SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Read this interesting essay written by DEREK THOMPSON
For centuries, experts have predicted that machines would make workers obsolete. That moment may finally be arriving. Could that be a good thing ?
The end of work is still just a futuristic concept for most of the United States, but it is something like a moment in history for Youngstown, Ohio, one its residents can cite with precision: September 19, 1977.
For much of the 20th century, Youngstown's steel mills delivered such great prosperity that the city was a model of the American dream, boasting a median income and a home ownership rate that were among the nation's highest. But as manufacturing shifted abroad after World War II, Youngstown steel suffered, and on that gray September afternoon in 1977, Youngstown Sheet and Tube announced the shuttering of its Campbell Works mill. Within five years, the city lost 50,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in manufacturing wages. The effect was so severe that a term was coined to describe the fallout: regional depression.
Youngstown was transformed not only by an economic disruption but also by a psychological and cultural breakdown. Depression, spousal abuse, and suicide all became much more prevalent; the caseload of the area's mental-health center tripled within a decade. The city built four prisons in the mid-1990s—a rare growth industry. One of the few downtown construction projects of that period was a museum dedicated to the defunct steel industry.
The future will tell us whether or not this pans out as he envisions. What does SN think will happen ?
Original Submission
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:09PM
You mean like it was a given for millennia that humans will never fly? Or that it is impossible for humans who are far away from each other to talk to each others in real time?
Assuming we don't run out of resources first or destroy civilisation, (1) is inevitable. It might take a few millennia to get to that point, but eventually it will happen. The same is true for (2). Also (4) will be more or less inevitable under the states conditions (although possibly not in the way people want it; it might happen just because only those with the robots survive).
Now (3) is in a different league. If even killing soldiers gives you bad reputation, there's a strong motive for the enemy to use them, not because they are better than robots, but because they are protected by public opinion. But then, there will be an incentive to attack anyway, and blame the enemy for the deaths. Note that the very same pattern already happens with civilians used as "human shields". Also, collateral damage will always happen. So in the end, one can indeed expect humans to get killed in any war. It's just that the number of killed humans will likely be lower.
Well, actually there is a scenario where no humans are harmed in a robot war: If humans no longer exist and the world is ruled by intelligent robots. ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:11PM
err ...
s/states conditions/stated conditions/
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:54PM
>Well, actually there is a scenario where no humans are harmed in a robot war: If humans no longer exist and the world is ruled by intelligent robots. ;-)
Google up ' flight conchrds humans are dead'