the future of mankind

[kasbekz]

forgive me if this is in the wrong section.

i would like to tell the story of my thought process today. i'm sure something of the like has been discussed here already, but as i am new here, i would like an opportunity to take part in the discussion.

i was sitting at work today (i do irrigation, which requires very little work and a lot of waiting in the shade), and thought about how easy it would be to eliminate the need for me to be there. a simple timer hooked to a servo would replace me quite easily, and i would be out of a job.

i also thought about the extremely efficient fuels and generators that are being developed and will soon be produced, leaving thousands of people unemployed. there is a magnet powered generator that is capable of 500%+ efficiency, and hydrogen can be made at home from tap water and will power a car at approximately ten times the efficiency that gasoline will. these are facts. they have been hushed up by energy producing companies.

i started to think weather or not this advance into the world of more efficient fuels was supportable after considering the damage it would do to the unemployment numbers. i didn't come up with a solution, but i came up with my theory of how man kind will meet it's end.

the very easy to see trend currently is to replace humans on the assembly line with machines, that are controlled automatically by computers. companies love this, as they don't have to pay wages to the workers that used to do the job, and the machine doesn't make mistakes. many like it for another reason. the job that used to be done by the man is dangerous, and he may have lost his hand doing it.

this brought me to safety regulations. back in the day, cars had no seat belts. now, people aren't satisfied until they are completely enclosed in a luscious canopy of air filled bags that deploy immediately upon an accident. they could flip this car ten times and come out without a broken nail. people love these. so if we follow this trend, where does it point us to? what is the final product of this advance? the final product is one where humans can't afford to buy the products produced by companies that use computers to build them, because none of these humans have a job, because all the jobs were too dangerous and they were replaced by machines. everyone dies.

it is similar to the separation of the low class and the high class in england some years back, except this time, everyone supports it, because they are afraid to get their hands dirty. the owners of the machines will get filthy rich while the peasants will get poorer and poorer, until they can no longer afford their food. when will they realize?

i can't say that i have a solution. what can we do? do away with safety regulations and tell companies to reduce their dependence on computerized machinery?

yes, this jumped around from topic to topic with little organization, but i'm going fast because i have to get back to work. please tell me why i'm wrong.

[thod]

People will just find new things to worry about and hence do. There is no joy to be found repeating the same motion on a production line over and over. It will be a liberation.

i also thought about the extremely efficient fuels and generators that are being developed and will soon be produced, leaving thousands of people unemployed. there is a magnet powered generator that is capable of 500%+ efficiency, and hydrogen can be made at home from tap water and will power a car at approximately ten times the efficiency that gasoline will. these are facts. they have been hushed up by energy producing companies.

500% efficiency, are you 110% sure of that?

Hydrogen can be made at home but you better have a free energy source.

[mind_wander]

Well, then they should find another technology which is better and requires human labor? Even if companies would like to save money by using computers and/or machines to do all the work. It doesn't actually mean everyone is going to be happy. What happen's if someone [real human being talking] complained to the customer service and isn't talking to a human representative? [ok, does an INTJ count as a CPU?] Anyways, most people like human interaction, rather dealing with machines. There are people out there are who's technology illerate.

I'm not sure, if what I am saying is off topic. In the long-run it cost the company more money, then it originally planned.

[Undead Bonzi]

forgive me if this is in the wrong section.

i would like to tell the story of my thought process today. i'm sure something of the like has been discussed here already, but as i am new here, i would like an opportunity to take part in the discussion.

i was sitting at work today (i do irrigation, which requires very little work and a lot of waiting in the shade), and thought about how easy it would be to eliminate the need for me to be there. a simple timer hooked to a servo would replace me quite easily, and i would be out of a job.

i also thought about the extremely efficient fuels and generators that are being developed and will soon be produced, leaving thousands of people unemployed. there is a magnet powered generator that is capable of 500%+ efficiency, and hydrogen can be made at home from tap water and will power a car at approximately ten times the efficiency that gasoline will. these are facts. they have been hushed up by energy producing companies.

i started to think weather or not this advance into the world of more efficient fuels was supportable after considering the damage it would do to the unemployment numbers. i didn't come up with a solution, but i came up with my theory of how man kind will meet it's end.

the very easy to see trend currently is to replace humans on the assembly line with machines, that are controlled automatically by computers. companies love this, as they don't have to pay wages to the workers that used to do the job, and the machine doesn't make mistakes. many like it for another reason. the job that used to be done by the man is dangerous, and he may have lost his hand doing it.

this brought me to safety regulations. back in the day, cars had no seat belts. now, people aren't satisfied until they are completely enclosed in a luscious canopy of air filled bags that deploy immediately upon an accident. they could flip this car ten times and come out without a broken nail. people love these. so if we follow this trend, where does it point us to? what is the final product of this advance? the final product is one where humans can't afford to buy the products produced by companies that use computers to build them, because none of these humans have a job, because all the jobs were too dangerous and they were replaced by machines. everyone dies.

it is similar to the separation of the low class and the high class in england some years back, except this time, everyone supports it, because they are afraid to get their hands dirty. the owners of the machines will get filthy rich while the peasants will get poorer and poorer, until they can no longer afford their food. when will they realize?

i can't say that i have a solution. what can we do? do away with safety regulations and tell companies to reduce their dependence on computerized machinery?

yes, this jumped around from topic to topic with little organization, but i'm going fast because i have to get back to work. please tell me why i'm wrong.


500% efficiency is impossible. Such a statement implies the motor could make more energy than it uses which would be in direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics, entropy and friction. 500% efficiency would be the perpetual motion machine which is a pipe dream. And yes, Hydrogen can be created from tap water...the limiter of Hydrogen is the titanic amount of energy it takes to separate water into Hydrogen, not where the water comes from.

As to your concerns about humans in general, I'll take a quote from Frank Herbert’s Dune: 'Humanity has only one true science, and that is the science of discontent'.

[Sean O]

I've often thought about the future of mankind as well. Your theory is interesting and I think it has some validity, although I doubt that economics could ever wipe mankind off the face of the earth. However, I'm sure that such factors could reduce the human population to a fairly noticeable degree (over time, of course), due to people not being able to afford food and such.

In fact, even if we go through a third world war and experience a nuclear holocaust, I doubt mankind would die off completely. Virtually all of the nuclear powers in the world exist above the equator, or at least right on it, more or less. South America, Africa, and even Australia and New Zealand probably wouldn't even experience much nuclear fallout.

[Erika Redmark]

Maybe if people were replaced by machines, sectors where people were still needed would grow. Plus, they'd need people to maintain the machines and/or build new ones.

[kasbekz]

People will just find new things to worry about and hence do. There is no joy to be found repeating the same motion on a production line over and over. It will be a liberation.



500% efficiency, are you 110% sure of that?

Hydrogen can be made at home but you better have a free energy source.

solar. yes i'm sure. magnets





kasbekz added to this post, 10 minutes and 11 seconds later...

Maybe if people were replaced by machines, sectors where people were still needed would grow. Plus, they'd need people to maintain the machines and/or build new ones.

they would at first, but eventually there will be machines to replace those people.

well the only real argument against my thought is that such efficient machines are not possible. well i disagree. yes, i believe that machines with more then 100% efficiency exist.

but besides that, the trend of the development of efficiency has been in place since the beginning of man. can anyone give proof that that trend will stop? or change it's course? people always want improvement.

it will be a liberation? sure, they don't want to stand at that assembly line, but doing it is worth the money. this is why workers at ship yards and factories go on strike. they don't want to do it, but they have to keep the job don't they? if not, they would just leave to a better job. but there isn't one. or they would be at it already

[pinkroger]

kasbekz, even if all the poor people die off, the rich people would be intelligent enough to band together and start procreating, thus populating the world again. While your thoughts on this topic would make an interesting book, they have no real substance.

By the way, 500% efficiency is impossible, as even magnets will eventually lose mass due to use. All you have proven is that you haven't taken every factor into account. Some mass must be lost in that transaction in order to get 5 times the energy.

[kasbekz]

when the rich people have their orgy full of already somewhat in-bred humans, what do you think the outcome will be like a few generations later? i think things closer then 2nd cousins may be having a go.

perhaps 500% is impossible. however, i am reluctant to believe so, and as of now i still do believe that it is possible. there are many laws of physics that contradict the idea, but there are such ideas as this to ponder: gravity is always present. sure it just brings things one direction, but everything sitting on the ground has kinetic energy. i don't have any idea how, but i believe that it can be harnessed.

this is off topic though. it's a topic i really don't bring up with anyone, because obviously, it makes me look stupid talking about something that i can't prove. it's merely a belief i guess. which i have few of. this one however is mechanical, and i like to play with mechanisms. so i will study this idea until i can disprove it. or maybe....

but at any rate, without super efficient machines, the trend i speak of still exists.

i do see that the downfall will end. so maybe it will not be the end of man kind. but it will surely be one hell of a great depression!





kasbekz added to this post, 5 minutes and 2 seconds later...

now that it's been challenged, i'll go ahead and show where that idea came from. i'm not standing by this article word for word, but it just sparked some ideas for me.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Beery Swine]

Hopefully by that time we'll have done away with the monetary system altogether (and I know the libertarians will hate this concept) and each individual human will get what they want or need almost as soon as they want or need it. One step towards utopia, hopefully. Education needs to seriously be overhauled and reworked before that, though.

Then again, maybe I've just seen too much Star Trek: TNG.:blank:

[Stargazer]

All you have proven is that you haven't taken every factor into account.

I believe that this is a fine example of Intuition at work. He has the idea in his mind how it will work and is not focused on the specifics. None of us could presume to account for every variable. I can see the thought process behind his assertions. I am not sure I agree with it in its entirety, but I do think there is some validity to the argument. It has already begun and I cannot image humanity saying that they'd like to stop it until it becomes a crisis. Even then, I don't think it will bring about the end of humanity. It is much more likely, in my opinion, that we will be destroyed by disease or war or be destroyed by a catastrophic cosmic event. My two cents for what it's worth.

[kasbekz]

i do agree that there will be likely be something else to destroy mankind before this trend does. so with that considered, it's really not all that worthy of worry. it was just an idea that i wanted to present to a group of interesting intellectuals just to hear what they thought of it.

[SirJac]

Computers and machines are only really effective in manufacturing, and in that sector they have already replaced most human workers. But that does not preclude a division between poor and rich. There are many sectors that machines simply cannot compete against a person such as service, retail and healthcare.

There will always be a need for human labor because there will always be tasks that cannot be broken down into simple step by step instructions. So while machines can replace some human labor, it cannot replace all. Also as our economies grow and adapt to changes in technology, new jobs are created that did not previously exist, offsetting jobs lost to automation. So in the end there really isn't a problem at all, they only people who suffer are the ones who refuse to adapt to a changing world.

[blueback]

You should read Heinlein's For us, the living.

His description of the economy of the future is that the government mints new money regularly and distributes it to every living citizen as a sort of allowance. That allows people to buy the things that their advanced industry is capable of producing.

I didn't fully understand his explanation, but I think the gist of it was that the accumulated knowledge of humanity has done just what you were talking about, it has made us too efficient. We can make all sorts of great things but because we can make them without paying humans for the labor no one has enough money to buy the things. That might have something to do with the horrible savings and debt rates.

Basically, the theory is that we just don't have to work as hard any more. What one person is capable of accomplishing is so great now that we don't need everyone working all the time. The old model of economic activity no longer applies in a world in which we can apply the accumulated knowledge of thousands of years of human thought and effort. So, what the government should be doing is creating new money and handing it out to everyone. That will allow them to buy the things that the jobs they are no longer needed for are capable of producing.

This wouldn't be socialism, I don't think, because the government would hand out NEW money.

[kevintr]

It dosen't matter how cheap a product is to produce, if it won't sell the company looses money. If the company looses too mutch money the rich people who own it get poor. The middle class runs our economy, and it is disappearing, so our system is going to change alot. I don't know what will replace the system we have now but I think that as things get worse mainstream polititians are going to sound pritty socialist. It's intersting how systems destroy themselves, communism with it's failure and capatilism with it's success. I guss the old Chinese curse is upon us " May you live in interesting times." At least we won't be bored.

[Xtradi]

You should read Heinlein's For us, the living.

His description of the economy of the future is that the government mints new money regularly and distributes it to every living citizen as a sort of allowance. That allows people to buy the things that their advanced industry is capable of producing.

I didn't fully understand his explanation, but I think the gist of it was that the accumulated knowledge of humanity has done just what you were talking about, it has made us too efficient. We can make all sorts of great things but because we can make them without paying humans for the labor no one has enough money to buy the things. That might have something to do with the horrible savings and debt rates.

Basically, the theory is that we just don't have to work as hard any more. What one person is capable of accomplishing is so great now that we don't need everyone working all the time. The old model of economic activity no longer applies in a world in which we can apply the accumulated knowledge of thousands of years of human thought and effort. So, what the government should be doing is creating new money and handing it out to everyone. That will allow them to buy the things that the jobs they are no longer needed for are capable of producing.

This wouldn't be socialism, I don't think, because the government would hand out NEW money.

Yes that is the most logical way to do it. Instead letting other people die like we do now, mostly that is, we help the poor.

Human will try to preserve their own kind after a hardship, that is imminent danger to most of the population. As human trying to save, this action require much more resource which is available to "individual super powerful human", the one who will be permitted to exist when most of jobs is being replaced by robots or automated system.

Well if this individual is a egoistic and close minded (hardly doubt to happen), he or she can wait till most of human extinct to bring about new age. This is a bleak future scenario.

We always see empire rise and fall, and in every age has it's own advancement who will carry on to next age. The human will be intelligent enough to save itself in a way that we thought impossible at first.

And also it is still related to the way the human will live of in Star Trek, where money is no longer hard to come by and hard work and achievement is the things that counts. although they have bigger problem now, mostly because Alien.

[kasbekz]

Computers and machines are only really effective in manufacturing, and in that sector they have already replaced most human workers. But that does not preclude a division between poor and rich. There are many sectors that machines simply cannot compete against a person such as service, retail and healthcare.

There will always be a need for human labor because there will always be tasks that cannot be broken down into simple step by step instructions. So while machines can replace some human labor, it cannot replace all. Also as our economies grow and adapt to changes in technology, new jobs are created that did not previously exist, offsetting jobs lost to automation. So in the end there really isn't a problem at all, they only people who suffer are the ones who refuse to adapt to a changing world.


i for one do not refuse to adapt to the changing world. agreed, computers cannot replace ALL jobs, but i think they can replace a little bit more then you think. you mention retail.... i rang my own items up at walmart last week. i never spoke to a person. the machine gave me my change.

it will surely be a very gradual change, but these people doing the jobs that cannot be broken down into step by step instructions will have more and more computerized machines at their disposal to make them do their jobs more efficiently. so fewer laborers are needed to complete this job.

[SirJac]

It still takes a person to run those machines, usually 1 per 4 automated tills. Also they are only really effective as an express lane, since a trained cashier is far more efficent then your average customer in terms of items per hour. I work at a walmart, so I get the opportunity to compare numbers.

Also, cashiers still only represent maybe 20% of the number of emploees in a retail store. Unloaders, stockers, managers, customer service reps, receivers and many other jobs must also be done, none of which a computer can do.

In any case, if there was an issue here, we sould have already seen signs of it since automation has eliminated a huge number of jobs over the last 30 years. But despite that, unemployment hasn't really moved and has actually decreased in come places. While there isn't as many manufactoring jobs as there use to be, there are a hell of alot more demand for computer techs now then there was 30 years ago. Technology so far has created jobs as well as eliminated them, there is no reason to believe that future technology will be any different in that respect.

[Julien]

Your question: What future for mankind?
My answer: A new type of human.

Meet the scientific prophets who claim we are on the verge of creating a new type of human - a human v2.0.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.