Lefty friends sharing this, and I agree a bit
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (43)
sorted by:
While I agree with you in spirit, automation remains a long-term problem for everyone. Even if your particular industry can't be automated, society as a whole is going to have to figure out what to do with the growing mass of unemployed people who are literally incapable of doing high IQ jobs. Importing huge numbers of additional low IQ people from the third world is only going to accelerate this problem.
The high IQ rugged individual can only 'adapt and survive' for so long while society falls apart around him.
"If there was a device that someone invented that improved the economic development of society, at the cost at 10 000 deaths a year, would be allow it? Well, we already do: it's call the automotive."
There is a very real possibility that self-driving cars become widespread by the end of the decade. If that happens, millions of Americans will be out of a job. This isn't like how the car displaced the horse-and-buggy but opened up a means of employment to millions. This is no viable path for someone who spent decades driving a semi to start deciphering computer runes.
How many people died falling off of horses or being kicked in the head by horses prior to the automobile a year? And percentage wise how similar is that number to the overall population that the 10000 automobiles deaths make up?
I don't know, how many horses end up plowing through the side of someone's house or trample over a pedestrian walking along the sidewalk?
Anyway, nice job missing the point, Autismo Maximus.
EDIT: Amerimutts seethe when you tell them that a large metal box going at 30mph is dangerous and might hurt someone.
My point is are the automobile deaths less than deaths from the previous mode of transportation. should probably add what is very likely an increase in saved lives from emergency services like firemen and ambulances compared to the previous mode of being pulled by wagons. Which means people do not put up with 10000 automobile deaths a year compared to the likely vastly outnumbered saved lives from the previous mode of transportation.
You honestly think the government is going to be cool with autonomous vehicles riding around with no driver at the wheel in case of an emergency?
These devices are already dying. Alexa, Cortana, Google Assistant, Bixby, whatever Apple's whore is called. All these programs are dying or dead ends. Google and Apple's self-driving divisions are gone. Tesla's is a driving assist mode only because that is all it will ever be. This technology is too unreliable, even with more advanced everything. Self-targeting weapons is the perfect example of this, it's useless on its own. It can only enhance/support human guidance. This shit can only be used off-world and even then, in most basic functions where life is not present. The technology as used in science fiction will never exist. It can't, the limitations are too great.
What's that quote from? Search engines fail me.
It isn't high IQ that will survive. That's being replaced by smarter computers who make less mistakes because they are computers. It's a future where we adapt to our technological advancements that survives. Look at electricians, plumbers, and the like. Their technology got to a certain point, and then it's basically stalled for the last 50 years with only minimal advancements. It takes years to perfect their craft, it's not a hard one to learn, and you're screwed if you want to do anything without them.
In other words, the guilds from Dune.
High IQ people aren't the greatest source of further High-IQ children. The majority of High IQ people have always been generated by Middle-IQ parents. The genes for IQ are very complex and require quite a bit of mixing to generate an intelligent child--while it is true that IQ is heritable and strongly so, it is also not expressed in a single place in the Genome but rather many. Each gene associated with intelligence has long since replicated out to the entire population such that it is more common for two middle-IQ parents, carrying a dissimilar set of IQ-related genes, to combine their genetics and produce a High-IQ child.
Put statistically, IQ is actually a left-leaning chi-squared curve where the higher the IQ of the parent, the greater the probability the children will have a lower IQ. The closer the parent is to the mean, or below it, the greater the probability of generating a child with a higher IQ. The Majority of HighIQ people are smarter than their parents. The Majority of HighIQ parents have children with a slightly lower IQ.