Is Socialism inevitable?

[IndyColtsFan]

To piggyback on this... some of us take jobs that aren't fulfilling in the work because they are fulfilling in that we take care of our families.

I'm mid-transition into what I hope will be a job that I will find more satisfying in the work AND take care of my family financially, but those opportunities are rare.

My philosophy is that a job is the means to an end, not the end itself. I'd rather take a job I didn't love over a job I would love if it meant I could support my family more easily and provide a higher standard of living.

bshole loves software engineering. That's great. Now, imagine if you could have the time and luxury of sitting at home and working on software engineering projects YOU enjoy rather than projects dictated to you by your company? No project managers, no endless meetings, etc - you're free to design and build your own software on your own terms and have fun doing it. That's the big picture I'm talking about.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Why is it so hard to imagine that someone could have a meaning for existence that isn't their job? I am an engineer as well and like it well enough but I would find it pretty sad if it was my entire meaning for existence. If I could make the same money without coming into work, I would spend my time raising horses, playing classical piano, biking and hiking in the middle of nowhere ... maybe even building, coding, or working on a new mathematical idea. You know, engineering and science without being required to do it.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I'd travel the world. I'd take part in some amateur archaeological projects. I'd enroll in history and philosophy classes just for the fun of it. I'd tinker with my network at home, take some programming classes, and maybe design some electronics to play with. I've had several people tell me I should write a book - maybe I'd have the time to do that too!

 

[Jhhnn]

Help me understand. Why would anyone want to work if they're going to have the same compensation as someone who doesn't work?

If the government decided tomorrow to pay every US citizen an amount equivalent to my salary every year, regardless of whether you work or not, I wouldn't be able to quit my job fast enough.

You're reading a lot into that. I was talking about the word "much". The huge differences of today aren't justified by work or value but rather by ownership.

 

[bshole]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I'd travel the world. I'd take part in some amateur archaeological projects. I'd enroll in history and philosophy classes just for the fun of it. I'd tinker with my network at home, take some programming classes, and maybe design some electronics to play with. I've had several people tell me I should write a book - maybe I'd have the time to do that too!

Um that's right. I actually don't really have hobbies. I guess it is pretty sad that I have more fun at work that at home. I am actually terrified of retiring.

I will say that I LOVE watching youtube videos discussing religion, atheism SJWs, etc.... I particularly like Sargon of Akkad, Thunderfoot, Potholer, Bearing, Armored Skeptic, etc... I think it would be interesting to make videos about such topics.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Um that's right. I actually don't really have hobbies. I guess it is pretty sad that I have more fun at work that at home. I am actually terrified of retiring.

I will say that I LOVE watching youtube videos discussing religion, atheism SJWs, etc.... I particularly like Sargon of Akkad, Thunderfoot, Potholer, Bearing, Armored Skeptic, etc... I think it would be interesting to make videos about such topics.

You only have one life to live and you should do what makes you happy. Whether that's getting drunk all day and watching Gilligan's Island reruns, or if that's digging up medieval sites in Europe, meditating and writing, or anything else, it is entirely up to you.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

You're reading a lot into that. I was talking about the word "much". The huge differences of today aren't justified by work or value but rather by ownership.

Define "much."

 

[Zaap]

Newsflash, a lot of aspects of our society are already socialized. Do you call the police? Or do you call your private security? Do you call the fire department? Or do you have a company you pay for fighting your fires? Do you drive on public roads? Heard of the military? How about public libraries? The post office? National parks? A variety of museums, etc.? What about student loans that are gov't backed? How about most jails/prisons? Public parks? Beaches? All those damn street lights? National Weather Service? USDA? National monuments? (State monuments, city/town monuments?) There are probably hundreds of things that are for the common good that are socialized in this country. Stop acting like most of it isn't for the better of our society.

GOVERNMENT does not equal socialism. Militaries have been a function of nations since... forever. Making and enforcing laws is a function of any organized society, has been since the dawn of civilization.

It's funny how leftists think that paying taxes is just to give politicians spending money.

IF people actually get a service back from what they pay for then "OMG!! SOCIALISM!!!!"


That's not to say some things aren't actually socialized- but the dumb lists leftloons compile which are just "IF there's actually a government FUNCTION other than to make politicians swim in money = socialism" is just fucking stupid.

 

[repoman0]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I'd travel the world. I'd take part in some amateur archaeological projects. I'd enroll in history and philosophy classes just for the fun of it. I'd tinker with my network at home, take some programming classes, and maybe design some electronics to play with. I've had several people tell me I should write a book - maybe I'd have the time to do that too!

You're making me want to quit my job

 

[flexy]

Help me understand. Why would anyone want to work if they're going to have the same compensation as someone who doesn't work?

If the government decided tomorrow to pay every US citizen an amount equivalent to my salary every year, regardless of whether you work or not, I wouldn't be able to quit my job fast enough.

Question.

Do you, or anyone else, see it as impossible and inconceivable that *everyone* gets a basic income - respective *everyone's* basic needs (healthcare, housing, food etc.) are being taken care of?

Any other money/earnings would be towards "living better", but no human should have to worry about a place to live, food and medical care.

YES, this is (sadly) still utopian, but to me the current system where people need to work literally JUST TO LIVE is even more absurd.

It is the more astonishing that the attempts to create a "socialist" (or communist even) society where people's BASIC needs are "taken care off" all failed.

Sorry, it is not normal that people spend thousands per month for, say, just renting some shack to live in some area like SF..how absurd is this?

** And here we get back to the idea of "basic income", this works of course only when literally only the basics are covered. There is still the incentive that people want to work...and I mean literally "WANT" to work, not "have to work" to be able to pay rent, food or a doctor.

 

[sm625]

IQ isn't inherited,

I can cite several studies and articles.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/07/iq-is-mostly-inherited-new-research-suggests/

 

[sm625]

Only low IQ people classify other people by IQ level.

Do you have any facts to back up that argument?

 

[Jhhnn]

Define "much."

Although I didn't phrase it as a question that's what I wanted wolfe to define. If I get the job & 8 others go without, should I have twice their purchasing power? If I'm a hedge fund manager who earns 20,000 times what an average worker earns, have I really worked that much harder or created that much value for society?

 

[MajinCry]

I defer to Steve Hughes on this matter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4-3TKy2A28

 

[dullard]

I can cite several studies and articles.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/07/iq-is-mostly-inherited-new-research-suggests/

Are you seriously saying that because parenting had little effect on IQ, that IQ must be passed down genetically by the parents? I could make a study that shows the color of my food has little effect on the language you speak, thus the language you speak must be genetic! Or maybe your "logic" is missing.

It isn't an either-or issue. Thus disproving one doesn't prove the other.

Heritability of IQ is roughly in the 20% to 60% range. Which means there is a slight tendency for high IQ parents to have a higher than average IQ, but the IQ is usually lower than the parents. The heritability value is not high enough for IQ to keep rising with subsequent generations. You can't keep cross breeding high IQ people and form a super-child. Instead, with heritability levels that low, you get the reversion to the mean. Keep cross breeding high IQ people and after several generations you generally get average IQ children.

The reverse is true for low IQ parents. Keep cross breading them and after a few generations you'll have average IQ children.

High IQ and low IQ are more random than heritable. Two low IQ parents can have a very high IQ child. And the reverse is true too.

 

[glenn1]

Question.

Do you, or anyone else, see it as impossible and inconceivable that *everyone* gets a basic income - respective *everyone's* basic needs (healthcare, housing, food etc.) are being taken care of?

Any other money/earnings would be towards "living better", but no human should have to worry about a place to live, food and medical care.

YES, this is (sadly) still utopian, but to me the current system where people need to work literally JUST TO LIVE is even more absurd.

It is the more astonishing that the attempts to create a "socialist" (or communist even) society where people's BASIC needs are "taken care off" all failed.

Sorry, it is not normal that people spend thousands per month for, say, just renting some shack to live in some area like SF..how absurd is this?

** And here we get back to the idea of "basic income", this works of course only when literally only the basics are covered. There is still the incentive that people want to work...and I mean literally "WANT" to work, not "have to work" to be able to pay rent, food or a doctor.

Absurd? It's one of the basic premises of socialism. Per Lenin: "The socialist principle, 'He who does not work shall not eat', is already realized. Hell if the progressive people in this thread got their wish for socialism they'd be the very bourgeoisie who would be the first shot under the new socialist regime. A true socialist would have no use for their lazy asses who just want someone else to bankroll their idleness.

 

[michal1980]

Question.

Do you, or anyone else, see it as impossible and inconceivable that *everyone* gets a basic income - respective *everyone's* basic needs (healthcare, housing, food etc.) are being taken care of?

Any other money/earnings would be towards "living better", but no human should have to worry about a place to live, food and medical care.

YES, this is (sadly) still utopian, but to me the current system where people need to work literally JUST TO LIVE is even more absurd.

It is the more astonishing that the attempts to create a "socialist" (or communist even) society where people's BASIC needs are "taken care off" all failed.

Sorry, it is not normal that people spend thousands per month for, say, just renting some shack to live in some area like SF..how absurd is this?

** And here we get back to the idea of "basic income", this works of course only when literally only the basics are covered. There is still the incentive that people want to work...and I mean literally "WANT" to work, not "have to work" to be able to pay rent, food or a doctor.

name a living thing that doesn't have to work to live?

 

[Darwin333]

I fear you're turning this into an "Us vs Them" mentality when it's not. The large majority of the working population that does have value today may not have value in the future when an ai can do very nearly every job for less. It's even possible that that 20% thrown out there might even be significantly smaller, perhaps none at all will have economic value if we reach a point where an ai can think and do even deeply specialized tasks better and faster than a human that takes years to educate.

Basically I'm asking if technology could reach a point where business sense would eventually dictate an ai drone is always a better value for the money when compared to even the most hard working and responsible of human beings.

Shrug, if we reach a point in which 90% of the jobs can be done cheaply by robots and AI stuff should be so ridiculously cheap and abundant that providing for everyone won't be a problem.

 

[Jeff7]

God this ANNOYING black & white thinking...of (mostly) you Americans.
Isn't there more than "Capitalism vs. Socialism"?

Yes there is, Europe is practicing it for ages already.
Your American, "wild" capitalism is obviously not "fine as it is", unless you support that corporates can do what they want and THEIR PROFIT (not the well-being of everyone else in society) is not a priority.
...

Too often, I think the attitude here in the US is "Fuck you, I've got mine," where "you" can be other individuals specifically, or else society as a whole. Some individuals hold themselves up on a pedestal as the mightiest and grandest thing in existence, and everything else can and should suffer as needed for their benefit.

By pure coincidence I am currently reading Michio Kaku's "The Future of the Mind", currently the chapter about AI and robots.

It makes me realize how incredibly far we are still from actual AI, or at least AI that would deserve this name. We're not as enthusiastic and optimistic anymore about creating real, thinking and conscious "robots" as we've been some decades ago.

(The most advanced robots we have today are still far inferior to even the tiniest bug)

For now.
A human brain also contains a huge number of neurons with numerous interconnections each, in a configuration that's been honed by millions of years of evolution. We've had transistors for several decades, and transistors weren't really intended to lead to intelligence. They were meant to replace vacuum tubes to make machines that could do math.

We've found since then that collecting masses of conditional statements can lead to something that could potentially be "intelligent," which is pretty good progress considering what the devices were originally intended to do.

Sort of like neurons, actually. They're just specialized cells. Mass enough of them together in the right way, and you can get some interesting emergent properties.

Shrug, if we reach a point in which 90% of the jobs can be done cheaply by robots and AI stuff should be so ridiculously cheap and abundant that providing for everyone won't be a problem.

That's something that can often get overlooked in discussions of AI. It doesn't need to be human-level intelligent to be disruptive. It just needs to be intelligent enough.
Maybe you've built a computer that can analyze 400 trillion variables and is able to predict the behavior of certain market sectors in the stock market 15 seconds in advance with 85% accuracy. Or a computer that is able to analyze medical data and cell samples and make more accurate diagnoses than any human doctor. These systems might still be unable to navigate their way out of an empty hallway, but they'd still be very disruptive. ("Disruptions" can in this sense be good or bad. Transistors were very disruptive to factories that primarily manufactured vacuum tubes. Incandescent lightbulbs were disruptive to manufacturers of candles.)

 

[Tequila]

This world needs a Richard Valentine to cull the world and start over.

Ooohh I can hear him queuing up the V-Day tune now..

Everybody wants you
Everybody wants your love
I'd just like to make you mine all night
Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na
Baby give it up
Give it up
Baby give it up!

 

[glenn1]

Shrug, if we reach a point in which 90% of the jobs can be done cheaply by robots and AI stuff should be so ridiculously cheap and abundant that providing for everyone won't be a problem.

"Providing for" the poor is not the problem and we already do that now with dozens of social welfare programs. The real problem is that doing so has enabled those poor to further ratchet up their level of dysfunction, criminality, and self-destructive behaviors to unprecedented levels. And the urban progressives who are deathly afraid of those ghetto poor want to give them even more bread and circuses to prevent an imaginary prole revolt. Screw that, you created this feral behavior in the first place by your well intended but wrongheaded policy. The answer to creating monsters isn't to set out even more monster food.

 

[bshole]

"Providing for" the poor is not the problem and we already do that now with dozens of social welfare programs. The real problem is that doing so has enabled those poor to further ratchet up their level of dysfunction, criminality, and self-destructive behaviors to unprecedented levels. And the urban progressives who are deathly afraid of those ghetto poor want to give them even more bread and circuses to prevent an imaginary prole revolt. Screw that, you created this feral behavior in the first place by your well intended but wrongheaded policy. The answer to creating monsters isn't to set out even more monster food.

We all know the answer is to provide them jobs. Unfortunately we don't have any to provide. Those have been shipped over seas. So we can't give them jobs and Glenn has stated that we shouldn't give them food either. I suspect strongly what Glenn wants us to do to them but I would like him to state it overtly. Glenn, there are no jobs for these people, what should be done?

 

[Darwin333]

So sorry folks, it's not society's job to create purpose for you by providing some pointless "dig a hole and fill it back in" job just so you can feel you have value. Go make yourself actually valuable by doing the hard work to be scientists, artists, innovators - your value will remain in the future AI world because your value isn't tied to someone else giving you a sense of value just because they pay you for some make work.

Just to play devils advocate. There are 7.4 billion people in the world. Are you either implying that all of them can be scientists, artists, innovators or are you implying those that can't can go fuck themselves and starve?

 

[Darwin333]

We don't give equity in our current economy for 3rd world folks in Africa and other places that sit around and wait for a missionary to build them a well,

You honestly believe that 3rd worlders in Africa are just sitting around and waiting for some missionary to come dig them a well???? I'd bet dollars to donuts that those people work a hell of a lot harder than you do. Sure their "monetary value" might not be has high as our 1st world economy puts on you but they are busy providing their families with unimportant stuff like food and water.

Some of the poor bastards have to walk 10 miles just to get dirty water and then have to carry said water back 10 friggen miles. Water is pretty damn heavy too. Not to mention potentially having to deal with warlords more horrific then your worst nightmares and if they do hope that they "just" rape the shit out of them instead of kill their entire family, except for their very young son who they might conscript into their insane and fucked up forces. Nothing like forcing an 8 year old into some ethnic cleansing in the most horrific of ways to ensure they have a well adjusted upbringing. Yeah, those are some lazy bastards.

 

[glenn1]

Just to play devils advocate. There are 7.4 billion people in the world. Are you either implying that all of them can be scientists, artists, innovators or are you implying those that can't can go fuck themselves and starve?

I don't need to imply, that's already what we do. We already tell most Africans to go fuck themselves and starve and ditto for most other 3rd world nations. It's only when they misbehave we go in there to bomb the shit outta them for a while until we get bored and leave them to rot again in their fresh crater decorated squalor. Or when some catastrophe like a flood or earthquake happens that forces photos of starving kids onto TV news that we grudgingly give them a few million in aid to make the photos go away so we can go back to ignoring them.

We're smart enough not to give welfare to some sub-Saharan or Middle Eastern cesspools exhibiting the worst of humanity in tribalism and violence because we know it would be counterproductive and wasted money. So why do we then think we should give welfare money to those people in this country exhibiting the worst of humanity in tribalism and violence?

 

[swamplizard]

Greetings,

For those interested in intelligence quotients please check out this site:

http://multipleintelligencesoasis.org/