Originally Posted by herbal tee

--Cross posted on the Which previous 4T election thread---


PA has long been considered a swing state. If Romney manages to win in PA this will likely be the reason why.



Almost every state in which the Tea Party/GOP group scored a majority in 2010 passed similar laws. If the November election is anywhere near close it could make the whole Bush v. Gore fiasco look simple and reasoned. We may well have moved closer to 1860 today.

These laws are essentially destroying people's belief in the legitimacy of elections. When that happens things generally start going *BOOM*. This won't be like the "your vote is meaningless because all politicians are the same/liars/corrupt/etc." whining of the 3T, when the results of the elections themselves look tainted in a 4T the smelly brown stuff can hit the fan pretty quickly.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Again, you may come to some more interesting ways of looking at the problem, if you differentiate the debt of a currency issuer like the US govt from all other debtors that are currency users. There is no need for the former to ever hit the delete button; it can always handle it's debt. Remember all that debt the FED took on - has your taxes gone up, can you attribute any inflation to it, and where have interest rates gone since but down.

The only question is how much currency the currency issuer should issue (i.e. spend) and how much it should destroy (i.e. tax) to avoid demand-pull inflation AND deflation.





This assumption is based on looms replacing hand knitting labor. We are now talking about micro chips replacing synapses. The Luddite fallacy is not going to hold.

By the way, thanks for stimulating so much interesting exchange on what I believe are the most fundamental questions facing humanity at this time and for the foreseeable future. You've done it without the usual vitriol. I'm trying to response similarly.... but, it is hard for me - I'm a Boomer I'm trying.

Thanks as well. It is refreshing discussing these issues here, without the rampant condescension and strawman tactics seen in other forums. I tried having this same discussion on the somethingawful forums and it didn't go nearly as well.

Back to the topic, I can't imagine a world where robots do everything important and humans are left to do nothing. Humans will always find things to do. While they may not be as important to survival and will not require as much of our time, there will always be a market for human effort, whether it be in the arts, in think tanks, entertainment, gardening, or even manual labor (a lot of people enjoy doing that). It will be different to be sure, but I think we have a long way to go before everything is automated.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Thanks as well. It is refreshing discussing these issues here, without the rampant condescension and strawman tactics seen in other forums. I tried having this same discussion on the somethingawful forums and it didn't go nearly as well.

Back to the topic, I can't imagine a world where robots do everything important and humans are left to do nothing. Humans will always find things to do. While they may not be as important to survival and will not require as much of our time, there will always be a market for human effort, whether it be in the arts, in think tanks, entertainment, gardening, or even manual labor (a lot of people enjoy doing that). It will be different to be sure, but I think we have a long way to go before everything is automated.

I agree that humans need to be engaged to be happy. Now the big question, and one not well understood, is the extent of engagement needed to keep us happy and satisfied. If you look at the jet-set crowd, most of them seem to have serious issues - often with substance abuse. In short, they're bored. Can we structure things such that basic needs are met, but the need to strive can still be accommodated? I honestly don't know. We can't all spend our days sky diving, spelunking or cave diving just to be stimulated. Not many of us can be artists either. I have to assume this will be worked-out later, because the alterntives are bleak.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is no reason why they can't, so I assume they will at some point. Of course, there is also no reason for humans and machines to be distinct entities either. Let's agree that the far future (>500 years) will be totally different. I doubt we could pop-up there and live ... unless the intelligent enitites of the time decided to adopt us.

Some of us have a different vision of the future, in which people will become LESS machine-like and MORE human and spiritual; cf awakening culture circa mid 1960s-70s. I think in any case, humans are and will be needed to direct the machines toward fulfilling human needs. If not, then humans will become machines themselves (e.g. cyborgs), or serve them. I am optimistic for evolution; that we will not accept or go down that path. We don't know the future, but we can choose the direction we go.

Machines aren't alive, so their ability to maintain, operate and reproduce themselves will always be limited. At least as long as they are machines. If they do become alive, they will still not be humans (unless we do surrender our humanity to them or transform ourselves into them; the wrong way to go). We humans have our own interests and priorities, and many products and services are still needed to fulfill those that machines alone can't provide, although they can assist.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I agree that humans need to be engaged to be happy. Now the big question, and one not well understood, is the extent of engagement needed to keep us happy and satisfied. If you look at the jet-set crowd, most of them seem to have serious issues - often with substance abuse. In short, they're bored. Can we structure things such that basic needs are met, but the need to strive can still be accommodated? I honestly don't know. We can't all spend our days sky diving, spelunking or cave diving just to be stimulated. Not many of us can be artists either. I have to assume this will be worked-out later, because the alterntives are bleak.

I agree with gianthogweed's post on this. Don't sell yourself or anyone else short. We are all artists, or potential artists. And there's many kinds of "art." Human potential is just beginning to be unlocked since the 60s. That "human potential movement" is the real frontier of "progress" that gets forgotten amidst our conventionally-minded tech obsession. And a lot of progress needs to be made too in the social and relationships fields. Our politics alone (e.g. "2012 elections") shows us how primitive we all still are in the arts of dealing with each other and opening our minds and hearts. We need "political art" as well as "political science," it would seem. At least tech has given us social media and desktop publishing which allow more of us to share our artistic potential.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

...I can't imagine a world where robots do everything important and humans are left to do nothing. Humans will always find things to do. ...

I feel that in my bones as well, but there-in lies a big part of the problem.

I think it is inherent, maybe even genetic, that we value production. And certainly without purpose, humans tend to go stir-crazy if not completely wacko.

It may be, however, that what a lot of people will be able to do or that provides them purpose will not be valued in society. The neo-liberal economists have just about killed off any perceived value of public good that the market does not put a price tag on. We've even seen highly necessary tangible things like roads, electric grids be poop-pooped ("whatdaya mean, I didn't build that?!!!), let alone the more intangible things like an educated populace, safe streets, unrelated elderly or disable being taken care of.

As I said before, long before we get to the eventual question (and it may not apply to all or even most, but a lot of people) of purpose without a job, we are going to have to face the transition issue of an economy that needs demand to function but that a lot of people will not be able to contribute to that demand (except by govt assistance) because they have no income because they have no production that is valued and paid-for in the market place.

We might be able to convince the remaining producers that we need the unemployed to be consumers to maintain the economy on which the producers profit. In convincing them, they may support govt assistance to those unemployed. Today, aspects of such assistance (welfare, unemployment, food stamps, SS, Medicare/Medicaid) is very much under attack so I think an expansion to address what we are talking about is out of the question. However, it is inevitable unless there is some new employment area that becomes available to the masses (e.g. mass colonization of the Moon or Mars, rebuilding all our infrastructure).

The problem is even if society allows much broader govt assistance to the unemployable to keep the economy going, it doesn't solve the problem for the individual's lack of purpose. Society needs to support broader definitions of acceptable purposes. I not only don't know what those purposes could be but I also don't know how we do that.

I'm kinda of toying with the idea that we pay each other a lot of money to constantly convince each other on the existence, or not, of God - of course, switching sides on occasion so it doesn't get too stale. In other words, we all become playwrights – well, at least those of us who have no purpose and are too forgetful to be actors.

Uh, what were we talking about?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I agree with gianthogweed's post on this. Don't sell yourself or anyone else short. We are all artists, or potential artists. And there's many kinds of "art." Human potential is just beginning to be unlocked since the 60s. That "human potential movement" is the real frontier of "progress" that gets forgotten amidst our conventionally-minded tech obsession. And a lot of progress needs to be made too in the social and relationships fields. Our politics alone (e.g. "2012 elections") shows us how primitive we all still are in the arts of dealing with each other and opening our minds and hearts. We need "political art" as well as "political science," it would seem. At least tech has given us social media and desktop publishing which allow more of us to share our artistic potential.

The problem is that the automation is moving much more rapidly than our ability to make successful adaptations that would be not only political or even broadly cultural but perhaps fundamental human behavior itself that may be genetically determined.

How long did it take for humans to break the 4 minute mile and how much of an improvement since? Think about how computation power has improved and accelerated in that same time period. Robotics and certainly software are just beginning that acceleration.

The immediate question is not how we will fare once "nirvana" is reached; it is what will happen to us individually and collectively during the transition.

Honestly, if I had to take the bet, I don't see us making it without tearing ourselves apart – perhaps to the point where the issue becomes moot.

Maybe we should be valuing our kids time playing Call of Duty and other video games.

Maybe purpose can be sufficently found in vitural worlds.

Socieity just needs to value and reward that with income for the real world - you still got to drink, eat, have shelther, pay the ISP, and buy the games in the real world, right?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Human potential is just beginning to be unlocked since the 60s.

See, I'm of the opposite opinion. I'm thinking the future will be more like Idiocracy. Heck, the film already feels less like a comedy and more like a documentary. I think the reason for this is the lack of the trivium and classical education for the vast majority of students. Education has become purely an input/output process, awarding McDegrees to those who jump through enough hoops.

It's a little negative, I know. Though, I don't think there will be an obesity problem in 10-15 years... After the Depression... Calories will be harder to come by.

Originally Posted by edifice

See, I'm of the opposite opinion. I'm thinking the future will be more like Idiocracy. Heck, the film already feels less like a comedy and more like a documentary. I think the reason for this is the lack of the trivium and classical education for the vast majority of students. Education has become purely an input/output process, awarding McDegrees to those who jump through enough hoops.

It's a little negative, I know. Though, I don't think there will be an obesity problem in 10-15 years... After the Depression... Calories will be harder to come by.

Okay, that was depressing. Likely true, but still, depressing.

Junior members are not suppose to do that!

Well, anyway, welcome aboard! Nothing but stormy seas for as far as the eye can see!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Some of us have a different vision of the future, in which people will become LESS machine-like and MORE human and spiritual; cf awakening culture circa mid 1960s-70s. I think in any case, humans are and will be needed to direct the machines toward fulfilling human needs. If not, then humans will become machines themselves (e.g. cyborgs), or serve them. I am optimistic for evolution; that we will not accept or go down that path. We don't know the future, but we can choose the direction we go.

Machines aren't alive, so their ability to maintain, operate and reproduce themselves will always be limited. At least as long as they are machines. If they do become alive, they will still not be humans (unless we do surrender our humanity to them or transform ourselves into them; the wrong way to go). We humans have our own interests and priorities, and many products and services are still needed to fulfill those that machines alone can't provide, although they can assist.

Which goes to my point that we have no idea what life will be like in 500 years, though we can be certain it will be different.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I agree with gianthogweed's post on this. Don't sell yourself or anyone else short. We are all artists, or potential artists. And there's many kinds of "art." Human potential is just beginning to be unlocked since the 60s. That "human potential movement" is the real frontier of "progress" that gets forgotten amidst our conventionally-minded tech obsession. And a lot of progress needs to be made too in the social and relationships fields. Our politics alone (e.g. "2012 elections") shows us how primitive we all still are in the arts of dealing with each other and opening our minds and hearts. We need "political art" as well as "political science," it would seem. At least tech has given us social media and desktop publishing which allow more of us to share our artistic potential.

Some of us are left brain dominant, and others are right brain dominant. We can't all follow the same path, no matter how much we may wish we could.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Okay, that was depressing. Likely true, but still, depressing.

Junior members are not suppose to do that!

Well, anyway, welcome aboard! Nothing but stormy seas for as far as the eye can see!

I think the biggest issue, beside automation, is the fact that things are becoming increasingly complex and difficult for the Average Joe to comprehend, and thus is "magic" to him. To the average person engineers, scientists, and philosophers are sociologically equivalent to a priestly class with magical powers.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Some of us have a different vision of the future, in which people will become LESS machine-like and MORE human and spiritual; cf awakening culture circa mid 1960s-70s. I think in any case, humans are and will be needed to direct the machines toward fulfilling human needs. If not, then humans will become machines themselves (e.g. cyborgs), or serve them. I am optimistic for evolution; that we will not accept or go down that path. We don't know the future, but we can choose the direction we go.

Machines aren't alive, so their ability to maintain, operate and reproduce themselves will always be limited. At least as long as they are machines. If they do become alive, they will still not be humans (unless we do surrender our humanity to them or transform ourselves into them; the wrong way to go). We humans have our own interests and priorities, and many products and services are still needed to fulfill those that machines alone can't provide, although they can assist.

Sorry Eric, but that contradicts us entering the age of Aquarius, Yours are Piscean values.

Originally Posted by Odin

I think the biggest issue, beside automation, is the fact that things are becoming increasingly complex and difficult for the Average Joe to comprehend, and thus is "magic" to him. To the average person engineers, scientists, and philosophers are sociologically equivalent to a priestly class with magical powers.

Originally Posted by Arthur C. Clark, circa 1961

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

1234567890

Originally Posted by Odin

Sorry Eric, but that contradicts us entering the age of Aquarius, Yours are Piscean values.

But we actually don't get there until something like 2500-2600.

Originally Posted by edifice

See, I'm of the opposite opinion. I'm thinking the future will be more like Idiocracy. Heck, the film already feels less like a comedy and more like a documentary. I think the reason for this is the lack of the trivium and classical education for the vast majority of students. Education has become purely an input/output process, awarding McDegrees to those who jump through enough hoops.

When the emphasis on getting degrees and good grades within them matters more than does the content of those degrees, education is debased. Grammar, rhetoric, and logic remain basic. Grammar is the clothing of logic, and it is hardly surprising that people discount the intellectual credibility of someone who butcher the English language without a valid excuse. I can assure you that plenty of illegal aliens speak better English than does Sarah Palin.

Classical education has its virtues. If the reference is to Latin -- then the Romans gave a powerful warning on how a large Empire that had much going for it could foul up so badly. So can we. We may be in the "Dying Republic" stage of history without thinking of it as such. (The Roman Empire was a decrepit system from its inception... really before as the Roman Republic became an aristocratic state). That warning came with the study of Latin literature. If one got to study Greek, then one got to find that most of the great questions of reality have long been resolved.

Back to the Great Books? Of course. A college degree should mean something other than that someone was able to deal with an educational bureaucracy far different from a profit-and-loss system. College graduates are appropriately taught how to be leaders before they graduate -- knowing what is appropriate and what isn't. There must be more to life than 'sex&drugs&rock-n-roll' that anyone can achieve... and real leaders must be able to have some historical perspective, the well-honed knack for effective communication, and the concept that there is more to life than material indulgence, bureaucratic power, and personal comfort. People with intellectual power but no moral wisdom become either angry radicals (Ted "Unabom" Kaczynski) or economic orders whose effective commands become "Suffer for my greed, peon!"

It's a little negative, I know. Though, I don't think there will be an obesity problem in 10-15 years... After the Depression... Calories will be harder to come by.

Global warming might turn that trick too -- especially if changes in the weather patterns turn the Corn Belt into something else. Farewell, high-fructose corn sweeteners!

Originally Posted by Odin

Sorry Eric, but that contradicts us entering the age of Aquarius, Yours are Piscean values.

Great, now you got the song stuck in my head... Thanks...

"The age of Aquariuuuuuusssssss......."

Originally Posted by edifice

Great, now you got the song stuck in my head... Thanks...

"The age of Aquariuuuuuusssssss......."

I realize how mean this is, but I just can't help myself

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius
The Age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius! Aquarius!

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius
The Age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!

Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in

or, if you really are a glutton for punishment -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjxSCAalsBE

Go ahead, watch it; you know you want to!

Originally Posted by playwrite

The problem is that the automation is moving much more rapidly than our ability to make successful adaptations that would be not only political or even broadly cultural but perhaps fundamental human behavior itself that may be genetically determined.

How long did it take for humans to break the 4 minute mile and how much of an improvement since? Think about how computation power has improved and accelerated in that same time period. Robotics and certainly software are just beginning that acceleration.

The immediate question is not how we will fare once "nirvana" is reached; it is what will happen to us individually and collectively during the transition.

Honestly, if I had to take the bet, I don't see us making it without tearing ourselves apart – perhaps to the point where the issue becomes moot.

Well certainly the human potential movement and new age movement need to revive again if there is to be any hope. Not much higher consciousness on THIS board, that's for sure! Very out of touch, as many younger people today are, with the real juice and meat of the Awakening. But there's always hope for the new consciousness to break through again. It's the only real alternative to robotization, not only outside humans but among humans.

Playwrite, that song video, with an ad for Obama posted next to it, gives me hope! Obama is bringing in the new age! I got the feelin'! How's that for an idea to mess with the cynical views here, including mine own. But his handsome smile with Michelle beside him does invoke the same idealism. Naivete is enjoyable sometimes, if we don't take it too far. But speaking of anti-cynicism, and going against prevalent opinion on this forum/message board, I say we can all look to JB too, and say:

Originally Posted by edifice

See, I'm of the opposite opinion. I'm thinking the future will be more like Idiocracy. Heck, the film already feels less like a comedy and more like a documentary. I think the reason for this is the lack of the trivium and classical education for the vast majority of students. Education has become purely an input/output process, awarding McDegrees to those who jump through enough hoops.

It's a little negative, I know. Though, I don't think there will be an obesity problem in 10-15 years... After the Depression... Calories will be harder to come by.

Well, there's a silver lining-- in the stomach!

Education is certainly driving down our intelligence level on so many fronts, with the "hoops" having to do with landing a job. Not to mention our media sucks. Just looking at how things are going, there seems little hope for a "better day." I just have to look at the larger picture of evolution, and what is within us potentially that needs to break out of its bounds.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Some of us are left brain dominant, and others are right brain dominant. We can't all follow the same path, no matter how much we may wish we could.

Certainly; but I think we all have the potential to do creative things. Busy-work being taken over by machines, does not leave us with nothing to do, with only a few people doing things that take inspiration and talent. Already the available jobs require more education and creative thinking than in the past, and people from India can fill them. Humans can grow and evolve to do the things that only a few "geniuses" could do before. Social media offers many opportunities today to share our talents, both left and right brained. And we all have both sides of the brain too, and the frontier is to learn to balance them. We don't know what life will be like in 500 years, but we DO know the potentials that can grow. And we know what needs to be done, and that there are manifold challenges for us to work on and develop. Noone need be idle, even as the "matrix" threatens to sidetrack and engulf us.

Barack and Michelle want me to contribute $3 for a chance to go to the Democratic Convention. I don't even want to go! They may not even let me in; I'm not even a Democrat!

Originally Posted by Odin

Sorry Eric, but that contradicts us entering the age of Aquarius, Yours are Piscean values.

Pisces was under Jupiter = organized religion. My values are of Uranus (the light of discovery, co-ruler of Aquarius) and Neptune (the mystic).

Careful Odin, you may be up on your cultural history as well as me, but I know astrology better than you do.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Pisces was under Jupiter = organized religion. My values are of Uranus (the light of discovery, co-ruler of Aquarius) and Neptune (the mystic).

Careful Odin, you may be up on your cultural history as well as me, but I know astrology better than you do.

Well it all sounded fishy to me anyway.