Political test

[denoir 0]

Right now, not working out of lazyness can't be accepted and should be discouraged. There is however a future issue. We're getting more and more automated production. In the same way as the percentage working in agriculture was decimated during this last century, so will the industry in the next. What then? What happens when you can provide for all members of society without people actually having to work?

While this might seem remote, it's not. It's already happening in Europe. The answer so far has been a reduction in work hours for all, increased social security etc. As this is very incompatible with standard market economy, it has lead to a number of economic problems yet to be solved. This is however where we are going.

It's not difficult to imagine a future where you choose to work, only if you want to. The question is how to make it work with a normal market economy. What meaning will money have if nobody is working? How will we divide limited resources if we're all economically equal? etc etc

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's not difficult to imagine a future where you choose to work, only if you want to.

I can't imagine that .

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Right now, not working out of lazyness can't be accepted and should be discouraged. There is however a future issue. We're getting more and more automated production. In the same way as the percentage working in agriculture was decimated during this last century, so will the industry in the next. What then? What happens when you can provide for all members of society without people actually having to work?

While this might seem remote, it's not. It's already happening in Europe. The answer so far has been a reduction in work hours for all, increased social security etc. As this is very incompatible with standard market economy, it has lead to a number of economic problems yet to be solved. This is however where we are going.

It's not difficult to imagine a future where you choose to work, only if you want to. The question is how to make it work with a normal market economy. What meaning will money have if nobody is working? How will we divide limited resources if we're all economically equal? etc etc

I have thought a lot on this topic over the past years.The last 20 year technoligy evolution has been so fast that in essence more and more technoligy is replacing more human work that it is creating.We are steadily entering the Robotic age IMO. (along with a revolution in Genetic knowledge)

Take for example the automobile factoryThese days ,company's like Renault have almost fully automated factory's in some country's in Europe.Most of the work is done by robot's controlled by a small team of technician's.For the automobile industry robot's are efficiant ,they produce 24/7 withought ever moaning ,they have their costs but at this point the costs for maintaining robotic's is less than for using human manpower.

In theory ,Artificial inteligence with robotic's would be able to replace all convential human labour given that it's technoligy is able enough.I make a distinction here with conventional labour and more mind driven work ,because in essence give good automatization programming and solid construction all human actions of the joints are reproducable by a robot ,and the robot can be upgraded to do more.

Thats in theory very nice.If robotics could replace most of human's hard labour and even some of the more technical work by AI the you could create a social paradise where only a limited amount of work has to be done and people can use the free time to develop themselfs.But then it would be an immense social ,political and economical evolution.Economicly because it contradict's in some ways the capitalist structure.When this evolution would be uncontrolled then unemployementwould rise and effectivly the consumer base would decrease along with increase of highly mechanized industry.Probably in effect it is already doing that.So changes would have to be made to the economical structure to make sure that resources are adequatly devided among the population to support them with basic needs and extensive needs as far as possible.

It doesn't mean a communist change however.See it like this ,if we handle it well we can make Robots humankinds new obidient slave.For the evolution of humankind it would be logical to persue this path ,and eventually this economical evolution is its now in it's child shoe's will eventually expand and push for changes.

However ,if we want to harness the full potential of this evolution ,then we need politician's to embrace it.Politician's that push for more expenditure's to the development of technoligy in the sector's of robotics ,AI software and energy.

Politician's that work as engineers building a society where these technoligy's can develop optimaly.That there is a hughe potential withing these technoligy's is undoubtable.The social implication'qs will be hughe ,but it can be decided on a democratic base to what extent these evolutions should benifit the coman people.

So withought entering debate on the social or political implications of it ,i state that im very interrested to aid in pushing such reforms that would aid to the development of automatization technolig'sy ,to embrace the potential of it and to giude the social/political changes that it makes.

[Pipski 0]

However, if you take an historical perspective, since the industrial revolution the jobs that have been automated are those that require the least training and education, the menial jobs. As time goes on the sophistication of machines, and therefore the jobs they can do, increases. The imperative, therefore, is to improve the state of public education in line with technological advances. There are still plenty of jobs out there because each advance also makes new jobs, they just require more knowledge and skill to do. Undereducate your population and they'll find themselves replaced by machines, educate them properly and they become part of the revolution. (Of course by `educate' I also include vocational training, apprenticeship and all the other forms of skill development that 7/10 times are more useful than generic higher education anyway.)

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]However, if you take an historical perspective, since the industrial revolution the jobs that have been automated are those that require the least training and education, the menial jobs. As time goes on the sophistication of machines, and therefore the jobs they can do, increases. The imperative, therefore, is to improve the state of public education in line with technological advances. There are still plenty of jobs out there because each advance also makes new jobs, they just require more knowledge and skill to do. Undereducate your population and they'll find themselves replaced by machines, educate them properly and they become part of the revolution. (Of course by `educate' I also include vocational training, apprenticeship and all the other forms of skill development that 7/10 times are more useful than generic higher education anyway.)

I have an other theory about this.I think it's a common misperception that technoligy will ALWAYS create MORE employement that it replaces.I think that up to the extreme point of having a 100% based automated industry controlled by AI Supermainframe (something for 2100 maybe) new technoligy will always create new jobs asside from replacing others ,however not always more.I would even dare to sya that somewhere in time there will be/has been a turnover point where new technoligy replaces more labour than it produces.However it's very hard to prove such a theory ,but if you look at the situation today you will see that high end technoligy like robotics and software is more and more being produced by a more selective few of educated people while more and more replacing a larger amount of labour.As an example the transition of type writer to computer has a lower employment creation to employment replacing ration than the transition of horse transport to automobile transport had.

[bn880 5]

Right now, not working out of lazyness can't be accepted and should be discouraged. There is however a future issue. We're getting more and more automated production. In the same way as the percentage working in agriculture was decimated during this last century, so will the industry in the next. What then? What happens when you can provide for all members of society without people actually having to work?

While this might seem remote, it's not. It's already happening in Europe. The answer so far has been a reduction in work hours for all, increased social security etc. As this is very incompatible with standard market economy, it has lead to a number of economic problems yet to be solved. This is however where we are going.

It's not difficult to imagine a future where you choose to work, only if you want to. The question is how to make it work with a normal market economy. What meaning will money have if nobody is working? How will we divide limited resources if we're all economically equal? etc etc

You see, we still think alike... I ahve yet to take the test, I am in a bad mood/state today so i'd rather not LOL.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

But we aren't there yet. Right now it's still necessary for pretty much everyone who can to pull their own weight- not to mention that it makes for a healthier society at the individual's level. For example, what would you think about where humanity was headed if a common attitude was "Someone else can support me, why should I expend the energy to support myself?" We'd have an entire world full of spoiled rich kids (and we know how obnoxious they can be). And I definitely don't have the time to go into the possibilities for dictatorship that arise from that sort of situation- it's easy for someone to call the shots if they control something everyone is dependent upon.

[denoir 0]

@ Jan. 03 2004,09:04)]But we aren't there yet.

We'll be there sooner than you might think. France and Germany are actually starting to enter that era and have a shitload of economic problems thanks to it. In Europe the industry is much more automated than in the rest of the western world (USA and even Japan) while at the same time we have a bit of a different consumer culture than USA. We can take cars as a good example. Most car factories in Europe are fully robotic. You have a few controllers that supervise the production, but that's it. At the same time the production level is high enough to saturate the market. Generally Europeans aren't interested in having two or three cars (as opposed to our American friends that seem to adjust the demand of goods to meet the availability). So now you have a bunch of unemployed factory workers while you're still having an overproduction. A part of it can be helped through export, but the bulk of the produced goods still stay in Europe. This first happened in Germany and France.

Their solution was to reduce the number of work hours for all (in France for instance they changed from a 8h day to a 6 hour day). They also boosted social security so that the unemployed had no problem living a good life and having a solid income.

The obvious problem that soon emerged is the fact that it's all bloody expensive. Market economy and a system where the state pays unemployed enough to be content and not look for work are two completely incompatible philosophies. Combine that with a saturated consumer market and you have a very shitty economic situation. All our socio-economic models are built around people working and economic growth. What do you do when people get everything they want for free?

I have no answer for that and neither do the European politicians it would seem. There will have to be some big fundamental changes in both our economic principles and the social structure.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]The obvious problem that soon emerged is the fact that it's all bloody expensive. Market economy and a system where the state pays unemployed enough to be content and not look for work are two completely incompatible philosophies. Combine that with a saturated consumer market and you have a very shitty economic situation. All our socio-economic models are built around people working and economic growth. What do you do when people get everything they want for free?

It's therefore that i said in one of my previous posts that Technological reasearch on Energy is important ,even crucial in this evolution.Obviously ,the prices of energy affect's all goods produced by robotics ,and Energy isn't cheap and Robots use a lot.So the more expensive our energy is the more expensive all robotics produced goods are.

France is smart.There you have a political establishment that looks 20 years ahead ,not very coman in the world.Today ,France is a top level energy producer in Europe ,it exports energy to its neighbouring country's.It has a hughe amount of Nuclear power plants that work on Nuclear fission ,wich polutes nothing and provides for the cheapest energy one can have at this point.France is one of the most innovative country's on energy technoligy these days.

It's pretty simple ,the faster a country invests in Energy technoligy ,the faster we can develop sources of Energy that are so cheap so they make a Robotics industry much more efficiant.With cheap energy ,you can have cheap robotics production ,so you could sell the immense production of goods that it produces at a low and competive price ,a price where people can afford 3 cars for the same price as 1.

And then there is also the use of robotics in energy production.Look at youre typical modern windmill ,it's practicly a robto energy producer on itself.Apart of it's initial building cost it produces energy virtually free.Same goes for a well developed solar energy ,or hydroelectric energy.Once these technoligy's are maturre enough they will be able to produce most of our enegy virtually free ,and if energy is virtually free then robotics labour is it to.If robot labour is virtually free ,then it will be able to produce new robots (like windmills) virtually free ,so you could even tamper with the infrastructural cost of it all.Then resource price would be about the only thing that costs.

It is an economical theory that if a robotics industry would produce products more efficiant and cheaper than human labour ,then the excess of goods it produces at a lower price would be able to supply the coman people with more produced goods than a human based economy can at the same price ,however there is simply a nessecaty of a sound economical system where people can aquire the financial potential to aquire these goods even if the Robotics industry has made them unemployed.

The French sytem of cutting labour hours is one way to alleviate for the decrease in labor ,however not the best actually because it isnt a sollution in the long term.Other reforms are nessecary to ensure that all goods produced by robotics can find their consumer and add to the economy instead of decreasing it.One way would be to tax the robots or it's industry for an additional amount depending of the amount of labour it replaces ,and transfer that income to the welfare funds for unemployed.(and raise those income's as youre robotics economy is evolving)

Use the efficiancy of youre robotics Industry to increase exports dramaticly to non robotics economy's and attract a ell of a lot of investor's and investments to youre country because the potential the economy is offering ,this way speeding up the process.As long as production become's more efficiant ,you can and increase the revenue's of the factory owners and the product availabilety to the coman people.In theory a additional tax rate for robotics labour could be set as such that it still allowes additional income to the producer and provide for enough welfare funds to give those unemployed the potential to buy more goods with their income that they could under a human based production.With other words ,with a few simple reforms you would be able to atract a hughe investment influx for Robotics production while in addition adding to the welfare of the coman people.

Actually ,what we are talking on here is a bit OT ,however it's IMO such an interresting discussion that it deserves a seperate thread.

Btw. I don't know if you ever heard about a distant technoligy like nanotechnoligy? In it's completed form a nonofactory would be able to simply copy whatever it wants withough a need for resources. Produce one Nanoproduction facility and heck the need for an economical system is gone ,you could just copy nanofactorys.

[Tamme 0]

The Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: 1.88

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

That's me.

EDIT: Everyone else seem to be leftist. I feel so alone

[llauma 0]

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -9.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95

Not that suprising but it was more extreme than I had expected. I have studied some history and politics lately and that seems to have put me even more left than before. If I remember right I was around -8 when I did the test a couple of years ago.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Intresting that so many have moved left (according to this measure) since their last assesment.

Quick question to any who took the test previously was the assesment last time using the same questions?

Following on from it are several posibilities.

Posibility A

If the questions were different this version of the test may be skewed left. Hope the tester has taken account of bias in their final results but it may be that the test is accurate and just reflects a move left in the general population of this forum.

Posibility B

If the questions are the same the move definately reflects opinions formed during the war in Iraq period.

i )The first phase would be in the beginning of War when a threat was percieved.

ii)The second phase would be in the end of War when a threat was percieved as being a false one and is a consequent reaction to being lied to.

If such a mood was reflected accross the US electorate it would indicate a democratic landslide in the US presedential elections but that is pure speculation. The US electorate will vote and that is when we will know their decision.

Kind Regards Walker

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]EDIT: Everyone else seem to be leftist. I feel so alone

I'm still around . Economically very right, but my ability to be religiously authoritarian has been somewhat dampened by my aetheism .

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -6.38

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26

Heh... interesting that Paul Martin is in their results, and just where I thought he would be.

[m21man 0]

I'm probably ignorant as hell, but who's Paul Martin ?

[toadeater 0]

Hey, I'm the Dalai Llama...

[toadlife 3]

If the questions are the same the move definately reflects opinions formed during the war in Iraq period.

i )The first phase would be in the beginning of War when a threat was percieved.

ii)The second phase would be in the end of War when a threat was percieved as being a false one and is a consequent reaction to being lied to.

If such a mood was reflected accross the US electorate it would indicate a democratic landslide in the US presedential elections but that is pure speculation. The US electorate will vote and that is when we will know their decision.

Kind Regards Walker

Interesting theory, but you forget the fact that a majority of the people in the U.S. supported invading Iraq, and the vast majoritty of those people still support it to this day.

The only Americans that 'feel lied to' are the ones who were opposed the war from the begining, and democratic politicians that will be running for office soon.

Edit..though Bush and the Iraq war may move Democrats to come out in full force during the next election causing the democratic winner.

[m21man 0]

I don't think that I know anyone who seriously changed their view on the war after it was waged.

[toadlife 3]

Hehe..my wife, who is a self proclaimed die hard, 'party line' Replublican took the test and she turned out to be way left on the economic scale and centrist social scale. She blamed it on the questions.

More evidence to my theory that neither political party in the United States stands for much of anything.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

2004:

Economic Left/Right: +4.12

Authoritarian/Libertarian: -0.77

2002:

Economic Left/Right: +0.12

Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.08

Even more right wing.

Quote[/b] ]I'm probably ignorant as hell, but who's Paul Martin ?

The new (unelected) PM of Canada, hopefully not for long.

Tyler

[Colossus 2]

LOL, nm this

[walker 0]

Interesting theory, but you forget the fact that a majority of the people in the U.S. supported invading Iraq, and the vast majoritty of those people still support it to this day.

The only Americans that 'feel lied to' are the ones who were opposed the war from the begining, and democratic politicians that will be running for office soon.

Edit..though Bush and the Iraq war may move Democrats to come out in full force during the next election causing the democratic winner.

Hi toadlife

Lot of 'ifs' and 'may be s' in my post, as I said very speculative. Just ignore it, the change in results probably means nothing.

Your point about the true negative nature of representational elected administration; that we dont vote for things in the normal course of events; we vote against percieved threats, is of course true.

That Americans vote against Bush Jnr because he is percieved as a threat is the whole advantage of democratic administration over despotic systems of government.

In other words you dont vote for a president you vote against one.

Kind Regards Walker

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Interesting theory, but you forget the fact that a majority of the people in the U.S. supported invading Iraq, and the vast majoritty of those people still support it to this day.

The only Americans that 'feel lied to' are the ones who were opposed the war from the begining, and democratic politicians that will be running for office soon.

Edit..though Bush and the Iraq war may move Democrats to come out in full force during the next election causing the democratic winner.

*raises hand*

I feel lied to, and I supported the war (at least in principle) initially. Catching Saddam and killing the Saddam juniors is nice and all, but let's all remember what the original promises and objectives were. But that is neither here nor there, and this isn't the thread for it. At any rate, this election will be the first that I'll be able to vote in, and I know my vote won't matter. Hear me out: since the Presidency is decided by the electoral, and not the popular vote, and because I live in what can only be described as Bush country (which I am reminded of constantly by all the bumper stickers), I can kick up my heels with the knowledge that my contribution to the national election will be purely symbolic. Woo.

[denoir 0]

More evidence to my theory that neither political party in the United States stands for much of anything.

Yeah, you have an odd mix sice your 'conservatives' are actually more like 'ultra liberals' in economic questions. Your liberals are actually conservative left wingers in economc question while they are liberal in social questions.

I do have my doubts about the test itself though. I was marked as clear left wing in economic questions while in reality I'm fairly centrist with right-wing leanings. In social questions, I think it placed me fairly well.

As for my left wing swing since last time, I blame Bush. And while walker's theory is fully plausible, I'm more inclined to think that there has been a polarization of opinions. Those that were left wing to start with have become even more so and the same goes for the right wing.

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

What this shows is that the conventional politcal model based on left right politics is an oversimplification.

Politcs is multi-dimensional.

Political parties simplify politics with a rough model in order to fool the electorate into giving away their power.

Representative Democracy is a better model than communism which is a better model than facism but neither is better by much.

The true anarchic nature of politics is only played out in debate.

With the apearence of the internet some hope that over the years we may eventualy acheive a better more anarchic and natural model.

To get back to the point what a lot of this thread has shown is that the measures used in the political compass is an aproximate model. Even so it is twice as accurate as the one dimensional model of conventional left right politics that creates two party states in the west.

We have to recognise that the one dimensional model is the inevitable product of post Aristotlian dialectic aproach of modern western philosophy. Pre Aristotlian Greek philosphy, on which the western model is based was far more accurate hence the apearence of forums and true democracy (except for voiceless slaves and the majority of women) representative democracy reduces all but our represntatives to being voiceless.

With the internet the key power of the media is reduced and one of the conerstones of representative opresion is curbed. We all become free to air our views to the public it is not just power of the press.

The ability to speak and air our views freely is a great boon. If the pen can be mightier than the sword then the internet is mightier than WMD. (Or a Whitehouse Lie Factory)

Kind Regards Walker