in Search
0 members online

Perdo

Communist Robot Manifesto

www.communistrobot.com

If not within our lifetime, than within the lifetime of our children there will be a revolution in robotics that will change every aspect of human society as we know it. Will we be ready for it? We are just now settling into the information age; enjoying the luxuries of the industrial revolution while sharing prosperity around the world, but in this age not everyone lives a life of luxury. Everyone can’t, because if everyone did who would clean the toilets? Who would do the farming? Who would make our Nike shoes? The prosperity of the modern world is dependent on the unfortunate unskilled workers living in poverty locally and throughout the world.

The rich of the world don’t physically labor; their work is to manage the resources they’ve attained that make them wealthy. Those resources, textiles or commodities are intrinsically dependent on the people paid to manufacture and distribute them. It is in the interest of the business owner to pay those people as little as possible to insure maximum returns and increase wealth. Obviously. Less obviously is the bare bones necessity of maintaining the monetary divide between wealth controlling business owners and the laboring masses. A business owner’s personal incentive for furthering financial growth is only a catalyst that preserves a more fundamentally important economic truth: The rich need the poor.

If you work out of necessity to support yourself you are poor. The middle class is just the fancy poor living in prosperous countries where even the poor are often richer than the richest of poor nations. The rich are dependent on the poor for their productive value, they need workers and the rich don’t labor so they need the poor to work for them. The poor spend their money buying the commodities the rich control, which means anything they were paid is just going back to their employer. Ultimately it’s not about the money; it’s about getting people to work for you.

Luckily for the rich, capitalism insures by design a margin of financial disproportion. This institutionalized economic disparity is known as the Pareto distribution or the 80–20 rule, which implies that a small fraction of the wealthiest people always possess a lions share of a countries riches. In the US, something approaching 80% of the wealth is held by 20% of the people, and the numbers are similar in Chile, Bolivia, Japan, South Africa and the nations of Western Europe. The margin of disparity is evident upon inspection of the United Nations 2005 Human Development Report which states that “The world’s richest 500 individuals have a combined income greater than that of the poorest 416 million. Beyond these extremes, the 2.5 billion people living on less than $2 a day—40% of the world’s population—account for 5% of global income. The richest 10%, almost all of whom live in high-income countries, account for 54%.”

This economic divide is inevitable because once a certain level of wealth is achieved economics ceases to be a measure of money and is instead a measure of people under your control. To the few wealth controlling individuals of the world money is used as an incentive to motivate the working class to fulfill their productive function, and by filling that roll of laborer the working class insures their financial standings will only ever reach the capitol ceiling established by their employer. This is the economic nature of the world in which we live, but change is in the winds.

Robots have been passively serving humanity and assisting the common laborer for over 40 years, but not until recently has the industry of robotics reached the point of viability for autonomous dynamically applicable automated production. Historically robots have worked behind the scenes as an extra hand on assembly lines, performing routine functions with greater efficiency than their human counterparts. Recently however, the robotics industry coupled with the powers of the rapidly developing computer industry is giving way to intelligent robots capable of performing complex tasks that involve direct human interaction. Robots are making their way from industrial to residential application, just as their computer counterparts did less than 30 years ago, and the potential ramifications of this transition are exponentially more momentous.

The dawn of autonomous robots is upon us! In 2004 The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) held a 100-mile autonomous robot race through the desert, no robots completed it. In 2005 five robots completed the DARPA Grand Challenge robot race. Since then autonomous robot technology has been developing at an extraordinary rate. Japan has several autonomous robots with functions ranging from personal entertainment to customer service. America is working on autonomous robotic supply trucks and reconnaissance vehicles, while China is aiming to apply autonomous robots to hazardous labor.

It is projected that by 2020 autonomous robots will reach the simulated intelligence of a monkey. That may not seem that smart, but it’s smart enough to do most labor intensive jobs when coupled with detailed routine programming. When robots are capable of mining their own resources and manufacturing their own parts the labor for their production will be free. When robots can ship and sell themselves their distribution will be free. The only charge required for their production would be the price of raw materials and the rent of the factory in which they were produced. From a capitalist prospective there is an enormous profit margin for business owners in an industry run this way, but it displaces countless workers.

When robots are capable of fulfilling all menial labor the divide between business owners and laborers will become outrageous. With business owners making total profit off every good produced by cutting out the cost of labor their wealth will sky-rocket while all of their former human laborers plummet into destitution as they find themselves unemployed. Yet the working class is also the consuming class, so if the working class looses its income the business owners loose their consumer market and the economy will collapse.

It is because of capitol incentive that industry has advanced as far as it has in the last one hundred years. The pursuit of the American dream has elevated Western society from the horse and carriage to sports cars and the space shuttle, all the while improving the local quality of living while outsourcing the unpleasant primary labor to underdeveloped countries. When robots become economically viable it will be due to the resourcefulness of modern industry and the driving power of Capitalism but the dilemma posed by fully implementing robots into every facet of industrial labor will prevent Capitalism from capitalizing on the true power of the robot revolution.

A Capitalist economy is not fit for autonomous robot industrialization. A Communist economy however is perfectly suited for the implementation of a fully robotic workforce. In a Communist economy the government controls industry and wealth distribution to insure that everyone is afforded basic amenities. Communism exists as a response to the disproportional wealth distribution of industrialized nations and functions better as an idealist philosophy than an actual economic system because it lacks the incentive of riches and glamour that compel development through Capitalism. Robots will change all of this.

Robots topple the infrastructure of Capitalism by displacing its most valuable asset: the common worker. Robots will empower Communist countries by lifting the burden of labor from their social structure and granting greater opportunities for education and scientific exploration.

The third world countries that conduct the outsourced labor of modern industrialized nations could potentially leapfrog the entire process of modern industry and implement autonomous robots with a Communist infrastructure, just as many underdeveloped countries skipped over implementing land-line phones in lieu of cell phones. Robots are the only means of industrialization capable of sustaining the world to allow everyone to live with the quality of living found in modern industrial nations, but modern industrial economic practices aren’t designed to handle an autonomous robot workforce.

In order for a Capitalist nation to survive the robot revolution two things need to happen. First, social and economic measures need to be taken immediately in preparation for autonomous robotic industrialization. Some form of compensation needs to be planned for workers displaced by robots to keep them from falling into total disparity and, conversely, steps need to be taken to insure that big businesses don’t have total control over the robotics industry. Robots aren’t simply an advanced form of computer, nor are they simply an evolution of the common machine. The significance of robots is of the same grandeur as nuclear energy. Robots can revolutionize industry beyond the need for human hands, but also possess the power if wielded unwisely to destroy mankind as we know it. That power should not be left for big business to handle unchecked, if at all.

The second thing a Capitalist nation needs to do to survive autonomous robots is develop them first. It is of the utmost importance that Capitalist nations develop autonomous robots before a Communist country does because if a Communist country implements a fully autonomous workforce before Capitalism is ready for it, the Capitalist economy will be flooded with goods manufactured for free by the Communist nation. This surplus of extremely cheap goods will wash away the Capitalist financial system making its economy crumble to the ground. A Capitalist human labor force is no match for Communist robots.

This is a warning. A warning that the economic system that affords the apathy to ignore it is in jeopardy. This article is not intended to persuade Capitalists to favor Communism. The Communist laborer of today is identical in many ways to the robots that will soon replace them. In it’s current state Communism demands a level of assimilation from its citizens that stifles creativity and limits civil liberties in a manor unbecoming of our modern age. The restrictions of religion and other personal beliefs as a form of social control imposed by modern Communism are not suitable for human-beings, though similar restrictions placed upon robots may prove necessary in the future to maintain control of our creations if their intelligence spawns insubordination. Ideally a robot labor force will lift the burden of intense assimilation from modern Communist nations as creativity will become significantly more valuable once manual labor is fully mechanized.

Though Communism has a better infrastructure for the implementation of an autonomous robot labor force it shares a common flaw with Capitalism in that it’s an economic model based on scarcity. Both Communism and Capitalism are modeled to deal with the economic problems of the past: supply and demand, the cost of labor, and the scarcity of resources. By assigning value to services and commodities based on the demand for their production and their difficulty to render modern economics has managed to get by, despite the surplus created by the efficiency of modern industry which nearly destroyed Capitalism during the Great Depression of the 1920’s. With the aid of government imposed economic regulations both Capitalism and Communism have managed to maintain acceptable levels of economic stability while grappling with the surplus created by modern industry, but neither system is designed to handle the extreme abundance afforded by robotic industrialization. An alternative form of economics designed to distribute abundance, something akin to the North American economic science of Technocracy, is better suited for a robot assisted future.

The entire world, all of humanity, can be elevated to live a life of luxury with robots doing all the industrial labor. With menial labor taken care of, education and creative endeavors would become precedent, freeing humanity to develop its greatest faculty: the human mind. This social reform into a utopian state is only possible with the proper implementation of robots. It should be the goal of every able minded individual to curve the world towards this robot revolution. Even before robotic technology reaches economic viability social reform is needed to insure that people know the benefits of robotic industrialization. This is a call for humanity to advance, just as we’ve advanced from caves to homes, as we’ve risen out of feudalism and forged Democracy, as we’ve gone from manpower to horse power to machine power. It is time for a new age, the culmination of everything learned and done before it, and the end of human labor. Oppression, inequity, war, poverty, these can be things of the past with the proper implementation of robotic industrialization. The full realization of humanity is upon us, it is time to advance!

www.communistrobot.com

Published Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:43 PM by Perdo

Comment Notification

Join or sign in to track comments

Comments

 

ideal wrote on June 28, 2006 4:00 AM

This is the one thing about advancing tech that I am less than optimistic about.  I foresee major problems in the US as many of the wealthy of this nation a) often ascribe to the more McCarthyist views and b) seem to think(from what I've seen) that the poor are beneath them and not deserving of assistance.
 

Mr. Farlops wrote on June 28, 2006 5:37 AM

By the way Perdo, very cool site!

I'd be the first to admit that capitalism is only marginally more efficient than socialism. But in truth I have much to dislike in either way of organizing economies--basically any economy with humans in it is going to be a very messy one. Socialist or market, people are going to make bad decisions and people are going to be get hurt because it.

I don't see how pervasive automation is going to eliminate poverty. My skepticism is based on my reading of history. It seems that as every endeavor grows more productive with the introduction of technology and automation, there follows a wave of displacement as people migrate to new industries and new areas of the changing economy. I wonder if we are running out of areas to migrate to. Are we? Or are the areas that can't be automated, say entertainment or artistic ones, only able to support a small number of people to start with.

I'm both thrilled and disturbed to see these advances in robotics. I'm thrilled because one day they will free the people of China, Brazil, India and other parts of the developing world from the hellish working conditions they now labor under. I'm disturbed because I wonder what these people will do to pay their bills.

In the post-industrial world, thanks to techology, many of the necessities of life are already very cheap, yet poverty persists. Why?
 

dagon wrote on June 28, 2006 12:14 PM

This is a serious issue and as I suggested in earlier blogs on this site, has the potential to be very disruptive.

There may be hope but the reason for my hope has its own dangers.

In the near future, especially after 2020, we may see a marked devaluation of all basic amenities because of automation and nanofabrication. This will reduce the costs of living for the underclasses.

But the basic premise holds: in a world filled with militant prejudice against wellfare, sharing resources and contempt for the poor and marginal, the number of options to strike back, using terrorism, organized crime, vandalism or psychotic hate crimes is increasing, probably faster than the law will be able to keep up.

One need only to look at the completely antisocial attitudes of international hackers, spammers and disseminators of computer viruses. These are the first of a new breed of completely immoral predators who will use technology to attack, corrupt and exploit. Sooner rather than later these kinds of people will cause deaths. Sooner rather than later these organizations will take on a militant ideological bent that seeks out some available niche that is fundamentally at odds with western liberal democracy.

Robotization will come and is good. However if the damned rich elites insist holding on to whatever they got, at any cost, the consequences may be horrible. I advocate politicians to start thinking hard about guaranteeing a minimum standard of life for everyone - to avoid catastrophe.

Unfortunately this goes straight against the grain of neoconservatism and current US policies. VERY very scary.
 

Astromancer wrote on June 28, 2006 1:01 PM

 I like Perdo's essay, myself, I'm a socialist, democratic socialist, and a technophilic optomist, but I fear the transitions.  We so downrated reason and compassion in the last few decades, Heidegger,Wittgensten,Sartre, Lacan, Foucault, and Derrida, are our modern lights of phillosophy. It's a dark age indeed.

   The deeper hreat to Perdo's vision is Status Anixety. Propose that I come up with a suite of technologies, high-grade flexible robots, safe powerful nanotech, anti-gravity and FTL drives, cheap safe fusion, teching machines that can download knowledge and skills into any human or near human brain, and bio-tech more advanced than even the wildest preditions would have promoted for the year 2500, what would remain scarce? Power over others and the recognition of being #1.

Southern Italy has failed to achive any serious ecconomic growth in decades, inspite of Northern Italy spending large amounts of their tax dollars on development projects and education. Why no growth? The Mafia wants to continue to be the dominant power in southern Italy. They reason that if ambitious young men don't need to become members of the Mafia to get ahead, they'll go elsewhere. The Mafia chooses its power over the welfare of their neighbors.

If you have a post scarsity ecconomy, those whose lives are built around controling scarce reasources, whose dignity is based on others being subordinate to them, will have no lives. The rich care less for their luxuries than for the fact they have what others merely long for and can't have.

I see robotics as vital to humanity's liberation, but it will be a bitter struggle.
 

Perdo wrote on June 28, 2006 6:37 PM

I’ve always thought that technology is advancing much faster than humanity is socially and ethically prepared for. North America and the greater nations of Asia and Europe have made tremendous moral advancements over the last 50 years in the wake of WWII and the conflicts of the Cold War (the Korean and Vietnam War, as well as countless other civil wars fought between Communist and Capitalist parties). Blood feuds that raged for centuries have been buried, war between these great nations is almost unthinkable now, and instead they challenge each other economically though the benefit of world trade. All of this is great, this is progress and it’s the direction we need to be moving in, but its scary to think that even here in the US racial segregation was still common as recently as 40 years ago, Nuclear weapons were invented before we desegregated our schools.

I believe that robots are a technological advancement very similar to nuclear power and that if humanity isn’t responsible with this technology we may find ourselves in a very dangerous place. Just as we are constantly struggling to prevent aggressive impoverished countries like North Korea or Iraq from developing a nuclear weapons program, will we be forced to watch over them to prevent them from making a militant robotics program? The people of the world need to be socially elevated to the point where nationalism is represented by productivity and trade instead of death and war, before we reach the point of intelligent war machines. I would much rather see robots used as the backbone for industrial labor and development than as merchants of death and destruction.

Another humongous stumbling block is the displacement of  “lower class” manual laborers by robots or robotic systems. Capitalism isn’t designed to distribute abundance and will have a very difficult time in the near future as production reaches a level of super efficiency due to robotic advancements. I recently discovered a very interesting alternate economic system called Technocracy, its been around for over 40 years and has a lot of good solutions to problems we will facing in our near future. Check it out at http://www.technocracy.org
 

Mr. Farlops wrote on June 28, 2006 8:05 PM

I think what happens is that technology keeps changing the scale by which poverty is judged. Wealth is actually a pretty recent development in human history. It emerged with the rise of agriculture and pastoralism.

The rich of past actually had it pretty bad, living in drafty castles, living with rotting teeth, gout and failing vision, requiring huge numbers of indentured servents to maintain the illusion that they had it better than the peasents. But in a real sense they were better off than the peasents that surrounded them.

But were they better off than working poor people in post-industrial countries today? A person in trailer park or housing project can buy a cheap television and be entertained in a way that a European landed baron of the Middle Ages would envy. Junk food is bad for you but it is cheap and tasty. If you don't mind wearing cast offs from thrift stores, you can clothe yourself very cheaply.

Getting a place to stay is still hard but not impossible if you're willing to sacrifice personal dignity and self-respect. Live with your parents, live with friends, live in housing projects or trailer parks. There is a stigma attached to these ways of life but it is doable. My question is where does this stigma come from. A cheap, shoddy mobile home has electricity to keep you warm or cool and, in some ways, is better than the drafty castle of the baron but why do we view it as cheap and shoddy?

I think what happens is that we keep rescaling. You're poor if you don't have car, don't have computer, don't have a broadband connection, don't have a DVR, don't have a job where you can telecommute etc. etc.

But there were times in the past where not even the rich had these things.

And what also happens is as the rest of society changes to adopt these new technologies it grows harder and harder to stay involved if you can't afford these things. Not having a car strongly limits the kind of work you can do. Not having a computer strongly limits your educational options. Not having a mobile phone limits the kind of work you can do and can lead to threats to your safety. The luxuries become necessities.

So the scale keeps changing. If nanotech makes cars as cheap as potatos are now, does that really deal with the scaling issue?

It suggests to me that if nanotech makes keeping and buying cars as cheap as allowable by physics all that means is that the rich will have personal spaceships and the poor will be left to wallow in the economic backwater that the Earth will one day become.

We can already buy decent used computers for a hundred bucks and Linux or DOS (Yes, there are graphical DOS web browsers! http://home.arachne.cz/) as an operating system and pay 20 dollars a month for dailup access to the Internet. Reducing that cost buy a factor of a hundred or a thousand isn't going to solve the problem because the same technology that makes this possible will also make new luxuries possible.

Making gadgets cheap isn't the whole solution.
 

EschewObfuscation wrote on June 28, 2006 10:13 PM

Mr. Farlops, I'm surprised you didn't connect the dots and mention "personal dignity and self-respect" as one thing that the rich always find easier to get than the poor. This has tangible effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_deprivation
 

Mr. Farlops wrote on June 29, 2006 12:26 AM

Eschew, relative deprivation is *exactly* the sort of thing I'm talking about.

The other thing is that most people want to feel like they're engaged in a productive activity that society or their families value and that this activity be fairly compensated in some way. Not everyone wants to be staggeringly rich. Many people just want to live comfortably and have a few, not necessary *all*, options open to them.

Many people would like to see the ambitious be rewarded even if they are not ambitious themselves. The problem is values, especially prices and payments, are ultimately arbitrary. This means that coal miners and fire fighters, under frequent threat of death and injury, get a decent wage but CEOs of large corporations who are essentially glorified accountants and managers get paid enormous sums.

Of course flipping this on it's head, where coal miners are millionaires and CEOs are thousandaires, won't work either.

Like I say it's a very, very tough problem. Passing all the boring work to robots and nanofacs won't be enough to fix it either.
 

GrimJim wrote on June 29, 2006 10:50 AM

Even if robotics were to make the manufacture of goods ridiculously cheap, we'd still face scarcity due to other constraints in the supply-chain pipeline.  Energy.  Raw materials.  Environmental impact.
 

ideal wrote on June 29, 2006 6:11 PM

I'm going to have to disagree there.  We have a false scarcity in the current market maintained by government grants for the destruction of goods.  It's the only thing that keeps the current system running.
 

Perdo wrote on June 29, 2006 6:22 PM

It is inescapable that there will always be only one Mona Lisa, or that only so many people can live comfortably in the San Francisco bay area, and that this form of scarcity will always be with us. But scarcity of this form is acceptable, once industry reaches a point of super efficiency and robots make our goods, farm and prepare our food, build our houses, and repair each other, virtually every modern necessity can be essentially free. This leaves humans to pursue scientific, philosophic, and artistic endeavors. We will need lots of engineers to advance technology, I can see self help and personal wellness being a commodity in the future, and of course the value of unique hand made goods will greatly increase once standardized robot made goods become common place.

As Mr. Farlops said “technology keeps changing the scale by which poverty is judged.” Just as “poor Americans” living in trailer parks have better living conditions than ancient Kings and Queens, when industry reaches a point of super efficiency the poor of the future will have the luxuries afforded only to the rich today.

There may never be a total resolution of scarcity, certain things have limits, but by improving our methods of distribution EVERYONE, should be able to eat freely, own nice things, have free time, and travel at leisure.

The thing is though, when I say “the future” I mean in 50 years. That means in order to make the social changes required to have this idealistic future possible by the time technology could allow it people need to really start getting motivated to advance. That is the greater dilemma, technology will progress, but its hard to get people ready for it.
 

' + title + ' - ' + basename(imgurl) + '(' + w + 'x' + h +') (Trackback) wrote on June 29, 2006 9:20 PM

 

Mr. Farlops wrote on June 30, 2006 7:04 AM

Perdo wrote, "That is the greater dilemma, technology will progress, but its hard to get people ready for it."

Yes, there is the whole problem of social inertia. Politics takes time. Negotiation takes time, Retraining takes time, And so on and so on.

But there is another thing we have to think about here. Perdo mentions it here:

http://www.communistrobot.com/index.php?page=&nav=1&article=1

The pareto distribution.

It seems that every time we invent something and tout it as the great equalizer, network effects give us the power law curve again. 20% of the websites and blogs get 80% of the links. 20% of the radio stations get 80% of the listeners. And so on and so on.

Is there anyway to break free from this mathematical certainty? Is there some kind of way to change the whole system to give us something more gaussian?

And is that really good? Will our efforts to break the power law suddenly destroy innovation and social novelty. Will our society stagnate if we're all mostly happy with our lot in life?
 

Peregryn wrote on July 1, 2006 11:57 AM

I think you fail to take into account in your prediction the fact that our modern post-industrial economy is exactly that, POST-industrial.  Sure the production of goods and resources is important and employs a lot of people.  But you have to realize that it is the service sector that is the largest, with skilled labour, proffesionals, and white-collared office jockeys that make up a far larger portion of the population than do producers.  Were every unskilled labourer to lose their job tommorow to robots there would simply not be enough of them to effectively cause the overthrowal of our current system.  They would be a major problem, but not unsolveable, although, I'd imagine some amount of change would result from their displacement.  There is also the fact that there is alreadya trend in the producing industries that is reducing the number of workers employed by them all the time that in 50 years I would imagine that there are maybe less than half the number of such workers than today as it is.  The reason for this, the robotic 'revolution' started about 20 years ago and has been moving along steadily ever since.  The transition is already beggining and by using logic and a sense of the economy that started becoming out of date as early as 50 years ago in some countries has prevented you from seeing the truth of the matter.  Robotics and automationa re already being dealt with and the solution is already taking shape.  The most important changes always happen so slow as to not be noticed by most.
 

Perdo wrote on July 4, 2006 3:21 PM

Industrialization and outsourcing has reduced primary-industry in the United States to only 2%, while secondary-industry, the manufacturing of goods, still accounts for 23% of employment in the United States. If I was proposing that robots would be capable of take all factory jobs within the next 30 years then that would leave 25% of Americans unemployed, seeing as how the great depression was caused by a 20% unemployment rate that should be a cause for alarm. However I’m not proposing that robots could take all our factory jobs by 2040, I believe that robots will be capable of performing service industry work by 2050. The service industry, particularly restaurants and retail stores, are Americas largest employers, accounting for 70% of employment in the United States. Interestingly enough, earlier this week robots made their first significant break into the restaurant business with a program called Hyperactive Bob. I have a news article covering the technology and its potential ramifications on my site -

http://www.communistrobot.com/viewblog.php?id=135

A 70-90% unemployment rate is defiantly something to be concerned by.

Peregryn – “The transition is already beginning and by using logic and a sense of the economy that started becoming out of date as early as 50 years ago in some countries has prevented you from seeing the truth of the matter.”

I’m not sure if you’re referring to Capitalism or Communism here, but I’m going to assume that you think Capitalism works perfectly and Communism is the Devil. Industrialization and the concept of the assembly line nearly destroyed Capitalism in the 1920s. That same industrialization that was wrecking America made the fabrication of incredible war machines and munitions that fueled WWI and WWII possible, and those wars are what saved Americas economy. Communism was invented as a response to the uneven wealth distribution caused by the industrial revolution and the Capitalist economic system. Communists believed that technology was sufficiently advanced that it could support an organized society with an equal distribution of wealth that would ultimately be a classless utopia. They were wrong, technology wasn’t nearly advanced enough to support people conformably without making tremendous sacrifices to verity and innovation.

With government regulation and subsidization Capitalism has managed to get by for over half a century but there is about to be a new “industrial revolution”.  As the last revolution almost completely removed people from the burden of primary industry, this new robotic revolution will reduce secondary industry by the same margins – and extend itself into tertiary industry as well. I believe that under these conditions Communism will get a second wind, especially because according to the same timeline Communist China is expected to outpace the United States as the worlds largest consumer by 2040.

I suppose we can assume that all of this will somehow work out well for the United States and that our position as the world’s most prosperous country isn’t by any means in jeopardy, but I don’t agree that important changes happen slowly. I can’t think of any important gradual changes, unless you lump the last 200 years of rapid progress into one ball called “gradual change”.
Join or sign in to post a comment
Submit

About Perdo

When you are born you are given one life, this life is regarded as the most important thing in the world. It will be stretched to its limits and treated with all the luxuries it can afford. If someone is given a single dollar and told to use it wisely normally they dont care too much and squander it without hesitation. If someone is given 6 billion dollars they will be overwhelmed with joy and are much more likely to make intelligent financial decisions. Its odd that people value a single life so much and a single dollar so little yet we spend most of our lives working to attain money and ignore the prospects in the people around us. Life is more valuable than money and its a far more useful commodity. There are roughly 6 billion people in the world, use them wisely. I’m making an effort to draw attention to robots and the technological, economic, and political effects they will have on our near future. For more information check out www.communistrobot.com
Advertise | Help | Contact | About | Terms | Privacy | Copyright © 2007 Betterhumans | Powered by Community Server | Partners:
World Transhumanist Association Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies Immortality Institute Methuselah Mouse Prize Foresight Institute Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Lifeboat Foundation