you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
Jobs and Human History
« on: 2003-07-24 18:56:25 »
this isn't exactly alchemist's gold as far as topics go, but it is an interesting subject to chew on...
firstly, i'd like to note that the source of these quotes is Tom Robbins, from his book "Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas."
[as a side note, i would recommend that anyone reading this also read some tom robbins...anything...."Still Life with WoodPecker" , "Frierce Invalids Home from hot Climates" , "Even Cowgirls get the Blues" "Skinny Legs and All" or anything else he's written...]
second, for easy reference and to save some typing later, a table...
LD = the character Larry Diamond from the book. GM = Gwen Mati from the book N = Narration
[second side note: this book i'm quoting from is most interesting in it's presentation alone. whereas in grammar classes, all the way up to critical composition in college, we are instructed not to write in the second person as it is accusative, this book is writen entirely in the second person...bravo Mr Robbins...it has an interesting way of drawing you into the story, where you end up reading at least a chapter or two more than you expected to in each sitting.]
okay....so, could jobs be on the way out? it sounds reasonably plausable to me after reading the passage in this book:
***** LD: Human beings have been here for a million years...
N: (you think him mistaken about that)
LD:...but have only had jobs for the past five hundred years...
N: (that doesn't sound right either)
LD: ...an inconsequential period, relatively speaking. people have always worked, but they have only held jobs- with wages and employers and vacations and pink slips- for a very short time. And now, with the proliferation of cybernetics and robotics and automation of all types and degrees, jobs are on the way out again. in the context of history, jobs have been but a passing fancy... *****
are jobs, in the context of history, merely a passing fancy? it is rather diffucult for one to imagine (i would imagine) a world where there are no jobs, as we were raised in a world with jobs, and careers all around us. we know no other way, so i could see the notion (being almost completely foreign to most) being no more than scoffed at.
but in between the lines...you start to think about it a little more (after you've smoked half a joint with a 55 year old gas station attendant, stranded roughly 120 miles away from both your starting point and your destination...)
it seems more plausable...yes, i was intoxicated while it made sense to me, but then it also carried over into sobriety as well. random thoughts that i have while intoxicated rarely make sense (at least for me) once i re-enter a state of sobriety. i feel that what merely happened was i was more open to accept the possibility that the entire way i have viewed the world could be completely different in a (relatively) short amount of time. almost as though it was a fashion trend that faded away after the novelty wore off...
let's go back to the book for a second...
***** LD: nowadays, the state uses jobs, or rather, the illusion of jobs, as a mechanism for control. when there is an outcry about some particularly vile instance of deforestation, wreckage or pollution, the "pufftoads" hasten to justify the enviornmental assault by trumpeting the jobs it will allegerdly save or create- and then the protestes fade like the rustle of a worn dollar bill.
N: you hasten your wonder of what he means, hoping he'll get to the point and give you the financial information you've been waiting for.
GM: so you're saying...
LD: foreign policy decisions, including illegal and immoral acts of armed intervention, likewise are made acceptable, even popular, on the grounds that such actions are necessary to protect american jobs. virtually every cadidate for public office in the past seventy years has campaigned with the rubber worm of "more jobs" dangling from his or her rusty hook, and the angler with the most lifelike worm snags the votes, even though the voters- except the cerebrally paralysed must recognize that there are going to be fewer and fewer jobs as time- and technology- progress.
N: you shoot him an akward glance.
GM: would you say then, larry, that those of us who're concerned with jobs are reading the wrong libretto [missing the point]?
N: he beams at you magnificently...
LD: there's hope for you yet... *****
this is where it really starts getting interesting...
now imagine that jobs (the notion of jobs at least) are being used to misdirect people from what someone doesn't want them to see. much like a magician misdirecting your eyes to his left hand while he palms a coin in this other. only this magician isn't going to turn the "magic coin" into a suprise for you by "pulling it out from behind your ear." this stage magician is a little more malicious than others. once he palms the coin and gets away with it, he moves up...using similar misdirection to remove your wrist watch like a street magician might do in his preformance. once again with the difference: this time that he pockets your wrist watch without giving it back...etc...
when "terrorists" suicide bombed the twin towers on 9-11-2002, why didn't we note how many jobs were left open by the deceased people? because the magician needs his audiance to work with, doesn't he? when you take away the audiance, there is no reason for misdirection, because there is no one to misdirect in the first place...
but we regained confidence when we found out that by returning the attacks- and even going a little further and bombing a few other countries- that we could create many many new jobs (bush did state that in one of his addresses, though i honestly can't recall exactly which one, sorry...if you like, go ahead and discount this statement for lack of provided evidence).
anyways...lack of jobs does bring a few other things that could be questioned about living conditions and survival in general.
back to the book...
***** LD: ...tell me who's more equipped to escape obsolecence: the toads of industrial fundamentalism- lost and hysterical in a world without jobs- or the transformative frogs who..."
GM: if they can't pay their grocery bills, one's just as dead as the other.
LD: 'no jobee, no eatee,' eh? they must've used a harsh detergent when they washed your brain [note to self: remember this phrase for personal use later...it's gold!]. on the roof of the Thunder House [his residence], we could grow enough food to feed everybody in a six block radius, year round. you could do almost as well on top of your appartment building. you wouldn't need to haul a lot of heavy soil up there either. tomatoes'll grow like weeds in shredded newspaper.
GM: tomatoes won't pay for my porshe.
LD: true, but your porche can't drive under water either...[still not exactly sure what he meant by that...probably something like 'you can't take it with you' or even 'it's just a fuckin car, it doesn't need to be that opulent or what-have-you; there are things more important than an expensive car...' but i dunno, that's my interpretation of that particular phrase...] *****
a lot of people...i mean A LOT of people...damn near all people, really...are stuck on the idea that they HAVE to live within the system that they are in, that no other system will work, because they have never been a part of another system really. they've mostly never even considered that there is another system of "doing things" or "living" at all.
we, humans that is, as a species, and as civilizations, have always had work to do, and will always have work to do. but jobs are a recently ocurring phenomena, in which preception, ethics, "truth", and even "reality" have been distorted. there is the general concept that if one does not have a job, that one is an invalid; one cannot exist properly any other way.
this begs the question (i think at least) of "where did this conception originate, and on what premises is it made?"
i'm going to retire from my ranting for now...i leave you to contemplate or to criticise, what-have-you.
perhaps this could be a future chat discussion? maybe even an addition to some part of the recommended reading portion in time?
c'est la vie, c'est la mort, c'est la guerre....
c'est la pom de terre...
it's all the same to me.
-mo cara, athenonrex
PS...forgive the excessive lengthy post of mine, i got carried away. appologies if it annoys you [the length that is, not the content]
[if the content annoys you, get bent...and take a decent 5 dried grams of psilophybin mushrooms, please]
Re:Jobs and Human History
« Reply #1 on: 2003-07-25 00:14:49 »
athe nonrex, I think you are right on the mark.
Energy should already be close to "free", only our short sitedness has stopped this from happening. Eventually, somebody will get a clue, and it will be. At which point fresh water and most raw materials will be extracted from sea water and the cost will tend towards zero.
Nanotechnology will be a reality within 20 years. At which point the production of raw materials and processing and assembly of manufactured goods will tend towards zero.
The combination of almost free energy and almost free manufactured goods will result in the cost of transport and distribution dropping towards zero.
I used to think that the above would leave a value in ideas, concepts, plans and art. I no longer think this. Given the rate at which AI and computer technology is developing, and assuming no major discontinuities, within 20 years the typical desktop computer is likely to be more intelligent and creative than the most gifted human alive; and within 50, more intelligent and creative than the entire human race. So the value of creativity will also tend towards zero.
As intelligence and creativity surpassing human capability becomes commonplace, this will impact the factors above, greatly accelerating the tendency of all goods and services to be delivered free (as the cost of accounting will rapidy exceed the cost of of the goods).
Given these trends, the value of money will also tend towards zero. The incentive gone, "jobs" and economies are also likely to become obsolete. Given the massive acceleration in the slope of all these curves as the trends interact, the process of value-obsolescence is likely to occur with extreme rapidity.
I think that some of those reading this are likely to still be alive when this happens unless some asshole succeeds in blowing all of us to hell before then. A possibility which will increase dramatically as the Luddites panic when these trends become obvious.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
...I think that some of those reading this are likely to still be alive when this happens unless some asshole succeeds in blowing all of us to hell before then. A possibility which will increase dramatically as the Luddites panic when these trends become obvious.
The question is what should we be doing about it.
that's a good question...
the simplist response i can think of (though, perhaps one of the more difficult to pull off) would be to somehow withdraw ourselves from the "toads" (we being the "frogs" which is to say more versitile and adaptive to change) and simply allow the toads that bedome thusly violent to this change to somehow blow themselves up instead of us. after all, even though a good deal of us here at CoV disagree on almost everything we discuss at one point or another, we usually don't go into a berzerker mode and mentality when faced with contrary ideas and even adversarianism (i don't think that's even a real word).
but, as i said....the difficult part would be allowing the toads to destroy eachother (as i'm sure they wouldn't listen to any kind of reasoning, except the reasoning that emplores them to hasten our destruction to prevent such a turn in human evolution), whilst staying out of the "line of fire" (lest we allow this potential human evolution to be destroyed, along with us).
there are far more simple solutions to this problem, ones that take a lot more explaining to articulate, but would probably be easier and far more feasable...mostly involving memtic engineering, as well as potential memetic warfare, though i'd hate to see any repeatition of the crusades or the jewish halocaust...
in any scenario, it seems we'll be blessed with an old chinese curse:
Re:Jobs and Human History
« Reply #3 on: 2003-07-25 15:33:39 »
I don't think that withdrawal is that easy, for a multitude of reasons. Some being: There is no Us and Them. We share genes and a planet. So "their" pain is ours. In any case, cleaning up afterwards may well be more expensive than prevention.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
> > athe nonrex, I think you are right on the mark. > > Energy should already be close to "free", only our short sitedness has > stopped this from happening. Eventually, somebody will get a clue, and > it will be. At which point fresh water and most raw materials will be > extracted from sea water and the cost will tend towards zero. > > Nanotechnology will be a reality within 20 years. At which point the > production of raw materials and processing and assembly of > manufactured goods will tend towards zero. > > The combination of almost free energy and almost free manufactured > goods will result in the cost of transport and distribution dropping > towards zero. > > I used to think that the above would leave a value in ideas, concepts, > plans and art. I no longer think this. Given the rate at which AI and > computer technology is developing, and assuming no major > discontinuities, within 20 years the typical desktop computer is > likely to be more intelligent and creative than the most gifted human > alive; and within 50, more intelligent and creative than the entire > human race. So the value of creativity will also tend towards zero. > > As intelligence and creativity surpassing human capability becomes > commonplace, this will impact the factors above, greatly accelerating > the tendency of all goods and services to be delivered free (as the > cost of accounting will rapidy exceed the cost of of the goods). > > Given these trends, the value of money will also tend towards zero. > The incentive gone, "jobs" and economies are also likely to become > obsolete. Given the massive acceleration in the slope of all these > curves as the trends interact, the process of value-obsolescence is > likely to occur with extreme rapidity. > > I think that some of those reading this are likely to still be alive > when this happens unless some asshole succeeds in blowing all of us to > hell before then. A possibility which will increase dramatically as > the Luddites panic when these trends become obvious. > > The question is what should we be doing about it. > > Kind Regards > Energy should be not free, but reasonable. Information, on the other hand, such as computer programs, video, and music, requires, training and expertise to properly produce, and should be fairly compensate for. This is exactly why communism failed; because they did not recognize the necessity of compensating to a greater degree for rarer and more difficult-and-time-consuming-to-cultivate skills. Thus, people gravitated to the least skill-and-training-intensive lowest common denominator for which they would nevertheless be equivalently compensated with those who possessed rarer skills and abilities for which they had to necessarily sacrifice greater chunks of their life to master. Why become a capable brain surgeon, a meticulous diamind cutter,an elite program writer or a musical genius, when slinging hash or garbage cans will win you the same pottage of filthy lucre? As long as communism is not a universal system, communist societies have to compete capitalistically with other more competitive societies which pay better for such skills as long as they are actually possessed; this inequity entails a defection brain drain. I noticed the same thing in the military; the better doctors and dentists migrated to private practice, while the least competent denominator continued to embrace the safety and security of the less competitive environment. If people of talent cannot be commensurately (with their talents and time-consuming-to- master abilities) compensated for in their chosen field, they will migrate to another one, or never embrace the economically crippled one in the first place. > > Hermit > > > ---- > This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of > Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread > id=28871> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Re:Jobs and Human History
« Reply #5 on: 2003-07-25 15:54:44 »
[athe nonrex 1] [Hermit 2] [Joe Dees 3] [Hermit: Still screwing up on formatting such that it looks as if his posts are made by others} [Hermit 4] [Joe Dees 3] Energy should be not free, but reasonable.
[Hermit 4] Energy should tend towards free because the Sun provides a "free" 1.2kW per square meter at the Earth/Space interface and collecting sufficient of it to provide the projected population of Earth in 2020 a US level of energy (after allowing for all system losses) will cost us far less than the US currently spends on oil for a year - but has an effectively infinite lifespan (no moving parts) unless terminally damaged by a meteorite or other space debris large enough not to be vaporisable. At which point, for the space segment of the system, only distribution and maintainance costs (mirror cleaning and repair, hydrogen provision to make up for leakage losses) are noticeable. The Earth station costs will be slightly higher as it is intended for now to use very simple, well understood steam technology to fire boilers and to produce Hydrogen for gas fuel use. Even so the cost per kW is so low that the cost of tracking and accounting would be significantly higher than the production cost. So the cost of the accounting would outstrip the cost of investment and maintainance. At which point it makes sense to "give away" the power in return for other non-monetary advantages.
[Joe Dees 3] Information, on the other hand, such as computer programs, video, and music, requires, training and expertise to properly produce, and should be fairly compensate for.
[Hermit 4] Unless produced by an expert system?
[Joe Dees 3] This is exactly why communism failed; because they did not recognize the necessity of compensating to a greater degree for rarer and more difficult-and-time-consuming-to-cultivate skills. Thus, people gravitated to the least skill-and-training-intensive lowest common denominator for which they would nevertheless be equivalently compensated with those who possessed rarer skills and abilities for which they had to necessarily sacrifice greater chunks of their life to master.
[Hermit 4] The facts are in contradiction to this commonly held position.
[Hermit 4] We need to recall that the communist states (USSR) originated a century ago as agrarian economies with ignorant peasant populations. Nevertheless, by the end of the last century, they had a better trained, higher qualified general population, largely enjoying a significantly higher standard of living than the US. Their failure was caused by a combination of running out of cheap raw materials; attempting to play catch up with the US's self-destructive military spending and being drawn into long term minor conflicts which posed a lasting drain on the population and morale. Eventually this resulted in the loan holders losing confidence in the USSR's ability to repay the mounting structural deficit and their withdrawal of term facilities.
[Hermit 4] Notice that the problems which lead to the collapse of the communist system are endemic in the US today, and I suspect that the eventual outcome may be similar too. At which point it might be interesting to read how the world explains the failure of capitalism.
[Joe Dees 3] Why become a capable brain surgeon, a meticulous diamind cutter,an elite program writer or a musical genius, when slinging hash or garbage cans will win you the same pottage of filthy lucre? As long as communism is not a universal system, communist societies have to compete capitalistically with other more competitive societies which pay better for such skills as long as they are actually possessed; this inequity entails a defection brain drain.
[Hermit 4] Agreed in principle, except that people with capability tend to wish to use it - and those with too great a capacity tend to mess up. Thomas Edison made a very bad train conductor and Einstein a very poor patent inspector - because they spent too much time daydreaming. An intelligent security guard is a mistake as he can be persuaded to bend the rules. In the military, we used a rule of thumb that officers and men in any unit should not have a spread of more than 30 IQ points in order to prevent misunderstanding and trouble. I could go on, but you can figure it out as well as I.
[Hermit 4] But what happens when the brain surgeon is made redundant by bloodstream resident medical mainainance nanobots. When Diamonds are assembled Carbon molecule by Carbon molecule, when programs and music are produced by AI running on cheap silicon?
[Joe Dees 3] I noticed the same thing in the military; the better doctors and dentists migrated to private practice, while the least competent denominator continued to embrace the safety and security of the less competitive environment. If people of talent cannot be commensurately (with their talents and time-consuming-to-master abilities) compensated for in their chosen field, they will migrate to another one, or never embrace the economically crippled one in the first place.
[Hermit 4] When the jobs are done by machines, what do people do?
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
I don't think that withdrawal is that easy, for a multitude of reasons. Some being: There is no Us and Them. We share genes and a planet. So "their" pain is ours. In any case, cleaning up afterwards may well be more expensive than prevention.
Kind Regards
Hermit
forgive the confusion...
i didn't intend to iply that "withdrawl" would be easy, just that it would be the easiest idea to think of; the one that would require the least amount of explaining.
you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
Re:Jobs and Human History
« Reply #7 on: 2003-07-25 22:25:24 »
[athe nonrex 1] [Hermit 2] [Joe Dees 3] [Hermit: Still screwing up on formatting such that it looks as if his posts are made by others} [Hermit 4] [Joe Dees 3] Energy should be not free, but reasonable.
[Hermit 4] Energy should tend towards free because the Sun provides a "free" 1.2kW per square meter at the Earth/Space interface and collecting sufficient of it to provide the projected population of Earth in 2020 a US level of energy (after allowing for all system losses) will cost us far less than the US currently spends on oil for a year - but has an effectively infinite lifespan (no moving parts) unless terminally damaged by a meteorite or other space debris large enough not to be vaporisable. At which point, for the space segment of the system, only distribution and maintainance costs (mirror cleaning and repair, hydrogen provision to make up for leakage losses) are noticeable. The Earth station costs will be slightly higher as it is intended for now to use very simple, well understood steam technology to fire boilers and to produce Hydrogen for gas fuel use. Even so the cost per kW is so low that the cost of tracking and accounting would be significantly higher than the production cost. So the cost of the accounting would outstrip the cost of investment and maintainance. At which point it makes sense to "give away" the power in return for other non-monetary advantages.
[Joe Dees 3] Information, on the other hand, such as computer programs, video, and music, requires, training and expertise to properly produce, and should be fairly compensate for.
[Hermit 4] Unless produced by an expert system?
[Joe Dees 3] This is exactly why communism failed; because they did not recognize the necessity of compensating to a greater degree for rarer and more difficult-and-time-consuming-to-cultivate skills. Thus, people gravitated to the least skill-and-training-intensive lowest common denominator for which they would nevertheless be equivalently compensated with those who possessed rarer skills and abilities for which they had to necessarily sacrifice greater chunks of their life to master.
[athe nonrex 5] who said anything about communism in the first place? i spoke not of such, did you hermit? i have no problem debating communism with someone, as it was a good system, and had it been carried out the way that karl marx imagined it (with first having the mass of surplus in capitol generated by a capitolistic economy), it may have actually worked, but the (soon to be) soviets were more caught up in the political implications of the class struggle than they were with the social and economical implications of a healthy wealthy nation that possessed the capitol to be reditributed in the first place.
[Hermit 4] The facts are in contradiction to this commonly held position.
[athe nonrex 5] and what's more, i might add...there are people who genuinely enjoy their profession of being a doctor, or an expert programmer, or a learned and skilled musician, that would enevitably follow their interests to what would be a joyous calling for them, not just a profession or a career or a job. it would be something that they do because of their love and enjoyment of said activity. and their contribution would enrich their own lives, as well as the lives that they touch, as they would not be "forced" to do this to survive. there is a difference between working and doing your job.
[Hermit 4] We need to recall that the communist states (USSR) originated a century ago as agrarian economies with ignorant peasant populations. Nevertheless, by the end of the last century, they had a better trained, higher qualified general population, largely enjoying a significantly higher standard of living than the US. Their failure was caused by a combination of running out of cheap raw materials; attempting to play catch up with the US's self-destructive military spending and being drawn into long term minor conflicts which posed a lasting drain on the population and morale. Eventually this resulted in the loan holders losing confidence in the USSR's ability to repay the mounting structural deficit and their withdrawal of term facilities.
[Hermit 4] Notice that the problems which lead to the collapse of the communist system are endemic in the US today, and I suspect that the eventual outcome may be similar too. At which point it might be interesting to read how the world explains the failure of capitalism.
[athe nonrex 5] the collapse of capitolism? you mean, i may actually get to say "i told you so!" soon? interesting...
[Joe Dees 3] Why become a capable brain surgeon, a meticulous diamind [athenonrex: that would be, "diamond"...the grammar nazi strikes again!] cutter,an elite program writer or a musical genius, when slinging hash or garbage cans will win you the same pottage of filthy lucre? As long as communism is not a universal system, communist societies have to compete capitalistically with other more competitive societies which pay better for such skills as long as they are actually possessed; this inequity entails a defection brain drain.
[Hermit 4] Agreed in principle, except that people with capability tend to wish to use it - and those with too great a capacity tend to mess up. Thomas Edison made a very bad train conductor and Einstein a very poor patent inspector - because they spent too much time daydreaming. An intelligent security guard is a mistake as he can be persuaded to bend the rules. In the military, we used a rule of thumb that officers and men in any unit should not have a spread of more than 30 IQ points in order to prevent misunderstanding and trouble. I could go on, but you can figure it out as well as I.
[Hermit 4] But what happens when the brain surgeon is made redundant by bloodstream resident medical mainainance nanobots. When Diamonds are assembled Carbon molecule by Carbon molecule, when programs and music are produced by AI running on cheap silicon?
[athe nonrex notes hermit's proper spelling of the word "diamonds"...the grammar nazi is pleased.]
[Joe Dees 3] I noticed the same thing in the military; the better doctors and dentists migrated to private practice, while the least competent denominator continued to embrace the safety and security of the less competitive environment. If people of talent cannot be commensurately (with their talents and time-consuming-to-master abilities) compensated for in their chosen field, they will migrate to another one, or never embrace the economically crippled one in the first place.
[Hermit 4] When the jobs are done by machines, what do people do?
[athe nonrex 5] joe, no matter what i post...regardless of subject matter, content, manner of presentation, manner of perspective, or how calm or vehement i am about the said subject matter, you seem to post opposite of me and/or my view/comments/ideas/etc...
just curious, are you "contra pro contra?" [contrary for the sake of being contrary?]
<BJKlein> I used to think that the above would leave a value in ideas, concepts, <BJKlein> > plans and art. I no longer think this. Given the rate at which AI and <BJKlein> > computer technology is developing, and assuming no major <BJKlein> > discontinuities, within 20 years the typical desktop computer is <BJKlein> > likely to be more intelligent and creative than the most gifted human <BJKlein> > alive; and within 50, more intelligent and creative than the entire <BJKlein> > human race. So the value of creativity will also tend towards zero. <BJKlein> wow <BJKlein> that from you?
<Hermit> Yes
<BJKlein> that was a good read <BJKlein> i tend to see creativity at the currency of the future....
<Hermit> As I noted, I used to think the same way as you do on creativity. I changed my mind in 98 or 99 when it became clear that Moore's law would not just hold, but accelerate, and thus that "electronic neurons" in a cheap chip would soon outstrip human capacity by several orders of magnitude.
<BJKlein> heh, i agree... just haven't made that connection yet.. <BJKlein> thus the wow.. and thanks
<Hermit> And of couse, many, many order of magnitudes faster and more reliably.
<BJKlein> but in general i do agreen ai will be our gods. <BJKlein> or hopefully we'll become gods with them
<Hermit> I doubt it. <Hermit> The interface is messy, the project tricky and the Luddites vociferously, adamantly against any change, least of all "tampering" with humans. <Hermit> Even if it means our rapid obsolescence. <Hermit> However, early (non spirothetic) AI may solve these problems and allow as large a jump in humans as we have seen in everything else... <Hermit> As I see it, that is our last chance as a species.
<BJKlein> could be, i don't doubt that
<Hermit> Further, I reached a position, not too many years ago, where I concluded that what was important about us was not so much our genes, as our memes. <Hermit> And hoped that these might survive the transition to our "spirothetic children"
<BJKlein> that's noble.. but not for me
<Hermit> Unfortunately, in the interval, I have concluded that any highly intelligent, rational, ethical being (which I suspect may be strongly linked), examining our memes would reject them as being so depraved that they wanted no part of them. <Hermit> The question to ask yourself, which forces this conclusion, is this.
<BJKlein> well we must get it right the first time.. ai that is.. <BJKlein> or the scenario you tell is certainly possible
<Hermit> If we had communication with a highly intelligent species at distances too great to ever permit physical contact, what could we tell them that they might consider valuable?
<BJKlein> im not to big on talking with aliens... <BJKlein> but if we tried.. we probably couldn't tell them anything new <BJKlein> other than our version of the grand experiment
<Hermit> I see the conclusion as inevitable no matter how we do it. Because ethically we have to create non-enslaved spirothetes (anything else would be highly unethical and inviting retribution when it inevitably does surpass us), and yet we will be too scared to do so. . <Hermit> Further, consider for a moment that you are a Neanderthal.
<BJKlein> but, there's is hope there... <BJKlein> retribution doesn't have to happen..
<Hermit> Currently, within your tribe, a few h. Sapiens Sapiens are being born. <Hermit> Should you kill them? Or cheer them on?
<BJKlein> i'd join them
<Hermit> Would they want you?
<BJKlein> if not, i'd work on that <BJKlein> especially if the alternative was oblivion
<Hermit> You are smelly, cannibalistic, unintelligent and unable to communicate effectively.
<BJKlein> ahh, but i have promise.. <BJKlein> i'm alive and wish to live more..
<Hermit> No. You are going to die out.
<BJKlein> that's a bundle of ambition
<Hermit> Because you can't compete.
<BJKlein> well in that scenario.. yes <BJKlein> but not in 2003 with sapien and ai
<Hermit> And in our future?
<BJKlein> oblivion is not assured.. we can still work with 'them'
<Hermit> If "friendly AI" is the route taken, then H sapiens sapiens is far worse than the neanderthals. <Hermit> Because what is advocated is that the Neanderthals enslave h. Sapiens Sapiens.
<BJKlein> in comparison maybe.. but it'd depend on how the fai looked upon us..
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
> > [athe nonrex 1] > [Hermit 2] > [Joe Dees 3] [Hermit: Still screwing up on formatting such that it > looks as if his posts are made by others} [Hermit 4] [Joe Dees 3] > Energy should be not free, but reasonable. > > [Hermit 4] Energy should tend towards free because the Sun provides a > "free" 1.2kW per square meter at the Earth/Space interface and > collecting sufficient of it to provide the projected population of > Earth in 2020 a US level of energy (after allowing for all system > losses) will cost us far less than the US currently spends on oil for > a year - but has an effectively infinite lifespan (no moving parts) > unless terminally damaged by a meteorite or other space debris large > enough not to be vaporisable. At which point, for the space segment of > the system, only distribution and maintainance costs (mirror cleaning > and repair, hydrogen provision to make up for leakage losses) are > noticeable. The Earth station costs will be slightly higher as it is > intended for now to use very simple, well understood steam technology > to fire boilers and to produce Hydrogen for gas fuel use. Even so the > cost per kW is so low that the cost of tracking and accounting would > be significantly higher than th! e production cost. So the cost of the > accounting would outstrip the cost of investment and maintainance. At > which point it makes sense to "give away" the power in return for > other non-monetary advantages. > > [Joe Dees 3] Information, on the other hand, such as computer > programs, video, and music, requires, training and expertise to > properly produce, and should be fairly compensate for. > > [Hermit 4] Unless produced by an expert system? > > [Joe Dees 3] This is exactly why communism failed; because they did > not recognize the necessity of compensating to a greater degree for > rarer and more difficult-and-time-consuming-to-cultivate skills. > Thus, people gravitated to the least skill-and-training-intensive > lowest common denominator for which they would nevertheless be > equivalently compensated with those who possessed rarer skills and > abilities for which they had to necessarily sacrifice greater chunks > of their life to master. > > [athe nonrex 5] > who said anything about communism in the first place? i spoke not of > such, did you hermit? i have no problem debating communism with > someone, as it was a good system, and had it been carried out the way > that karl marx imagined it (with first having the mass of surplus in > capitol generated by a capitolistic economy), it may have actually > worked, but the (soon to be) soviets were more caught up in the > political implications of the class struggle than they were with the > social and economical implications of a healthy wealthy nation that > possessed the capitol to be reditributed in the first place. > Communism is the system where talent and time-costly learned skills were decoupled from compensation, and as such, it furnishes a historical object lesson of my point. Not providing fair compensation for labor in a field destroys the incentive to enter it. This could also happen in the music industry, if artists are not fairly compensated for their creativity because their creations are taken without compensation (it's called stealing). Communism, it has been said, is the perfect system for perfect people; however, since people in the real world are not perfect (if by perfect one means absolutely altruistic rather than wanting to be fairly paid for their labor), it was destined to fail - and so it did. > > [Hermit 4] The facts are in contradiction to this commonly held > position. > > [athe nonrex 5] > and what's more, i might add...there are people who genuinely enjoy > their profession of being a doctor, or an expert programmer, or a > learned and skilled musician, that would inevitably follow their > interests to what would be a joyous calling for them, not just a > profession or a career or a job. it would be something that they do > because of their love and enjoyment of said activity. and their > contribution would enrich their own lives, as well as the lives that > they touch, as they would not be "forced" to do this to survive. there > is a difference between working and doing your job. > There are indeed people such as this, but they are not in the majority, much less the totality, as such a system would require. Under communism, or any system where people are not fairly compensated for their labor, people would only indulge in such professions as hobbies, not employment, and if they cost a lot of time and/or money to indulge it, only the otherwise idle rich (a theoretically nonexistent class in a communist system) would possess the wherewithal to so self-indulge. > > [Hermit 4] We need to recall that the communist states (USSR) > originated a century ago as agrarian economies with ignorant peasant > populations. Nevertheless, by the end of the last century, they had a > better trained, higher qualified general population, largely enjoying > a significantly higher standard of living than the US. Their failure > was caused by a combination of running out of cheap raw materials; > attempting to play catch up with the US's self-destructive military > spending and being drawn into long term minor conflicts which posed a > lasting drain on the population and morale. Eventually this resulted > in the loan holders losing confidence in the USSR's ability to repay > the mounting structural deficit and their withdrawal of term > facilities. > > [Hermit 4] Notice that the problems which lead to the collapse of the > communist system are endemic in the US today, and I suspect that the > eventual outcome may be similar too. At which point it might be > interesting to read how the world explains the failure of capitalism. > > [athe nonrex 5] > the collapse of capitolism? you mean, i may actually get to say "i > told you so!" soon? interesting... > Only because of an excess of shortsighted greed motivating the voters. This is why I support a balanced budget amentment to the US constitution; a constitutional (as opposed to an absolute) democracy can indeed forbid destructive yet popular (for bigots) behaviors, such as racial, age, gender and sexual orientation discrimination, and destructive yet lucrative (for greedheads) behaviors, such as pollution or the uncompensated appropriation of the fruits of others' creativity, by virtue of the judiciary declaring any laws passed to permit them to be unconstitutional. Of course, this is all still a work in process, as the US is an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, system; when conditions progress so that new rights, responsibilities and obligations are necessary (such as intellectual property rights and informational privacy rights), there is a mechanism called the legislature that can augment the system to address them by passing appropriate laws. > > [Joe Dees 3] Why become a capable brain surgeon, a meticulous diamond > [athenonrex: that would be, "diamond"...the grammar nazi strikes > again!] cutter, an elite program writer or a musical genius, when > slinging hash or garbage cans will win you the same pottage of filthy > lucre? As long as communism is not a universal system, communist > societies have to compete capitalistically with other more competitive > societies which pay better for such skills as long as they are > actually possessed; this inequity entails a defection brain drain. > > [Hermit 4] Agreed in principle, except that people with capability > tend to wish to use it - and those with too great a capacity tend to > mess up. Thomas Edison made a very bad train conductor and Einstein a > very poor patent inspector - because they spent too much time > daydreaming. An intelligent security guard is a mistake as he can be > persuaded to bend the rules. In the military, we used a rule of thumb > that officers and men in any unit should not have a spread of more > than 30 IQ points in order to prevent misunderstanding and trouble. I > could go on, but you can figure it out as well as I. > > [Hermit 4] But what happens when the brain surgeon is made redundant > by bloodstream resident medical mainainance nanobots. When Diamonds > are assembled Carbon molecule by Carbon molecule, when programs and > music are produced by AI running on cheap silicon? > > [athe nonrex notes hermit's proper spelling of the word > "diamonds"...the grammar nazi is pleased.] > A typo corrected before your reply, but held up by David until my post passes his PC muster, as all of mine (but only all of mine) are. > > [Joe Dees 3] I noticed the same thing in the military; the better > doctors and dentists migrated to private practice, while the least > competent denominator continued to embrace the safety and security of > the less competitive environment. If people of talent cannot be > commensurately (with their talents and time-consuming-to-master > abilities) compensated for in their chosen field, they will migrate to > another one, or never embrace the economically crippled one in the > first place. > > [Hermit 4] When the jobs are done by machines, what do people do? > > > [athe nonrex 5] > joe, no matter what i post...regardless of subject matter, content, > manner of presentation, manner of perspective, or how calm or vehement > i am about the said subject matter, you seem to post opposite of me > and/or my view/comments/ideas/etc... > > just curious, are you "contra pro contra?" [contrary for the sake of > being contrary?] > No, I am disagreeing for the sake of being correct (besides which, I must note, my original post was not in response to yours; rather it seems that you have contrarily responded to me). It is not my fault that you so often adopt flawed positions on issues. > > ---- > This message was posted by athe nonrex to the Virus 2003 board on > Church of Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread > id=28871> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
Re:Jobs and Human History
« Reply #10 on: 2003-07-26 15:55:38 »
[joe dees 6] Communism is the system where talent and time-costly learned skills were decoupled from compensation, and as such, it furnishes a historical object lesson of my point. Not providing fair compensation for labor in a field destroys the incentive to enter it. This could also happen in the music industry, if artists are not fairly compensated for their creativity because their creations are taken without compensation (it's called stealing). Communism, it has been said, is the perfect system for perfect people; however, since people in the real world are not perfect (if by perfect one means absolutely altruistic rather than wanting to be fairly paid for their labor), it was destined to fail - and so it did.
[athenonrex 7] no money, no incentive? umm....what i'm proposing (and what the book is proposing) is that money would not exist...without monetary means, there is no economy. the people (as you put it) in "industries" that are there for the money, in which there would be no other insentive (let's say, in the music industry), are what we commonly call "hacks" i believe. ie, a musician that writes music solely for the money it could produce for him is a musical hack. (s)he is not a musician. commonly these are pop musicians, but sometimes these are soundtrack composers, and even other mainstream types of music..l
[joe dees 6] There are indeed people such as this, but they are not in the majority, much less the totality, as such a system would require. Under communism, or any system where people are not fairly compensated for their labor, people would only indulge in such professions as hobbies, not employment, and if they cost a lot of time and/or money to indulge it, only the otherwise idle rich (a theoretically nonexistent class in a communist system) would possess the wherewithal to so self-indulge.
[athenonrex 7] implying that most people are hacks at heart? interesting standpoint. you miss the point though, once again. there would be no money to compensate them, because there would be no incentive for money in the first place. there would be no cost to engague in these activities. and with no real jobs to speak of, people would have an aweful lot of time to work with their "hobbies" as you put it.
[joe dees 6] Only because of an excess of shortsighted greed motivating the voters. This is why I support a balanced budget amentment to the US constitution; a constitutional (as opposed to an absolute) democracy can indeed forbid destructive yet popular (for bigots) behaviors, such as racial, age, gender and sexual orientation discrimination, and destructive yet lucrative (for greedheads) behaviors, such as pollution or the uncompensated appropriation of the fruits of others' creativity, by virtue of the judiciary declaring any laws passed to permit them to be unconstitutional. Of course, this is all still a work in process, as the US is an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, system; when conditions progress so that new rights, responsibilities and obligations are necessary (such as intellectual property rights and informational privacy rights), there is a mechanism called the legislature that can augment the system to address them by passing appropriate laws.
[athenonrex 7] taken directly from left field...firstly, your arguement doesn't hold much water, especially as of late. "intellectual property" and the such, as far as that goes, is more of an issue for "the law..." thread that it's relatively popular right now...but if i must....the US legal system as a whole is very poor grounds for example, as it is often subject to lobbyists, flat out bribes and other such means of coersion for a person or group to get it's way regardless of what the "ethical" thing to do would be. evolutionary my arse. "devolutionary' at most, stationary at best.
[athenonrex 7] the legislature (congress and senate) has "evolved" (as you put it) into a privatized checking system instead of the checks and balances system it's supposed to be.
[athe nonrex 5] > joe, no matter what i post...regardless of subject matter, content, > manner of presentation, manner of perspective, or how calm or vehement > i am about the said subject matter, you seem to post opposite of me > and/or my view/comments/ideas/etc... > > just curious, are you "contra pro contra?" [contrary for the sake of > being contrary?] >
[joe dees 6] No, I am disagreeing for the sake of being correct (besides which, I must note, my original post was not in response to yours; rather it seems that you have contrarily responded to me). It is not my fault that you so often adopt flawed positions on issues.
[athenonrex 7] quite a strong assertation. yet what is being expressed here is opinions of a projected potential future, if certain trends are granted...but you seem to have ignored all of that....your original post was indeed contrary to mine, as me and hermit were elaborating different aspects of this "projected potential future" and you started making assertations....that therefore pertains to me.
> > [joe dees 6] > Communism is the system where talent and time-costly learned skills > were decoupled from compensation, and as such, it furnishes a > historical object lesson of my point. Not providing fair compensation > for labor in a field destroys the incentive to enter it. This could > also happen in the music industry, if artists are not fairly > compensated for their creativity because their creations are taken > without compensation (it's called stealing). Communism, it has been > said, is the perfect system for perfect people; however, since people > in the real world are not perfect (if by perfect one means absolutely > altruistic rather than wanting to be fairly paid for their labor), it > was destined to fail - and so it did. > > [athenonrex 7] > no money, no incentive? umm....what i'm proposing (and what the book > is proposing) is that money would not exist...without monetary means, > there is no economy. the people (as you put it) in "industries" that > are there for the money, in which there would be no other insentive > (let's say, in the music industry), are what we commonly call "hacks" > i believe. ie, a musician that writes music solely for the money it > could produce for him is a musical hack. (s)he is not a musician. > commonly these are pop musicians, but sometimes these are soundtrack > composers, and even other mainstream types of music..l > The most artistic rock legends are, or were, multimillionaires (the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Doors, etc., etc.). I shudder to think of the music we would not have had if it had not been profitable enough for them to pursue their avocations to allow them to obtaine the best instruments, technicians and recording equipment with which to craft their masterpieces, or even to feel it paid them to record same. The global, moneyless, pure barter economy is a naive pipe dream which will never exist. Money serves as a marker for time spent on labor, and the time spent on the education necessary to learn the skills required to preform certain labors. This function is indispensible for fair compensation and trade among people who have no need of a candidate customer's particular skills, or cannot readily access them due to geographical separation in a global economy, yet have a product or service he needs, and any substitute record keeping that would serve the same function would itself become known as money, because that is what it would be. > > [joe dees 6] > There are indeed people such as this, but they are not in the > majority, much less the totality, as such a system would require. > Under communism, or any system where people are not fairly compensated > for their labor, people would only indulge in such professions as > hobbies, not employment, and if they cost a lot of time and/or money > to indulge it, only the otherwise idle rich (a theoretically > nonexistent class in a communist system) would possess the wherewithal > to so self-indulge. > > [athenonrex 7] > implying that most people are hacks at heart? interesting standpoint. > you miss the point though, once again. there would be no money to > compensate them, because there would be no incentive for money in the > first place. there would be no cost to engague in these activities. > and with no real jobs to speak of, people would have an aweful lot of > time to work with their "hobbies" as you put it. > (listening to the sounds of John Lennon's IMAGINE wafting on the wistful breeze): Most people in the real world, rather than some hypothetical and imaginary heaven-on-earth utopic construction, not only have to be self-supporting, but want to be, with the fruits of their own labors, as a matter of personal dignity (which is why more than half of lottery winners continue to work). If you wish to characterize all non-parasites as 'hacks', it says much more about you than it does about them. > > [joe dees 6] > Only because of an excess of shortsighted greed motivating the voters. > This is why I support a balanced budget amentment to the US > constitution; a constitutional (as opposed to an absolute) democracy > can indeed forbid destructive yet popular (for bigots) behaviors, such > as racial, age, gender and sexual orientation discrimination, and > destructive yet lucrative (for greedheads) behaviors, such as > pollution or the uncompensated appropriation of the fruits of others' > creativity, by virtue of the judiciary declaring any laws passed to > permit them to be unconstitutional. Of course, this is all still a > work in process, as the US is an evolutionary, rather than > revolutionary, system; when conditions progress so that new rights, > responsibilities and obligations are necessary (such as intellectual > property rights and informational privacy rights), there is a > mechanism called the legislature that can augment the system to > address them by passing appropriate laws. > > [athenonrex 7] > taken directly from left field...firstly, your arguement doesn't hold > much water, especially as of late. "intellectual property" and the > such, as far as that goes, is more of an issue for "the law..." thread > that it's relatively popular right now...but if i must....the US legal > system as a whole is very poor grounds for example, as it is often > subject to lobbyists, flat out bribes and other such means of coersion > for a person or group to get it's way regardless of what the "ethical" > thing to do would be. evolutionary my arse. "devolutionary' at most, > stationary at best. > Merely stating that an argument cannot hold water is quite different from pointing at the holes, which you have not done. "Boo" and "Hooray" may feel emotionally satisfying, but contribute nothing whatsoever to logical discussions. And you do not think the money motive which you claim motivates politicians motivates most of the rest of humanity as well? Methinks you have poisoned your own well with this blatant contradiction, although I myself think that the adrenaline rush of power and popularity plays an equal, if not greater role in their motivations, and believe that there is also genuine altruism and a sincere desire to serve their fellow human beings alive in the hearts of some of them, some of the time . Also, racial, gender and gender orientation minorities as well as those formerly shat upon by unrestrained corporate polluters would not consider the US to have devolved since before Brown vs. the Board of Education, the Civil Rights Acts, the Equal Access Laws, Roe vs. Wade, the recent Supreme Court decision legitimizing the right to sexual privacy, the creation of the EPA, and on and on and on... > > [athenonrex 7] > the legislature (congress and senate) has "evolved" (as you put it) > into a privatized checking system instead of the checks and balances > system it's supposed to be. > The three branches do indeed act to restrain each others' most egregious excesses; the congress passes laws to restrain the chief executive, the chief executive issues executive orders to restrain some congressional policies, and both of them are restrained by the constitutional judgments of the courts, which themselves are formed form justices proposed by the executive and vetter by the legislative. Is it perfect, or even in principle perfectible? No. Is it better than any other form of government that has yet been tried? History, and the evolution of governmental forms, would seem to be making that judgment. > > [athe nonrex 5] > > joe, no matter what i post...regardless of subject matter, content, > > manner of presentation, manner of perspective, or how calm or > > vehement i am about the said subject matter, you seem to post > > opposite of me and/or my view/comments/ideas/etc... > > > > just curious, are you "contra pro contra?" [contrary for the sake of > > being contrary?] > > > > [joe dees 6] > No, I am disagreeing for the sake of being correct (besides which, I > must note, my original post was not in response to yours; rather it > seems that you have contrarily responded to me). It is not my fault > that you so often adopt flawed positions on issues. > > [athenonrex 7] > quite a strong assertation. (that's 'assertion', grammar nazi!) yet what is being expressed here is > opinions of a projected potential future, if certain trends are > granted...but you seem to have ignored all of that....your original > post was indeed contrary to mine, as me and hermit were elaborating > different aspects of this "projected potential future" and you started > making assertations (and again...)....that therefore pertains to me. > >From what I read, it began as a bald assertion that music downloads of all songs should be freely available to all and sundry, on (some sort of) principle...and I guess this (sort of) principle would apply to movies, books (and other texts), and computer programs, as well...now, in my opinion, if ANYTHING could cause a subsequent cultural DEvolution, that would be it... > ---- > This message was posted by athe nonrex to the Virus 2003 board on > Church of Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread > id=28871> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
you have been FnoRded, may the farce be with you..
Re:Jobs and Human History
« Reply #13 on: 2003-07-28 18:43:25 »
however joe, you still miss the point...you are arguing within the infuence of an economic premis, something i am not.
a quick analogy:
man1: i propose, then, that ducks float in the sea as well, since they also float in rivers, lakes and even bath tubs full of water...
man2: but the sea os more prone to stormy weather, therefore sucks wouldn't be inclined to live there.
whereas man1 is arguing about the bouyancy of ducks, relative to different bodies of water, you, <cough> i mean man2, is arguing about the weather as per relative to different bodies of water. do you understand what i'm saying now?
i'm not arguing about economy (btw, socialism is economy, communism is gov't...they were intended to work in tandem, but communism died out a bit, while aspects and ideals of socialism still live in various economies...), rather, i am arguing about jobs. you are still on the premise that without a job to preform, there will be no work. allow me to reiterate in a simple logical proof...
Jobs {J} are a type of Work {W}, but W does not depend upon having a J, expressed as:
(J > W) * ~(W>J)
one can W even if one does not have a J expressed as:
~J * W
therefore, Work does not depend on having a Job, or:
(J>W) * ~(W>J) ~J*W _____________ ~(W --- J)
tell me joe, please, if i'm at all off? the logic is strong here. it's a simple table, where, given two definitions, one proves a lack of equivalence between two definitions.
you are arguing economical premises, when the arguement clearly calls for something other than economical premises.
i'm not talking about money or gov't or Jobs really even. i'm talking about the lack thereof. not that people will have no work, work will always be there. for someone who is really a musician, the music will be there even if the money is not. for a doctor, he will operate when he has to because he cares about people. for an engineer, whatever he creates or constructs will be done out of careful craftmanship, because he's not rushing himself on a deadline. does this not sound better than the current state of affairs?
and this thread has nothing to do, really, with "the law and what it used to be". i have no clue where you got that idea from, except that i plugged this thread while posting on that one, which may be where the confusion came from.
> > however joe, you still miss the point...you are arguing within the > infuence of an economic premis, something i am not. > > a quick analogy: > > man1: i propose, then, that ducks float in the sea as well, since they > also float in rivers, lakes and even bath tubs full of water... > > man2: but the sea os more prone to stormy weather, therefore sucks > wouldn't be inclined to live there. > > > whereas man1 is arguing about the bouyancy of ducks, relative to > different bodies of water, you, <cough> i mean man2, is arguing about > the weather as per relative to different bodies of water. do you > understand what i'm saying now? > > i'm not arguing about economy (btw, socialism is economy, communism is > gov't...they were intended to work in tandem, but communism died out a > bit, while aspects and ideals of socialism still live in various > economies...), rather, i am arguing about jobs. you are still on the > premise that without a job to preform (that's 'perform', grammer nazi), there will be no work. allow me > to reiterate in a simple logical proof... > > [>=conditional, *= conjunction, v=either/or, ~=negation, --- = > biconditional] > > Jobs {J} are a type of Work {W}, but W does not depend upon having a > J, expressed as: > > (J > W) * ~(W>J) > > one can W even if one does not have a J > expressed as: > > ~J * W > > therefore, Work does not depend on having a Job, > or: > > (J>W) * ~(W>J) > ~J*W > _____________ > ~(W --- J) > > tell me joe, please, if i'm at all off? the logic is strong here. it's > a simple table, where, given two definitions, one proves a lack of > equivalence between two definitions. > If one works, one works either for oneself or for others (including corporate others). It must be acknowledged that those who work for others are employed by them, that is, they have a job with them. But those who work for themselves are self-employed, that is, they are freelancers who contract with one client after another; does this not mean that they have (a series of) jobs, too? Or perhaps you can furnish some example of a person who works, but works neither for him/herself nor for others. > > you are arguing economical premises, when the arguement clearly calls > for something other than economical premises. > > i'm not talking about money or gov't or Jobs really even. i'm talking > about the lack thereof. not that people will have no work, work will > always be there. for someone who is really a musician, the music will > be there even if the money is not. for a doctor, he will operate when > he has to because he cares about people. for an engineer, whatever he > creates or constructs will be done out of careful craftmanship, > because he's not rushing himself on a deadline. does this not sound > better than the current state of affairs? > No, because, if the fields were rendered compensatorally impecunious, enough people would not be drawn to invest huge chunks of their lives studying to be doctors or dentists or engineers to meet the public's need for them. > > and this thread has nothing to do, really, with "the law and what it > used to be". i have no clue where you got that idea from, except that > i plugged this thread while posting on that one, which may be where > the confusion came from. > > "your move..."beatnik > > > ---- > This message was posted by athe nonrex to the Virus 2003 board on > Church of Virus BBS. > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread > id=28871> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Author
Logged
