>Seeing bicycles stationed under the rain always got to me. But in recent years there is something else that breaks my heart... >The little red light that flashes when you get voicemails on the phone... Like, this one time, when I was gone for a week it kept flashing its signal, all cold and alone in the dark. I mean it could use a little rest when its master is away... >I find this kind of undying loyalty really touching. But it is its job, so I understand. >Courage, my little light!
>>138194940 People always resent when the progress of technology makes their particular job obsolete. Do we worry about all the blacksmiths we put out of business by inventing the automobile? Fuck no, and no one would ever say we should have curtailed the automobile in order to save the hardworking blacksmiths' jobs. No one will the fuck care that McDonald's and Walmart are fully automated because fuck dead end, low wage, menial work. Robots won't take away our jobs; they'll free us from them.
>>138195750 Robots are doing the jobs. People won't need jobs. The necessities of life will be cheap enough to give away to the people because of automation. Monetary value will shift to more esoteric products and services.
>>138195947 Not really. I expect nearly every job that is required by a civilization to be taken over by robots and automated processes.
>>138196502 >Not really. So you were just misrepresenting your opinion. Gotcha.
>People won't need jobs. People don't need jobs. People need money. We are running towards a major crisis that can only end either by a top elite locking everybody else out of civilization (Battle Angel Alita scenario) or by completely reworking the way our societies work.
>>138196584 >completely reworking the way our societies work. Right, by having robots do all the menial labor required for everyday living. People will be free to pursue anything they desire; some will choose to pursue a career path that will earn them income and thus purchase goods and services not provided for free.
>>138196762 >Right, by having robots do all the menial labor required for everyday living. That means people can't pay for any of the products that the robots produce which means that society collapses. I know what you are thinking of, but you are missing a few steps there.
>>138196970 It's not so bad, really. After we blot out the skies to deprive the machines of the solar power they are so dependent upon, we lose the war and all get hooked up in a virtual recreation of human society circa 1999.
>>138197043 A societal collapse cannot come without collateral damage. Take the collapse of the GDR for example. The GDR had one of the most optimal collapses one could imagine. Not only was state violence kept to a minimum (once they realized shit was hitting the fan), there was also a replacement system available immediately, stable as fuck and rich enough to pay for everything. And yet there was lots of collateral damage. Lots of people lost their jobs, their credentials, their futures... That doesn't mean that the overall result is all-bad of course.
With the robots we have the following problem: They are expensive to produce. They will likely not be private and available for everybody. But you can't sell your labor any more to pay for them because nobody wants your labor. So they will be owned by the government. That puts a lot of power into the government's hands. Are you prepared for full blown "communist" dictatorship?
>>138194755 >He's right though, the world can only support so many people living at a high standard. I hate this meme, people underestimate nature and the world. Not even talking about memes like "you can fit entire population within certain area", earth has plenty room for growth however there's hardly anyone doing anything to maintain stability and push technology forward. So many people packed within urban areas with plenty of viable area in countryside or still relatively close to big cities. Tons of wasted space or spaces used impractically.
>>138197308 Because living outside of urban centers is literally a waste. Cities are cheaper in terms of general resources and energy. You want to raise the living standard of everybody? You want everybody to have cars? AND you want everybody to go live in fuck-no-where which means they'll have to drive for >2 hours to get to work?
>>138197479 Surprise. New York is a tiny fraction of the world population. It's also an American city which means it's public transport system sucks. And yet it's still better than any village of 20, in some god-forsaken place that you wouldn't find on the map even if you knew where it was.
He could just be supporting free, widely available sex ed, birth control, and abortions like any forward thinking person should. Prevention is far, FAR more effective than mass killings in moderating populations, as most educated people (educating them is an important step) hate having children. If you give them an easy opportunity to not have kids, the majority of people will choose to have them much later, and have far fewer of them, because raising kids suck (and I guess environmental reasons might play a role). And, at worst/best, encouraging or even forcing sterilizations or abortions on people who have too many kids is a really good alternative to straight up killing people. I don't think any sane person thinks decimating the population is an effective solution to overconsumption.
Supporting population control doesn't mean "subtly encourag[ing] mass genocide". I wish more countries and people supported the idea of giving half a shit about their future past the next couple of decades, but the world has become consumed with this corporatist ideal of ever increasing quarterly profits in all things, and population control would necessitate curtailing profits in favor of sustainability. China had the right idea with the one child policy and forced abortions and such even if the consequence of too many boys was unintended, but far too few countries have the nuts to take hard steps, and even China ended up pussying out. Humanity is on a crash course with a massive societal collapse, and even though it hilariously obvious, hardly anybody gives two shits and just pushes down on the accelerator even more. I can't even get mad anymore, my whole species supports destroying ourselves, so I might as well have another beer and just watch
inb4 claims of edgy or some other shit. This is just common sense. The Earth's resources can't support the growth and consumption we demand of it, and our cushy lives will collapse sooner or later. I'll just watch anime until then I guess.
>>138197529 Also, New York City is a little special in that a lot of its failures of being able to accommodate public transportation is due to the fact that a lot of city planning involving important roads/highways were designed by a guy who actually hated public transportation, poor people, black people, and Puerto Ricans. Essentially he made NYC a place where cars were absolutely necessary in numerous areas because the infrastructure couldn't handle trains/buses.
So any issue that you have with NYC's public transportation being inefficient or not having the reach that it really should was likely created on purpose and seated in class/race separation. And it can't be changed because we've become reliant on it. >"Legislation can always be changed. It’s very hard to tear down a bridge once it’s up.” So he built 180 or 170 bridges too low for buses. There's a whole book on it called The Power Broker. It's pretty crazy.
>>138198762 >It’s very hard to tear down a bridge once it’s up.” So he built 180 or 170 bridges too low for buses. "Fortunately" it's become trendy to spend way too little on maintaining infrastructure. Maybe those bridges will break down all on their own, giving us the opportunity to build smarter.
>>138198860 I guess that would be one small positive to America being COMPLETELY fucking retarded with its priorities. That is, of course, assuming any money was spent on building anything, rather than just cleaning the immediate damage from the bridges and spending more on sports stadiums and the military.
>>138194835 All the creature comforts of the first world still don't stop the K-selected hordes from reproducing. It really is down to us or them. Africa, India, China, Latin America. They must be purified for humanity to have any semblence of prosperity in the future.
>>138199008 I chose that image intentionally. The fact is that humans as individuals can't stop the vast majorities' complete insistence on opulent self destruction. I can't stop the overconsumption and overpopulation no matter how much I write my corrupt Congressman or hold little hippie letter writing campaigns, hence the image. You can't stop it either, regardless of what you do. Even if the actions are common sense, virtually nobody gives a shit so there is no stopping this train.
I want to be more optimistic, but I don't see anybody in power giving half a shit, so there's really no rationality behind optimism here. More and more scientists are supporting the idea of a sixth manmade mass extinction, so that alone should be some significant support for change, but you barely even hear about it outside of a very few obscure news stories.
>>138199459 It's meant to be sort of humorous, but also sort of serious. I didn't think a throwaway attention grabber image would really be what somebody decided made or broke my comment. Are you really that incapable of rational thought that a meme image made you incapable of thinking?
>>138199515 Reaction images elicit emotional responses. That is precisely why they are popular. If an image had no such effect on people, you wouldn't post it.
On /a/ Ron Paul is mostly associated with fear mongering morons and with ironic happening threads. When somebody posts a wall of text alongside Ronnie, a lot of people may decide they've had their share of /pol/ retardation for the day and just skip the entire post. I didn't, that's precisely why I can tell you that your image is not very helpful.
I think the best kind of image you could have gone with is a Consider the Following.
>>138199389 You're just being retarded. Yes, species are dying off at a ridiculous rate and have done so for decades thanks to humans, which is why no one talks about it: it's old news. Yes, there are problems with overpopulation and overconsumption in places like India and China where supply chains are primitive and there aren't a ton of supplies to go around. And yes, there will be drastic changes in the way society works thanks to automation in the future.
But those are all driven by human nature. You can't stop a hungry person from eating, or make a businessman give up obscene profits. It's not about rationality. Everyone knows it's all happening but the simple truth is that it's better than the alternative.
>>138199118 Nah, birthrates are falling in those places too. Iran for example dropped from 4-5 to 1-2. Most of Latin America will probably have the same age gap problem as Europe and Japan by the end of the next decade.
>>138197308 Are you out of your mind? Country areas are far more harmful than cities.
Take brazil for example, cities like Sao Paulo and Rio might pollute a lot, but its all localized. The countryside however, the people living in spread out areas and using a lot of land, are single handedly fucking up the world's weather as they cut down the forests and jungles to open space.
>>138197529 >It's also an American city which means it's public transport system sucks. Is there any country where public transport is good then? It's hard to see a 1st world country having shitty public transport as we have here in a 5th world country
>>138194835 that'd be nice but it aint going to work like that. What will happen is the rich people will stay rich and be able to do whatever the fuck they want, since they now directly control the entire workforce and the poor will not even have possible employment anymore. There will be no lower class jobs. It's Uni or poverty in this scenario unless every modern country suddenly became socialist as shit.
>>138204778 Countries with a greater than average population density, which only goes to prove the point yet again that putting your people all into one spot is good in terms of management. On the countryside you have to whether you should run a bus past a certain stop every 2 hours despite the fact that there will be only 1 or 2 passengers, and the people have to buy a car anyway because 1 bus every two hours means you'll never get anywhere on time.
In the city where I live most people don't have cars, and lots of people don't even get driving licenses. In contrast on the village where I was born, everybody upgrades from bikes/bus to car as soon as they get old enough. Living in super-cities is the future. Tiny settlements are the past.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.