/sci/ - Science & Math

We'll have to move to a basic income model where everyone is given an income adequate for basic life needs, and any additional work they do is only to obtain additional income on the side.

But this is out of place on /sci/ isnt it? Maybe /pol/ would be better

I've thought about this before too. Personally I think we will get to a point where it is widely accepted that there are not enough jobs for people to do. I think at this point a lot of things will be provided free of charge, such as food and energy, and being an expert in something will be seen as a very high societal honor. I think an emphesis will be made on people staying in education for MUCH longer where the focus in society would be for each person to help contribute to the problems of the day (such as evaluating data taken by machines in other parts of the galaxy to decide where to distribute populations etc)

I don't think everyone will be just sitting around on their ass doing nothing.

>>5203367
I debated on which board to post this. IMO, pol is retarded, so I thought I'd get better answers from people who actually know a thing or two about science and math.

>>5203376
The idea that without jobs, people would do nothing, is so ridiculous. Right now we are posting on /sci/, completely unpaid, anonymous even, but nevertheless our silly posts here on 4chan are making a small tiny little contribution to the world's culture etc. and we're doing it completely uncompensated. when people stop working, they'll do stuff like we're doing now, and life will be good

Almost everything is free (if not everything) where people have jobs that they want like painter, writer or scientist. Without greed and more resources there will be far less crime and people will be smarter. Wars will be a thing of the past and space will be within our grasp. The only problem is how our governments and society will change in order to deal with this.

I know many artists and some are even award wining. The only thing stopping them from spending all of their time on art is jobs and once those aren't required the great people of our world will be able to do amazing things for humanity. People will do more then just watch T.V. all day and instead pick up some form of hobby.

Basically, there will be a big wall around your city. Inside the wall is a utopia. Robots do everything. Humans are there simply to research and enjoy life.

But outside the wall, is a massive refugee camp. No one from outside the wall is allowed inside and no one from inside dares venture out.

Did I do a good job trying to predict the future?

>>5203391
yeah, but think about what you just said.
>when people stop working
Thing is, we do this in our spare time because we can, as we have paid our bills/done our duties by working through the day.
But if you had someone here who doesn't work and posts on 4chan all day, you can bet your ass society considers that person as a waste or drain on resources.

The idea is that when machines can do everything we do as jobs, what does society base its ''value'' as ''work'' on?

>>5203408
No. Sounds like a bad science fiction book.

>>5203413
Things that machines can't do. Scientists, artists and engineers will be considered the best of us for contributing to society.

>>5203408
you did a good job of describing this image

>>5203413
>you can bet your ass society considers that person as a waste or drain on resources

I wouldn't really say so, not if there's nothing that person can do that a robot can't do better.

One could argue that posting intelligently on /sci/ provides more benefit to society than certain sinecure-type jobs, or jobs which only exist e.g. because if the job was automated a department would get a smaller payroll budget, that kind of thing.

Hell, by staying home, the poster is not clogging the roads/polluting the air with car exhaust/etc

>>5203419
That's what I initially thought.
But what are the rest of the p[opulation going to do?
When you think about it, 90% of a country's population is just made up of ''plebs'' who do some menial job and then go home and watch tv all day.

>>5203422
but who is going to provide for his electricity bill, food, healthcare etc.

the public, therefore he is a drain because he isn't working.

>>5203441
Well the reason most people are plebs is because of the society they live in. Maybe in the future when our society sees more in science and art children will be raised to care about it more. I don't think everyone will work but as long as we still have some artists and scientists things would be good.

>>5203445
his electricity comes from a power plant run by robots, his food comes from a farm run by robots, his healthcare is provided by a robot doctor

>>5203449
I was talking about modern people doing that.
But yeah, in the proposed idea of OP, that would be the case.
But what sets him aside from those people who have studies years and actually keep all that machinery working?

>>5203455
I dunno, it's a hard question. Maybe the people who keep the machine running are entitled to extra luxuries like on-demand space vacations, automatic electric stimulus of brain's pleasure center, etc. I don't know. Or maybe the few needed to run things just do it for the prestige (imagine how much of a fucking rockstar you would be in a world like this where you're part of the 1% who keeps it all utopia)

>>5203464
>people keeping the machine running

Just have about a half-dozen repair drones with access to a 3D printer. They can fix anything that goes wrong. Then the only human intervention maybe is a guy who comes in when a community alarm goes off saying that the 3D printer is running low on materials. He adds a new tank of material and replaces the old one, and the system keeps on running as normal.

In time, even that job would be rendered unnecessary.

>>5203408
And firemen burn books right?

>>5203483
>Then the only human intervention maybe is a guy who comes in when a community alarm goes off saying that the 3D printer is running low on materials

I just had an image in my head of a printer in a room that starts beeping
one person slowly turns his head in horror and smashes an emergency glass containing a button
when this button is pressed, sirens in all the cities in the world go off and people stop what they are doing and drop to their knees looking at the sky in horror, hoping they survive the cataclysm
then out of a door bursts a hero, holding aloft a cartridge of ink, who slow-mo races to the printer, pushing people aside in desperation
he then slots in the ink and the red flashing light turns a steady green
he then slowlty turns and says ''alas, the deed is done''
mass celebrations were then had worldwide and that guy got so much pussy he died of overpussydose aqnd was forever remembered as the hero of the gaes

I need to drink less coffee at 3am

I'd love to live in a world like that.
I could just study physics all day erry day and never have to worry about my fucking gas bill.

wait, but in that kind of world would it be feasable that I could sign up to every MMO imaginable at no cost?

>>5203509

I was actually thinking that this job would be the duty of some locally elected community official for wherever the station is housed, like the town's mayor or something. But your idea sounds better.

We seriously need to get rid of capitalism.

>>5203509
lol'd

>>5203575
lol

>>5203575
We need Democratic-Socialism.

People can still work, make extra cash, have same rights, vote etc. But everyone has enough to make it an be well off to boot. Competion breeds invoation.

>>5203575
> We seriously need to get rid of capitalism.

Capitalism is such an effective system of controlling people, that all people who advocate getting rid of it, like you, will be gotten rid of by capitalism FIRST. Via hard warfare, soft warfare (civil disturbance) or starvation.

The only future Humanity has with all this crap is gigadeaths from war and starvation. We have precisely ZERO socio-economic mechanisms otherwise that depopulate. And depopulation is the only solution to having excess people. The same principles apply as with biological populations, which we are, and which we never stopped behaving as.

>>5203611
>And depopulation is the only solution to having excess people.
Space.

Colonies.

>>5203358

Communism most likely.

>>5203611
Protip: Malthus is wrong. If you want to get less people without killing people, make them rich, well off, and non-religious. Most first world countries have negative population growths if you take out immigration and extended life expectancies.

>>5203408
> Did I do a good job trying to predict the future?

No. You only predicted a scifi large form of the interim future. We have what you predicted already, in the form of common lifestyles in the Third World, where the controllers live in luxury behind walls and guards.

In the Penultimate Future, the masses outside will be too numerous for any walls to hold back. So they must be killed one way or another. War, starvation: These are the real culls of Humanity.

1000 years from now, there will be less than 1 billion Humans on Earth, and Earth will be the only place they'll be in the universe. It's likely to be less, maybe as low as 200 million people. And they'll live the exact same sort of pastoral existence that people lived in North American before the White Devils came. High technology will be limited by what can be performed while using the only long-term energy source left to shattered Humanity: Wood. Petroleum will be a legend. Coal and natural gas, similar. "Nuclear" will mean certain locations that shamans warn people away from, since people who went there tended to die from some sickness.

>>5203638
>War, starvation: These are the real culls of Humanity.
>Not disease

>>5203611
>Capitalism is such an effective system

Another way of looking at it is that capitalism was created to solve a computational problem: the problem of deciding what gets produced. And indeed, capitalism performs marvelously well at solving this problem... for the era it was created in. Which happens to be an era with no computers. Which happen to be the ultimate devices for solving computational problems.

>>5203638
War and Starvation can be avoided.

Disease can't.

>>5203629

Protip: You can't plan for these things. People grab resources until they starve, just like any dumb animal. We're dumb animals. We're just armed with technology.

The population of the world is going to expand to perhaps 9 billion people, but Peak World Oil was reached in 2005. If there was any sort of plan that you imply, then world population would be dropping NOW. But it's not.

So you're fucking wrong. The animal inside us, the Violent Simian, will prevail, per se. It ultimately governs all actions. And that leads to DIE OFFS.

>>5203629

This dude is right on the mark. Diffusion of technology means that third-world countries are reaching first-world standards faster and faster. Add that to the fact that population rates decrease in first-world enviroments, and we've got a recipe for a decreasing population.

The problem is the diffusion of technology needs to be a little faster.

And I don't know how many of you guys actually work with robots, but in my experience for every machine that takes a persons job, one person is needed to run it and another is needed to maintain it. As robotics gets more complex, this number will go down, but I doubt that we'll ever get the stage where we won't need people looking after the machines.

>>5203647

>Violent Simian Guy

Seriously, fuck off with your inane bullshit.

>>5203650
>in my experience for every machine that takes a persons job, one person is needed to run it and another is needed to maintain it

Sure, but that machine probably doesn't take just one person's job-- it takes dozens or thousands, or completely obsoletes an entire industry. Consider that we used to employ millions of clerks to manually add up sums, now one single laptop can do all the computation which an entire career field used to do, and run Minecraft on the side.

>>5203643

Our use of computers has only increased the ability of the elite to rule us. In combination with Cheap Oil, it also allowed the elite to arrange a world stuffed with too many BILLIONS of people to feed. Remember, oil is fundamental to the industrialized agriculture that so much of Humanity depends on. Nothing moves without that massive petroleum input. Billions of Humans are only alive today because they are effectively eating calories only made possible from that massive oil input. They are eating oil, indirectly. Without oil to fuel that, the Human food chain will literally collapse, and subject us to infighting and starvation that is literally no better than than what ant colonies go through.

Humans can't see that they're not that smart. And there's no higher lifeform to judge them on this and correct them on this. So we're doomed, regardless of what's said here. 1000 years from now, it will be like nothing we've done today was ever performed. Massive wars and starvations will wipe all this away.

>>5203666
We'll find other sources of energy in time (I'll grant you, the transition period might be a bit rough!) In terms of pure energy, the sunlight hitting the Sahara desert is more than enough for 100 times the Earth's population, we just need to get out of our slump and actually harvest it.

>>5203666
In 100 years we'll have artifical oil that is super cheap and widespread.
100 years ago, 95% of the world had no electricity.

Fuck you

>>5203660

But now we employ millions of people to do the administrative work, because the industry expanded and allowed them to do other things.

Think about it - we employ more people now than we did then. And we've got heaps of machines.

>>5203650
> we've got a recipe for a decreasing population

You won't make it in time. The population vector says "nine billion" in a few more decades. We reached Peak World Oil in 2005. Google it. World oil production reached a peak which has plateaued ever since, but it must then drop, and the drop must become steeper with time. Those curves will meet drastically, producing a catastrophe. Billions must die off, in a short period of time. There just won't be enough high-capacity food production to keep them alive. War must play a role, therefore. That's really the only difference between Humans and all other animals that came before them: Their capacity to wage war, to use technology to kill massive numbers of its own kind.

That inevitable fate totally explains the Silent Sky. Life kills itself off. Life's innate competitive drive makes it too lethal once technology arrives.

>so the question is, what will everybody do?

Get a job that machines won't be able to do in your life time and laugh at everyone else

>>5203680
The planet has enough food and space for 20 Billion people iirc

>>5203680
>population vector
well there's your problem right there. you're assuming a function is linear when it clearly isn't...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

When populations approach their carrying capacity, they tend to level out in their approach; they don't, as you suggest, drastically overshoot it and then compensate with a huge die-out. That would be silly

>>5203680
I think you are looking at the timeline entirely wrong. You can already see in the status quo that we are starting to move towards different energy sources than oil, and even if currently we might not rely on them as much as we should one can still be certain that we will transition away from it long before the lack of oil becomes a problem.

At the same time, the innovations in technology and space utilization will help boost food production, allowing for us to support larger populations. In looking even more long term, we can start to expand to other planets for more space and resources. Your entire viewpoint is a very cynical one, and that corrupts your entire world viewpoint.

>>5203672
> In 100 years we'll have artifical oil that is super cheap and widespread.

You clearly don't understand petroleum geology, nor economics. Nothing beats historical geological oil. Such hydrocarbons can't be made anywhere near as cheaply as we got when we stuck pipes into the ground and it flowed out in billions of barrels.

Somewhere in your so-called education there is a huge hole where you avoided these critical truths. That can't have happened by accident. You were exposed to lots of propaganda (normal in the West), or you decided to keep believing that your electronic toys getting better and better meant that everything would improve for Humanity.

You have no credibility in this discussion. It's time for you to leave. Now.

>>5203680

Do you really think that humans will let themselves die out? And you're assuming that we can't supplement our energy needs with other sources as the cost of oil goes through the roof.

I think you're seriously underestimating how cost-effective other energy sources will become in the event that oil production no longer meets our consumption requirements.

I can't wait until I can be paid to be a NEET. Life will be great.

>>5203691
>Nothing beats historical geological oil
>Implying nuclear energy doesn't exist

>>5203691
The main reason why currently we aren't using more green energy sources is because oil is currently cheaper. If it gets to the point where oil costs more to use than renewable alternatives, you can expect us to have a massive transition away from oil. Also, as the technology for renewable energy increases, it will continually become a more attractive option for us to move to.

>>5203691
Nuclear Energy will b e waste free when we start shooting the waste into space.

And of course Artificial oil isn't as good as geo oil.

Geo oil is plentiful right now, and artificial is costly and not needed.

But in 100 years?

>>5203690
> we are starting to move towards different energy sources than oil

False. You CAN'T move away from oil and keep 9 billion people not only fed, but striving towards the Western lifestyle of commuting in 2-ton cars. The USA alone with 4.5% of the world's population, consumes 20% of the world's oil. There are 2.5 billion people in China and India who are itching to do the same. It's impossible to achieve.

Nothing replaces oil. You can't get ANY other energy source that gives you oil's three factors all at once: Cheap, energy dense, and practical. All other energy sources fail to meet one or more of those. Only natural gas is close, but isn't as energy dense and sure as shit isn't anywhere near as practical.

Petroleum makes everything MOVE. We move lots of things in megatonnage because we can do so cheaply Without oil, that just can't happen. It's math, guy. Energy times money equals petroleum. Take oil away, and you have to lose energy or money, and the loss of either one spells the doom of the Western Lifestyle that all these morons are working towards.

The future is pastoral. That's the real carrying capacity of the post-petroleum world. And you can't feed 9 billion people that way. Maybe 2-3 billion.

>>5203691

>Look, if something isn't the best right now, it's never going to be useful ever.

That is essentially what you just said.

>>5203718
nuclear

>>5203718
The change is not going to be sudden, I agree with you that currently no alternative energy can fully replace oil. However, the technology is currently in it's infancy, and we can only expect it to improve as time goes on. Also, we do not have to rely on one singular energy source for all of our needs, we can use a combination to ensure that we meet our demands.

The way you are laying out your opinions implies that you want to see some sort of disaster, which makes me worry for your psychological makeup.

>>5203718

You realise that as we start to move away from oil, the rate of consumption decreases, right? As we find replacements for oil in terms of energy, that's a big step towards weaning off oil, and extends how long we have before we're cut off completely.

I just think you want humanity to blow itself to kingdom come, and you won't listen to anything that tells you otherwise.

>>5203725
We already have it. It's called nuclear and the Green Freedom method.

>>5203701
>Implying nuclear energy doesn't exist

You can't read English. Or your brain's been damaged by Western mal-education that conned you into thinking that infinite growth is possible.

Nuclear energy can't beat petroleum's CHEAP **AND** DENSE **AND** PRACTICAL. Can't you add things together, moron? This board is for science and MATH. And sadly, you can't even *add*.

Nuclear power can't be adapted so that you get billions of people commuting like Americans do. Period. The cost would kill the exercise. Remember, oil isn't just energy. It's CHEAP energy. It's DENSE energy. And it's PRACTICAL energy.

That /sci/tards can't even keep three variables in mind for one object, worries me. You guys claim you're scientists? That worries me more.

>>5203733
Nuclear + Green Freedom method. It's k.

Hey, OP, real wages tend towards the marginal product of labor, and the marginal product of labor is a function of the capital stock and technology.

Wages are a function of technology. In a free market, technological advancement contributes to rising real wages due to optimizing the efficiency of labor.

Take your Socialist Luddite notions elsewhere, you leftist faggot.

>>5203727
> You realise that as we start to move away from oil, the rate of consumption decreases, right?

That means your economies crash, which produces war. A lot of war. And we haven't even directly addressed the big worldwide battle for the remaining producing oil fields.

/sci/tards can't understand a problem when science is modified by economics. And I believe that's by design, as the Western powers have ensured they are supported by populations of technical wizards that are also economic morons. They didn't want you to understand that you're only laboring each day for the petro-armageddon that's to come for all of Humanity.

>>5203733
Sure, nuclear is extremely inefficient if, say, you're the only man on Earth and just want to cook dinner.

But the bigger the scale, the more efficient it becomes. Done at a large enough scale it's even MORE efficient than oil, provided we can mine enough uranium/etc.

>>5203733

>hurr durr, I'm Violent Simian Guy, and I'm a fucking retard

>>5203732
In order for the transition away from oil to happen, the thing we are switching to has to be better than the current oil system we have now.

While in theory nuclear and the Green Freedom method could solve, in terms of safety and cost, oil is still better. Until these technologies are cheaper, more efficient, or until we run out of oil they will not become a reality on a world wide scale.

>>5203741
>when science is modified by economics
Ah, you're right. I forgot that economics takes precedence over the laws of physics and mathematics. I retract my position.

We'll have fusion in 100 years

Yeah, fuck you bro. And besides, who says we wont find a way to power cars with water?

100 years is a long fucking time faggot.

>>5203733
This guy is mad.

>>5203741
No, believe it or not, the worldwide economy is not really all that independent upon the sale of oil. At this point, most of it is done by private industry, and any loss of jobs or other negatives would be made up for by growing green energy industries. Plus, we still use oil for other applications, like plastics and such, so it's not like all industry associated with it is going to disappear. Lrn2 economics.

>>5203741
>Imfuckingplying there'll be a large scale war ever again
If there is then the world is fucked. Like, no survivors fucked

>>5203742

I can't beat clear English for explaining what you refuse to accept.

Nuclear power can't power our transportations. Petroleum does that. You can't pour nuclear power into a can or a tank. Nuclear power is for the electric grid, of which 99.999% does NOT run our transportation networks.

The only solution is a massive crash of the standard of living in the West as the petroleum critically depletes. And that means Westerners will try to war on anyone who lives above an oil field they want to drill even harder.

>>5203755
Green Freedom method dipshit.

>>5203755
>you can't pour nuclear power into a can or a tank

That's what electric cars are for.

>>5203751
It'll happen, but it won't be because oil. It'll be the same reasons that caused WW1.
Nationism, Arms race, and shit.

>>5203755
Electric cars are a thing, and in 50 years they'll be even better. Then when the electic grid is based on nuclear, the cars are too.

Fuck you.

>>5203763
If any world power tries anything, we go back to a cold war scenario, not a world war one.

>>5203750
> who says we wont find a way to power cars with water?

Water isn't a fuel. Thanks for betraying that you're an idiot, from the view point of science.

Sunlight ---> crack water ---> H2 + O2 ---> YOU JUST LOST THE GAME. Because, you can't beat petro-economics with this water-cracking bullshit.

Once again, you can't remove economics from this discussion just because you DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. Economics is in fact a key element in what the OP was questioning. But I'm sure he didn't expect to deal with all the Cheetos-eaters on this board, for whom economic knowledge is limited to how many "plat" you get in some imaginary WoW raid.

>>5203763
There will never be another major war on a worldwide scale involving superpower nations. The additions of nuclear arsenals and the presence of mutually assured destruction stop any major war scenarios. Additionally, since the worldwide economy is so closely intertwined, it is not in any countries major interest to start or become involved in a war.

You are just being a warmonger.

>>5203755
You've been rightfully bludgeoned for implying electric cars don't exist, already, so I'll let you off on that and in fact, agree with you, that battery technology is something that we desperately need to get working on. It's a good thing some progress has been spurred here by the recent wireless craze, I hope the trend will continue, since I'd definitely be happier without the world descending into world war 3 myself

>>5203741

>They didn't want you to understand that you're only laboring each day for the petro-armageddon that's to come for all of Humanity.

I don't think you understand just how costly war has become in this day and age. The cost (both in economic terms, and the toll on the population) would be far too high for most Western nations to even consider. Places like Australia and Canada have enormous deposits of uranium, and strong economic ties to countries that already have large established nuclear facilities.

And you're basing this on the idea that we won't be able to improve any of our energy sources, in both efficiency and implementation. And you're ignoring the large amounts of people that are installing solar panels on their homes, converting to electric cars, or the general shift that's occuring to green energy.

And you seem to think that we'll turn to WAR immediately, as opposed to desperately funding alternative energy sources.

>>5203769
Actually, you can power a car using water. Assuming you are intelligent enough to use google, try looking up "Fuel Cells".

Economically, other sources of energy will be come better options as the price of oil rises due to shortages.

>>5203778
Ugg. Idiot and/or intellectually dishonest. That's powering it with hydrogen, not water.

>>5203780
Again, Green Freedom method.

>>5203759
> That's what electric cars are for.

They can't match petroleum-based vehicles. There are no electric airliners or bulldozers, either. You can't replace the sheet energy punch of a diesel engine or jet engine.

Your ignorance is simply staggering. Are you 14 years old or something? You're not supposed to be here. 4chan's for adults only.

>>5203780
You are making it seem like we have to make this transition overnight with the technology we currently have. By the time we have to make this switch, the technology and infrastructure will be there. Your childish ad hominem attacks are not helping solidify your position.

>>5203781
And we could get the hydrogen from the water. It's future technology man, I ain't gotta explain shit.

>>5203780
the US Navy is currently using nuclear to make steam to drive turbines to create electricity to split water to make hydrocarbon jet fuels. Only small-scale atm, but probably going to be the way to go shortly.

so there is that.

>>5203778
> you can power a car using water

You didn't read what I said. Water is not a fuel. And when you crack water into H2 and O2 for a fuel cell (which I alluded to, moron), you so totally lost to petroleum that you LOST THE GAME. Economically your car will never reach the market.

4chan is for adults only. You're plainly only a teenager or preteen. Mods, WHERE ARE YOU? Get these immature little hooligans off my site.

>>5203770
Maybe I spend to much time on /pol/

But the middle east in general has a ton of tension right now. A fucking ton. It's only a matter of time, with Putin hating the US, and Romney having a shot a winning.

War will not stop, until we have a world government, or aliens.

>>5203769
Maybe I don't know much about economics, but I know we were using water to power things back in the 1800's-- steam engines, I believe they were called, though of course you'll counter that those used coal as well, and you're absolutely right, so maybe it's a moot point. But getting back to economics, surely you don't think economics are intrinsically built into the universe in the same way as the laws of physics and mathematics? If capitalism had never been developed, and the whole world had been communistic from the get-go, the "laws" of economics would be wildly different than they are now

>>5203780

Airlines are a fair point, as are bulldozers.

That being said, I've always wanted an underground network of electric trains that run across continents. Maybe the future will finally provide that for me.

>>5203780
100 years.

Look at the progress we've made in 10.

I destroyed your agruement, so fuck off.

>>5203786
>And we could get the hydrogen from the water. It's future technology man, I ain't gotta explain shit.
Yes, you do. Otherwise it's called "wishful thinking", aka "delusion".

>>5203784
A flashpoint in the Middle East would not grow to a worldwide thing, even then it would not cause a world war.

>>5203788
You keep bringing up economics, if you look to the entire theory of peak oil, than you can see that eventually oil is no longer going to be the best way to power ourselves. At this point, green technologies like fuel cells and electric cars will move to become the primary movers of our economies.

>>5203794
Okay, so we should just assume that no technological advancements are going to be made in the next 100 years?

>>5203788

>Gosh, I'm totally arguing with kids! This'll show them that my arguements are clearly superior, because unlike them, I'm an adult.

Stop being a twat. It doesn't help your argument at all, just makes you look like an entitled brat who can't win an argument with logic.

>>5203790
I'll second the motion for underground train networks!

Seriously though. There was a time when people thought a major problem for the future would be that there would be too much horse-manure in the streets and that cleaning it up would become unmanageable. Some even thought this problem would become so bad it would grind civilization to a halt

>>5203803
>Okay, so we should just assume that no technological advancements are going to be made in the next 100 years?
I would prefer focusing on plans on technologies available now instead of possible pipe dreams. That why we should be rolling out nuclear now, and testing Green Freedom, testing LFTR, and all of that good shit.

>>5203794

I assume that some sort of laws will be introduced that certain jobs are protected and can not be replaced by robots.

>>5203786
>>5203794
>>5203807
Protip: I'm the guy advocating the Green Freedom method and nuclear.

>>5203784

The middle east does have a lot of tension, but the majority of it is pointed at itself. The riots/revolts for the most part are being completely self-contained.

But as someone who has been watching how the Arab Spring is going, it's amazing stuff.

>>5203806
The shift away from oil is not going to be sudden, it is going to take years. Over that span we can introduce tons of different energy sources into the world marketplace. Those could include nuclear, but other growing markets who technologically are growing at a rapid rate are also going to play a massive role.

>>5203810
your preferences have no effect on the state of the art.

like it or not we are making jet fuel out of water.

>>5203803
Russia and China have allies that are enemies of American Allies.

All 3 are world super powers.

Nigga, this is what lead up to WW1. Tangled alliances, Nationalism, and Arms Race(Iran wanting nukes, and Murrica stockpiling arms for example)

It's already begun.

>>5203813
That's a horribly dishonest way of phrasing it. We're not. We're making it out of nuclear. Water is not the fuel that is expended.

>>5203808
That would be stupid and hurt progress and efficiency.

>>5203815
Seems unlikely.

>>5203808
You could very well be right. For example, they might outlaw self-driving cars, which would otherwise be a big work-liberator.

Imagine how horrible that would be, though, in the long run, having a job and knowing it could be automated so easily. To get an idea of that feeling, imagine the government employs you to do long division by hand, 8 hours a day, and that's your career, and I'm talking today in the 21st century as it is presently. Wouldn't you go mad?

>>5203785
> surely you don't think economics are intrinsically built into the universe in the same way as the laws of physics and mathematics

Yes, of course economics is. That's because wherever you look at animals interacting in any way, there's economics in action. Humans are the best example.

If you claim to be a scientist, or you claim to adhere to science, then you must look at what exists and then accept what exists. Economics is obviously a huge force in Human living. The damage from a fall from a bridge is of the same concern to a Human as is the damage from losing a job. Both produce bad results that Humans want to avoid. Why pretend that one is somehow subjective when the other is objective? The danger is real in both cases.

The root problem here is that this board is filled with techie wizards that have been purposefully steered around economics education, so as to be more controllable by the capitalist elite. Once the wizards design out the wars, they will be discarded by the same elite. When we shed billions of lives, 99% of those will be shed from the ranks of the drones. The elite will survive much of the upheaval pretty much without a scratch. Of course the joke's on them, since even being one of the elite, doesn't make more petroleum appear for use. Eventually the last barrel will drip out of the last derrick, and then the last cubic foot of NG will fsssssh out of the last pipe, and the last cubic foot of coal will drop from the last bucket, and the Long Night of Humanity will really deepen.

>>5203814
WW1 didn't have nuclear weapons that had the capability of killing the entire world in a matter of seconds.

A major war would not escalate simply because of this alone. Plus, my points about the interconnectedness of the world still stand.

>>5203821
>capitalist elite
Tell you what. Propose a better workable system, or shut the fuck up.

>>5203821

Also, I like how you've clearly ignored arguments that you can't refute. I don't disagree that the majority of the people on this board aren't educated on how economics works, but you're definitely one of them.

>>5203821
The way you keep bringing up economics is making me start to think you are Mitt Romney. This is a purely scientific situation, you trying to bring economics into it is a nice idea in theory, but in this situation what solves the problem most efficiently is also what is the best solution economically.

Oil is not going to be the cheapest thing forever, and once that changes so will the way we get energy.

>>5203821
>The damage from a fall from a bridge is of the same concern to a Human as is the damage from losing a job

I'm not a neuroscientist so I could be wrong, but I have a hunch that neuroscience could objectively disprove this claim. I.e., I bet standing on a precipice and starting to lose your balance, pumps out a lot more adrenaline than having your boss threaten you.

>wherever you look at animals interacting in any way, there's economics in action

In a certain sense, for a certain sufficiently broad definition of economics, yes. But there are certainly animals who seem to violate the law of supply and demand pretty badly

>>5203824
What do you think is gonna happen when Israel keeps pressuring the US to nuke Iran, and Iran keeps making nukes?

And Iran and Russia are allies. So Russia returns the blows and hits our major cities.

And Russia is allied with China.

That makes Russia, Syria, Iran and China against Israel, America, France and the UK.

As soon as we launch troops into Iran, or bomb it, Russia hits us.

Reading this thread makes me realise again how incredibly cheap oil is. Even bottled water is more expensive.

>>5203831

Actually, he's right there, you're misinterpreting what he's saying. There've been studies that have shown that (for instance) people aren't afraid of drink-driving because they might die, they're afraid of drink-driving because of prison.

His example is similar - I'm not particularly conerned about falling of a bridge, but I'm scared of losing my job. See what I mean?

>in the next couple of hundred years...GDP
Stopped reading there. Energy, we either find something to replace fossil fuels or most of us die.

It's all a one off freak show, if you can take any consolation out of it just be happy you were lucky enough to see it with your own eyes because it will never happen again - 7 billion top predators? lol

>>5203837

China is also closely allied with Australia, who is very close allies with America. It's all interconnected, and if we've found out anything from things like the current recession is that if one domino falls, a lot more are gonna follow.

>>5203837
The US is not going to back Israel if they attack Iran first, even then, no other country would want to get involved in such a conflict.

Russia is not willing to torpedo it's economy and lose thousands if not millions of lives over a minor Middle East conflict.

China sells essentially all of it's shit to the US, they will not go to war against the most powerful nation on the earth, destroying it's economy in the process, for any reason.

Also, everyone knows that a major world war would lead to the use of nukes, which leads to everyone dying, which means that nobody aside from edgy teenagers on 4chan would actually be advocating for such a war.

>>5203849
So take China out of the equasion.

Your still left with Russia vs USA with some smaller countries in there.

Putin is anti US right now, and is pretty much a dictator.

>>5203853
War increases economy.

Russia's leader is anti US.

Think about it.

I'm not wanting this, but it'll happen.

>>5203856
Putin may hate the US, but he is also not a retard who wants to drag his country down in a war he knows it cannot win.

You play too many video games if you honestly think such a conflict could occur.

Russia didn't have the balls to attack when it was at the helm of the USSR, one of the biggest nations in history, and the US was doing a hell of a lot more to provoke it than meddling in some sandfriends' business.

Now Russia is a shade of its former glory, has a fraction of its former influence, and NOW you think they'll get into fisticuffs with the US?

>>5203864
>war increases economy

No it doesn't. Let's use logic here instead of wishful thinking:

>major war happens
>massive amounts of reserves and other civilians are mobilized
>suddenly nobody left to work the countless jobs here at home
>economy suffers

Also:
>spending massive amounts of money on supplies to satisfy deployments
>damage due to fighting
>other costs I have not accounted for

I seriously hope you are just trying to be funny and that you don't actually believe this.

>>5203856

My point was more that no-one's going to start a large-scale international conflict anytime soon. Between how bad things are in Europe, the fear of nuclear holocaust, and just the fact that even if you somehow managed to destroy the other side without a scratch, you're losing a shitload of business in the middle of a recession, it's not going to happen.

Putin's not a dumb guy, he's smart enough to get where he is now. I don't think he's going to do something incredibly rash like that.

>>5203864
>War increases economy.
War is fucking expensive dude

>>5203873
I think economists have a special term for this "war increases economy" idea, don't they call it "broken window economics" or something? The idea that smashing a window actually helps the economy since it provides work for the repairman and the factory and etc. But I'm pretty sure no economists actually favor the idea, in fact it's something of a joke isn't it?

>>5203873
WW2 got us out of the Depression.

Creates jobs, industry, advancements, etc.

>>5203877
I'm going to go ahead and let you just go ahead and believe that. It's late and I have better things to do than explain day 1 economics to someone who thinks that a world war is going to break out any day now. I suggest checking out /pol/ for other like minded individuals such as yourself.

>>5203881
See:
>>5203876

It's not favorable, it's not the best choice. But it's a choice.

>>5203877

Russia's selling weapons to places like Syria. It doesn't actually want to be involved in a war, which in todays economy is super costly, especially since people don't like being the aggressive party. Look at American's reactions to the Iraq War - do you think that helped America's economy?

>>5203892
War is Americas economy, what planet are you on?

The US military machine is the largest single consumer of fossil fuel products on the planet!

Manifest Destiny!

>>5203898
Ooops, I forgot I was on sci, I've been hanging out on /pol/ lately, I am gonna get the banhammer for that?

>>5203898
You're an idiot.

>>5203846
Diesel fuel is $1.20 a litre up here in Canada. A litre of bottled water is only $0.99

capitalism is gonna collapse lol