http://futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/05/9225996-flying-robots-build-20-foot-tall-tower http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42557613/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/near-future-robots-will-work-farms/ Seems like my prediction that robot labor will replace illegal immigrant labor in the USA within the next few decades is starting to pan out.
I guess the only jobs that can't be replaced by robots are teachers, doctors, and lawyers. Either people will stop depending on companies to offer them livelihoods, or...
Eye'm the cutest!I've been saying this for a while now but citrus/fruit agriculture is in dire need of advancing beyond the 1880s via mechanization. We Have The Technology, there is no reason to rely on 200 people to pick one acre of apples when you can do it with mechanization with less than three.
Strawberry Feels ForeverWon't happen until machines are cheaper than people, and machines don't breed.
Breeding is sort of the problem, Taoist. Too many goddamn people crawling all over the place, and no way to employ us all.
Eye'm the cutest!
Won't happen until machines are cheaper than peopleThey've been cheaper than people for nearly 120 years. Why do you think no wheat or corn farmer worth his salt harvests by hand? It costs more.
I changed accounts.I always love when people talk about Luddites and how "misguided" they were, when in fact, insofar as I understand it and what I know of the story, they were right: Robotics cause incredible economic devastation. I couldn't say what to do about it, really. Try to restrict it and you're a science-hating caveman wannabe and embrace it and your unemployment goes through the fucking roof.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Eye'm the cutest!
Robotics cause incredible economic devastation.The same thing was said about automation and mechanization of industry near the end of the 19th century. The 20th century put the era to shame in all sectors.
Eh, most of the jobs robots are taking over are the crappy ones anyways. I mean I'd much rather see people freed from the more menial of tasks that they might pursue the higher arts.
I changed accounts.Well, so far it hasn't been working at all because of the idiotic free trade bastards who thought normalizing trade relations with... well, with basically anybody in the Second or Third World, but China and India especially, was a good idea. In that light, all robotics does is kill jobs, as the entire economic policy of the transnational globalized world is geared towards explosive, economy-destroying short-term profits, not long-term sustainable growth. Robotics will be useful when government is smart enough to take big business and put a good old boot on its stupidity until it serves the national interest. Until then, it's only a force of negativity.
I am now known as Flyboy.
> I guess the only jobs that can't be replaced by robots are teachers, doctors, and lawyers. Unfortunately, no. here is series of article from slate Lawyer : http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/robot_invasion/2011/09/will_robots_steal_your_job_5.single.html Doctors : http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/robot_invasion/2011/09/will_robots_steal_your_job_3.html
MaliciousRobots will never replace the bureaucracy. Rejoice!
I was wondering why frisbees got bigger as they got closer then it hit me.
Hooray, my eventual chemistry degree will mean nothing. Normally, I'm 100% in favor of new tehcnology. It's made our lives so much richer, easier, and longer. Much better than the days of working 15 hour days in the fields just to feed yourself. But the thing is, after machines replaced a chunk of menial laborers, we as a species had a higher plateau to ascend to. We went from agriculture to industry, and then from industry to information. But if we can now produce a robot to do everything for free, is there really anywhere else to go? If it will no longer make financial sense to hire even the brightest brains, what will become of us? I don't like to think of it. The popular solution would be to outlaw the development of such technology and subsidize human labor, but artifically propping up a system that everyone knows is outmoded strikes me as horrendously expensive and ultimately futile. My God, I can't even go on the internet anymore. Politics, unemployment, even basic human nature... It all makes me sick to my stomach. We're doomed.
Hopefully the transition between "Robots do all the jobs so everyone is umemployed" and "Robots do all the jobs so no one has to work" isn't a long one. The latter is gonna be tough in never-say-socialism America.
edited 6th Dec '11 8:13:14 PM by RTaco
Robots won't replace people in industry until they can be as accurate as humans, so we're still a ways off. For example, I'm currently holding a temp position with a company that needed more hands to sort and fill bags with products (in particular, a camouflage wrap for the military). The reason? They invested in a machine that did it, but it made entirely too many mistakes and they wasted more time and money fixing those mistakes than they would need to pay people to do it right.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Strawberry Feels Forever
They've been cheaper than people for nearly 120 years.Which machines? Not the ones that replace farm hands outright. And keep in mind the costs for fuel or electricity.
So, the only way to earn a living is to be a plumber, or for everyone to unite together and work in purposefully inefficient conditions in order to be useful! Doesn't this make capitalism, or even economic exchange obsolete? Because eventually, truck and barter would not be viable.
edited 6th Dec '11 8:58:49 PM by johnnyfog
I see the Awesomeness.
I guess the only jobs that can't be replaced by robots are teachers, doctors, and lawyers.Only because no one has finished building them yet.
They invested in a machine that did it, but it made entirely too many mistakes and they wasted more time and money fixing those mistakes than they would need to pay people to do it right.And that is why it's important to actually check to make sure the machine works before investing a bunch of money in it. Just because it's a machine doesn't mean you can't be taken advantage of when buying it. Also, yay for removing that pesky human element from labor.
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer^^ Things don't go completely insane until we make machines that can reliably repair other machines. That's practically Singularity-level tech, so don't expect it in the immediate future.
edited 6th Dec '11 9:12:59 PM by feotakahari
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
Is that cake frosting?I've seen some nifty examples of automated theorem proving. The technology is still fairly immature, but it is not impossible that in 20 years or so much mathematical research will be done automatically, or semi-automatically at least.
edited 6th Dec '11 9:22:06 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
Instead of seeing as as potentially taking all our jobs away, we should instead see it as potentially not having to work anymore without becoming a hobo. Because money is only really relevant in order to reward people for working, but if nobody has to work, why have money?
edited 7th Dec '11 3:01:10 AM by Excelion
Eye'm the cutest!
Which machines? Not the ones that replace farm hands outright. And keep in mind the costs for fuel or electricity.Harvesters/combines/tractors in agriculture cost less per year than human labor. Over time the cost of purchasing a harvester/comine/tractor coupled with its operating expenses is less than hiring a lot of human labor. Otherwise we'd still be harvesting wheat with a scythe and hand tools. (Seriously, those machines cost about the same as a luxury car.)
Moar and Moar and MoarAutomation is fine. The problem is when the fruits of productivity increases are not shared across the entire economy/society.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
Pro-Freedom FanaticThe problem ain't robotics: The problem is capitalism. Mechanization in a socialist economy is always a plus: Since the wealth collectively belongs to the people, it doesn't matter whether they work to produce it. Socialism plus robotics might actually free us from work in the long term. Luddites were wrong: They didn't need to destroy the machines, they needed to take over ownership of industry, and then enjoy the fruits of mechanization themselves. We can't make jobs obsolete because the capitalists have the wealth and we've got to work for'em to make a living: With socialism, we can make jobs obsolete without a second thought: We wouldn't need'em anymore.
edited 7th Dec '11 5:11:23 AM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
Violence Is Necessary!I Can't argue with this... This alone should be a step toward everyone embracing Socialism. And to think , it wouldn't have to involve too much violent conflict, either...
This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacio
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from email@example.com.