Gabriël Posted July 16, 2019 Author Share Posted July 16, 2019 12 minutes ago, plonkster said: man meddling with nature... that should actually not read 'meddling' but 'managing'. and i believe that as nature has been given to man to have dominion over it [cf genesis 1:26] there is nothing wrong with it, actually it is a god-given command. the matter lies with the 'responsibility' - man has this stewardship and is responsible towards the command giver in the end; as with everything else in life, account will have to be given. hence quite correctly 19 minutes ago, plonkster said: without assuming a value system that is itself above nature... hence we also have to take note of the earliest 'gene manipulation' or 'breeding programs' referred to in history: Genesis 30:40-42 "And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle. And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods. But when the cattle were feeble, he put [them] not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's." see, nothing new under the sun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
___ Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, Gabriël said: hence quite correctly That's one of the funny things for me in any debate. You simply cannot denounce anything without assuming some minimal level of dogma (again, used in its non-pejorative sense, meaning simply things that you are expected to accept without question). So I agree with you there: Impossible to deal properly with nature without accepting that humans are, in a way, a little special, and that comes with the responsibility of not ******* it up. That does not however resolve the question of how far is too far. Is cisgenic a step too far? Personally I don't think so. Is transgenic a step too far? Personally I think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bobster said: In a world where the population is growing and jobs are disappearing, we need to increase yield per acre. What Deepbass said. Science in business do costs jobs. Like now with AI and robots potentially putting a whole lot of blue collar / news articles writers / financial advisers / developers / (list goes on ) jobs at risk. What I always wonder about: So if robots and AI's are going to take over jobs, how are the people who used to earn money doing those jobs, going to be able to re-invent themselves to be able to earn to buy the products AI's and robots manufacture? So you get rid of the unions / strikers / leave (sick/holiday/maternity) ... but who buys the products if there are more unemployed people? Edited July 16, 2019 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriël Posted July 16, 2019 Author Share Posted July 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, plonkster said: how far is too far as society is in flux - dynamic, us dying off & being replaced etc - nothing is really 'too far'. i believe 'too far' will be the end, full-stop. now don't get me wrong, i am not a nihilistic pessimist, all but; but for each and every person there is a 'too far', a full-stop, and that is not a societal occasion, but a very and most private one, for we might live as a 'group' but we die as individuals - in death there is no safety in numbers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepBass9 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 I wonder about that. Zillions of dollars are being spent to make self driving cars, hence putting a whole lot of people out of work. Uber which has helped create a new industry and jobs, is looking at self driving cars so all of those people will be out of work again. The question is, who is going to buy the robot made products and services if no one has a job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepBass9 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, Gabriël said: as society is in flux - dynamic, us dying off & being replaced etc - nothing is really 'too far'. i believe 'too far' will be the end, full-stop. now don't get me wrong, i am not a nihilistic pessimist, all but; but for each and every person there is a 'too far', a full-stop, and that is not a societal occasion, but a very and most private one, for we might live as a 'group' but we die as individuals - in death there is no safety in numbers So when do we reach the point where robots create robots, and then next stop humans are redundant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepBass9 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 (edited) ..Posted twice for some reason Edited July 16, 2019 by DeepBass9 Gabriël 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriël Posted July 16, 2019 Author Share Posted July 16, 2019 1 minute ago, DeepBass9 said: So when do we reach the point where robots create robots, and then next stop humans are redundant. don't worry, someone will, as always, throw a spanner in the works Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
___ Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Gabriël said: nihilistic pessimist I believe that philosophical naturalism inevitably leads to nihilism. From a purely materialist worldview, it becomes impossible to denounce anything. So what if humans end up wiping themselves out? So what if we eventually build a race of AI entities that destroy us terminator-style? In a universe where there is no ultimate meaning, there is no reason to get upset about that. That is just what nature does. It is indifferent about how you feel about it... But because I believe that ultimate meaning does exist (and if I am wrong... then again... what's the point of getting upset... that's again just another absurdity of this pointless place), therefore certain things follow, and with that comes 1) the right to subdue nature and make it work for you, but also 2) the responsibility not to mess it up (for the sake of profit and so forth). So I will not just accept that OMG-herbicides-are-bad-we're-all-gonna-die, but neither will I accept that we can do anything we want Edited July 16, 2019 by plonkster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepBass9 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, Gabriël said: don't worry, someone will, as always, throw a spanner in the works They will always need at least one human to 'cycle the power'! ___ and Gabriël 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
___ Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 15 minutes ago, DeepBass9 said: They will always need at least one human to 'cycle the power'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobster. Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 25 minutes ago, DeepBass9 said: I wonder about that. Zillions of dollars are being spent to make self driving cars, hence putting a whole lot of people out of work. Uber which has helped create a new industry and jobs, is looking at self driving cars so all of those people will be out of work again. The question is, who is going to buy the robot made products and services if no one has a job? This is the most obvious example. There are projections that by 2040 nobody in the USA will drive for a living (IE all public transport, taxis, haulage, courier deliveries etc will be automated). But it's not the only one. Legal firms are starting to use AI to check long, tedious contracts with lots of small print. Financial institutions have bots that can vet and make a decision on a home loan application far quicker, and with less error, than a human can. This is a tide that we can't hold back, and the long term result is that soon (possibly still within my lifetime) there will not be enough jobs to go around, even if people are wanting to work. This means rethinking a lot of things, including our attitudes to people who don't work, and a way to keep workless people involved in the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriël Posted July 16, 2019 Author Share Posted July 16, 2019 17 minutes ago, plonkster said: From a purely materialist worldview, it becomes impossible to denounce anything. good way of stating it - but as i dislike the mental gymnastics of double negatives [in any language... also the ambiguous 'janee' in afrikaans] i read that sentence as "materialism accepts anything" but now a problem - does materialism [or that worldview] accept its own 'negation', i.e. immaterialsm? [wow, i'd beter get that coffee brewing now] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobster. Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 (edited) 51 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said: What Deepbass said. Science in business do costs jobs. Like now with AI and robots potentially putting a whole lot of blue collar / news articles writers / financial advisers / developers / (list goes on ) jobs at risk. What I always wonder about: So if robots and AI's are going to take over jobs, how are the people who used to earn money doing those jobs, going to be able to re-invent themselves to be able to earn to buy the products AI's and robots manufacture? So you get rid of the unions / strikers / leave (sick/holiday/maternity) ... but who buys the products if there are more unemployed people? Well, it may be a golden era for arts and innovation and generally for creative thinking. One way to look at it is that people won't all be able to work. Another is to say that they won't all HAVE to work. Which may have the effect of allowing time for lofty thought, for creation and discovery. I don't know which way it will play out, but I can see an alternative. Edited July 16, 2019 by Bobster correct spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriël Posted July 16, 2019 Author Share Posted July 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, Bobster said: Which may have the effect of allowing time for lofty though, for creation and discovery. we already see the manifestation of this on this forum where the shift is to the 'power of the mind' hehehe ___ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
___ Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, Gabriël said: materialism accepts anything Not at all! If anything it ends up rejecting everything including itself (Note, I am talking about materialism as in the philosophical view that matter and energy is all that exists, not about the way of life where you make money the be-all and end-all). To quote something from one of my favourite writers (I really should go back and see what Joseph McCabe was on about to get the whole context, but here it is): Quote But I may start with saying that Mr. McCabe is in error in supposing that the danger which I anticipate from the disappearance of religion is the increase of sensuality. On the contrary, I should be inclined to anticipate a decrease in sensuality, because I anticipate a decrease in life. I do not think that under modern Western materialism we should have anarchy. I doubt whether we should have enough individual valour and spirit even to have liberty. It is quite an old-fashioned fallacy to suppose that our objection to scepticism is that it removes the discipline from life. Our objection to scepticism is that it removes the motive power. Materialism is not a thing which destroys mere restraint. Materialism itself is the great restraint. The McCabe school advocates a political liberty, but it denies spiritual liberty. That is, it abolishes the laws which could be broken, and substitutes laws that cannot. And that is the real slavery. Gabriël 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepBass9 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, Bobster said: Well, it may be a golden era for arts and innovation and generally for creative thinking. One way to look at it is that people won't all be able to work. Another is to say that they won't all HAVE to work. Which may have the effect of allowing time for lofty though, for creation and discovery. I don't know which way it play out, but I can see an alternative. Lots of countries are looking at basic income grants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 (edited) Now this is something of interest : Woman Who Championed South African Renewable Energy Ousted By Bloomberg• 23 July 2019 The Droogfontein Solar Park on May 24 Karen Breytenbach, who oversaw the expansion of South Africa’s privately owned renewable energy projects, said she was asked to vacate her job about nine months before her contract expires. The Department of Energy and the Development Bank of South Africa asked her to leave her post as head of South Africa’s Independent Power Producers office, she said. “There was no reason,” she said in an interview. “They want to appoint someone else.” Breytenbach has won support from prominent figures in the energy industry for a program that was seen as one of the world’s best in attracting rapid investment in solar and wind power. “Since 2011 she has overseen 209 billion rand ($15 billion) investment in 112 renewable energy projects,” said Antony Eberhard, a member of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s task team for the struggling national power utility Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd., in a Twitter posting. “Zero corruption.” Today, Karen Breytenbach, head of the IPP Office, was asked by DBSA & DoE to leave. Since 2011 she has overseen R209 billion investment in 112 renewable energy projects – zero corruption. Edited July 23, 2019 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepBass9 Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 zero corruption. There's your problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 2 hours ago, DeepBass9 said: zero corruption. There's your problem. Jip, it JUMPED out at me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 Eskom woes continuing ... https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2019-07-30-eskom-announces-record-r207bn-loss/ The Unions are killing SA ... don't want the staff to be retrenched and they don't want Eskom to be split ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seant Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 Well played Eskom , well played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobster. Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 13 hours ago, The Terrible Triplett said: Eskom woes continuing ... https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2019-07-30-eskom-announces-record-r207bn-loss/ The Unions are killing SA ... don't want the staff to be retrenched and they don't want Eskom to be split ... The unions are doing exactly what they should be doing - trying to keep their members employed. That's what they're there for and that's all they''ll do and we shouldn't expect anything else. I note that Gordhan has established a restructuring office. The real problem, of course, is that the numbers don't add up any more. Eskom is saddled with massive debt and the incremental bailing out is inevitable. Which means rising prices and taxes. And means that somebody is going to have to bite the bullet of addressing non-payment. COJ have done some disconnections of illegal supplies (not all in townships), but it's usually not very well received, and Eskom have much bigger, more geographically widespread problem than COJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seant Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 With unemployment official figures rising and more to come a shrinking economy. More woes indeed. So if business has less demand for Eskom and our neighbouring countries become more independent from Eskom , well then we're really stuffed. Then unions or no unions there will be more hungry people out there. That is concerning , cause you can't reason on an empty belly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Bobster said: The unions are doing exactly what they should be doing - trying to keep their members employed. That's what they're there for and that's all they''ll do and we shouldn't expect anything else. No argument or even a debate about that statement. 1 hour ago, seant said: Then unions or no unions there will be more hungry people out there. What the unions need to understand. If say a limb/s gets gangrene, you better chop it off or the whole body dies. For me it is like the minority (Unions and their members) dictating to the majority i.e. SA with SA having to pay a very very high price to keep those +-45 000 peoples jobs secure with a rather large majority of them not preforming in their highly paid (SA min wage comparison) jobs. Better the Unions get a scalpel and start cutting ... or else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.