Social Issues facing near total automation
| Ispil wrote: |
|---|
| Well, tell me, what would be the solution to overpopulation? |
Sex education.
Have the government fund birth control medicine and procedures.
Stop shutting places like Planned Parenthood down.
Lots of people who have kids had them on accident because they don't know enough about safe sex practices, and they don't have access to birth control. This is all very easily fixed by government intervention.
| But then again, I just find it hard to wrap my head around supporting completely unproductive members of society |
While there are certainly people like this... there is not nearly as many as some right-wing media would have you believe.
The top 1% skim waaaaay more money from the government by means of tax evasion and loopholes than the poor "freeloaders" do.
Okay, I've only read the first couple of posts on this thread but here's my pennies worth...
I feel that total automation isn't that bad an idea, but I mean complete automation... The machines are perfectly capable of drawing power for themselves from sustainable sources (most likely solar power) theirfore have no running cost other than maintenance every now and then, but if we ever get to point of complete automation chances are everything will be so smoothly engineered it almost never wears down... But the point being the machines have no running cost, therefore their's no need for the products they create to need to be sold, and their's no dependency on currency.
Me and a friend of mine both have this (quite far out) idea that it should be possible to automate practically everything and eradicate the point of having a job, since food will be able to be provided by automated farming it'll have no cost and can be rationed out to everybody (rations as to avoid abuse, but not too strict) for free... As can utilities such as water and electricity, again hoping that we now have sustainable sources of electricity and automated treatment stations and such.
The only reason to work (in the few professions that'll no doubt remain such as medical, research, possibly education, and the people who design the machines and such) would be to earn luxuries such as a big ass TV =D
If everyone can be provided with shelter, food, and warmth for no cost then wouldn't that be a good world, where getting work is a choice just for material possessions? Maybe we are just being naive children, but that's our opinion on the matter.
I feel that total automation isn't that bad an idea, but I mean complete automation... The machines are perfectly capable of drawing power for themselves from sustainable sources (most likely solar power) theirfore have no running cost other than maintenance every now and then, but if we ever get to point of complete automation chances are everything will be so smoothly engineered it almost never wears down... But the point being the machines have no running cost, therefore their's no need for the products they create to need to be sold, and their's no dependency on currency.
Me and a friend of mine both have this (quite far out) idea that it should be possible to automate practically everything and eradicate the point of having a job, since food will be able to be provided by automated farming it'll have no cost and can be rationed out to everybody (rations as to avoid abuse, but not too strict) for free... As can utilities such as water and electricity, again hoping that we now have sustainable sources of electricity and automated treatment stations and such.
The only reason to work (in the few professions that'll no doubt remain such as medical, research, possibly education, and the people who design the machines and such) would be to earn luxuries such as a big ass TV =D
If everyone can be provided with shelter, food, and warmth for no cost then wouldn't that be a good world, where getting work is a choice just for material possessions? Maybe we are just being naive children, but that's our opinion on the matter.
I've always hated this topic. The fact that I live in a society that thinks people shouldn't live without effort or sacrifice bothers me.
We all have a will to live (for the most part) and most of us are fulfilled by being productive or doing hobbies. More often than not, I've seen more happiness in people who dedicate to their hobbies rather than their actual jobs, mainly because they are better at their hobbies or they feel its more productive.
Let's picture a society where physical labor and almost all calculative tedious work (accounting, etc.) are handled by automated machines. Give that our labor force contains a huge chunk of all jobs in our international society, the number of jobs would be heavily reduced! But we still have the same amount, if not more, resources being generated. The society is still being driven. Why are people so keen on having a job, even when it's so absolutely unproductive?
Why is it a society is so bothered by putting less work onto its labor force? God forbid people get paid more for doing less work right? Absolutely ridiculous.
We all have a will to live (for the most part) and most of us are fulfilled by being productive or doing hobbies. More often than not, I've seen more happiness in people who dedicate to their hobbies rather than their actual jobs, mainly because they are better at their hobbies or they feel its more productive.
Let's picture a society where physical labor and almost all calculative tedious work (accounting, etc.) are handled by automated machines. Give that our labor force contains a huge chunk of all jobs in our international society, the number of jobs would be heavily reduced! But we still have the same amount, if not more, resources being generated. The society is still being driven. Why are people so keen on having a job, even when it's so absolutely unproductive?
Why is it a society is so bothered by putting less work onto its labor force? God forbid people get paid more for doing less work right? Absolutely ridiculous.
Well, when 'less work' becomes 'no work' it's a little different. People still have families to feed, whether or not industries are booming.
But yeah, I don't think automation will take over the majority of jobs ever. If this happens, who the hell is going to buy the products that these machines are producing? If nobody is working, nobody is getting paid, which means nobody is consuming.
But yeah, I don't think automation will take over the majority of jobs ever. If this happens, who the hell is going to buy the products that these machines are producing? If nobody is working, nobody is getting paid, which means nobody is consuming.
I think the equation, "If nobody is working, nobody is getting paid, which means nobody is consuming." is absolutely broken. People *have* to live regardless of whether or not they're working. Especially in the society where jobs are less because it's handled by more efficient machines, perhaps the idea that people get paid just to live isn't that bad of an idea, especially when nothing is gained by making people do pointless and menial jobs.
Last edited on
| But the point being the machines have no running cost, therefore their's no need for the products they create to need to be sold, and their's no dependency on currency. |
I share the same views. I think people are too set in their dogmatic culture to simply let go of the idea of no forced labor requiring oneself to be put through the usual stress and strain and being chased around by someone in charge of them.
Given that the top 1% is really the one's living it up, then why should the remaining be content to leave things the way they are.
Why should the remaining masses not embrace a life that offers them better where nobody have to be another persons bitch.
What would be the reason that the remaining masses won't embrace a life where if they went to a diner, would be served by a robot waiter.
The only people I imagine who would have an issue with that are those from the top 1% - they are used to having people grovel before them and actually enjoy and expect it. A guy like Donal T. may not enjoy the fact that a diner has robot waiters who serve everybody the same - I somehow imagine this type of guy wants his ass to be licked by a real person where he can exert his position over them ...
Maybe part of the reason exist in the fact that people in society do tend to lick the arses of those in power and as a result choose not to offend them by embracing the ideas put forward.
Well, it depends on what you consider to be a job. Being a historian probably doesn't leave you in a cubicle with a boss nagging you over paperwork- I imagine that, if you had a job like that, it might as well be a hobby.
Like I said, we need more "thinking" jobs. Jobs that you'd actually enjoy doing, and that probably wouldn't be the classic "cubicle" job that are so easily replaced. If we encouraged currently-dwindling work areas to actually be full-fledged careers, then maybe we would have a job market that people would actually want to work in.
And yes, I know that a good portion of people living below the poverty line aren't "unproductive members of society." And a good portion of people who live above the "absurdly rich" line don't even spend their money other on trivial things. However, it doesn't mean that you can forcibly take their money away and redistribute- that's a cycle that won't end well. Rather, just do things like... tax gains made on stocks? Things like that? The things that we don't do because we don't want to hurt the wealthy's bottom line? Gotta make it harder for them to be so high up without doing anything- make them work to keep that money. Or at least encourage them to do things like hire philosophers and give them a well-paid job, as to minimize the burden on the government to do so.
Like I said, we need more "thinking" jobs. Jobs that you'd actually enjoy doing, and that probably wouldn't be the classic "cubicle" job that are so easily replaced. If we encouraged currently-dwindling work areas to actually be full-fledged careers, then maybe we would have a job market that people would actually want to work in.
And yes, I know that a good portion of people living below the poverty line aren't "unproductive members of society." And a good portion of people who live above the "absurdly rich" line don't even spend their money other on trivial things. However, it doesn't mean that you can forcibly take their money away and redistribute- that's a cycle that won't end well. Rather, just do things like... tax gains made on stocks? Things like that? The things that we don't do because we don't want to hurt the wealthy's bottom line? Gotta make it harder for them to be so high up without doing anything- make them work to keep that money. Or at least encourage them to do things like hire philosophers and give them a well-paid job, as to minimize the burden on the government to do so.
Capital gains should be eliminated entirely. The whole idea of making money from nothing is absurd. Money should come from work which actually has a result. Not from just moving numbers in a computer. The entire financial industry is retarded.
There should be a strictly enforced maximum wage. This would actually solve 99% of the problems with the US's economy, and the biggest problem with capitalism as a whole: the idea that profit is the bottom line. When you say "any profit beyond this point is meaningless"... and actually enforce that to make it truth... then priorities shift away from just making a buck any way they can... towards making companies more moral, more environmentally aware, and towards improving working conditions and raising wages.
There should be a strictly enforced maximum wage. This would actually solve 99% of the problems with the US's economy, and the biggest problem with capitalism as a whole: the idea that profit is the bottom line. When you say "any profit beyond this point is meaningless"... and actually enforce that to make it truth... then priorities shift away from just making a buck any way they can... towards making companies more moral, more environmentally aware, and towards improving working conditions and raising wages.
| However, it doesn't mean that you can forcibly take their money away and redistribute- that's a cycle that won't end well. |
there will be no need for that - instead the majority will themselves create the technological infrastructure that will provide for their needs.
the insanely rich will no longer be able to threaten the masses with "if you don't do this for me you don't eat or have a roof over your head, ..."
if all basic needs are catered for by this technology then nobody will have to work - instead people will have a choice and I can't understand why it would bother someone else if another person chooses to do no work but to live on the basic needs that are being provided for by the technology.
and likewise the insanely rich should not try to sabotage such efforts due to them feeling that their way of life is being threatened. such culprits should be dealt with extremely severely due to them jeopardizing the well being of everyone else and their families.
| Capital gains should be eliminated entirely |
I like this - it will ensure that all things have their true value as opposed to some fictitious value set in order to create a false hype.
this actually equates to a world with far less BS.
Well, there were a LOT of replies in a very short amount of time, not leaving me enough time to dispute or agree with whatever you guys said :(
But, being serious, I actually agree with all of you guys. The economy is pretty broken, mainly because the rich people run it. And unfortunately, most rich people are narcissistic and think "Since you work for me, I own you. Do this work, or I will disown you and you are on the street"
I am only 13, so I don't entirely know how our economy works, so I will probably be corrected along the line...
The rich corporations only care about money, so they are going to invest in robots to build them stuff... for free. All they lose money on is the resources used to build the product, but then again, they aren't that expensive compared to the large workforce they would normally have to fund. Ignorant and selfish, the executives of these corporations ignore the millions of people out of work and are starving because food prices have gone up so high (<- back to overpopulation, here) and they don't have the money to feed themselves. Yes, this does solve *some* of the problems caused by overpopulation, but it still doesn't allow more jobs to be produced, because nobody is using people to work for them.
But, as I was saying before, it is a long (very LONG) time before technology is advanced enough to do every job society has to offer. Needless to say, all the above theory will do is cut out a lot of jobs. But, with cons, come pros. Like I said, the US populace will shorten, allowing for more people to get food. Gas prices may go down due to less people needing it, less pollution... so nature itself would benefit very highly.
But... one question I do not know how to answer or speculate:
What happens when one of these rich beefcakes die? Where does that HUGE inheritance go? Sure, divvy it up among the kids, but what would those kids do with it? Kids these days are focusing less and less on what their fathers do, due to more jobs available, so the kids may not be able to run these corporations, and those will fail. Where does all of that money go? Does the government sweep it up?
I'll go ahead and end my rant here.
But, being serious, I actually agree with all of you guys. The economy is pretty broken, mainly because the rich people run it. And unfortunately, most rich people are narcissistic and think "Since you work for me, I own you. Do this work, or I will disown you and you are on the street"
I am only 13, so I don't entirely know how our economy works, so I will probably be corrected along the line...
The rich corporations only care about money, so they are going to invest in robots to build them stuff... for free. All they lose money on is the resources used to build the product, but then again, they aren't that expensive compared to the large workforce they would normally have to fund. Ignorant and selfish, the executives of these corporations ignore the millions of people out of work and are starving because food prices have gone up so high (<- back to overpopulation, here) and they don't have the money to feed themselves. Yes, this does solve *some* of the problems caused by overpopulation, but it still doesn't allow more jobs to be produced, because nobody is using people to work for them.
But, as I was saying before, it is a long (very LONG) time before technology is advanced enough to do every job society has to offer. Needless to say, all the above theory will do is cut out a lot of jobs. But, with cons, come pros. Like I said, the US populace will shorten, allowing for more people to get food. Gas prices may go down due to less people needing it, less pollution... so nature itself would benefit very highly.
But... one question I do not know how to answer or speculate:
What happens when one of these rich beefcakes die? Where does that HUGE inheritance go? Sure, divvy it up among the kids, but what would those kids do with it? Kids these days are focusing less and less on what their fathers do, due to more jobs available, so the kids may not be able to run these corporations, and those will fail. Where does all of that money go? Does the government sweep it up?
I'll go ahead and end my rant here.
This whole issue is really important. The problem is that nobody can come up with a vision that actually seams feasible. Lots of very optimistic wishful thinking and also lots of pessimism, but it's very difficult to think of a system that will actually work and be feasible. And the divide between the rich and poor, social status, and resistance to change, are not the only obstacles. We also have to figure out how the world's fractions will work together, and share resources. Sure if you imagine a single united society under one government/system, than it seams feasible to transition into a technological utopia. But that will be almost impossible to achieve with all of the different religions, cultures, opinions, and racial tensions between different parts of the world. But if you still have the world fraction up with ownership of territory and resources, then you will always still have conflicts, and competition. As of now, the US gets a whole lot of it's resources from other countries. With autonomous robots doing our farming and mining for us, there is still the issue, who gets the rights to what they produce on that land. Third world countries today are largely in debt to first world countries and are forced to make special trade agreements for example to give or sell their produce to specific entities. In some very poor places, people are undergoing famine while practically all of their produce is sold to other countries. So when we transition into this new technological utopia, and there is no longer a global currency based economy, we will still need to rely on that territory to generate that produce. Long story short, divides between the haves and have nots will still be vast, at least between nations, unless the whole world cooperates and shares the worlds resources, but that is a long shot.
Now to my vision of the utopia itself. I would like a system which is some sort of super democracy on steroids. A big problem we have now is that while we have a democracy, most of it is a sham, and the voters are mostly misinformed, undereducated, and polarized about side issues. What we need is an increase in democracy, and a hugely expanded ability to make wise decisions as a democratic society. So I have a system where everyone gets extensive education beyond high school, and actually is paid to, and rather than going out for a carer as in this world, you will be trained to be a decision maker, designer, engineer, or at least a very informed voter. You will earn your voting rights, and be paid to be a voter, but will need to have the credentials to vote. Schools will teach all about world issues we are facing now and in the future and explore all kinds of possible solutions, pros and cons, etc. Being a productive member of society, it will be enough to just become knowledgeable about stuff and then vote on said stuff, be members of think tanks, teach, design, engineer, and or maintain. The government should also contract lots of works of art and architecture. And jobs, or contributions beyond simply being an informed active member of the democracy would earn extra luxury/pay and recognition. The democracy would be extended much more than how it works today. Almost everything that gets funded will be brainstormed, and decided on with participation of the public, who would be trained specifically to make wise critical decisions in this context.
Now back to the issue of tensions, competition, and war between the worlds factions. I think it would only truly workout peacefully and fairly if there were some sort of international organization with representatives from all over the world, and a strictly enforced world constitution, who would ensure fair and sustainable sharing and management of the worlds resources. All foreign debts would need to be erased. It would be a long shot to get the world to share with each other though. Actually trying to accomplish this would probably end up in a huge world war, and things would probably end up even worse. The problem is that there are too many fools and hateful people in the world. The the way this modern world works is actually dependent on that and this world does a lot to make people like this. With a world revolving around wisdom, knowledge and responsible extensive democracy, things could change and I could envision some of what seams impossible to be achievable in time.
Now to my vision of the utopia itself. I would like a system which is some sort of super democracy on steroids. A big problem we have now is that while we have a democracy, most of it is a sham, and the voters are mostly misinformed, undereducated, and polarized about side issues. What we need is an increase in democracy, and a hugely expanded ability to make wise decisions as a democratic society. So I have a system where everyone gets extensive education beyond high school, and actually is paid to, and rather than going out for a carer as in this world, you will be trained to be a decision maker, designer, engineer, or at least a very informed voter. You will earn your voting rights, and be paid to be a voter, but will need to have the credentials to vote. Schools will teach all about world issues we are facing now and in the future and explore all kinds of possible solutions, pros and cons, etc. Being a productive member of society, it will be enough to just become knowledgeable about stuff and then vote on said stuff, be members of think tanks, teach, design, engineer, and or maintain. The government should also contract lots of works of art and architecture. And jobs, or contributions beyond simply being an informed active member of the democracy would earn extra luxury/pay and recognition. The democracy would be extended much more than how it works today. Almost everything that gets funded will be brainstormed, and decided on with participation of the public, who would be trained specifically to make wise critical decisions in this context.
Now back to the issue of tensions, competition, and war between the worlds factions. I think it would only truly workout peacefully and fairly if there were some sort of international organization with representatives from all over the world, and a strictly enforced world constitution, who would ensure fair and sustainable sharing and management of the worlds resources. All foreign debts would need to be erased. It would be a long shot to get the world to share with each other though. Actually trying to accomplish this would probably end up in a huge world war, and things would probably end up even worse. The problem is that there are too many fools and hateful people in the world. The the way this modern world works is actually dependent on that and this world does a lot to make people like this. With a world revolving around wisdom, knowledge and responsible extensive democracy, things could change and I could envision some of what seams impossible to be achievable in time.
So basically we want a society where humans don't take advantage of less able individuals. Good luck with that. Hard to believe the fact that nature dictates everyone man for himself hasn't been brought up.
And what are the other countries doing? How does the system of choosing to do whatever you want, enable us to defend ourselves from other nations? Who is developing our defense systems and if they are, how hard do they work to maintain it? How many people have an interest in biology? Are they making progress? Because all they do is go home and live off technology if they don't have an urge to work that day, while the next flu epidemic is x year s away.
This was never about the money, this is about you being the little guy picked on by the big guy, and that will never change because nature has a totem pole.
And what are the other countries doing? How does the system of choosing to do whatever you want, enable us to defend ourselves from other nations? Who is developing our defense systems and if they are, how hard do they work to maintain it? How many people have an interest in biology? Are they making progress? Because all they do is go home and live off technology if they don't have an urge to work that day, while the next flu epidemic is x year s away.
This was never about the money, this is about you being the little guy picked on by the big guy, and that will never change because nature has a totem pole.
| So basically we want a society where humans don't take advantage of less able individuals. Good luck with that. Hard to believe the fact that nature dictates everyone man for himself hasn't been brought up. And what are the other countries doing? How does the system of choosing to do whatever you want, enable us to defend ourselves from other nations? Who is developing our defense systems and if they are, how hard do they work to maintain it? How many people have an interest in biology? Are they making progress? Because all they do is go home and live off technology if they don't have an urge to work that day, while the next flu epidemic is x year s away. This was never about the money, this is about you being the little guy picked on by the big guy, and that will never change because nature has a totem pole. |
1) Is that really human nature, or are we just conditioned and pressured to be like this. If instead of encouraged, taught and pressured to be like that, we were conditioned, taught and pressured to be helpful to each other and the world, things might be different.
2) Defense and maintenance of defense systems would also be automated, and so powerful that deterrence to attack would be immense.
Believe it or not, so many people choose to be scientists, even though it pays very little for the effort, as it is, that it is very hard to get employed as a scientist; especially the case for Biologists.
Most people who do research don't do it for the money. I think this is true of thinking jobs in general. Just look at what the open source community accomplishes through the work of unpaid hobbyists alone. And consider how many people would be freed up to do thinking work. The amount of people available to do thinking work would increase dramatically, and people would be rewarded for their accomplishments with extra pay, perks and or recognition.
3) See 1. Besides we will be far removed from nature at this point. And if you think about it, the Native Americans worked very little and had vastly more free time than we do. They also didn't have the sense of land and natural resource ownership that we have now. Industrialization, and desire for increased luxury and social status through purchases, is largely what has led to the way people now work so hard and culture is so materialistic and people are so greedy. If you strip away peoples need to compete so aggressively with each other, and provide luxury for free, and started teaching people instead of fooling and exploiting people, then things would change a lot.
Basically my point is that it may not be fair to judge human nature and our ability to be enlightened, based on how we act in the situation we are in now. There are a multitude of factors that push us in this direction. If the core of those factors were removed from the equation, we may act differently, and we have never really been in that situation, so we don't really know what would happen. I am optimistic that most people, if sufficiently educated, and relived of pressure to compete with one another, and given the freedom to do what they enjoy, that society would change a lot. Of course some factors, like religious difference, nationalism, and racial or ethnic based hatred would still be an issue ( although diluted ), which would take a shift in culture to overcome. But slowly just as we have seen in the US for example from the days of slavery to now, people change for the better. It takes time because people are conditioned as children and that is hard to break. Still, change the environment and it's only a matter of time before people change and adapt.
Last edited on
I doubt that any of those changes will be a result of anything other than out of force.
Also, for that issue with being employed as a Biologist- this is actually kind of ironic. Most people don't do biological sciences to be a biologist- they do this as a tip-toe way of potentially being a doctor and making bank, only to realize that they aren't cut out for it and then fall back to the base of their degree. As you can imagine, this created a big influx of candidates, most of which weren't cut out for the work. I saw that in person at my school, when I showed up for the student orientation- at the science meeting, at least 90% of those there were doing "biological sciences." It was kind of funny to watch.
As for your earlier remark about whether human nature creates this "bully" notion against the little guy, that would actually not be true. Humans, by nature, aren't like that. Rather, it is due to something else:
http://time.com/32647/which-professions-have-the-most-psychopaths-the-fewest/
Most CEOs and heads of business are psychopaths. This is not coincidence. In a sense, being the bully is what gets you on top, but it doesn't make it human nature- rather, they are the odd ones in an otherwise normal society.
Also, for that issue with being employed as a Biologist- this is actually kind of ironic. Most people don't do biological sciences to be a biologist- they do this as a tip-toe way of potentially being a doctor and making bank, only to realize that they aren't cut out for it and then fall back to the base of their degree. As you can imagine, this created a big influx of candidates, most of which weren't cut out for the work. I saw that in person at my school, when I showed up for the student orientation- at the science meeting, at least 90% of those there were doing "biological sciences." It was kind of funny to watch.
As for your earlier remark about whether human nature creates this "bully" notion against the little guy, that would actually not be true. Humans, by nature, aren't like that. Rather, it is due to something else:
http://time.com/32647/which-professions-have-the-most-psychopaths-the-fewest/
Most CEOs and heads of business are psychopaths. This is not coincidence. In a sense, being the bully is what gets you on top, but it doesn't make it human nature- rather, they are the odd ones in an otherwise normal society.
| This was never about the money, this is about you being the little guy picked on by the big guy, and that will never change because nature has a totem pole. |
it can change and has in many isolated instances. bullying at schools continue because it is not dealt with harshly enough and the culture within society teaches things like "turn the other cheek" and "be the better man ..."
any skinny weak kid at school can drop the biggest bully flat on his arse by simply stabbing him with a pen in the eye if he perceives the bully has him in a life threatening situation which typically is the case that can be argued.
thereafter see how many other bullies try that skinny weak kid. its all about change of culture.
similar to when it comes to other avenues within society where bullying typically prevails, we can enabled ourselves to stop it - like building the automation technology needed.
| Most CEOs and heads of business are psychopaths ... they are the odd ones in an otherwise normal society |
yet they influence the entire society in very negative ways.
these relatively few people compared to the rest influences everyone else with their signing off and decision making power.
i wonder what will happen if the engineering/scientific society who wields real power became of the same nature as these top dogs? (but hopefully more in the Robin Hood sense :))
| I doubt that any of those changes will be a result of anything other than out of force. |
force may not be required in the sense that the world currently is polarized to wanting to make higher profits. automation increases productivity and profits and also reduces dependency on "complaining unproductive" workers. this makes current corps want such technology - they may be limited by a country's laws as to how much workforce they can downscale but regardless the trend still exist - if we offer it, they are enticed to accept.
typically scientist are not people who intentionally like to hurt other people - we are generally good people who usually want our efforts to do good for society instead of bad but being human like everyone else with needs we are sometimes left with no (or not much choices).
i think most computer scientist if given 2 tasks (task A and task B) of equal complexity and re-numeration but task A will cause many people to loose their jobs while B does not will end up choosing B.
what if we computer scientist change our convictions - we rock the boat.
will it reach a particular point much sooner where the economy doesn't make sense anymore and the whole of society is forced to rethink their reasons for allowing themselves to be enslaved to a stupid system they created.
I didn't say being a bully is human nature, I said using advantages that one possesses to get what they want IS. It is the basics of self-preservation, an instinct shared among animals that puts themselves before others. This "Lets all hold hands and become one" is fantasy.
Unions anyone?
| i wonder what will happen if the engineering/scientific society who wields real power became of the same nature as these top dogs? (but hopefully more in the Robin Hood sense :)) |
Unions anyone?
Jumping back in here again, but I feel the movie Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs (the first) metaphorically relates to this.
A scientist (Flint Lockwood), unwanted, wants to make it big. He finally makes an invention (in our case, a robot able to do most jobs that humans do) that, at first, is amazing and seems amazing to the world. But pretty soon, people are out of jobs (restaurants, grocery stores, Flint's dad) and the whole thing goes awry. Next thing you know the world is on edge and people are dying (not necessarily getting crushed by giant corn or pancakes, but you know... metaphor!).
That is probably the most insane thing ever to relate a serious problem to a kid's movie, but it feels like it makes sense.
Anybody else?
A scientist (Flint Lockwood), unwanted, wants to make it big. He finally makes an invention (in our case, a robot able to do most jobs that humans do) that, at first, is amazing and seems amazing to the world. But pretty soon, people are out of jobs (restaurants, grocery stores, Flint's dad) and the whole thing goes awry. Next thing you know the world is on edge and people are dying (not necessarily getting crushed by giant corn or pancakes, but you know... metaphor!).
That is probably the most insane thing ever to relate a serious problem to a kid's movie, but it feels like it makes sense.
Anybody else?