This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is capitalism sustainable?
Bono stated in his TED2013 talk that the numbers show that we can eradicate all poverty worldwide by 2030. While I really hope that is true, it begs the question: Is capitalism sustainable? Is it possible to have a rich and middle class without a poor class? The sad reality of capitalism is that if there is an exponentially small number of people with exponentially large wealth, there has to be an exponentially long tail of much poorer people who are each contributing to that wealth. Not that we necessarily need an exponentially small number of people with exponentially large wealth, but would the world keep running without capitalistic incentives that increase the separation between rich and poor? Can we eradicate all poverty without the rich sharing their riches? What happens to civilization when nobody is willing to work in the factories and orchards, or build roads?
(Please don't take this question the wrong way! Personally I wish that nobody had to work menial jobs. I just don't understand how we can eradicate poverty when so many jobs will always translate into low-paid labor.)
James Burns
1. We can support and encourage the prosecution of those who use capitalism as a tool to cheat others.
2. We can support laws that will aid in that prosecution.
3. We can support candidates who will do the 2 things mentioned above.
4. We can work toward convincing, and educating people that economics is not a zero sum game, that taking everything means losing in the long run.
Those are my modest suggestions, anyone have more or better ideas?
Michelle Dill
bart hsi
Start with the rural/hunting mood with the barter system. this can no longer be applicable when the world has evolved into international trading and it is impossible without MONITARY systems and commercial negotiations. And then the industrial revolution came and capital and labor became essential ingredients in the economic system.
Lots of the comments here involve pro or counter the capitalism, the latter was usually based on the "exploitation of the human labor by the capitalist., The lives of the labor force in the modern capitalist countries are already better than those under the feudal system or the agriculture societies.
I agree that the labor is treated as commodity in many ways, but this becomes less important than a couple of centuries ago because of automation and global free market competition, a person with a particular skill or creativity will be able to find a job with higher pay because he will be sought after by many potential employers.
Some comment said that communist government will treat the labor force better, but the past history hasn't bear this out. I know this as a fact that one of the communist leaders used or persuaded a bunch of adults and children to liquidate the "capitalists" by using them as spies, prosecutors, judges. jurors, torturers and executioners, the victims were not necessarily guilty as charged. Many of these doing this "labor" weren't being paid. Do you think these or other labor at that time were better off than the labor of our time?
In other word the good or evil of an economic system can't be based only on itself, but on the HUMAN NATURE of the operators within the system. The DEVIL IS IN US. One person may have 1% moral and 99% evil, another could be in reverse. It's very, very rare that a person can be 100% moral. Even if there is one, he can't last long!
Anna Kazcorowska 10+
When talking about mixed economies...
Economically - the bank system that we have today has a number of perils. I do not have enough competence when it comes to economic systems to explain this fully, but what I do know is that printing dollar bills when the National Reserve is empty is risky. On the other hand - is it really that important that it is empty? Why is it so important that it does not have gold in it anymore? Why are gold, diamonds or any other commodities more important than labour, human life, life as it is?
It's funny that american dollars have "In God we Trust" on them. What else should their proprietors trust in when the system is risky and faulty?
I'm not saying that credit cards should be abolished, just that credit cards should not be given to people, institutions or countries merely on the basis of faith and hope that it's going to go ok and that they will pay their debt. And, more importantly, credit cards should not be given to people who have no competence to assess if they can pay their debt or not. In other words - banks should not misuse the faith and hope that people have.
If a company goes bankrupt that's one thing. Maybe the people in the company are robust enough to build a new one. But if a country goes bankrupt because the bank system was faulty, that's different. And countries have gone bankrupt before (Example - Iceland)
It's good to have hope and faith, but let's be reasonable.
Mike Colera 10+
That doesn't make the economic system of capitalism bad, that is just an indictment of bad people.
Capitalism is the most honest way I know of where an individual... I say again.... individual can attain HIS level of achievement himself. He may need help of others, who he must compensate in some manner, but, it is his vision, his resources, his energy that he must offer for his success or even his failure.
Mankind should not be forced to work, when to work, how to work by any authority against his own free will. That is the basis of all human evil.
An old priest once told me that when Christ returned to heaven, the devil stayed behind to take men's souls before He could return. That statement requires a high level of faith. But, when I look around and see how things are going, i got to begin to believe there may be some truth in that.
L.A. Hall
Education, I believe, is a good start.
Mike Colera 10+
L.A. Hall
I also believe in raising taxes on the rich and on capital gains, instigating a carbon tax immediately, and urging America to become less dependent on fossil fuels. That is the way the world is moving. That is the future. And I would be proud if America led the way in that march. We should subsidize research and development of solar, geothermal and other renewable technologies. Especially solar. The world is already solar powered... We should restore our coastal wetlands (If Louisiana's coastal wetlands had not been drained or cleared, Hurricane Katrina would have left New Orleans unscathed. As of August 2007, we had spent $127,000,000,000 on its damages.) We should subsidize more small farms, and encourage less high-input, dirty agriculture and more polycultures. We should raise, raise, RAISE the minimum wage.
More than anything, Americans need to become more informed, and more active. I believe reforming our education system to be more self-driven and modern, reforming our political system to be more transparent and less corrupt, and reforming our banking system to be less vulnerable and powerful -- however we might do that -- are good first steps.
Anna Kazcorowska 10+
If labour is a commodity and labour is done by people which means that people become a commodity in this system then why not give all labour to machines and let machines become a commodity, which they actually are?
As long as they do not become intelligent enough to become self-conscious and then rage against their creators. (Sorry, I guess I read too much science-fiction as a teen :))
You can say that we almost have this system. The problem is that we do not have this system fully and that unfortunately, capitalists still view others as a commodity because of lack of awareness or just interest in personal gain.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
similarly, people are workers, and deliver work hours. work hours have quality, supply, price and so on. that is the labor market aspect. it does not invalidate all the other aspects of human nature. it is just one of them.
btw it does not matter if someone likes it or not. work hours are a scarce resource. we need to manage it in some way. disliking it won't make the issue go away.
Anna Kazcorowska 10+
Do you mean capitalism in its pure form? It is definitely sustainable, but is it sustainable for everybody? Is it a good idea to give all power to capitalists? ("an owner of capital that may or may not be directly involved in production" - Collins Dictionary of Sociology 2.edition)
The idea that labour is a commodity (as defined in the capitalist system) is in no way silly in itself, but the thing is that labour is done by people, and people cannot be viewed as a commodity.
Labour = people.
Commodity = Labour.
IE - people are a commodity. When you think in this way you can come to a conclusion that pure capitalism gives you a new type of slavery. And the fact that you do not call it slavery does not mean that it's any different from the slavery that existed in old systems of government. You can ask if the fact that a Chinese worker has a minimum wage, works more that 10 hours a day, does not even know what he does and cannot get out from this system because of the consequences for him and his family is not a lot like slavery we had before. Or you can ask yourself - what do I care? He's different than me, and I've got a nice phone thanks to his existence, what do I care how he feels? It's a personal choice.
Luckily, there's no country in the world, no country that I know of, that has a system og government based purely on ideas of capitalism, the countries in the west have mixed economies. The question that remains is what sort of mixture in these economies we should have and when pondering on this question - what we should take into consideration when deciding (I think humanism, not capitalism; information, not superstition; reason, not tribe thinking; "us" a a whole, not "us vs. them". But that's just my opinion. What is also important is who provides the information and if they provide information in good faith, not gain in any form. Stalin said that "it's not important who votes, it's important who counts the votes". He did not assume good faith...)
L.A. Hall
America is physically, psychologically, economically, politically, environmentally and socially a very, very sick place.
Katherine Morgan
In my view, capitalism boils down to personal interest (i.e., MY money, MY house, MY land, etc.) which is an immature motive and no basis for society. Truly civil society relies on inclusive, charitable motives, the relief of suffering, broadbased investments in human potential, contributions for a better world -- not more useless, wasteful and/or heartless money-making projects. "Getting and spending we lay waste our power."
If capitalism is to benefit us all, perhaps its misguided motives could be redirected with strict and wise regulation, protected whistleblowers, tax incentives and penalties to keep its focus wholesome and productive. My guess it that capitalism might also be a lot healthier without its roots in a Central Banking system, too.
Capitalism's self-serving habits tend to result in unprincipled conduct, low standards, addiction. A symptom of this moral rot is to note how some corporations and uber rich specialize not in contributing to the world, but in trying to get away with something. Its my contention that honesty -- not dishonesty -- is a true solution and antidote to ills. If deceit and dishonesty are capitalism's 'big' ideas, then, to my mind, it's just another scam.
Society is a team sport, not golf. A machine can make money. So what? Money is just one tool used to achieve a larger objective. What's the larger objective? Capitalism of the unregulated variety has mainly benefitted some golfers and big bankers, not the whole team. Had Jonas Salk been kept poor and uneducated, worldwide suffering from polio would be with us still.
In my view, it's to our profound advantage to relieve suffering, eliminate poverty--not just for its heartfelt virtue and charity. To quote Stephen Jay Gould, ""I am somehow less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweat shops."
caersith persoana
In recent years the robot technology (humanoid) is on the rise. What do you think will happen when Corporations make a decisions to replace their cheap labor workers around the world with a lot more cheap and effective humanoid robot?
For comparison according to ILO there are 215 millions of child labor around the world. So I can only say that eradicating all poverty by 2030 is unrealistic.
L.A. Hall
Patrick Reardon
Some redistribution at the very top within capitalism is needed. However, what most "reformers" outside of business (i.e., in government and academia) overlook is that capitalism increases total wealth. Therefore, the question is not , "Does the young person on the bottom have a menial job?" Rather, the question should be, "Does that young person have a menial starter job that coupled with education and a basic living standard affords him or her the beginning for upward mobility over his or her lifetime?" I can tell you that, early in my life, my jobs included, paperboy, busboy, dishwasher, and entry-level steel worker. However, these jobs supported me while I obtained an education.
This is the recipe (also known as the "American Dream") that afforded and continues to afford millions of Americans, many of them immigrants, upward mobility. We should be very hesitant to throw out this model for something unproven, particularly if offered by political and other leaders with little or no private sector experience.
L.A. Hall
Mike Colera 10+
You had a great end of species scenario going there until you said "people need someone to".
I am always nervous when "people need someone to...." There have been "someones" throughout history who
people needed... It never has seemed to work out well.
But, I digress, I have not been discussing the mess that the US finds itself in today. Let's see, we have a congress that acts like it was a coronation instead of an election, there is open bribery going on at the capital, a bureaucracy growing at an exponential rate, an administration that plans to adopt the population into a state caretaker system under the wisdom of an elitist academia who's stated goal is to drain the life blood of civilization... returning the world to that time when all world was pure and virginal and mankind was vegetarian.
No, all I was saying is that capitalism as an economic system is sustainable if people won't mess with it.
.
L.A. Hall
But if you peruse the annals of history you will also find great men, who led by example, not by tricks and gimmicks. The first I can recall is Abraham, who lived in a society where human sacrifice and idol-worship was common. He is the first reported to feel God -- and what that means is the truth. Abraham, when called on to kill his son, for the first time in human history, felt that something is WRONG, and, more importantly, he discovered that what is right and wrong can be felt.
Next was Jesus of Nazareth, who -- for the record -- NEVER BELIEVED IN GOD AS A MAN IN THE SKY. When he called himself the Son of God, he meant he was the son of truth. He meant that served something greater than materialism or hedonism. He laid down self-interest. His message is a message -- always be nice to everyone, even if they are mean to you -- that someone has always come and restored, and it will happen again.
550 years before Jesus, Confucius told us to "Do unto others as you would want other to do unto you." Across the globe, these sentiments of truth have emerged independently. This philosophy of peace and nonviolence as the fastest, most effective way of change was the moral philosophy of Moses, Muhammad, Buddha. Descartes, Watts, Plato and Socrates enacted to become some of the most hallowed figures in human history, tthe philosophy that worked swiftly and viscerally -- in the hands of Mahatma Gandhi -- to liberate India from British Colonial rule, and the philosophy that drove American Civil rights in the 1960s.
I do not believe the necessary revolution is economic or political. It spiritual. I have history -- and the truth -- on my side.
Mike Colera 10+
That list goes on. None of this has to do with capitalism.
L.A. Hall
L.A. Hall
Tropical rain forests host the majority of the worlds biodiversity, and it is there we have found the chemical formulas for many of medicine's most important drugs, drugs used by 80% of humanity, in rain forests; yet we are plowing over them at a rate of 16 to 54 football fields a minute. 40% of the world's forests could be gone in just 20 years.
We use unsustainable, unhealthy agriculture processes -- monocultures, high-input agriculture, ect -- that are LESS cost effective than biodiverse polycultures. I believe spending MORE on good food means spending LESS on healthcare, and the bottom line is: you don't have to spend more to grow better food. The government, at this time, just happens to subsidize big, dirty farms.
All of these problems are the sum result of a deregulated capitalist system, created by a small, SMALL percentage of human beings on Earth. The majority of human beings do not want this. A UMASS study showed income inequality perpetuated the propagation of dirty industries into environmentally "untouched" areas. Another UMASS study showed that increases in democracy were associated with across the board decreases in contaminant levels. Human beings do not want things the way they are. That is a fact. The populous has not spoken, but I am confident this is what they feel. They have not spoken because they have -- since the Industrial revolution -- become disengaged consumers.
James Burns
On the subject of environment, there is a great Ted video from Alan Savory that covers some of the global warming issues her: http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html
L.A. Hall
Mike Colera 10+
James Burns
Max Gutapfel
Might it be that the fight of diffrent economic systems mightve lead to the argument that "people are greedy" which is just the ultimate argument as it touches our very foundation and thus lead to us believing that we are infact greedy which then made us confuse capitalism with the current culture in which capitalism is operating making us believe that capitalism in fact is unsustainable.
Id describe myself as anticapitalist if it wasnt for the fact that i cant say im pro communist or pro "specific new economic system" so i like to ask any question no matter the potential answer :P
James Burns
L.A. Hall
Work for peace." This is beyond true. I believe the quickest way to change all this is a complete reform of our British colonial military school-style education system. We need something with more positive reinforcement, something more self-driven, more open-ended and more up-to-date.
Theresa Ortega
As my Dad was fond of saying when we were kids (and due to his interest in reading many world philosophies, was branded as a "communist" by my grandmother!), systems such as communism "work great on paper", just not in real life.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Max Gutapfel
I wouldnt dare to call capitalism sustainable if your talking about ecological sustainability if you talk about self sustainability (keeping itself alive) then yes it is sustainable.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
A Sethuramiah
Capitalism overall has definitely contributed to innovative ideas and growth. Inequality is a by-product that has to be solved by modifying existing frame-work. This is of special relevance to developing economies like India.
The practice of communism has not resulted in growth and freedom and has been wiped out from some countries. While equality principle is laudable, in the first place there should be wealth. Otherwise poverty equally gets distributed with the exception of the privileged.
The philosophic issues are open to debate. Does incentive mean glorification of greed? Even then is it not the right way to channel it into productive use? Descartes said 'I think therefore I am'. Are we in a state that can be summed up as 'I consume therefore I am'? Some of the answers will arise from a flexible capitalism. Also capitalism may not be as free as we think. As Eric Fromm said capitalism involves 'soft kill' that involves bombardment with advertisement and other tools till people sustain the expected growth chart.
L.A. Hall
The 1950's were the happiest economic decade in American history, and the top marginal tax rate was 91%. In 1914, world class son-of-a-bitch Henry Ford looked out at his workers and thought, "What if they could buy my cars?" He then offered $5 wages ($120 today.) The best mechanics flocked to Ford and training costs were reduced. Studies have shown that after a certain point, consuming more does not make you happier. So when the rich are sitting on these pools of money and the common man is scraping the floor to get by, the only way for the economy to fundamentally function is for rich people to spend and consume more than could possibly make them happy. In a world full of suffering poor people, I just don't think that's just.
Capitalism CAN be sustainable, I really believe that, but only when well regulated by laws and incentives that take the environment and the entire populous into into account.
James Burns
James Cline
L.A. Hall
Perhaps your assertion should be revised: capitalism rewards those who work to become wealthy and gives incentives to those who don't. The principle here seems to be: wealth is the pinnacle. I feel a true sadness for the men who set -- and reach that goal -- to find it only cold and empty.
I am an Athiest. My religion is truth; but I can say with relative confidence that capitalism is idolatry.
Mike Colera 10+
You are almost correct, but close only counts in horseshoes. Capitalism is self correcting in it's very nature. It's those who abuse it who need the the regulation. And all those rich world class son of a bitches you described
do not sit on money, the only rich people who did that was Jack Benny and Scrooge McDuck.
And surprisingly, all those rich folks do take the environment and the entire population into account. The entire population are their customers, the other half of the sale, the customer, the contract. And sometimes whether we like it or not, those customers will ask for a contract to provide them with... stuff from the environment, like gas and oil..
L.A. Hall
One of the reasons the American Medical Association lobbied against the first New Deal was that they did not want regulators overseeing the shady practices of doctors. Capitalism paves avenues for the selfish and hides tunnels for the selfless. The string-pullers of the money market began deregulating the financial regulatory framework we put in place after the Great Depression to SAFEGUARD against ANOTHER depression around 1970. That deconstruction was complete in the 1990's with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, which effectively separated commercial and investment banks. With it gone, they intermingled again... fifteen years down the road: the worst economic downturn since the great depression. All of this was orchestrated, choreographed and performed by the so-called "one percent."
The point is, the saturation of capitalism from "ambitious startup" in colonial America to "global religion" has given us an expectation that capitalism is the way things are. It is the pinnacle. When, in history, has a people not thought what they had was the pinnacle, and when -- except in rare instances (See: Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mahatma Gandhi) -- were these people, in retrospect, not written off as naive or shortsighted?
Life is not a game of numbers. Capitalism is a game of numbers. I finish with two quotes. "It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society." That's Jiddu Krishnamurti -- and, "Society exists only as a mental concept; in the real world, there are only individuals." Oscar Wilde said that. It's true.
Mike Colera 10+
You are defending the Progressive Political Babble that came from an elitist academic fringe that managed to influence the Roosevelt s and Wilson among others. Let me give you an old reference: Plato already thought it up 2500 years ago, it was only a theory then and a bad idea now.
L.A. Hall
Anna Kazcorowska 10+
I wouldn't insult Henry Ford's mother though :) I don't think he was aware of the impact of the labour system in his company. The impact on the life of the workers in it, I mean. He just wanted to make cars. On the other hand, somebody should make him aware of that.
David Hubbard
The root cause of most of the worlds problems seems to be poor governments. Perhaps its time that the feudal sytem was supplanted with something better, like a one world government, backed up by the voting power of everyone. I have great confidence in the intelligence of people and am sure we are capable of ruling ourselves equitably.
We need only provide them with the means. Possibly direct democracy is possible. Maybe we can live without representative rule.
Kareem Fahim
watch ^ video: Owned & Operated is a mosaic of the world through the lens of the internet. Showing our lives as consumers, under the thumbs of privileged individuals and their methods of contro
Mike Colera 10+
You didn't seem to understand what James had written. It's about how capitalism as been bent and twisted by politicians and greedy individuals for their own benefits. Capitalism is not perfect, It has been abused. Abuser's should be punished, severely punished. Capitalism is built on the premise that goods and services are exchanged with both parties receiving equal value.
No other "system" is based on that premise.
And the other thing that most detractors ignore in their criticism, is that even the most outrageous capitalist employs people who may not otherwise have employment. Someone has to build those private yachts, those palatial estates. As bad as they are, I think capitalists are not as egregious as others. I have never been told what job to do, or where to live, or how to vote, or where to go to church or not, or what to say or not, or who I can call friend or not, or how to vote. I live a a capitalist economy in a constitutional republic. It's not utopia, but of all the utopias, I've seen attempted, I'll stay with this one.
James Burns
I think that capitalism is sustainable. My question is:
If not capitalism, then what system is sustainable?
To those who don't like capitalism, or seriously believe that it can not be sustained, and want to replace it with a system along the lines of communism, I have asked the questions:
Why would we choose to replace a flawed system with one that has failed?
How would we put this system in place?
Woul;d we be willing to use force to do so?
Where do we find the altruists who can cary this out without becoming like thos "greedy capitalists"?
I would also like to know why the political and economic interest of socialists and communists is somehow superior to that of capitalists?
I have yet to get an answer.
bart hsi
I agree with you heartily. May I offer a few comments about the problems of those comments that trashes the capitalism, but offer only some vague suggestions about "fair and just" economic system. We already know that pure communism did not fare well. Mmoreover, the original communism based their theory on the principle pf workers (proletariat) revolution, but as I stated in my previous discussion, the future of our economy will base more on capitalism and less on manual labor. So the basic thesis of Communism no longer applies.
I have also carefully observed the economic situation in Europe. Briefly there are two categories. The first one consisted of the southern European countries. where the governments follow the so-called tax and welfare spending in order to achieve the "economically fair and just society". And we all know that it didn't work, and the chaos is contagious from Greece and now to Cyprus. On he other side there are Sweden, Germany and Switzerland, they also are with capitalism, They are working satisfactorily. Why the difference? In my opinion, the difference is that the citizens in these latter countries have the proper attitude that if they are capable of working to contribute to the society, they would rather work than sit back and receive the welfare payment from the government. Therefore a real almost "fair and just society" has been achieved.
In economic sense, the society can't sustain itself if its economy only depends on a few citizens to work hard and produce commodity for the consumption of all, it usually falls short if majority of the citizens are idle and live on lavish welfare as in Southern European countries Of course, The government policy influences partially to this INEQUALITY. Welfare is not a dirty word if it is only used for the citizens in need but can't work because of age or disability, but it is not good when the government uses it to pay the able bodied citizens simply for the votes in the election.
James Burns
bart hsi
I believe that you misunderstood my comment about the "tax and spending" problem in Europe. As a matter of fact, I really didn't criticize high tax per se since the Germanic countries do have high taxes for the expense in welfare support. However, I was objecting to the high debt by overspending on welfare like that in Greece, say. More precisely, using debt building AND high tax to pay welfare which is used to discourage citizens from seeking work or from their desire to improve education in technology in qualifying them to work and earn a good living. So that this "government stimulus" from high tax receipt does not increase the productivity, thus does not contribute to the economic improvement. Then this "tax and spending" caused heavy debt becomes a negative in the cost-benefit equation. I omitted Norway, because its natural energy resources serves as a buffer for its welfare payments, and Denmark is also a Germanic country, isn't it? The 3 countries I mentioned are among the largest capitalistic ones in Europe. So excuse me for my sins of omission. :-)
James Burns
James Burns
Mike Colera 10+
Of course, this would not play well in a string of comments that lament the great social and economic problems of our times. All those great multinational companies who trash the environment, exploit the poor... you've heard all the comments. Of course, you never hear about the hundreds of thousands of direct employees and millions of indirect employees who are working.
Now, there are those that say, those big companies don't pay enough. I don't don't know. But I am not saying that companies are not with out sin.. But what I don't understand is the impediments that are placed to prevent individual capitalist to excel and the disdain that is shown. There are promises of great new social and economic orders but they seem to always start by ending the current systems and not fully defining the new. .
James Burns
bart hsi
In the U.S., the agriculture production is already more than halfway toward the full AR. The AR process not only saves the labor cost, it also save resources such as water, fertilizer and seeds. The manufacturing of industrial products is also improving quickly utilizing AR. They have to change because the foreign competitors are moving to automated manufacturing too. As a matter of fact, nowadays new methods in AR are started in Europe rather than the U. S. Even in service industry, they are using AR, such as the ATMs and movie rental kiosks everywhere.
The AR in manufacturing production shifts the cost structure of the value of the products. We can no longer use the model by Karl Marx, saying that the increase in value over the raw material is entirely due to the labor cost from the workers. under the AR system, the production of consumer goods is mainly contributed by capital investment, coupled with innovation and enterprising. In most of the AR manufactured goods made from raw materials to finished products never go through a single human hand. Thus how can we say that the value of the products came from the the labor?
As the AR process goes further ahead, there will be less required manual labor. So the economic/social structure have to change. But, as we can produce all the foods and consumer goods cheaply, there should be less poverty, but more leisure time for workers.
James Burns
bart hsi
I have submitted a proposal of how to move the excess labor force to other use, such as the care-taking of the increasing elderly population in a previous conversation: "Will Automation leads to Economic Collapse?" sponsored by Matts Kaarbo. If you have difficulties finding my comment please send me an email thru TED, then I will sent you a copy of it thru email.
James Burns
Richard E Reed
Consider the employment impact of the appearance of personal computers including those disguised as tablets, gaming consoles, and cell phones.
An emerging automation technology with unlimited labor growth potential is the invention and implementation of 3D printers, both professional and personal. When these devices become as ubiquitous as personal printers the output and job potential will be as large as the computer revolution.
bart hsi
Richard E Reed
Sure, as always we will still need highly educated people for innovative design in esoteric disciplines, but the days of weather broadcaster, for example, needing to pore over charts and numbers to figure out what is happening in the skies are over. He only needs the computer printouts and a compelling video presence to succeed.
bart hsi
I also would like to make a suggestion for the "life after automation". Since human life span becomes longer which causes population aging problem. So there would be less productive worker and more dependent elderly groups. We could make available a condominium system with elderly in one wing on a floor together with able-bodied young couple with children in the other wing on the same floor, The younger residents will "adopt" one or more "adopted parent(s) or grandparent(s)" to care for the elderly. The arrangement will also use the developed automation and robotics to mechanize and automate lots of care facilities so that most of the caring would be done by robots operated by a push of a few buttons which, of course, could be quickly learned by the teenagers; adopted grandchildren, after a brief training. The young couples (mostly unemployed) could be the managers, bookkeepers, cooks, etc. for the condominium or the building complex maintenance system. This system would be beneficial for both the children (for the lack of role models or guidance) and to the elderly to relieve their loneliness and to be able to interact with someone with more cheerful view in life..
You see, I had already thought about the adaptability of computer skills by the young generations, especially to be utilized in the AR controlled environment. But the trainees for the "controller/repairman" in the fast moving AR manufacturing processes need a good knowledge of the inner construction of the AR equipments, which has to be taught by academic or professional training rather than by kiosks. Furthermore, would you trust some teenagers to supervise the high speed manufacturing to be the main "supervisors" in the machine room? An if we are talking about adults, especially the older ones, I doubt that we can educate them to fill these jobs without a formal class and hands-on practices as well.
Larry Lawson
I really can't make out much of what you are trying to say. I majored in philosophy at university and I've never known that Locke said any such thing as you imply. Perhaps your reading of him exceeds mine.
You appear to be an advocate of some concept of which I am unfamiliar with your "Three Principles of Philosophy". Are you caught up in some cult that is applying its own definition of philosophy?
As for David Suzuki, I happen to know him personally. I assure you that he is no philosopher! I read him as an arrogant little twerp who is of genius IQ - and won't let anyone forget it. Not satisfied with being brilliant, he also wants to be thought of as wise. He isn't. He rides his various hobby-horses unmercifully, verbally attempting to destroy any arguments contrary to his. If you know him, mention my name to him and remind him of the debate he and I had at York University in 1973. That ought to shut him up for 30 seconds or so - a long time for him.
Thanks for commenting but I'm not interested in your religion or beliefs or philosophy, whichever it is.