"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
> In an effort to interject some additional "facts" into the discussion,
> see:
> "World Population Implosion?" @
> http://www.pop.org/students/popimplode.html
>
> Also, the "Population Reference Bureau" (http://www.prb.org/)
> has a number of publications.
>
> As Billy pointed out, all doomsday predictions are based on no
> improvements in our technology base. IMO, far more concerning
> than overpopulation would be the development of robotics or
> sub-AI that eliminates the needs for employing a large fraction
> of the population. If we assume, for the moment, that most
> of the people on this list fall into the "above average" segment
> of the population (in intelligence, education, awareness, etc.),
> doesn't that give you pause to ask, just what does the "below average"
> segment of the population do? And what will happen when they can
> be replaced by a reliable 24-hour-a-day robot/AI?
>
> Is Moravec's Tax-the-robots environment feasible? Would you as
> a robot owner operate your robots in a taxing jurisdiction? Or
> would you move your operations to a robot-tax-free state?
> If the taxes on the robots are distributed to the people
> will it not be strange to be paying for your hamburger at
> MacWendKings with money derived from the "employees" at that
> establishment?
Ah, so you are saying the displaced workers will gain an equity
postion in the robots that supplant them? I'm surprised the unions
arent' falling all over themselves to invest in robotization companies,
then again, once a worker is retired and on a fixed income, what do they
need the union for? Robots aren't very good at picket lines (its not the
walking back and forth or carrying a sign thats tough, its the part
about beating on management limosines without damaging the paint
job...).
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:21 MDT