Tomorrow all the unemployed?

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by chatelot16 » 29/05/18, 22:32

I do not agree at all !

when a ground vehicle has a fault just stop ... when an airplane has an engine failure you have to switch to glider mode, and I have little hope that an automatic system can make the right decision, while many real pilots knew how to do it

many accidents were avoided thanks to a real team of pilot! one who holds the handle and the other who seeks solutions and finds them! a driver alone can not do anything in case of big problem

finally we have to see the statistics ... the accident avoided by the prowess of the pilots may be negligible, and we could say that when a single pilot and the available automatisms are not enough it's the fault is not luck and that makes an acceptable accident in the acceptable standards ... it is necessary to say that to the customers to see if they agree ... to see if they prefer the low price or the security

those who want both the low price and security, I send them kicking in the ass because you can not have both butter and penny ... and the ass of the creamer
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by Ahmed » 29/05/18, 23:03

Many aircraft accidents are attributable to human errors (poor parameter appreciation). In a context where automation would be total, and not partial as is currently the case, security would be increased.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by sen-no-sen » 29/05/18, 23:33

Approaching the automation critique from a security perspective is to consider the ecological issue from a health point of view, that is to say, to be quickly contradicted by the facts.
When the first trains were developed, certain "scientists" of the time claimed that passengers would burst under the effect of pressure beyond 30km / h ... a century later the rail sector carried hundreds of millions of people every year ...
The same is true of GMOs and health. What will happen to this argument when we have evidence from decades of studies and demonstrating their innocuousness?*?
In reality the history of technology tirelessly repeat the same process: critics are based on dangerousness, and they are defeated by the accumulation of facts, therefore the initial criticisms are carried away into oblivion ...

We must go beyond this approach, of course we must always address the health and safety issues, that goes without saying, but it is not a sufficient argument, because it is above all a position of economic agent, of consumers and not of individuals concerned with the preservation of all forms of life ... but such reasoning and of course evaded in a society based on the exponential production of abstract values ​​...


*This does not call into question the harmful potential certain GMOs about health.
It is the dangerousness of GMOs as a modification of our relationship with the living that must first of all be put forward.
1 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by Janic » 30/05/18, 09:33

In reality the history of technology tirelessly repeat the same process: critics are based on dangerousness, and they are defeated by the accumulation of facts, therefore the initial criticisms are carried away into oblivion ...

In my opinion, it is not the fact that the critics fall into oblivion, but rather that those who have made these criticisms disappear from the field of information or simply die. And as an industrially engaged process can last for generations (the metals industry, for example) and tomorrow the chemical industry, people get used to the danger ... until it loses them. nose, generating tears and miseries as for the nuclear: how many French were really interested in this technique even though specialists ignored almost everything (bombs in the desert without protection, testing in the Pacific, far from the eyes, far from the heart) to Chernobyl (not even Hiroshima or Nagasaki) then Fukushima and the critics emerge from oblivion until next time.
It's like living on a tectonic fault or at the foot of a volcano!
We must go beyond this approach, obviously we must always address the health and safety issues, that goes without saying,but it is not a sufficient argumentbecause it is primarily a position of economic agent, of consumers and not of individuals concerned with the preservation of all forms of life ... but such reasoning and of course evaded in a society based on production exponential of abstract values ​​...
what is enough then?
* This does not call into question the harmful potential of certain GMOs on health.
It is the danger of GMOs as a modification of our relationship with the living that must be put forward above all.
This point of view lacks sufficient historical perspective to decree whether it is only certain GMOs that are to question or the principle itself. But, as for nuclear power, it is the illusion that these means will be useful for the life and survival of individuals struck by diseases, for example, whose prognoses are alarming and that their use can solve (more or less so) and so it becomes the justification, so long awaited, to use it for other uses.
A specialist in GMOs, in a conference, grumbled against the use of these outside the laboratories and therefore to use only in very specific cases for human health (or animal for that matter), but was against industrial use in the open field.
Now it's a question of ratio! If to "save" an individual (and humanely, emotionally, it is understandable and even necessary) it must impact the life of tens, hundreds, thousands of individuals and more, the ratio will prove rather negative ...for the others. This is the case of vaccines (not drugs that are individualized) pesticides, nuclear waste and therefore GMOs (this big DIY modern wizards), etc ...
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by Ahmed » 30/05/18, 10:00

Excellent analysis, Sen-no-sen! It demonstrates, once again, that any immanent criticism is incapable of accounting for a process and providing a relevant critical view. It is only by lying outside a system that a real understanding is possible.

Janic, you ask: "What is enough, then?"
The question of immediate danger can be avoided when it is the finality of the technique that is questionable, on the grounds that its intrinsic harmfulness is demonstrated by the undesired global modifications it entails (the latter not necessarily of order health, but rather social, political and ecological).
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by Janic » 30/05/18, 11:04

Janic, you ask, "What's enough then?"

The question of immediate danger can be avoided when it is the finality of the technique that is questionable, on the grounds that its intrinsic harmfulness is demonstrated by the undesired global modifications it entails (the latter not necessarily of order health, but rather social, political and ecological).

I understand your point of view ! But what is the most important, if not enough? Technique or life? But we, hidden behind our computers, can reason in terms of numbers, graphs, statistics, social (but what social?) And even ecology (which too?) And during that time thousands, millions of people are suffering and dying from our abstract speeches and business done on their backs.
But it is precisely these selections made when ("its intrinsic harmfulness is demonstrated by the unwanted global modifications it entails") they can not be demonstrated or distorted by these political and even falsely ecological reasons. For example asbestos where it took a century (not 3 or 4 years) to demonstrate (it was long since given the state of the workers) the overall unwanted changes it entails. Same thing for aluminum and not only in vaccines but in all its industrial processes by its pathologies such as Alzheimer's, partly related to culinary instruments, etc ... but whose ecology will only become aware later and more for vaccines, with or without aluminum, as there are other components that are damaging to health and poison the blood of our children, as the quality of life depends on it (which all patients are able to recognize) but that we do not see or want to see, only when the house burns.
Why do most people put health above all else? because without it life can not really be appreciated, despite the surrounding difficulties and therefore a healthy unemployed person, I have been, will always enjoy life more than a sick millionaire. : Shock:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by chatelot16 » 30/05/18, 11:11

the question of whether automation is better for safety than driving by man is a detail

the main motivation is to save wages

there is an absurdity! there is a lot of people unemployed ... for the whole society to make them work would be positive ... for the whole society to spend money to automate is a waste ... a misuse the human means that we have ... and a waste of the means of automation that must be bought at a high price

why this nonsense gets worse and worse?

I will repeat the same thing again! because there is an absurdity in our social system ... when a company gets rid of an employee it makes a huge economy ... which justifies the automation

Unemployment insurance is paid to the company that has employees ... the more a company reduces its staff, the less it pays the social security contributions

as long as we do not correct this absurdity we will continue the absurd automation

it would be enough to shift the social charges to make them pay not on the wages but on the profit, and the company would have no more reason to reduce the personnel, because to reduce the personnel to automate would let pay the same social charges, or even would increase the social charge since the wages to be paid in less will increase the profit so will increase the charges to pay

it would be a great logic because it is those who cause unemployment who will pay unemployment insurance and illness ... because the unemployed end up sicker than those who have a normal job!

automation remains useful for all the work arduous or repetitive: and in cases where automation is really useful there is no need for the economy of social charge to justify it
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by sen-no-sen » 30/05/18, 11:15

Janic wrote:In my opinion, it is not the fact that the critics fall into oblivion, but rather that those who have made these criticisms disappear from the field of information or simply die.


Many of those to vilify on the use of mobile phones, this did not prevent the massive development of this technology.
And those who are the main critics are often the most ardent users! : Lol:

what is enough then?

Only an objective and multidisciplinary approach allows to glimpse the possible perfidy of a system, because often the devil is lodged in details, and not where we think.
It is for this reason that it would be necessary to rehabilitate sociology (it needs it !!!) through the study on the impact of technologies in our contemporary societies.
As an example I do not think that mobile phones will burn our brains, I think rather that the danger of its technologies resides in the ultra connectivity that it confers on our society, and it is probably this hyper-connection which will cause the fall ...
Where it is diabolical is that the positive point of this technology, namely to gather people (1) is in fact are main vice.


(1) Ultra connectivity is one of the most powerful ally of automation on the one hand, it is a traceability method that even G. Orwell would not have dreamed of the other and rather than gather qualitatively it causes a tendency (fortunately limited) to narcissism and superficiality especially among the youngest.
It is certainly the most powerful tool of dissipation of information that is.Hors more a system is connected and more its speed of collapse is important, some recent examples confirms it cruelly.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by Ahmed » 30/05/18, 11:54

Chatelot, the fundamental absurdity lies in the miserable finality of the economy, which is the infinite accumulation of abstract value without consideration for the preservation of the conditions of life on Earth and it is not by "tinkering" with yet another adaptation that we can avoid the disastrous consequences of this irrational principle.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264

Re: Tomorrow, all unemployed?




by chatelot16 » 30/05/18, 12:04

why are you against the solution I propose?

it's no use criticizing the motivation to make money ... you have to use money as a way to govern, to pay more to those who go the wrong way and to pay less to those who go to common sense

the way to make pay the current social charges favors those who go the wrong way ... and we can not blame the company director to seek to earn money ... so as long as we push them in the wrong way it will go the wrong way
0 x

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 167 guests