40-year old burning crater

[QUOTE="dramaybaz"]How does a burning crater help the HDI then?airshocker

My point -----

Your head -----

[QUOTE="ThisIsTwoFace"]

Because most of them have never seen a passport in their lives, they've never been to another country.

airshocker

Any country where I have a higher degree of being kidnapped and murdered than if I was walking down the streets of NYC at night is a place I don't EVER want to visit.

You have no choice though. You can't go abroad so whatever you say is invalid.

Funny, the country where most people haven't been abroad is the same country where people judge OTHER countries the most. Hmm

why'd they light this in the first place and let it keep burning?lamprey263

If I remember correctly the country basically gathered up a bunch of trash and back then had no real way of getting rid of it so they burned the trash but some gas got into the mix and caused a much bigger flame and an explosion to which we now have this hole. They've attempted to stop the flames many a times but the fires are so powerful and burn for so long that we had/have no means of putting them out. Once you put one flame out there's several million still burning and on top of that the flame will just be reignited and continue to burn like all the others.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="ThisIsTwoFace"]

Because most of them have never seen a passport in their lives, they've never been to another country.

ThisIsTwoFace

Any country where I have a higher degree of being kidnapped and murdered than if I was walking down the streets of NYC at night is a place I don't EVER want to visit.

You have no choice though. You can't go abroad so whatever you say is invalid.

Funny, the country where most people haven't been abroad is the same country where people judge OTHER countries the most. Hmm

[QUOTE="dramaybaz"][QUOTE="gamerguru100"] Any country ending in "stan" is pretty much a no-go area, especially if you're American.gamerguru100

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="dramaybaz"]How does a burning crater help the HDI then?gamerguru100

My point -----

Your head -----

[QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Probably the only awesome thing...

Jebus213

It's a third world muslim country nobody has ever heard of. 80% of it is extremely dry desert. It's a single-party state.

So yeah, a burning hole in the ground is probably the only interesting thing about it.

At least it has that going for it.

Only when breaking the shackles of democracy can technocracy be reached.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"] why do people (especially americans) always have to make these types of comments when talking about foreign counties? frannkzappa

It's a third world muslim country nobody has ever heard of. 80% of it is extremely dry desert. It's a single-party state.

So yeah, a burning hole in the ground is probably the only interesting thing about it.

At least it has that going for it.

Only when breaking the shackles of democracy can technocracy be reached.

Funny how none of those undemocratic societies ever reach that technocracy point. It's almost as cute as Marxism. Meanwhile, in reality, democracy societies have done more to advance the world than all other forms of government combined. Keep dreaming, kid.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

It's a third world muslim country nobody has ever heard of. 80% of it is extremely dry desert. It's a single-party state.

So yeah, a burning hole in the ground is probably the only interesting thing about it.

coolbeans90

At least it has that going for it.

Only when breaking the shackles of democracy can technocracy be reached.

Funny how none of those undemocratic societies ever reach that technocracy point. It's almost as cute as Marxism. Meanwhile, in reality, democracy societies have done more to advance the world than all other forms of government combined. Keep dreaming, kid.

That's because they get bogged down in incompetent tyranny's. this has to do with an entrenched oligarchy created by scarcity based economics and the price system. Only a country that is self sufficient and adopts abundance based economics can reach Technocracy.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

At least it has that going for it.

Only when breaking the shackles of democracy can technocracy be reached.

frannkzappa

Funny how none of those undemocratic societies ever reach that technocracy point. It's almost as cute as Marxism. Meanwhile, in reality, democracy societies have done more to advance the world than all other forms of government combined. Keep dreaming, kid.

That's because they get bogged down in incompetent tyranny's. this has to do with an entrenched oligarchy created by scarcity based economics and the price system. Only a country that is self sufficient and adopts abundance based economics can reach Technocracy.

Tyrannies existed long before the price system, bud. Moreover, scarcity isn't going to go away. I take it that you've had a few econ courses, yes?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Funny how none of those undemocratic societies ever reach that technocracy point. It's almost as cute as Marxism. Meanwhile, in reality, democracy societies have done more to advance the world than all other forms of government combined. Keep dreaming, kid.

coolbeans90

That's because they get bogged down in incompetent tyranny's. this has to do with an entrenched oligarchy created by scarcity based economics and the price system. Only a country that is self sufficient and adopts abundance based economics can reach Technocracy.

Tyrannies existed long before the price system, bud. Moreover, scarcity isn't going to go away. I take it that you've had a few econ courses, yes?

The price system originated with man and oligarchy is the result.

scarcity most assuredly can go away on a small Continent level anyway (think North America or China). I do not advocate world wide technocracy. That is unsustainable on this planet alone.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

That's because they get bogged down in incompetent tyranny's. this has to do with an entrenched oligarchy created by scarcity based economics and the price system. Only a country that is self sufficient and adopts abundance based economics can reach Technocracy.

frannkzappa

Tyrannies existed long before the price system, bud. Moreover, scarcity isn't going to go away. I take it that you've had a few econ courses, yes?

The price system originated with man and oligarchy is the result.

scarcity most assuredly can go away on a small Continent level anyway (think North America or China). I do not advocate world wide technocracy. That is unsustainable on this planet alone.

Oligarchy long preceded market-based economies - the ones that use voluntary exchanges a la capitalism as the primary mechanism to generate production. To say otherwise is really just a revisionist take on history to justify preconceived, Utopian views.

Scarcity can't go away as long as resources are limited, and they are very limited. A society completely unconstrained by economic considerations is outright impossible anywhere on this planet. It's a pipe dream.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Tyrannies existed long before the price system, bud. Moreover, scarcity isn't going to go away. I take it that you've had a few econ courses, yes?

coolbeans90

The price system originated with man and oligarchy is the result.

scarcity most assuredly can go away on a small Continent level anyway (think North America or China). I do not advocate world wide technocracy. That is unsustainable on this planet alone.

Oligarchy long preceded market-based economies - the ones that use voluntary exchanges a la capitalism as the primary mechanism to generate production. To say otherwise is really just a revisionist take on history to justify preconceived, Utopian views.

Scarcity can't go away as long as resources are limited, and they are very limited. A society completely unconstrained by economic considerations is outright impossible anywhere on this planet. It's a pipe dream.

There are enough resources to fuel a nation sized technate for a great deal of time. Probably long enough so that we may exploit other planets, which becomes much easier without the constraint of money.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

The price system originated with man and oligarchy is the result.

scarcity most assuredly can go away on a small Continent level anyway (think North America or China). I do not advocate world wide technocracy. That is unsustainable on this planet alone.

frannkzappa

Oligarchy long preceded market-based economies - the ones that use voluntary exchanges a la capitalism as the primary mechanism to generate production. To say otherwise is really just a revisionist take on history to justify preconceived, Utopian views.

Scarcity can't go away as long as resources are limited, and they are very limited. A society completely unconstrained by economic considerations is outright impossible anywhere on this planet. It's a pipe dream.

There are enough resources to fuel a nation sized technate for a great deal of time. Probably long enough so that we may exploit other planets, which becomes much easier without the constraint of money.

Resources are more limited.  Consequently, scarcity is a thing.  Resources are not merely the materials under your feet, but the ability to harness them within a given amount of time.  That is quite limited, and types of governments that you have a fetish for do not at all lend themselves well for efficient and fair distributions of said resources.  In fact, they, historically, have done far worse WRT human and scientific advancement, and I really don't see any semblance of a valid argument that resolves the problems that have existed with those sorts of power structures.  The technate would rapidly descend into the continuation of past trends.  Of course, the change isn't going to happen in the first place, fortunately.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Oligarchy long preceded market-based economies - the ones that use voluntary exchanges a la capitalism as the primary mechanism to generate production. To say otherwise is really just a revisionist take on history to justify preconceived, Utopian views.

Scarcity can't go away as long as resources are limited, and they are very limited. A society completely unconstrained by economic considerations is outright impossible anywhere on this planet. It's a pipe dream.

coolbeans90

There are enough resources to fuel a nation sized technate for a great deal of time. Probably long enough so that we may exploit other planets, which becomes much easier without the constraint of money.

Resources are more limited. Consequently, scarcity is a thing. Resources are not merely the materials under your feet, but the ability to harness them within a given amount of time. That is quite limited, and types of governments that you have a fetish for do not at all lend themselves well for efficient and fair distributions of said resources. In fact, they, historically, have done far worse WRT human and scientific advancement, and I really don't see any semblance of a valid argument that resolves the problems that have existed with those sorts of power structures. The technate would rapidly descend into the continuation of past trends. Of course, the change isn't going to happen in the first place, fortunately.

Give me one historical example of technocracy.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

There are enough resources to fuel a nation sized technate for a great deal of time. Probably long enough so that we may exploit other planets, which becomes much easier without the constraint of money.

frannkzappa

Resources are more limited. Consequently, scarcity is a thing. Resources are not merely the materials under your feet, but the ability to harness them within a given amount of time. That is quite limited, and types of governments that you have a fetish for do not at all lend themselves well for efficient and fair distributions of said resources. In fact, they, historically, have done far worse WRT human and scientific advancement, and I really don't see any semblance of a valid argument that resolves the problems that have existed with those sorts of power structures. The technate would rapidly descend into the continuation of past trends. Of course, the change isn't going to happen in the first place, fortunately.

Give me one historical example of technocracy.

Was referring to hierarchical, authoritarian governments.  There were a lot of those.  Of those, none technocracies, however.  Plenty of them became more corrupt, of course, considering the nature of the structure.

[QUOTE="ThisIsTwoFace"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Any country where I have a higher degree of being kidnapped and murdered than if I was walking down the streets of NYC at night is a place I don't EVER want to visit.

WhiteKnight77

You have no choice though. You can't go abroad so whatever you say is invalid.

Funny, the country where most people haven't been abroad is the same country where people judge OTHER countries the most. Hmm

Yeah, I'm not sure what he meant by this. I can travel abroad, since I do indeed have a passport.

Just a question, zappa, one that I ask myself every now and again: Have you ever pondered on whether or not your entire worldview, or simply the entirety of your political views for that matter, are wrong?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Resources are more limited. Consequently, scarcity is a thing. Resources are not merely the materials under your feet, but the ability to harness them within a given amount of time. That is quite limited, and types of governments that you have a fetish for do not at all lend themselves well for efficient and fair distributions of said resources. In fact, they, historically, have done far worse WRT human and scientific advancement, and I really don't see any semblance of a valid argument that resolves the problems that have existed with those sorts of power structures. The technate would rapidly descend into the continuation of past trends. Of course, the change isn't going to happen in the first place, fortunately.

coolbeans90

Give me one historical example of technocracy.

Was referring to hierarchical, authoritarian governments. There were a lot of those. Of those, none technocracies, however. Plenty of them became more corrupt, of course, considering the nature of the structure.

how can a government not be hierarchical in some way?

Either way what sets technocracy apart is a strong educational system and trained and qualified officials.

Just a question, zappa, one that I ask myself every now and again: Have you ever pondered on whether or not your entire worldview, or simply the entirety of your political views for that matter, are wrong?

coolbeans90

yes, i have.

i arrived at technocracy only after years of thinking and study.

I admit that technocracy is a long way off. I admit that democracy (while it lasts) is favorable to outright tyranny. I admit that other other forms of government are valid, just not ideal.

If you you do not work for perfection (technocracy) you are a defeatist.

in the meantime i am a social leftist and economic moderate (when it comes to voting at least).

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="ThisIsTwoFace"]

You have no choice though. You can't go abroad so whatever you say is invalid.

Funny, the country where most people haven't been abroad is the same country where people judge OTHER countries the most. Hmm

airshocker

Yeah, I'm not sure what he meant by this. I can travel abroad, since I do indeed have a passport.

I'm pretty sure he's just dumb.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Give me one historical example of technocracy.

frannkzappa

Was referring to hierarchical, authoritarian governments. There were a lot of those. Of those, none technocracies, however. Plenty of them became more corrupt, of course, considering the nature of the structure.

how can a government not be hierarchical in some way?

Either way what sets technocracy apart is a strong educational system and trained and qualified officials.

China isn't closer to ideal than the U.S., however.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Just a question, zappa, one that I ask myself every now and again: Have you ever pondered on whether or not your entire worldview, or simply the entirety of your political views for that matter, are wrong?

frannkzappa

yes, i have.

i arrived at technocracy only after years of thinking and study.

I admit that technocracy is a long way off. I admit that democracy (while it lasts) is favorable to outright tyranny. I admit that other other forms of government are valid, just not ideal.

If you you do not work for perfection (technocracy) you are a defeatist.

in the meantime i am a social leftist and economic moderate (when it comes to voting at least).

Good to hear.

The fact that we live in a world where authoritarian governments are, essentially by design, imperfect, your specific implementation of technocracy is by extension also imperfect and several rungs below the staus quo, for that matter.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Was referring to hierarchical, authoritarian governments. There were a lot of those. Of those, none technocracies, however. Plenty of them became more corrupt, of course, considering the nature of the structure.

coolbeans90

how can a government not be hierarchical in some way?

Either way what sets technocracy apart is a strong educational system and trained and qualified officials.

China isn't closer to ideal than the U.S., however.

they have an even larger and more powerful oligarchy then the US and they seem to openly admit it. However in my opinion they are closer to technocracy then the US.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Just a question, zappa, one that I ask myself every now and again: Have you ever pondered on whether or not your entire worldview, or simply the entirety of your political views for that matter, are wrong?

coolbeans90

yes, i have.

i arrived at technocracy only after years of thinking and study.

I admit that technocracy is a long way off. I admit that democracy (while it lasts) is favorable to outright tyranny. I admit that other other forms of government are valid, just not ideal.

If you you do not work for perfection (technocracy) you are a defeatist.

in the meantime i am a social leftist and economic moderate (when it comes to voting at least).

Good to hear.

The fact that we live in a world where authoritarian governments are, essentially by design, imperfect, your specific implementation of technocracy is by extension also imperfect and several rungs below the staus quo, for that matter.

Authoritarian=/= Technocracy

you seem to attach a whole lot of connotations to that word.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

how can a government not be hierarchical in some way?

 

Either way what sets technocracy apart is a strong educational system and trained and qualified officials.

frannkzappa

China isn't closer to ideal than the U.S., however.

they have an even larger and more powerful oligarchy then the US and they seem to openly admit it. However in my opinion they are closer to technocracy then the US.

Perhaps in terms of structure similarities to your ideal, but little else. It's a political machine and will remain as such.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

yes, i have.

 

i arrived at technocracy only after years of thinking and study.

 

I admit that technocracy is a long way off. I admit that democracy (while it lasts) is favorable to outright tyranny. I admit that other other forms of government are valid, just not ideal.

 

If you you do not work for perfection (technocracy) you are a defeatist.

 

in the meantime i am a social leftist and economic moderate (when it comes to voting at least).

frannkzappa

Good to hear.

The fact that we live in a world where authoritarian governments are, essentially by design, imperfect, your specific implementation of technocracy is by extension also imperfect and several rungs below the staus quo, for that matter.

Authoritarian=/= Technocracy

you seem to attach a whole lot of connotations to that word.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Good to hear.

The fact that we live in a world where authoritarian governments are, essentially by design, imperfect, your specific implementation of technocracy is by extension also imperfect and several rungs below the staus quo, for that matter.

coolbeans90

Authoritarian=/= Technocracy

you seem to attach a whole lot of connotations to that word.

If you want specifics i need specific questions. I can explain the system much better when given specific situations.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Authoritarian=/= Technocracy

 

you seem to attach a whole lot of connotations to that word.

frannkzappa

If you want specifics i need specific questions. I can explain the system much better when given specific situations.

You have used the term yourself, dude. Moreover, highly concentrated power and the outright elimination of democracy is rather specific. I don't understand why you are at all surprised by the use of the term.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

coolbeans90

If you want specifics i need specific questions. I can explain the system much better when given specific situations.

You have used the term yourself, dude. Moreover, highly concentrated power and the outright elimination of democracy is rather specific. I don't understand why you are at all surprised by the use of the term.

Well, where do you suppose we take the conversation then?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]I fail to see how you've gathered that , as i have only talked about technocracy in general terms.

If you want specifics i need specific questions. I can explain the system much better when given specific situations.

frannkzappa

You have used the term yourself, dude. Moreover, highly concentrated power and the outright elimination of democracy is rather specific. I don't understand why you are at all surprised by the use of the term.

Well, where do you suppose we take the conversation then?

Well, considering that your solution to the corrupt authoritarianism problem was ending scarcity without actually proposing a means to end scarcity, I was hoping you would tell me.

strict government control of geographical resources and a heavily automated production capability (also government controlled).

Not to mention an ability to take what we need from abroad.

strict government control of geographical resources and a heavily automated production capability (also government controlled).

Not to mention an ability to take what we need from abroad.

frannkzappa

Phew! Pretty scarey!

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

strict government control of geographical resources and a heavily automated production capability (also government controlled).

Not to mention an ability to take what we need from abroad.

m0zart

Phew! Pretty scarey!

Not for the citizen of the Technate.

Very cool, thanks for sharing OP.

strict government control of geographical resources and a heavily automated production capability (also government controlled).

Not to mention an ability to take what we need from abroad.

frannkzappa

We automate a deal already. The only reason to not automate, provided that it is possible to do so capably, would be if something would be more costly than to not automate - i.e., that it would require more resources to automate than to not, which directly relates back to scarcity, limited resources.

Now, R&D is something that the private sector doesn't always venture into because of considerable risk, which is where the government should step in and subsidize scientific research. To some extent, that is already what it does, but it could afford to do more.

Finally, automation does not translate to unlimited resources. That is a silly notion.

AH OT, I like how a thread on a cool anomaly has turned into a thread with both arguing over nationalistic tendencies, as well as debate on the effectiveness of a technocratic government.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

strict government control of geographical resources and a heavily automated production capability (also government controlled).

Not to mention an ability to take what we need from abroad.

coolbeans90

We automate a deal already. The only reason to not automate, provided that it is possible to do so capably, would be if something would be more costly than to not automate - i.e., that it would require more resources to automate than to not, which directly relates back to scarcity, limited resources.

Now, R&D is something that the private sector doesn't always venture into because of considerable risk, which is where the government should step in and subsidize scientific research. To some extent, that is already what it does, but it could afford to do more.

Finally, automation does not translate to unlimited resources. That is a silly notion.

you can not honestly think that full factory automation (something deemed possible since the 30's ) would take a significant chunk out of the resources of North America?

Also abundance economics does not require infinite resources, just enough to readily supply the needs and wants of a localized population (in this case the size of the US or China) without the need of a private trading system. Technocracy keeps rewards for work in order to keep human productivity high.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

strict government control of geographical resources and a heavily automated production capability (also government controlled).

Not to mention an ability to take what we need from abroad.

frannkzappa

We automate a deal already. The only reason to not automate, provided that it is possible to do so capably, would be if something would be more costly than to not automate - i.e., that it would require more resources to automate than to not, which directly relates back to scarcity, limited resources.

Now, R&D is something that the private sector doesn't always venture into because of considerable risk, which is where the government should step in and subsidize scientific research. To some extent, that is already what it does, but it could afford to do more.

Finally, automation does not translate to unlimited resources. That is a silly notion.

you can not honestly think that full factory automation (something deemed possible since the 30's ) would take a significant chunk out of the resources of North America?

Also abundance economics does not require infinite resources, just enough to readily supply the needs and wants of a localized population (in this case the size of the US or China) without the need of a private trading system. Technocracy keeps rewards for work in order to keep human productivity high.

Many things are already heavily automated and continue to work their way in that direction in status quo (manufacturing, for instance). For instances where it hasn't, it takes a considerable amount resources to switch to automation, sometimes costing more to automate than to not in a particular time frame, or in some cases indefinitely - for instance small scale, specialized work that isn't produced en masse that requires more versatility than an automated facility can provide for the cost. Some things simply can't be automated (completely or partially depending on circumstances, yet), due to either practical or economic constraints. When automated, substantial harnessing of resources, human, materials, etc. are required to operate, supply, manage automated facilities. There are limited resources to do so. That said, automation has contributed to a drastic increase in human productivity anyway, and there doesn't seem to be a reason why this will stop anyway. Still, peak production is a real phenomena, and resources will remain, for the seemingly indefinite future, unquestionably scarce. Continuing on that note, automation has freed up resources in the form of labor, but we are currently experiencing a structural labor surplus, so I'm not sure what freeing more of that up will necessarily do for your quest to achieve limitless cake.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

We automate a deal already. The only reason to not automate, provided that it is possible to do so capably, would be if something would be more costly than to not automate - i.e., that it would require more resources to automate than to not, which directly relates back to scarcity, limited resources.

Now, R&D is something that the private sector doesn't always venture into because of considerable risk, which is where the government should step in and subsidize scientific research. To some extent, that is already what it does, but it could afford to do more.

Finally, automation does not translate to unlimited resources. That is a silly notion.

coolbeans90

you can not honestly think that full factory automation (something deemed possible since the 30's ) would take a significant chunk out of the resources of North America?

Also abundance economics does not require infinite resources, just enough to readily supply the needs and wants of a localized population (in this case the size of the US or China) without the need of a private trading system. Technocracy keeps rewards for work in order to keep human productivity high.

Many things are already heavily automated and continue to work their way in that direction in status quo (manufacturing, for instance). For instances where it hasn't, it takes a considerable amount resources to switch to automation, sometimes costing more to automate than to not in a particular time frame, or in some cases indefinitely - for instance small scale, specialized work that isn't produced en masse that requires more versatility than an automated facility can provide for the cost. Some things simply can't be automated (completely or partially depending on circumstances, yet), due to either practical or economic constraints. When automated, substantial harnessing of resources, human, materials, etc. are required to operate, supply, manage automated facilities. There are limited resources to do so. That said, automation has contributed to a drastic increase in human productivity anyway, and there doesn't seem to be a reason why this will stop anyway. Still, peak production is a real phenomena, and resources will remain, for the seemingly indefinite future, unquestionably scarce. Continuing on that note, automation has freed up resources in the form of labor, but we are currently experiencing a structural labor surplus, so I'm not sure what freeing more of that up will necessarily do for your quest to achieve limitless cake.

With a strong educational system (as i've outlined numerous times so i won't go into detail here) these extra unemployed workers will be freed up to do more intellectual and skilled jobs. leave manual labour to machines, willing foreigners and the service industry.

Automation will only get cheaper, more efficient, and more reliable with time. Even more so when a competent government devotes time and effort to it.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

you can not honestly think that full factory automation (something deemed possible since the 30's ) would take a significant chunk out of the resources of North America?

Also abundance economics does not require infinite resources, just enough to readily supply the needs and wants of a localized population (in this case the size of the US or China) without the need of a private trading system. Technocracy keeps rewards for work in order to keep human productivity high.

frannkzappa

Many things are already heavily automated and continue to work their way in that direction in status quo (manufacturing, for instance). For instances where it hasn't, it takes a considerable amount resources to switch to automation, sometimes costing more to automate than to not in a particular time frame, or in some cases indefinitely - for instance small scale, specialized work that isn't produced en masse that requires more versatility than an automated facility can provide for the cost. Some things simply can't be automated (completely or partially depending on circumstances, yet), due to either practical or economic constraints. When automated, substantial harnessing of resources, human, materials, etc. are required to operate, supply, manage automated facilities. There are limited resources to do so. That said, automation has contributed to a drastic increase in human productivity anyway, and there doesn't seem to be a reason why this will stop anyway. Still, peak production is a real phenomena, and resources will remain, for the seemingly indefinite future, unquestionably scarce. Continuing on that note, automation has freed up resources in the form of labor, but we are currently experiencing a structural labor surplus, so I'm not sure what freeing more of that up will necessarily do for your quest to achieve limitless cake.

With a strong educational system (as i've outlined numerous times so i won't go into detail here) these extra unemployed workers will be freed up to do more intellectual and skilled jobs. leave manual labour to machines, willing foreigners and the service industry.

Automation will only get cheaper, more efficient, and more reliable with time. Even more so when a competent government devotes time and effort to it.

That is all already happening, and subsidizing education further can be done without sending the world back to feudalism.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Many things are already heavily automated and continue to work their way in that direction in status quo (manufacturing, for instance). For instances where it hasn't, it takes a considerable amount resources to switch to automation, sometimes costing more to automate than to not in a particular time frame, or in some cases indefinitely - for instance small scale, specialized work that isn't produced en masse that requires more versatility than an automated facility can provide for the cost. Some things simply can't be automated (completely or partially depending on circumstances, yet), due to either practical or economic constraints. When automated, substantial harnessing of resources, human, materials, etc. are required to operate, supply, manage automated facilities. There are limited resources to do so. That said, automation has contributed to a drastic increase in human productivity anyway, and there doesn't seem to be a reason why this will stop anyway. Still, peak production is a real phenomena, and resources will remain, for the seemingly indefinite future, unquestionably scarce. Continuing on that note, automation has freed up resources in the form of labor, but we are currently experiencing a structural labor surplus, so I'm not sure what freeing more of that up will necessarily do for your quest to achieve limitless cake.

coolbeans90

With a strong educational system (as i've outlined numerous times so i won't go into detail here) these extra unemployed workers will be freed up to do more intellectual and skilled jobs. leave manual labour to machines, willing foreigners and the service industry.

Automation will only get cheaper, more efficient, and more reliable with time. Even more so when a competent government devotes time and effort to it.

That is all already happening, and subsidizing education further can be done without sending the world back to feudalism.

I don't think feudalism is the word you are looking for.

What the hell happened to this thread...

What the hell happened to this thread...

Goyoshi12

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

With a strong educational system (as i've outlined numerous times so i won't go into detail here) these extra unemployed workers will be freed up to do more intellectual and skilled jobs. leave manual labour to machines, willing foreigners and the service industry.

 

Automation will only get cheaper, more efficient, and more reliable with time. Even more so when a competent government devotes time and effort to it.

frannkzappa

That is all already happening, and subsidizing education further can be done without sending the world back to feudalism.

I don't think feudalism is the word you are looking for.

Eh, not exactly. Regardless, the point stands.

AH OT, I like how a thread on a cool anomaly has turned into a thread with both arguing over nationalistic tendencies, as well as debate on the effectiveness of a technocratic government.

TacticalDesire

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

That is all already happening, and subsidizing education further can be done without sending the world back to feudalism.

coolbeans90

I don't think feudalism is the word you are looking for.

Eh, not exactly. Regardless, the point stands.

I don't seem to see you're point, that statement hinges on the feudalism part. Otherwise it is just an agreement.

They lit it in 1971?

It would be cool if we could find a way to harnest that power. As mesmerizing as it may seem...it just looks like a total waste of energy, nice find btw.

Old news. Not very exciting.

CecilChups

[QUOTE="CecilChups"]

Old news. Not very exciting.

comp_atkins