still requires user input.

yeah

I know what Arch is getting at.

So, AI Enhancement would lead to a future where people are still defining the future, but would be able to be more efficient about it.

given the potential to solve such a large number of problems, do you think you can stop any of this? Do you really think after all this time anyone could stop it?

Let's say you've got an AI with you at all times - not a simple computer, mind you, but something you're able to shoulder some of your daily burden on to for life. Essentially micro-automation

the only way to get people providing for themselves over welfare is make it socially benefitial to be self sufficient

That would be something that could amplify human ability as opposed to replacing it.

I think it's entirely possible to reject it, Grenade.

once this technology exists in the world, you can't put it back in the bottle

so you want to tell me, you will get every human on earth to stop researching this

tell russia and china to stop developing tech to beat the us

No.

tell the us to stop developing tech to beat russia and china

I'm saying reject it.

only the implamentation of the tech is the problem, the understanding of how to implament it is not dangerous.

It only replaces us if we let it, financially.

we made it TO replace us

We didn't.

Someone else did.

if we didn;t want it to, we wouldn't make it

no, we. humans

So long as any of us have a dollar to our name, we can reject it.

chances are it won't be someone, but several someones

probably in different areas of the world

again, as i said you need for people to want to work in order to prevent them from choosing not to work and still benefit from the same standard of living

most inventions, even things like electricity or the lightbulb, had multiple people who reached similar ideas, in different parts of the world, unrelated to one another.

so thats why i say we

people will do anything you want them to if you convence them they want to

why would anyone want to coal mine?

or mine in general

make it socially benefitial

why would anyone want to keep doing dangerous jobs out of necessity?

its socially beneficial to have an entire class of people intestinally become part of the welfare state after a while because of the damage done to their body>?

Well, why do they?

That's a good question.

it would help is we stopped the glorification of the manchild thats been slowly creeping into society the last few decades with body positivity and shit like that

There are industries that are currently better-paying and short-staffed.

the only reason people would still do dangerous jobs is if they find enjoyment in it

why WOULDN'T they become a truck driver earning 100,000 a year?

you literally have to think non-economiclly to solve this issue

because it sucks

thats why they don;t want to do it

So, they'd rather mine coal.

just like all these other industries it takes a massive toll on the body, and basically requires you to be a machine

it punishes you for being human

theres one reason people might want to do labor rather than have everything provided for them. manchildren dont fuck

why don't Americans want to farm?

im farming

I've got several jobs. One of which is scheduled, consistent, and pays the least.

even when you crack down on illegal workers

americans generally dont wanna farm because farming is looked down on

I actually hang around with that job because I feel a sense of purpose with it

I'm a member of a team there.

same thing with sewer work

is it? i don't see farming as looked down upon so much as it being hard work

janitors

this isn't japan

ever been to newyork?

I've developed an encyclopedic knowledge of the warehouse I work in

los ang

yes, i grew up in jersey

Someone can mention an SKU and I can find it in 20 seconds.

maybe i'm bias as it is the garden state

or was until all the farms moved away

miss those corn fields

they are nice to look at over stupid subdivisions

our schools teach children only to aim for the middle class or higher

some of those working class jobs are higher

fucking welders make bank

yes but they dont tell you that

farming makes shit

thats also true

although corn subsidies don't help.

```Athey, a 34 year-old father of four who has only donned a miner's helmet for two years, says he plans to return to work in a mine as soon as possible.

"It's the only thing I know how to do," he said. "I don't read and write."``` ABC reporting

his reason is he lacks education

which sucks

does he? You know Mr. Athey?

"It's the only thing I know how to do"

Does he lack Education, or is he working a field he's able to work due to a learning disability?

its his own admission he doesn;t have an education is anything outside mining. not that he considers useful.

there are plenty of tools out there that mediate most disabilities. problem is, they are expensive.

i think that a lot of working class industrys are underpayed

```
"You can come right out of high school and make $70,000 a year," said Missy Perdue, 22, a stay-at-home mother whose husband, Jeff Perdue, Jr., 22, is a miner.```

I don't even make $70,000 a year.

i barely make that with a degree

So maybe there's a reason people mine, then?

its a dangerous job

Some people like Danger.

farming is slightly less dangerous

yeah, but what happens if all these men getting kicked out of school or not going to college flood the market

If I had the option to start working as a bike courier again, I'd do it.

though people die farming all the time, lots of people die all at once when mining goes wrong

So much damn fun zipping in and out of traffic.

and on the flip side, what happens when those mining jobs disappear

there is only so much minable resources inside the US

we gonna hopefully be mining asteroids by then?

```But miners and their families here say that as compelling as the money is pride in an industry in which generations of West Virginians have invested their blood, sweat and tears.```

weve never come close to depleting all resources from the earth, what we actually do is get to the point of the resources left being very hard to find

did i say earth?

i said US

same deal

same principle.

Yeah, I see Arch's side on that.

people have been mining in the old world for thousands of years before we started here

okay, fine, we have mined all the cheap stuff HERE, but not elsewhere

same point, do these people leave the country for work now?

aint no where to go

generations of Virginians now need to leave Virginia?

I really wish I could post a picture right now.

https://imgur.com/gallery/QKeNZ

asia and europe are cheeply mined out now, south america, africa, australia, and antartica are the only contanents that dont have their surfaces almost completely scowered

the future of mining when cheep mining is done is either in those contanents or more expensive mining

hopefuly with technologic advancements to keep that cost down

however when mining gets expensive its not the people up top who are going to take smaller paychecks

just like how its not people up top who take smaller paychecks in farming

less farmers are nessicary to farm the same land while they are also paid less than that labor may actually be worth because the desire of the consumer is always for more to the extent that you could reduce the amount of food consumed in the united states by 60% without anyone NEEDING to starve but people will starve anyway because of unequal distribution of food

demand for food has actually reduced its value strangely

because its gotten so much easier to produce

demand didn't make it cheaper, the cost of production went down

i supose

and the laborers producing it didint see much benefit from that

farming seems to be historically unfriendly for labor

its often the work of slaves in history, when its not, usually farmers would be disrespected by land owners

sometimes you get a society with respect for farming but doesent seem to last

it doesn't last because automation is just so much better at it

i mean, how do you value a farm that produces much less per season, with no major advantage to it, and costs like 8 times as much?

it takes up lots of space, usually isn't that environmentally friendly, is very hard labor

its all around not a good job

very few if any people liked it, so we made a culture of viewing it as not that great

I think we agreed that the development of automation cannot be stopped. If you want to argue for what feels almost like pity jobs, ones that would probably end up being given out by the state due to the ridiculous cost to yield over automation, or a new version of the Amish, then i wish you luck. I still have hope that society evolves itself around the problem we suspect automation will cause.

because right now, for all we know, automation just might open up a different kids of manual labor job we haven't though of yet.

i super dont agree that the development of automation cannot be stopped, however i do conceed its not easy and youd have to change society

you'd have to undermine humanities competitive nature, and their want to do less work

look at how well stopping global warming has gone. and you think something whos tag line is "cheaper everything" will somehow go over better?

But I must take my leave for now. Have to go to the gym for an hour.

you wont be able to solve this problem thinking purely economicly because economicly you cant compete with "everything you want for less" this is why no form of economic system has ever competed with capitalism. you could tell people that basicly they will lose all their jobs if they try something but people will shoot back at you that they will just go on welfare and they will be right that in the best case scenario that means they never have to work but still have the same standard of living (theoreticly).

the only way you can compete with this idea is by teaching people to care more about something other than their own financial well being, this is where communism went wrong and ironicly where fascism and national socialism actually did something right for a change. communism tried to compete with capitalism by basicly saying anyone who wanted something would get it in their system promissing that their progress would increase while also they would end wealth disparity, they couldent actually deliver either promiss. what the nazis and fascists promissed though wasent immediate success or the end of wealth disparity rather they restructured their social system by making important things other than wealth and consumerism which changed the relationship between different classes (to some extent). it was kind of like religion to some extent which was another tool throughout history which managed to be something that the working class of a nation would care about more than their own finantial status.

if you want people to work when they would not normally need to work you need to both highlight parts of working class labor that are already positive toward the working class besides basic survival in a monitary system and additionally you must fortify these highlights with new social benefits, make them feel like valued people in a society, status does not have to be tied to economy and when its not you get people to do things without them realisticly having an economic reason to

ultimately what you need to do is also broker the proper labor to wage ratio that the working class deserve, this is something that communism did try to promiss but i disagree with their methodology and their failure shows. you cant get the results you need by completely replacing the upper class with new people what you have to do is use the lower classes to convence the upper class to take a smaller cut of production values. not so much that they will shut down and some WILL shut down at first, but a balance needs to be struck in a fight against rampent consumerism thats basicly causing people to buy more, products cost less, working class paid less, population go down, production skyrocket, and resources drain like sand through our open fingers

attempting to engineer society never ends well

well, unless you view humans killing each other as ending well, then it usually works perfectly

humans will kill eachother anyway

true, but we've been on a violence decline for some time now, for whatever reason

people working to maintain peace at any cost

that "at any cost" should stand out

that is a radically different goal than making sure everyone has some kind of work

as being a soldier is a job

seems like a tangent then

social engineering does work when it works, as i pointed out it did work for the nazis and fascists, it even worked for the nationalist japanese. all 3 of these groups did go to war with the rest of the world but that wasent because they managed to successfuly socially engineer the populations to care about something more than financial success (though that helps a tramendous degree) it was because the people up top had a plan for directing the future of the nation in a direction which required more resources then they could realisticly get from out of their small, sometimes resource poor regions.

religion is social engineering

its worked for longer than the concept has been in nomiclature

the idea of the warrior culture is a form of social engineering where their is a social benefit associated with being part of a militia or army beyond that of the economic motivation that is lumped onto it

the easiest form of social engineering, is to convince people there is a common enemy

`Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?`

each one of those examples pretty much required putting a group at the bottom, and telling everyone else to destroy them.

they didn't fix the problem of the welfare class by putting them to work, they fixed the problem by putting them to death.

they made a welfare class out of other humans. they made or relied on the existence of another group.

well the nazi's did, the japanese and fascist didint

Foreign suspect rates in germany 2017 for burglary

https://twitter.com/derhorus_x/status/1014867722088349697

Was australia not marked when you posted that thing like a day ago?

Also it would be enlightening to see a diagram that also takes into account how many people from each of these countries live in germany, there is most likely a reason why french criminality is up like that

@derhorus_

@LEER yes, in the cases of neighboring states overrepresentation are obvious. especially for western countries.

in the references you find the data for the population and suspects.

btw. to solve the problem one criminological study (only german) only took in account suspects with residence in one country Schleswig-Holstein. for non western neighboring states, the rates are still significant.

https://kfn.de/wp-content/uploads/Forschungsberichte/FB_137.pdf

pages 62-76

regarding the whole water debate thing... i have no idea how it turned into that by the way.... someone said that the US Post Office is a necessesary function of the govt or that we need it ran by the government for whatever reason. all i said was that -- no, why should it be ran by the govt when the market can take care of it just as easily (and better). theres no good reason why the USPS should be ran by the govt.... i ask you... or else what? you also said that the govt does not monopolize this service bcuz Fed Ex and UPS can also mail letters in the large package envelopes (while illegal for them to handle regular letter envelopes due to the govt holding an arbitrary legal monopoly over this mailing service for no good reason). so you basically admitted that businesses can handle the service just as well in the market so what is the point in prohibiting UPS and Fed Ex from delivering regular mail envelopes like the USPS does. seems like an unfair business practice if you ask me to stamp out any competition! the USPS should be privatized.... no reason for it to be ran by the govt. they should be forced to compete alongside other mailing businesses in a level playing field of market competition. looks like the USPS will eventually crash and fail regardless bcuz of the inherent flaws and mismanagement of central planning. the question is... should tax payers be forced to prop up a failing business.... absolutely not! PM me if you disagree

make no mistake -- the USPS holds an unfair, government-protected legal monopoly over the regular slips of letter envelope mail. Lysander Spooner challanged their market share by offering the same service at a fraction of the cost.... and was quite sucessful at offering the same service at a much lower cost... but guess what... he got shut down by the govenment! Squashed! bcuz well.... just bcuz!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lucille-j-goodyear/spooner-vs-u-s-postal-system/

https://mises.org/library/usps-cursed-carriers

this is just common sense, people.... i dont see how this got twisted around to a debate about me defending your right to own the bottled water in your own fridge that you bought and paid for! i usually have about 15 gallons on hand of pure R/O water that i buy from a pure water store. that i don't own this water in the meantime before using it up or giving it away sure flies in the face of common sense -- nobody else would have the right to claim it without my consent. its funny how as if this water issue is somehow comparable to the unfair govt-protected monopoly of the USPS! its quite the non-sequitor.... the logic just does not follow. let me know if you disagree

is the water debate that thing sargon asked jared taylor in his interview of him?

iono, i was just reading some posts in the general discussion, and i was like.... "ahem.... excuse me, but i disagree [that the US Post Office is a necessary function of govt]"

and then SPLASH! water/property rights debate.... LOL

ah probably not then

speaking of Sargon I cant keep up with his server lol

not worth it to try

to many people talking at once

I wasn't willing to watch a 3.5+ hr video to get the address