Is roboticisation of jobs ethical ?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Sure there will. People need to survive. If they can't work they still need to survive.

Frankly, no they don't.

[Spiffor]

I think Qcubed is in a mysanthropist period

[OzzyKP]

Just wait till they unionize and take over...

[Q Classic]

misanthropist.

and yes, yes I am. I was holding out hope for humanity based solely on the fairer sex, until i realized that made me gender-biased.

That, and one of my best friends just found out that he's been cheated on for quite a while now.

And I stand by what I said.

People who serve no purpose, who do not contribute to society in any meaningful way, why do they "deserve" survival?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
People who serve no purpose, who do not contribute to society in any meaningful way, why do they "deserve" survival?

Why does anyone deserve to survive?

[Kuciwalker]

That's kinda his point, Kid.

[Kidlicious]

No it's not. I want to know if he thinks the the purpose of survival is work or it he thinks the purpose of work is survival. If he thinks the purpose of survival is work, why does he think that?

[fdgfx]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
the overabundance of highly skilled professionals means that they will have to adapt to make themselves more marketable. some of these adaptations will come in the form of developing new skills.

sucks, but it's gotta happen.

there will be no reason to "compensate" people for doing nothing.

If they can't, some of them will get crazy ideas, and that's bad for business. So you better have a plan B to prevent people falling too hard on their noses.

[Q Classic]

No it's not.

Actually, Kuci is right, Kid. There are very few reasons why anybody should have to or even deserve to live, and, quite frankly, few people really qualify. Indeed, the only reason i don't suggest more people off themselves is because the cost of switching states voluntarily is often too great.

I want to know if he thinks the the purpose of survival is work or it he thinks the purpose of work is survival. If he thinks the purpose of survival is work, why does he think that?

I don't think they're separate. Work is survival: energy expenditure is required for anything to live. To survive is to work: in order to live, one must expend energy.

If they can't, some of them will get crazy ideas, and that's bad for business. So you better have a plan B to prevent people falling too hard on their noses.

Why do I need a plan B? Crazy ideas are bad, sure. Let them run amok.

Adapt and work to survive. Companies, animals, and people who fail to do that expire.

Why should society be any different? Especially when we have 6 billion + people, which, in my opinion, is far too many.

[Az]

How do people qualify to be alive according to your standards?

Actually, what the hell are your standards?!

[ajbera]

One line of thinking (not necessarily my own, though it is logical):

An organism able to provide its own food and shelter, or able to do work that can be exchanged for food and shelter, has a stronger claim to any 'right' to survive (and no such right exists independent of human philosophy) than an organism that cannot do so. Thus, the old, infirmed, and enfeebled, plus those who are non-adaptive, are at the mercy of those who can work and/or adapt. Charity and familial bonds have long been the traditional way of dealing with these folks - churches would help the poor and sick, or their families would tend to them. Times have changed, though, so religion is not as prevalent, receives less money, and is less able to tend to the poor; family structures have changed, so that families are smaller, or couples have chosen to not procreate. Does this mean the State should rush in to fill the void? Socialists say yes, conservatives (and libertarians) say no. I tend to think no. However, like most people, I have sympathy for the unfortunate, so I will donate money to charities, and I will help out my elderly neighbor by shovelling his driveway during snowstorms. Such aid isn't compulsory, nor (I think) should it be. It isn't necessary, but I think it's a good thing to do.

I don't know where I'm going with this. Ignore me as usual.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

No it's not.

Actually, Kuci is right, Kid. There are very few reasons why anybody should have to or even deserve to live, and, quite frankly, few people really qualify. Indeed, the only reason i don't suggest more people off themselves is because the cost of switching states voluntarily is often too great.

Sicko

I want to know if he thinks the the purpose of survival is work or it he thinks the purpose of work is survival. If he thinks the purpose of survival is work, why does he think that?

I don't think they're separate. Work is survival: energy expenditure is required for anything to live. To survive is to work: in order to live, one must expend energy.

Of course they are seperate. Constantly with the advance of technology we work less and survive longer. It's what we're freaking talking about here. What if there's only x hours of work to do by y people and y/2 does x? You propose to eliminate half the population. Besides the fact that the economy couldn't function with out the whole demand there is no reason to kill half the people in the first place. They simply are not needed to work. Your reasoning that it's necessary for everyone to work to maintain their own survival is outdated. At one time it was needed to make sure that all the work got done, but not now, and certainly not in the future.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by ajbera
An organism able to provide its own food and shelter, or able to do work that can be exchanged for food and shelter, has a stronger claim to any 'right' to survive (and no such right exists independent of human philosophy) than an organism that cannot do so.

Why? Do you have a reason that is different from "because it's the way that allows for the greatest survival rate?" That's the goal isn't it, to allow for the greatest survival rate?

[Q Classic]

How do people qualify to be alive according to your standards?

They don't. But if they're alive, I don't see any reason to actively kill them. If they can't make it in a new world, however, it's a shame now, isn't it?

Sicko

I approve of how you insult me for my viewpoint. Actually, I don't, but I'll let you do it anyway.

You propose to eliminate half the population. Besides the fact that the economy couldn't function with out the whole demand there is no reason to kill half the people in the first place.

Wrong, I propose no such thing. All I'm saying is that I don't see how taking care of those who fail to adapt is a duty that should be forced upon others. I don't see why the government should force me to take care of somebody who refuses to learn new skills.

Should I chose to do so by my own volition, and believe me, I would, it should be just that--by my own choice and determination, not at the point of some government's gun.

They simply are not needed to work. Your reasoning that it's necessary for everyone to work to maintain their own survival is outdated. At one time it was needed to make sure that all the work got done, but not now, and certainly not in the future.

So you would enslave machines and artificial intelligences to have biologicals lounge about doing absolutely nothing?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Sicko

I approve of how you insult me for my viewpoint. Actually, I don't, but I'll let you do it anyway.

Why would you be offended by my comments if you don't even think I deserve to live?

You propose to eliminate half the population. Besides the fact that the economy couldn't function with out the whole demand there is no reason to kill half the people in the first place.

Wrong, I propose no such thing. All I'm saying is that I don't see how taking care of those who fail to adapt is a duty that should be forced upon others. I don't see why the government should force me to take care of somebody who refuses to learn new skills.

You wouldn't be forced to do anything. You wouldn't even have to work.

They simply are not needed to work. Your reasoning that it's necessary for everyone to work to maintain their own survival is outdated. At one time it was needed to make sure that all the work got done, but not now, and certainly not in the future.

So you would enslave machines and artificial intelligences to have biologicals lounge about doing absolutely nothing?

Isn't that the whole point of using machines?