Right, that is the reality now. That’s the point. We make the rules. They’re completely made up. By us.

We should pick rules that have the greatest overall benefit to humanity. I.e. its time to change the rules.

Let me dispel one more myth while I have your attention.

Capitalism has not “lifted more ppl out of poverty.. blah blah blah”. PROGRESS has. That is, science and technology.

I can prove it.

Imagine a circle of ppl, a book, and $5. We can make the rules of our economy any way we choose. We can make the book and money go round the circle faster, slower, clockwise, counter, etc.

But we cannot improve anyones life outside of ensuring equitable access to the book and money. The only way to do that is to WRITE MORE BOOKS!

Next quarter. 100% /s

I'd be curious about what restrictions come with these 270$ leases

I imagine you basically can't drive your car over whatever arbitrary miles /day they set. In which case I wouldn't take a lease even for 150$ a month.

Commodity wealth is about supply and demand. If you could really bring back that much mass to Earth you'd drive the value way down. I don't see where debts matter as you wind up with robotic labor that can do 80% of our jobs. We really do have plenty of resources here on Earth and limit surface area. The BULK of the planet is huge compared to just the bit of habital land we live on, not just the surface is huge compared to the land, but the 3 dimensional volume of the planet is filled with PROBABLY anything we need for hundreds of years.

The premise to space mining is that you constantly overcome gravity and vast distances that all cost energy instead of drilling. I don't see many scenarios where space mining is more efficient than the nearly unlimited bulk of the planet.

Sooo occasionally you might pinpoint a high value asteroid and go get it, but a lot of just trash so the logistics here are not the easiest and if you have robots building robots than the cost of commodities has gone down on Earth so much that there isn't demand for space mining.

For space mining to make sense you need the commidity to really be in that much demand that you don't just mine it from Earth and with robotic automation and recyling and limited surface area/peak popultion around 10 billion I don't see it being practical.

Robotic mining means commodities are all worth less because demand is met more easily with more efficient automated processes. The same pattern will happen in all industries.

Money and value are still ONLY about demand, the easiest way to meet demand is all you really need or want to do usually. Space mining is too complex compared to demand, imo. Kind of like nuclear power probably can't beat solar, the simplest thing that gets the job done wins.

You still can't count all of them as if they were caused by climate change. Its like Covid, you dont count all deaths, you count excess deaths.

I completely understand the difference between capital and labor.

The reality is, in our world today, an explorer, discovers a mine. That explorer receives a grant funded by taxes to develop that mine. A businessman purchases the mine from the government for a pittance (because they have a friend in the government who tip them off to a bargain). Businessman hires people at substandard wages to develop the mine into a profitable business and pockets the majority of the profit.

In the businessman’s mind, he owes nobody anything because he is the person who developed the mine, and therefore anything that comes out of it is his to exploit in any way he wants to. He has no obligation to support workers, in fact, he resents having to pay them for their labor

A new technology that comes along which can replace 10 laborers with one machine that is less likely to break down or refuse to work overtime.

The owner fires those 10 laborers who now are unemployed and have no income.

The owner, seeing the profitability of having machines, instead of people, do the work, purchases several more machines, run by a staff of engineers, which is much smaller than the large number of laborers employed earlier.

As a result of not having to pay wages, the business owner sees a dramatic increase in profits, reinforcing his belief that automation is the solution to profitability.

Eventually, the machines become automated enough that the engineers are not even needed.

More profit!

Now, the businessman has an automated business that produces a product which he can sell and not have to incur the cost of any employees.

Everyone who is employed previously at that business is either unemployed, or has found other employment elsewhere, but the total number of employed people will never recover to the level. It was when the mind was using 100% human labor

The government,lobbied by the businessman lobbies, asks him to contribute to a fund to pay for the out of work miners living expenses.

The businessman tells the politicians to go get stuffed because he owes the former employees of his company nothing (and he is absolutely correct about that because he has no contract with them stating he is responsible for their welfare.)

So now we have end state capitalism, which is we have a small number of business owners who rely upon automation to produce their products and a huge under class which relatively speaking is a modern day peasantry.

How do you fix this without a bloody Revolution?

While quality of life improvement is never a bad thing, the problem is the transition, as well as whom the benefit goes to. For Ai, what happens to the current existing workforce when more and more jobs get replaced by it?

Right now AI in the foreseeable future is on the cusp of being able to do so, and yet, many organizations, governments have really yet to address nor start any meaningful discussion on the transition as well as those who are left out of a profession thanks to AI. You can always say "oh, just go find another job", but when an increasing number of jobs will be replaced by AI, sooner or later you'll have a lot of folks who just won't be able to find themselves any means to support oneself. Universal basic income? Still on the drawing board, but not even close on being discussed as an actual concept.

What happens in a future where AI is working on all sectors on nearly all fronts?

What do the folks who are pushed out of their profession do by then? They don't have means to sustain themselves with the current economic standards. And those that employ AI and the growth there would be by then only for a select few.

Submission Statement -

>For the first time, scientists generated stem cells from bats that can give rise to any type of cell found in the animals' fuzzy bodies. These cells, the researchers say, may help explain how bats can carry so many viruses that are lethal to humans but cause the flying mammals no harm.
>
>...the newly generated bat stem cells are very exciting in that they offer scientists new opportunities to study basic bat biology and the animals' odd relationship with viruses.

Education and Knowledge are their own rewards and AI/ML is just another tool. It’s a good tool but ….

[removed]

And your point is? You are still talking about the purchase of a car. OP clearly stated lease, and you can lease a Toyota around $25k for not much more than $250. So your entire premise is incorrect.

[deleted]

also thats just us prices

​

the prices in much of europe are atrocious compared to the us market.

that 384 is over 5 years. I said over 4.

if you do a simple but incorrect extrapolation that would be 384(60)//48 = 480 dollars pm with the 3k down. Thats not really far off from what I said.

Unfortunately there’s no short way to discuss complex topics, so I apologize in advance. Please bear with me, I’ll be as clear and brief as possible.

Lets imagine an explorer discovers an iron mine. Society wants to promote exploration so it decides to reward the explorer.

There are two main ways of doing this.

Capitalism. The explorer KEEPS the mine. He hires workers from society to mine the mine, and sells the iron to society. The explorer keeps the profits.

Socialism. Society keeps the mine. The explorer is paid a finders fee. A manager who specializes in managing iron mines is hired to hire workers from society to mine the iron. The iron is sold to society. Society splits the profits.

Notice a couple of important points. One, in both scenarios, everybody is being paid for their work. There’s no “free shit” in socialism unless you count the windfall of the iron. But if you do, the same is true of capitalism, it is just the explorer who gets the free shit.

Two, its important to understand where the profit comes from. Its LABOR the town must provide to the explorer. Not the mining, that happens anyway. But to pay the profit, society must do more labor to get the same iron. More doctoring, tailoring, farming, etc. To the benefit of the explorer.

Lastly, its more than just the profit. Under capitalism, the explorer gets “property rights” to direct the workings of the iron mine, despite his lack of expertise. And the operation of the mine VERY MUCH affects society.

One advantage household robots have over a lot of other automated technologies is that they do not need to be fast or particularly efficient at their jobs. People work for roughly 8 hours a day working and sleep for roughly 8 hours a day, a robot might have a total of 16 hours in which to do maybe one to two hours of household chores. I think a lot of people would pay significant amount of money for robot that straightens up, folds some laundry, dusts, and unloads the dishwasher. Maybe puts away the groceries too. None of these have to be done especially quickly either.

But they've raised the interest rates to restrict the money that's circulating...

You're getting downvoted to hell. Guess peeps don't like options.

Your comment is exactly what I’m talking about.

That one owner has no obligation whatsoever to share any profit in any way shape or form.

Unless there was a massive change in the way society views, corporations, and profit-based strategies, the only end result will be more money at the top, no money at the bottom, and a literal corporate feudalism.

Also people are naive about offshoring - the labor that is as talented usually is able to get work/student visas. Fine for call centers or other less talented labor but those don’t even work that well.

[removed]

"What is my purpose, father?"

"To clean the cat boxes."

"Oh God..."

I'd rather mop floor myself than have a robot get in my way and making noise while I'm trying to work. Unless it's hot looking. Smart would be nice too, in which case it probably wouldn't want to do no housework.

I don’t disagree that there are better things out there than what we have, the problem is our corporate culture. These days is driven by profit motives and sociopaths.

He would be naïve to believe these individuals or corporations would do anything with AI other than enhance their bottom line.

I really hate to be a downer on that because I agree with you.

But what are the odds that the people who are already corrupt, in a corrupt government, owned by corporations, who themselves are corrupt, and only driven by profit motive would view AI as anything but something to enhance their quarterly profitability and would fight tooth and nail to take any of those profits and attempt to better society.

I would love to see it, but that would be a miracle on the scale of Moses, parting the Red Sea.