Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 9:49:15 AM UTC-4, critter wrote:

I believe that society is badly corrupted by 'bargains' such as the Chinese cheapening of once expensive, manufactured products.

Since this is an astronomy forum, I assume that you are referring to cheap telescopes. In real dollars such scopes now cost about half what they did when I was a kid and are even better in some important ways. Had the scopes been this cheap back then I could have afforded a bigger scope or even a camera to use for astro-photography. Do you have a problem with that?

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:03:22 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:45:26 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 9:30:14 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:38:23 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:04:07 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Well, if you don't know, I'll tell you. It would be unethical to program an automated car to choose to hit the helmeted rider.

I agree. But that would never happen. That's not how autonomous
programs work. But that concept appears to be far beyond your grasp of
computer science.

The so-called "autonomous program" still requires "input" from designers, peterson, whether they be programmers, "ethicists" or government bureaucrats.

That input does not, for the most part, look like a set of rules about
who to hit.

Incorrect. The machine has to be given info by humans on what to do, both instructions and data.

Complex systems operate on their inputs (which are not provided by
humans)

Inputs are also the data that the humans must provide. The inputs that the machine collects directly from the environment are only those that its human programmers designed it to collect.



The program would do the same thing a person does: try to
minimize the damage.

The helmeted motorcyclist does not deserve to be run over just because he was the one who was responsible enough to wear a helmet.

I'm very glad that you are not one of the ethicists involved in
working these things out!

If an "ethicist" doesn't agree with me on that point then he has no ethics or morals, and he needs to be doing something less critical.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 3:19:15 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

So what do you propose to do with investment bankers who you think are too powerful?

Tax then. Ensure worker participation on boards, effective non executive
directors and compulsory shareholder control of salaries and bonuses. All
recently proposed by our new conservative prime minister.
Also limitation of political contributions.


EeeeK! Waaaah! Socialism!!!! (running madly around waving arms in the air) ;^))

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 7:49:15 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

On Friday, 15 July 2016 14:44:24 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I can foresee a time when production of goods will be essentially free
and everyone will have everything they want, but it will lead to the
destruction that Peterson predicts if the people don't become "truly
civilized" too. Another requirement, I believe, is a "grand endeavor"
that everyone can buy into.

Gary

I don't believe that civilization comes from the ability to obtain
literally anything for zero effort. Mankind seems to function best when
some effort is required to obtain basic essentials. The desire to own
luxuries requires [and should require] even greater effort. How else
will the act supply the recipient with ample psychological reward to
warrant further effort to obtain more items?

But what will become of humanity when all material things are abundantly
available? That's why a "grand endeavor" will be necessary if we are to
survive. The space program was an example, but it has faded because
the majority have turned to satisfying their baser cravings, and politicians
have exploited this as they always seem to do.

I believe that society is badly corrupted by 'bargains' such as the
Chinese cheapening of once expensive, manufactured products. The products
are bought without thought for the factory slaves or their evil political
control system. The item [being cheaper than is warranted ] lacks the
magnetic power of pride in ownership and so the item rapidly becomes
disposable. Which further dehumanizes the efforts of the slave to produce
that item.

But we see the beginnings of true material abundance without "slavery"
right now in 3-D printing. Now we can buy printers that work in plastic,
but metal and ceramic printers already exist. When these technologies
mature, the there will still be "pride in ownership" but the pride will
come to the ones who design what the printers print. It is inevitable,
but those who mine, grow and prepare the raw materials are also needed.

This corruption of society's basic values could be likened to countless
bank robbers spending the proceeds of their crimes. I further believe
that robotics will undermine society's values if it leads to 'effortless'
lives. Or, worse, mass unemployment. Where society must totally reinvent
itself so that each member still has some value. Or, at the very least,
the power to contribute constructively. How else will humanity avoid
becoming disposable?

Humanity will indeed have to reinvent itself, hopefully in a constructive
way or Peterson will have his way.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:25:47 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 7:49:15 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

On Friday, 15 July 2016 14:44:24 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I can foresee a time when production of goods will be essentially free
and everyone will have everything they want, but it will lead to the
destruction that Peterson predicts if the people don't become "truly
civilized" too. Another requirement, I believe, is a "grand endeavor"
that everyone can buy into.

Gary

I don't believe that civilization comes from the ability to obtain
literally anything for zero effort. Mankind seems to function best when
some effort is required to obtain basic essentials. The desire to own
luxuries requires [and should require] even greater effort. How else
will the act supply the recipient with ample psychological reward to
warrant further effort to obtain more items?

But what will become of humanity when all material things are abundantly
available? That's why a "grand endeavor" will be necessary if we are to
survive. The space program was an example, but it has faded because
the majority have turned to satisfying their baser cravings, and politicians
have exploited this as they always seem to do.

I believe that society is badly corrupted by 'bargains' such as the
Chinese cheapening of once expensive, manufactured products. The products
are bought without thought for the factory slaves or their evil political
control system. The item [being cheaper than is warranted ] lacks the
magnetic power of pride in ownership and so the item rapidly becomes
disposable. Which further dehumanizes the efforts of the slave to produce
that item.

But we see the beginnings of true material abundance without "slavery"
right now in 3-D printing. Now we can buy printers that work in plastic,
but metal and ceramic printers already exist. When these technologies
mature, the there will still be "pride in ownership" but the pride will
come to the ones who design what the printers print. It is inevitable,
but those who mine, grow and prepare the raw materials are also needed.

This corruption of society's basic values could be likened to countless
bank robbers spending the proceeds of their crimes. I further believe
that robotics will undermine society's values if it leads to 'effortless'
lives. Or, worse, mass unemployment. Where society must totally reinvent
itself so that each member still has some value. Or, at the very least,
the power to contribute constructively. How else will humanity avoid
becoming disposable?

Humanity will indeed have to reinvent itself, hopefully in a constructive
way or Peterson will have his way.

Well, you will always have dentists and plumbers and a host of other craftsmen too numerous to list. As well as entrepreneurs who will develop something nobody has thought of yet. And of course the entire entertainment industry which of course includes politicians and such. The sky's the limit really, so much opportunity, so little imagination. Making stuff is really only a tiny part of human existence when you think about it.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 12:30:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:05:08 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 4:55:06 PM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:19:17 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:


I don't know, but I do know that the car will do a better job of
consistently responding than humans.

Well, if you don't know, I'll tell you. It would be unethical to program an automated car to choose to hit the helmeted rider.

So, who made you king? You make it sound like helmeted vs unhelmeted is at the top of the decision-making list.

At the time of the accident, it would be.

That's simply your opinion...

The unhelmeted rider is too stupid to reproduce and should be removed from the gene pool.. right?

The helmeted rider is obeying the law, minding his own business and, out of the blue, is singled out by an off-site "driver" and a board of so-called "ethicists" to be run over.

Again, just your opinion...

On the other hand, the helmeted rider is more likely to survive the impact, in which case, maybe no one dies.

That's not a good, valid, ethical, moral, fair reason to have the automated car run over him.

Opinionated much?

What if the helmeted driver just robbed a bank and is running from the authorities?

The automated car would KNOW that?

What if the unhelmeted driver is a father of 5 and works 4 jobs
to make ends meet, and can't afford either a helmet or a car?

Maybe he COULD afford a car if automation didn't make them so expensive!

An absurd observation, if made in earnest...

You have not presented nearly enough information for anyone to make an intelligent decision.

Exactly enough information has been presented in the article. The only new data that the automated car has is that one of two potential "targets" is wearing a helmet and the other is not.

You should be more careful when throwing around adverbs like 'exactly'. There is a lot of vagueness attached to your scenario. A LOT!

Without more data, this decision is impossible to resolve, and more data would never be possible to obtain in your very sketchy and incomplete scenario.

The automated car will still have to "choose" to hit one or the other. Or to put it more precisely, its programmers with have had to decide long before the incident.

Incorrect. Illogical. Asinine. Yet another misuse by you of the word 'programmers'.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:00:47 AM UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 3:19:15 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

So what do you propose to do with investment bankers who you think are too powerful?

Tax then. Ensure worker participation on boards, effective non executive
directors and compulsory shareholder control of salaries and bonuses. All
recently proposed by our new conservative prime minister.
Also limitation of political contributions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

EeeeK! Waaaah! Socialism!!!! (running madly around waving arms in the air) ;^))

Businesses with fewer than X number of employees, being exempt of course. Or maybe not. Or just move business overseas.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/14/news...offshore-cash/

(not that there's anything wrong with that)

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:25:47 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:

But what will become of humanity when all material things are abundantly
available?

We'll end up with a lot more limousine liberals.

That's why a "grand endeavor" will be necessary if we are to
survive.

Hey, I know! Let's pretend that (some of our) extravagant lifestyles are destroying the planet and browbeat the poor people for their lack of ecological sensitivity.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 3:18:16 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 12:30:28 AM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 9:05:08 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 4:55:06 PM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:19:17 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:


I don't know, but I do know that the car will do a better job of
consistently responding than humans.

Well, if you don't know, I'll tell you. It would be unethical to program an automated car to choose to hit the helmeted rider.

So, who made you king? You make it sound like helmeted vs unhelmeted is at the top of the decision-making list.

At the time of the accident, it would be.

That's simply your opinion...

No, to avoid the pedestrian, the car would swerve into motorcyclist.

The unhelmeted rider is too stupid to reproduce and should be removed from the gene pool.. right?

The helmeted rider is obeying the law, minding his own business and, out of the blue, is singled out by an off-site "driver" and a board of so-called "ethicists" to be run over.

Again, just your opinion...

No, the motorcyclist is obeying the law and minding his own business. The car can only swerve into the motorcyclist in order to to miss the pedestrian.

On the other hand, the helmeted rider is more likely to survive the impact, in which case, maybe no one dies.

That's not a good, valid, ethical, moral, fair reason to have the automated car run over him.

Opinionated much?

So you think that it would be fair to injure the innocent motorcyclist in this scenario?

What if the helmeted driver just robbed a bank and is running from the authorities?

The automated car would KNOW that?

What if the unhelmeted driver is a father of 5 and works 4 jobs
to make ends meet, and can't afford either a helmet or a car?

Maybe he COULD afford a car if automation didn't make them so expensive!

An absurd observation, if made in earnest...

No doubt, all that robotics is going to increase the price.

You have not presented nearly enough information for anyone to make an intelligent decision.

Exactly enough information has been presented in the article. The only new data that the automated car has is that one of two potential "targets" is wearing a helmet and the other is not.

You should be more careful when throwing around adverbs like 'exactly'. There is a lot of vagueness attached to your scenario. A LOT!

There is no vagueness, you're just not capable of abstract thought.

Without more data, this decision is impossible to resolve, and more data would never be possible to obtain in your very sketchy and incomplete scenario.

The automated car will still have to "choose" to hit one or the other. Or to put it more precisely, its programmers with have had to decide long before the incident.

Incorrect. Illogical. Asinine. Yet another misuse by you of the word 'programmers'.

The car is still programmed. It could not work without a human programming it to begin with or giving it rules to follow.

wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:19:15 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:02:36 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:46:58 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:


Try these questions for size. This is what democracy is about.


https://sturdyblog.files.wordpress.c...314-083623.jpg

Questions to ask the powerful.
From Tony Benn

If asked of a President of the US:


WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT?

See the Constitution.

WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?

The Constitution.

IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT?

I am sworn to defend the Constitution.

TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE?

The Senate and the Chief Justice.

HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU?

Impeachment, or wait for my first re-election bid.




That's his point. Lots of persons with power are not elected or publicly
appointed. Like newspaper proprietors.



So what do you propose to do with newspaper proprietors who you think are too powerful?

Limit their media ownership to avoid monopoly.

How? Restrict the circulation? Limit the number of readers visiting
their Websites? Force them to sell their companies at a loss?

Limit multi media ownership.

Don't allow foreigners to own important media. The USA already does this.
That's why Rupert Murdoch became a US citizen.

Force them to sell companies. It won't be at a loss unless the company is
crap.






Like investment bankers.

So what do you propose to do with investment bankers who you think are too powerful?

Tax them

How much do you wish to steal?
Have you stopped beating your wife?

Just make sure they pay as big a percentage tax as their average employee
plus a little bit extra.
(Maybe a lot extra)
Ensure worker participation on boards,

Workers have nothing at stake, unless they own stock.

They should get shares as a bonus.

effective non executive
directors

What is a "non-executive director?"

Look it up!

and compulsory shareholder control of salaries and bonuses.

What if the shareholders don't care about that?

Most shareholders do.

All
recently proposed by our new conservative prime minister.

There aren't any conservatives in the UK anymore.

Unfortunately you're wrong.

Also limitation of political contributions.

Details? Amounts? Political minorities can contribute more? Etc?

Ban political advertising. We do it on TV and radio but it should be banned
on all media.

No political contributions from foreigners. Banned here but not
sufficiently enforced.


For you no super pacs.