1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Computers Managing Humans

Home Forums Archive Structure Designs Computers Managing Humans

This topic contains 11 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of shredder7753 shredder7753 3 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1410
    Avatar of Ken Sims
    Ken Sims
    Keymaster
    tusavision wrote:
    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:

    Why would you LOVE robots? All they do is take jobs from humans. Because of that, millions of children are straving and dying as we speak.

    Not to hijack the thread but:

    http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

    [/quote]

    #12206
    Avatar of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    Poverty has always existed and will always continue to exist as long as humans do. Robots won’t change things dramatically but I do agree with the author that they may help increase the income disparity between the haves and the have nots.

    Computers do manage us to an extent already. When you drive a car you enter a system of computer managed traffic. Doesn’t seem like that big of a deal. Same thing goes for the computer you are using to navigate this website. The whole DNS system that allows you to surf is a computer managed system. More and more people rely on Google to answer every question in life… sad but true.

    The fear is that eventually humans will not be able to shut off the machines. That line draws closer every day, I’m glad some creative people are looking at it and sharing their views. Of course, the end of Manna was overly positive… technology rarely yields such fairytales in reality.

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #12207

    Poverty did not always exist it developed with agriculture and posession.

    Hunter and collector societies existed during a long time period without sharp social contrasts – technology might empower us in the end to come back to a society where “material possesion” means much less – as everybody has at hand what he needs and is free to develop his talents.

    The kind of society we create has a lot to do with how people behave and act. Government is a tool to develop a society – i agree with the TSI base idea that there must be better ways to live together and a frontier to test it out peacefully.

    The fact that technology enables us now to produce food without owning land can mitigate many of the negative effects (poverty, wars,) that came with the transition from hunter collector societies to agriculture.

    If we do it right we may come back to the nice idea of “All men are created equal…” “…pursuit of happiness….”

    Wil

    #12211
    Avatar of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    Ken wrote:
    tusavision wrote:

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:

    Why would you LOVE robots? All they do is take jobs from humans. Because of that, millions of children are straving and dying as we speak.

    Not to hijack the thread but:

    http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

    [/quote] [/quote]

    First off, thank you for this great article,

    was really a very enjoyable read.

    Yes, I’d like the mention that the vertabrane systems as described,

    is extremely fragile, due to centralization, uniformity and finite membership.

    Centralization means a centralized attack,

    that infiltrates the main servers,

    can shut down all vertabrane users.

    Killing the whole project.

    Uniformity means that if a defect is found in one,

    then it can be exploited in all of the models.

    i.e. a particular frequency may disable a unit.

    With finite-membership limits growth,

    and increases the amount of envy on the planet,

    which could also lead to problems.

    People must be able to join if they choose to.

    Centralization, Uniformity and finite membership are the opposite of the Open-Source model,

    So actually the described system was a robotically enhanced socialism.

    I already live in exactly the world described,

    chinese instead of robots, and minus the implants,

    though with all the same information through the internet

    If it was indeed open-source, then anyone could make their own “project australia”,

    with as much modification as they like, for instance some could have external tools,

    others could use robotic host-bodies, some could use hybrids.

    Diversity is a natural result of the open-source model.

    i.e. there are infinite Linux flavours or distributions.

    With distribution everyone could have their own fabrication-laboratory, garden,

    that way there aren’t any “deliveries” or they or over shorter distances,

    since every installation can produce their own products in their own way.

    That way, just like on linux,

    any attack only affects a small amount of users with the same software,

    wheras most people likely can have different software and hardware with the similar functionality.

    Also allows for more specialization, since can modify all the code,

    to use the materials and resources available to a particular environment.

    Generalists could be nomads that go through various kinds of environments.

    Another thing is that people should be able to calculate their own karma.

    Such as with barter calculation.

    Lets now brake down the value system:

    Everyone is equal

    this is false, attempting to enforce this goes against natrual selection.
    where the weak die and the fit reproduce more.

    Everything is reused

    could lead to a large amount of bloat.

    In nature all entities excrete fecal matter,

    yes it can be used as compost of fertilizer,

    Also limestone and sedimentary rock,

    are the product of waste-bodies piling up.

    Nothing is anonymous

    That’s poorly phrased,

    though I agree that all are aware,

    and allowed to record and keep their experiences.

    Nothing is owned

    In nature even biological cells have walls,

    and they own everything inside those walls,

    so territorialism is a completely intrinsic and necessary component,

    communities must own what they have in their communities,

    and be able to attain resources from anywhere they like.

    Tell the truth

    That’s highly limiting,

    as fictional stories aren’t true,

    neither are stories about anything not happening now.

    Forcing people to tell the truth, would disallow innovation.

    Do no harm

    This is merely impossible,

    eating food requires destruction of the food substance,

    which is cerainly harming it.

    I’d rephrase it as be karmically balanced.

    as in create as much or more than you consume.

    Obey the rules

    that would lead to uniformity,

    and may result in centralized attacks,

    which cause mass devastation.

    i.e. someone makes a rule promoting suicide.

    or a rule that is impossible to perform,

    and all get punished for not doing it.

    people must have the freedom to choose for themselves.

    as well as create their own communities with their own rules.

    for interoperability, there can be open-standards and protocols.

    such as TCP/IP, HTTP, HSPL or alternatives.

    HSPL or human-speakable-programming-language integrates meaning.

    Live your life

    that’s just a circular argument.

    experience be your experience.

    almost sounds like you’re not supposed to share.

    Better and better

    This is a highly vague phrase.

    Better is a very subjective thing.

    Anyhow so the values I propose instead:

    Here is a list of abilities, that be granted to all beings.

    Allow being to

    0. be none or do meditate or have nothing

    1. be aware or do sense or have body

    2. be addict or do satisfy or have desire

    3. be free or do choose or have options

    4. be stable or do contract or have goals

    5. be wise or do express or have knowledge

    6. be witch or do invent or have intuition

    7. be traveler or do move or have vehicle

    8. be local or do homestead or have home

    9. be planetary or do environmentalism

    or have global citizenship

    10. be star or do space-flight or have space-technology

    11. be diplomat or do negotiate or have galaxy

    12. be common or do intersect or have universe

    13. be accepted or do union or have multiverse

    14. be mixture or do mix or have mixverse

    15. be divine or do infinite or have eververse

    calm aware desire choice love express intuit move

    #12215
    Avatar of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    Poverty did not always exist it developed with agriculture and posession.

    Hunter and collector societies existed during a long time period without sharp social contrasts – technology might empower us in the end to come back to a society where “material possesion” means much less – as everybody has at hand what he needs and is free to develop his talents.

    I disagree. Even in hunter/gatherer collectives, some groups foraged better while others suffered. Within a single collective you had a powerful hunter who could bring in a bounty and a sickly person who depended on teh compassion of the collective. Occasionally that powerful hunter could become a cripple due to injury or bear mauling and go from abundance to poverty in a few days. It would be nice for technology to take care of our daily needs but history teaches me that technology just brings more needs to our lives than it often solves… “It is not we that ride upon the railroad but the railroad that rides upon us.”

    The kind of society we create has a lot to do with how people behave and act. Government is a tool to develop a society – i agree with the TSI base idea that there must be better ways to live together and a frontier to test it out peacefully.

    The fact that technology enables us now to produce food without owning land can mitigate many of the negative effects (poverty, wars,) that came with the transition from hunter collector societies to agriculture.

    I agree that Government is a tool to develop society. Society cannot exist without an authority structure in place. I also feel that we can do better than those who came before us, that seems to be the challenge of every generation and I would like to out-do those founding fathers who crafted the ‘great experiment’ that turned into the American Empire. Though I don’t put my faith in technology, I do believe that man’s ability to engage in agriculture has been improved (technology is just one of those improvements) to the point where we can do much with little.

    If we do it right we may come back to the nice idea of “All men are created equal…” “…pursuit of happiness….”

    Indeed.

    I can’t believe I’m asking this… Elspru… would you mind explaining you 16 points above (numbered 0-15)? I know it is designed to be concise but I don’t understand the thought (and in some cases the terms) behind it. I would like to understand what it is exactly that you believe. Since you post it openly on the forums, I figure it might as well go public. Maybe start a thread somewhere appropriate and detail what those abilities are in layman’s terms?

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #12222
    Avatar of Carl-Pålsson
    Carl-Pålsson
    Participant

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:

    Why would you LOVE robots? All they do is take jobs from humans. Because of that, millions of children are straving and dying as we speak.

    Quite the opposite.

    Robots are technology that make production more efficient.

    Thus, with robots, every person can produce more.

    Millions of children are indeed starving, but it is because of too few robots (too little industrialization), not too many.

    “Jobs” is not what we need. If more “jobs” would solve our problems we could just have everybody dig holes in the ground and fill them in again, over and over.

    The value we need more of is production.

    On a side note, when unemployment is high, one should not waste too much time looking for scarce jobs. It is better to create one yourself, i.e. start a business.

    #12237
    Avatar of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    Pastor_Jason wrote:

    “It is not we that ride upon the railroad but the railroad that rides upon us.”

    unless the railroad reproduces and maintains itself.

    as the case with replicating robot communities.

    I agree that Government is a tool to develop society.

    Government is a top-predator in a society.

    Though at the time it seems banking may prey on the government.

    Society cannot exist without an authority structure in place.

    food-chains always occur,

    they can in a variety of ways.

    Indeed.

    I can’t believe I’m asking this… Elspru… would you mind explaining you 16 points above (numbered 0-15)? I know it is designed to be concise but I don’t understand the thought (and in some cases the terms) behind it. I would like to understand what it is exactly that you believe. Since you post it openly on the forums, I figure it might as well go public. Maybe start a thread somewhere appropriate and detail what those abilities are in layman’s terms?

    have a thread on it here http://www.seasteading.org/interact/forums/research/philosophy-and-law/a-constitution

    calm aware desire choice love express intuit move

    #12238
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    I really lost track of why and when the statement was made…I have no clue who is “right” here. Do we really need more production? On a seastead? Or in general? And for what? To do what? Why should we produce more with help from robots while the childrens are starving? Regardless, with the way the population boom goes, I think in 10 years will be cheaper to hire 10 people rather then buying a robot.

    Maybe the value we need is not more capitalism but less.

    #12242
    Avatar of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    OCEANOPOLIS wrote:

    I really lost track of why and when the statement was made…I have no clue who is “right” here. Do we really need more production? On a seastead? Or in general? And for what? To do what?

    to reproduce the we with you, as in you and those with you and your living conditions.

    Why should we produce more with help from robots while the childrens are starving?

    Food is biological, it can be grown by other biologicals like humans quite easily.

    When it comes to technological things, like making metal and cement,

    technological machines can do it much more easily.

    Able to handle the conditions, and have the required precision.

    Regardless, with the way the population boom goes,

    I think in 10 years will be cheaper to hire 10 people rather then buying a robot.

    the point is that the robots can reproduce themselves,

    then we wont need to buy them. Can live symbiotically.

    Maybe the value we need is not more capitalism but less.

    Capitalism is about exchanging of items of value.

    I do agree that we should focus more on production and self-sufficiency.

    As nature is designed in the same way, with a fabrication laboratory in every cell.

    calm aware desire choice love express intuit move

    #12249
    Avatar of Matt
    Matt
    Participant

    Well I finally read it and it was mildly fun but so politically loaded that I couldn’t digest it well.

    First: Is there a Singularitarianism thread? Is this the first mention on the forum of robots replicating? (faster and faster) ?

    That said:

    @Wil, there was no poverty before settled civilization because the poor simply died while the rich simply survived and fed their offspring enough to survive.

    During settled, or sedentary civilization we see different level sof material wealth: Taking into account that Tutank-Amon died of a simple caries, that the creation of beer extended egyptians’ and babilonians’ lifespan for decades for the simple reason of drinking someting mildly aseptic; etc; I would contend that during most of historty all humans have lived in different degrees of abject poverty.

    @Elspru, good debunking! What kind of building material do you think one can make with Bull Excreta? Adobe?

    I would only add that people seemed freeer on the Terrafoam than in Project Australia. Maybe The Professor can clarify. You may notice how I used google to get the precise quote I wanted.

    And by the way? How come the moment they get into the Terrafoam they lose all electronic equipment? How are they controlled? Even cattle has. How do they have fun? Can people still whislte, and sing, and swim in the polluted river? Oh right, they do have a TV it seems but no other electronic or metal equip?

    On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car of his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite — just as it is today, but with two difference. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless the may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consist of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals. Ted Kackzynski

    #12252
    Avatar of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    Matt wrote:

    Well I finally read it and it was mildly fun but so politically loaded that I couldn’t digest it well.

    First: Is there a Singularitarianism thread?

    not sure. glad to see someone that knows the term :-).

    Is this the first mention on the forum of robots replicating? (faster and faster) ?

    Pretty sure I’ve mentioned it before.

    That said:

    .

    @Elspru, good debunking!

    I would only add that people seemed freeer on the Terrafoam than in Project Australia. Maybe The Professor can clarify. You may notice how I used google to get the precise quote I wanted.

    And by the way? How come the moment they get into the Terrafoam they lose all electronic equipment? How are they controlled? Even cattle has. How do they have fun? Can people still whislte, and sing, and swim in the polluted river? Oh right, they do have a TV it seems but no other electronic or metal equip?

    Ya we read the same manuscript.

    I’m not sure either of them are particularly free.

    The terraform was more overt version of oppression.

    Freedom of Movement is a basic ability.

    On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car of his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite

    ahem, in the hands of some very large brains,

    most likely also robotic or at least partially mechanical in nature.

    “elites” made of humans…

    sure, food-chains are natural.

    – just as it is today, but with two difference. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless the may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consist of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals. Ted Kackzynski

    That’s merely a description of the current society which is called Western Civilization.

    I’m suggesting neo-tribalism as an alternative.

    where every tribe can have their own “system”,

    or make their own state, government, business,

    allowing a diversity of opportunities for exploration.

    you get your independance,

    the historic elites get to calm down,

    since everyone is occupied with their own tribes.

    if they are truly elite, and smart enough,

    they can merge with machines,

    fabricate their own products,

    food foest their own food,

    making slaves superflous.

    though a tribe community,

    can largely satiate many control desires,

    and allow for a larger diversity of systems to be attempted.

    calm aware desire choice love express intuit move

    #12358
    Avatar of shredder7753
    shredder7753
    Participant

    i really cannot believe the utter disregard for technology that exists in this thread. some of these people think we are approaching a point where there is no turning back and we might rely on computers. WAKE UP. that happened already. i dont know when. but i cant even begin to imagine what would happen to civilization if every computer suddenly died in 2011 – and no new computers could ever be made. the majority of our people would be dead very quickly. our vehicles would stop (cars, trains, planes, buses, cargo ships -all of them). our factories would stop. our factory farms would stop. a large percent of all records in the last 10-20 years have been made with computers. police, military, government, schools, news organizations are all set up to run on computers in todays world. as soon as people run out of the food in their houses, we would be in for a mass starvation. after a few months/years the anarchy finally settles down. there will be people left, but they realize they are a lucky small percentage of the 7 billion that once comprised Gods creation.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

The forum ‘Structure Designs’ is closed to new topics and replies.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate