Actress exposes hypocrisy of feminism and...

[_Nightlion]

Grim prospects lay ahead as humankind advances. Some forward thinking genius might want to suggest an economic system that would function as a collective means of redistributing the inequality of wealth concentrated in the hands of the few for the blessing and prosperity of the whole.

Well, there was that gospel of Jesus Christ, him being a truly smart fellow who taught people to take his name upon them such that they would 'have' to commit their whole heart might mind and strength without hypocrisy or mental evasion in perfect subjection to the will of God such that to sacrifice all excess property and means above that which is needful for your own family would be the standard for what he called Zion.

People would be thrilled to give their all because when they came unto Christ and actually got the promise of the Father in the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost they became a higher order of being, filled with the gift and power of God and willing to do all for the kingdom of God. Thus seeing that no one perish for want of anything and indeed even supplying the means for others to apply their talents unhindered by economic restraints would be all they would want to do. Call it charity or the perfect love of Christ.

But the world has rejected Jesus and his gospel and supplanted the same with their own righteousness of greed and the carpet success of Gentilism. None are more furious about it than those whose forebears were given a Restoration of the laws and powers and glories of Zion but let it fall to the ground to be trampled upon generation after generation in the arrogance of advancing their own righteousness which is after the righteousness of the world where might makes right and to lie is better than to be exposed a hypocrite of the darkest dye. More about that on my own thread.

[_ldsfaqs]

Hey Fiannan....

You do know that most anti-mormons are and become liberals, especailly the atheist/agnostic ones?
In other words, expounding conservative philosophy here won't get you very far.

Also, you're misrepresenting feminists. Nearly all are liberals and simply really don't care about porn.
After all, being a porn actress, a stripper, etc. is "enabling" to women in their view. They have "control" and power over their own body's.

Also, Mormons aren't really doing anything about porn most of the time.

[_Runtu]

Also, Mormons aren't really doing anything about porn most of the time.

Hmmm. Those overflow crowds in 5 large rooms at the 12-step meetings in Orem aren't anything, I suppose.

[_Maksutov]

Oh yeah, right. Get real Maksutov. If you want to debate the merits of "cultural Marxism" please bring that on rather than immature attempts to link an obviously disturbed Norwegian version of Charles Manson to any ideas that favor tradition, be it in relationship to the family or to the interpretation of the US Constitution.

You're obviously not interested in reality, just inflammatory soundbites. So, yeah, you are a lot like Breivik. Sorry, he espoused a lot of attitudes similar to yours in his manifesto. So suck it.

[_ludwigm]

Up to now, the progress that began in the industrial revolution has taken away many jobs that needed manual labor, and replaced them with new jobs that needed brain-power. But now the human brain can be increasingly replaced by software; that is not a fantasy, but a fact.

Where do the displaced workers go then? Neither their muscles nor their brains will be needed.

These were members of the Reconstruction and Reclamation Corps, in their own estimate the “Reeks and Wrecks.” Those who couldn’t compete economically with machines had their choice, if they had no source of income, of the Army or the Reconstruction and Reclamation Corps. The soldiers, with their hollowness hidden beneath twinkling buttons and buckles, crisp serge, and glossy leather, didn’t depress Paul nearly as much as the Reeks and Wrecks did.
...
THE SHAH OF BRATPUHR, spiritual leader of 6,000,000 members of the Kolhouri sect ...
“The Shah,” said Khashdrahr, “he would like, please, to know who owns these slaves we see all the way up from New York City.”
“Not slaves,” said Halyard, chuckling patronizingly. “Citizens, employed by government. They have same rights as other citizens—free speech, freedom of worship, the right to vote. Before the war, they worked in the Ilium Works, controlling machines, but now machines control themselves much better.”
“Aha!” said the Shah, after Khashdrahr had translated.
“Less waste, much better products, cheaper products with automatic control.”
“Aha!”
“And any man who cannot support himself by doing a job better than a machine is employed by the government, either in the Army or the Reconstruction and Reclamation Corps.”
“Aha! Khabu bonanza-pak?”
“Eh?”
“He says, ‘Where does the money come from to pay them?’ ” said Khashdrahr.
“Oh. From taxes on the machines, and taxes on personal incomes. Then the Army and the Reconstruction and Reclamation Corps people put their money back into the system for more products for better living.”
“Aha!”
Doctor Halyard, a dutiful man with a bad conscience about the size of his expense accounts, went on explaining America, though he knew very little was getting through. He told the Shah that advances had been most profound in purely industrial communities, where the bulk of the population—as in Ilium—had made its living tending machines in one way or another. In New York City, for instance, there were many skills difficult or uneconomical to mechanize, and the advances hadn’t liberated as high a percentage of people from production.
“Kuppo!” said the Shah, shaking his head.
Khashdrahr blushed, and translated uneasily, apologetically. “Shah says, ‘Communism.’ ”
“No Kuppo!” said Halyard vehemently. “The government does not own the machines. They simply tax that part of industry’s income that once went into labor, and redistribute it. Industry is privately owned and managed, and co-ordinated—to prevent the waste of competition—by a committee of leaders from private industry, not politicians. By eliminating human error through machinery, and needless competition through organization, we’ve raised the standard of living of the average man immensely.”
Khashdrahr stopped translating and frowned perplexedly. “Please, this average man, there is no equivalent in our language, I’m afraid.”
“You know,” said Halyard, “the ordinary man, like, well, anybody—those men working back on the bridge, the man in that old car we passed. The little man, not brilliant but a good-hearted, plain, ordinary, everyday kind of person.”
Khashdrahr translated.
“Aha,” said the Shah, nodding, “Takaru.”
“What did he say?”
“Takaru,” said Khashdrahr. “Slave.”
“No Takaru,” said Halyard, speaking directly to the Shah. “Ci-ti-zen.”
“Ahhhhh,” said the Shah. “Ci-ti-zen.” He grinned happily. “Takaru—citizen. Citizen—Takaru.”
“No Takaru!” said Halyard.
Khashdrahr shrugged. “In the Shah’s land are only the Elite and the Takaru.”
...
EPICAC XIV, though undedicated, was already at work, deciding how many refrigerators, how many lamps, how many turbine-generators, how many hub caps, how many dinner plates, how many door knobs, how many rubber heels, how many television sets, how many pinochle decks—how many everything America and her customers could have and how much they would cost. And it was EPICAC XIV who would decide for the coming years how many engineers and managers and research men and civil servants, and of what skills, would be needed in order to deliver the goods; and what I.Q. and aptitude levels would separate the useful men from the useless ones, and how many Reconstruction and Reclamation Corps men and how many soldiers could be supported at what pay level and where, and …

From Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut, written in 1952.

[_Maksutov]

Hey Fiannan....

You do know that most anti-mormons are and become liberals, especailly the atheist/agnostic ones?
In other words, expounding conservative philosophy here won't get you very far.

Also, you're misrepresenting feminists. Nearly all are liberals and simply really don't care about porn.
After all, being a porn actress, a stripper, etc. is "enabling" to women in their view. They have "control" and power over their own body's.

Also, Mormons aren't really doing anything about porn most of the time.

Hey, I'm a libertarian, so I don't fit into your false dichotomy. I hate the Republican AND the Democratic parties. They should be prosecuted under RICO, in my opinion. But so should many churches.

If "Mormons aren't really doing anything about porn most of the time", why are their leaders so obsessed with it? Either the members really do have a problem or the Brethren themselves do--or, as I suspect, both.

[_pashaman]

So anybody who loses their job as a result of being replaced by a non-human agent, and does not get another job is either stupid or lazy?

That might work if (for example) each robot welder on a production line required a human being to look after it, but guess what?

They don't.

Same applies to all those other jobs. That's the whole point of replacing people with machinery or software. It saves shed-loads of money for the company, because less people are required.

Now I do not think that the elimination of human toil is in itself a bad thing. On the contrary, it is a good thing. The bad thing is that this process as currently organized makes a small number of people a lot richer, and leaves others not only poorer but without anything much to do with their lives, any reason for getting out of bed in the morning, or any way of earning the respect of their fellows for a job well done.

Is it beyond the wit of mankind to make things work any better than that?

(And no, you can't reasonably answer that question on the basis that I am a Luddite - see above - or a devotee of Soviet-style social planning, because I am not.)

Wow, Chap. You are making a LOT of assumptions about my answer. No, I don't think everyone who loses their job is lazy or stupid. I just think that most people have way more potential than they believe and sometimes these situations help us to stretch a little. There is a lot of work in robotics, from the parts manufacturing, engineering and designing, to distribution and maintenance. You still need a human to troubleshoot and fix issues. Does that replace every job that has been lost? I doubt it, but it leaves a lot of opportunity for those who aren't afraid to learn something new. I guess that I'm just saying that I see this (personally) as an opportunity.
There's a real shortage of good and skilled people who have STEM related experience and there seem to be ample amounts of people who have art degrees or no degrees at all who are out of work. Just think people need to stop being afraid to stretch themselves a bit and trying learning something new, or just go and start their own business. It's hard work, but ain't that the point?!! People tend to be afraid of that part.

Also, for anyone making excuses that they can't afford to go back to school (or <gasp> pick up a book and learn it on your own) I would say, horsesh|t. There is plenty of assistance for people who need to go back to school. If I lost my job, I would either start my own business or head back to school. It would stink, and would be hard, but I can promise you that I'm not going to sit around and bitch about it.

Actually, I DID get "laid" off a number of years ago, (I was told they would no longer renew my contract or bring me on full time). This is after I left another company that had gone bankrupt and had cut my pay twice and outsourced me to IBM (the most evil company in the world, in my opinion). It was a difficult time, because my wife and just had our first child. Scary as hell, but I'm so grateful for that experience because it made me way better at what I do. I studied my ass off, on my own, and learned as much as I could in that time about my field. Now, I can pretty much get good paying work wherever I go, thanks to that experience.

[_Chap]

So anybody who loses their job as a result of being replaced by a non-human agent, and does not get another job is either stupid or lazy?

That might work if (for example) each robot welder on a production line required a human being to look after it, but guess what?

They don't.

Same applies to all those other jobs. That's the whole point of replacing people with machinery or software. It saves shed-loads of money for the company, because less people are required.

Now I do not think that the elimination of human toil is in itself a bad thing. On the contrary, it is a good thing. The bad thing is that this process as currently organized makes a small number of people a lot richer, and leaves others not only poorer but without anything much to do with their lives, any reason for getting out of bed in the morning, or any way of earning the respect of their fellows for a job well done.

Is it beyond the wit of mankind to make things work any better than that?

(And no, you can't reasonably answer that question on the basis that I am a Luddite - see above - or a devotee of Soviet-style social planning, because I am not.)

Wow, Chap. You are making a LOT of assumptions about my answer. No, I don't think everyone who loses their job is lazy or stupid.

I didn't say you thought that. I asked whether you thought that somebody "who loses their job as a result of being replaced by a non-human agent, and does not get another job is either stupid or lazy?"

There is a lot of work in robotics, from the parts manufacturing, engineering and designing, to distribution and maintenance. You still need a human to troubleshoot and fix issues. Does that replace every job that has been lost? I doubt it, but it leaves a lot of opportunity for those who aren't afraid to learn something new. I guess that I'm just saying that I see this (personally) as an opportunity.

Yup. There are (to caricature the situation slightly) jobs for a minority of the people replaced by machines - the ones who are particularly enterprising and versatile. But if ALL the displaced people were enterprising and versatile ... lots of them would still find no new jobs, because as you rightly perceive the whole point of the high-tech exercise is to need fewer people overall.

I am glad you made it. But just as a matter of arithmetic, not everybody can make it.

[_pashaman]

I am glad you made it. But just as a matter of arithmetic, not everybody can make it.

I know, but that's when the hardhearted bastard within me starts thinking about Darwin, bad luck, and that life can really suck sometimes. Eventually human ideas, culture and government will need to evolve to solve these issues. I definitely believe we need to help people who can't help themselves, if that's what you are asking me.

So, we should stop innovation? Work in robotics, in my personal opinion of course, is one of the most important drivers in human innovation (outside of space exploration and nano-tech). It's one of those technologies that can lead engineers, mathematicians and developers (and even those pesky pot-smoking artists--just kidding, programmers love artists. They make our work look cool.) to come up with so many other amazing technologies that have far ranging applications outside of robotics. Technologies that can really help make a lot of people's lives better and greatly increase the human experience (think advanced biotech for people who are blind, deaf, or paralyzed). It's worth the cost and the risk.

[_Chap]

I am glad you made it. But just as a matter of arithmetic, not everybody can make it.

I know, but that's when the hardhearted bastard within me starts thinking about Darwin, bad luck, and that life can really suck sometimes. Eventually human ideas, culture and government will need to evolve to solve these issues. I definitely believe we need to help people who can't help themselves, if that's what you are asking me.

Evolution has in the past involved mass extinctions. There is, alas, no guarantee that the increasingly globalized human society we have created has what it takes to survive. In theory, we could do something about it by deliberately changing our societies - something animal and plant species can't do - but do you see any possibilities of the kind of creative change that might be able to do that in the socio-political setup you live in? That I live in? In any tolerable socio-political setup you can imagine?

Nope.

So, we should stop innovation?

Since it is clear that this is more or less impossible outside the Islamic State, you and I don't need to bother our pretty little heads about that possibility!

Work in robotics, in my personal opinion of course, is one of the most important drivers in human innovation (outside of space exploration and nano-tech). It's one of those technologies that can lead engineers, mathematicians and developers (and even those pesky pot-smoking artists--just kidding, programmers love artists. They make our work look cool.) to come up with so many other amazing technologies that have far ranging applications outside of robotics. Technologies that can really help make a lot of people's lives better and greatly increase the human experience (think advanced biotech for people who are blind, deaf, or paralyzed). It's worth the cost and the risk.

Again, it's going to happen whether or not it is worth the cost and the risk. Be optimistic. But who is going to give an old blind lady living in a run-down area of Detroit a robotic assistant?

It would be wonderful if we used the possibilities of new technology to create a world where there were no poor people whose life lacks the fulfillment of work, whose children live stunted and hopeless lives, and whose old age is full of fear and pain.

But how do we do that?