If you're familiar with the works of Rudolf Steiner and what he called "The Ahrimanic Deception" you would know that this (AI/Robots) is not a good development. But he foretold it exactly in the early 1900's, along with the vaccines.
From a purely materialist perspective it's great news. But from a spiritual perspective it is the opposite.
Yes, but most anthroposophists will say that whatever comes is karmically applicable and compelling, and that we have to move through any "bad patches" that arise and strive to come out on top, because integration is a large part of the spiritual game. Which is part of the meaning of "to be in the world but not of the world."
The Archangel Michael is what led me to Steiner's work. Though I was familiar with him through his book "Agriculture" because a friend bought a farm in the late 90's and started BioDynamic farming.
That's funny, I'd have to say the same, with respect to Archangel Michael. He's got our backs for sure. I personally have made my way through many paths, but Steiner is someone I like to check in with now and then, even if I might not agree with everything he said.
Yes. Steiner was a brilliant man, and a Seer. But IMO, because of the Scientist in him, he tended to overthink things at times. Which is why a lot of his lectures would last for 2 days instead of a few hours.
Perhaps, but Steiner would say that it was Living Thought he was engaged in as a clairvoyant, and that he was not so much thinking deliberately accourding to limited means of his own human capacity, but that there was an active process which was thinking through him and coming in from a higher source, making use of his mental apparatus. This was after all coming out of his initial studies of Goethe's particular methods fo science, which was a way of seeing "into" things rather than just taking their appearances from facts on a limited surface. Of course, this is controversial for materialists, but Steiner insists that if one studies his foundational work The Philosophy of Freedom, one can develop the kind of higher sense he was able to develop — in other words, discovering what is the actual origin of thoughts. I haven't succeeded at that yet, but it's on my menu, LOL...
I will put one in my garage right next to the self-driving Tesla Taxi that’s earning me phenomenal profits. I will have to park my electric self-driving Tesla semi down by the Hype-our-loop station to make room.
As an aside, I also hate to think how much EMF exposure will increase in the coming decades. Everything will be radiating unhealthy energy around us. I don't even feel comfortable riding in an EV as the EMF levels are equivalent to hugging an iPhone or standing in front of a microwave.
So glad I grew up in the 90s, I can remember those low-EMF (no WiFi, no "G" cell towers) analog days like it was yesterday. We're truly passing through a civilizational inflection point.
Just wait until you see the price tag for a replacement battery or when your robot's battery spontaneously combusts. I'm sure the homeowner industry is already thinking of adding additional homeowner robot insurance.
Good point. CA's electric car mandate won't work because the energy output isn't there yet and certainly won't be by 2035. I don't see it happening until we have enough small module nuclear reactors powering everything.
I’m not sure we should try to emulate Japan with 300+% national debt. Regarding your broad claim that technology always brings improvement, that is debatable. I like the idea of some robots but not a world full of them. Like cars, they will have to be managed, and like cars they will cause a lot of problems we can’t foresee. I am not a Luddite, but let’s try to keep the robots out of sight and under lock and key.
Perhaps the m-RNA "Vaccines" and their new "Self-Replicating" replacements were not accidental? There are many respected REAL scientists who believe so.
Yes, removing red tape and taxes for small businesses will be the key to making this transition painless. If you could start a small business very easily, and have no accounting or tax requirements etc, at least up to a certain point, we would see a boom in self-employment and most people would be able to sustain themselves without any welfare programs. And tort reform would also help.
So if I get inquired in a small business, I'm out of luck or limited in amount? What if my injury will never heal and now I cannot work? Too bad? That's tort reform.
That's what private insurance is for. Instead of relying on lawsuits, individuals who want protection against accidents should secure their own insurance, just as they do for cars, homes, or health. This approach would benefit society by reducing the costly culture of litigation. Unlike other Western nations, the U.S. has a pervasive tendency to blame others for personal injuries rather than acknowledging individual responsibility. This suing culture imposes significant economic and social costs. Encouraging personal accident insurance would foster accountability and alleviate the burden on individuals and businesses.
So businesses would have no need for protecting the consumer from hazards. Water on the floor? Who cares? The consumer's private insurance will pay for any injuries. I guess all injuries in businesses are the individual's responsibility. Insurance for cars, homes, and health benefit the consumer. For insurance you propose, it would primarily benefit business, not the consumer. Needless to say, I am not talking about frivolous lawsuits. Judges should do their jobs and punish those who are clearly gaming the system.
Streamlining regulations and reducing costs for businesses would not only support entrepreneurs but also benefit consumers through lower prices. Personally, I see no difference between slipping on a wet floor at home, in a store, or at the office—individuals bear ultimate responsibility for their actions. However, the current U.S. litigation system fuels a surge of frivolous lawsuits, driving up costs for everyone. For instance, a roofer in California, with just three employees, told me that nearly half his income goes toward insurance for worker injuries and lawsuits. Doctors face similar burdens. By encouraging personal accident insurance, as we do for cars and health, we could significantly reduce claims and litigation expenses. This shift would lower costs across society, benefiting businesses and consumers alike.
..."On the home front, it's all good: They'll mow the lawn, walk the dog, fix the leaky faucet. And, yes, fold the laundry."...and just about anything that a person can do, robots and A/i will be able to do. Thus the reason for the existence of mankind to continue will be steadily approaching the nil. Arrogants like Musk never look beyond their money making schemes.
AI is as hyped as the robots. AI is still taking real authors and making up book titles. Garbage in, Garbage out. I will never trust AI with anything meaningful. Unlike people, AI has no true discernment. Furthermore, I am not shopping in a store to be waited on by a robot.
I do not have the expertise to figure the possible economic result of industrial robots or of commercial robots. But, I predict a new epidemic of human laziness when robots hit the personal market. It is not a development I look forward to.
The laziness is already at pandemic levels in America. Everyone wants the government to fix everything. The rugged American individual is a thing of the past. We have panhandlers everywhere and people who should know better hand cash out the window. My bishop knows a man, who when he wants some extra cash, goes a good distance away and panhandles.
What puzzles me in that context is that while the amount of manpower going into the food production has dwindled by a factor of 50, the neither the income of the farmer per hour, even inflation adjusted, has increased accordingly, nor has the cost to the consumer. So which parasite has inserted itself into that exchange and feeds on it without contributing anything to the value of that exchange?
This is thanks to FDR and all those Administrations/Congresses who have followed him. Prior to FDR, farming was a true free market. The farmer bought the seeds, planted them, hoped and prayed for rain/sun, and reaped a harvest. Now we have the Federal government with price levels, paying farmers not to farm, and other assorted market distortions.
The only way Elon can talk about this stuff is because it’s already seen a long development. Just like anything else anyone has unveiled for our eyes as the “latest and greatest” upgrade in whatever. It’s only now that certain voices are saying that the “new” blockchain” system was actually designed back in the 60s, and has only been able to get the fine-tuning and applicability on our current threshold of activation. Whatever they’ve got has always been much more advanced than they’re willing or able to tell us. So the old question is still the right one to keep bringing up: cui bono?
Elon Musk claimed Teslas could drive themselves too. This was obviously a lie, as numerous Teslas have self-destructed into fire engines, lane dividers, and anything else it doesn't know what to do with. Musk is big on promotion and promises, not so great at follow through.
You merely pointed to something that went public and hasn't worked out — for all to see, more or less. What I'm referring to is all the stuff that exists, that they've created already, some of it perhaps long ago, that we don't know about, and that they don't want us to know about... unless, or until, or — never.
I suspect the Robot hype is right up there with the AI hype. Consumers are smarter than the promoters as so-called AI laptops and computers are not selling.
When has Musk sold anything without the Federal Government forking over money, one way or the other? Tesla survived a long time on carbon credits. SpaceX is entirely dependent on government contracts. Let's see how well Musk does robots without any subsidies.
Still waiting for the flying cars. Can I rent a couple robots to paint my home?
If you're familiar with the works of Rudolf Steiner and what he called "The Ahrimanic Deception" you would know that this (AI/Robots) is not a good development. But he foretold it exactly in the early 1900's, along with the vaccines.
From a purely materialist perspective it's great news. But from a spiritual perspective it is the opposite.
Yes, but most anthroposophists will say that whatever comes is karmically applicable and compelling, and that we have to move through any "bad patches" that arise and strive to come out on top, because integration is a large part of the spiritual game. Which is part of the meaning of "to be in the world but not of the world."
Yes. To be clear I'm not an Anthroposophist.
I'm also not a Doomer "All is lost" type.
The Archangel Michael is what led me to Steiner's work. Though I was familiar with him through his book "Agriculture" because a friend bought a farm in the late 90's and started BioDynamic farming.
That's funny, I'd have to say the same, with respect to Archangel Michael. He's got our backs for sure. I personally have made my way through many paths, but Steiner is someone I like to check in with now and then, even if I might not agree with everything he said.
Imagine that...
Yes. Steiner was a brilliant man, and a Seer. But IMO, because of the Scientist in him, he tended to overthink things at times. Which is why a lot of his lectures would last for 2 days instead of a few hours.
Perhaps, but Steiner would say that it was Living Thought he was engaged in as a clairvoyant, and that he was not so much thinking deliberately accourding to limited means of his own human capacity, but that there was an active process which was thinking through him and coming in from a higher source, making use of his mental apparatus. This was after all coming out of his initial studies of Goethe's particular methods fo science, which was a way of seeing "into" things rather than just taking their appearances from facts on a limited surface. Of course, this is controversial for materialists, but Steiner insists that if one studies his foundational work The Philosophy of Freedom, one can develop the kind of higher sense he was able to develop — in other words, discovering what is the actual origin of thoughts. I haven't succeeded at that yet, but it's on my menu, LOL...
Plumbers will always be safe. Very few situations are alike. Robots need repetition. And water and electronics don't mix
“50,000 Optimus robots rolling out by next year”
I will put one in my garage right next to the self-driving Tesla Taxi that’s earning me phenomenal profits. I will have to park my electric self-driving Tesla semi down by the Hype-our-loop station to make room.
As an aside, I also hate to think how much EMF exposure will increase in the coming decades. Everything will be radiating unhealthy energy around us. I don't even feel comfortable riding in an EV as the EMF levels are equivalent to hugging an iPhone or standing in front of a microwave.
So glad I grew up in the 90s, I can remember those low-EMF (no WiFi, no "G" cell towers) analog days like it was yesterday. We're truly passing through a civilizational inflection point.
All these robots need energy to operate. And batteries to hold such energy...
Just wait until you see the price tag for a replacement battery or when your robot's battery spontaneously combusts. I'm sure the homeowner industry is already thinking of adding additional homeowner robot insurance.
Good point. CA's electric car mandate won't work because the energy output isn't there yet and certainly won't be by 2035. I don't see it happening until we have enough small module nuclear reactors powering everything.
I’m not sure we should try to emulate Japan with 300+% national debt. Regarding your broad claim that technology always brings improvement, that is debatable. I like the idea of some robots but not a world full of them. Like cars, they will have to be managed, and like cars they will cause a lot of problems we can’t foresee. I am not a Luddite, but let’s try to keep the robots out of sight and under lock and key.
Perhaps the m-RNA "Vaccines" and their new "Self-Replicating" replacements were not accidental? There are many respected REAL scientists who believe so.
Nothing was "accidental" about the corona canard.
I like your common-sense approach to visualizing the coming robot revolution.
Coming maybe, but not as soon as hyped. Nor will there be any safe around the household for a long, long time.
Yes, removing red tape and taxes for small businesses will be the key to making this transition painless. If you could start a small business very easily, and have no accounting or tax requirements etc, at least up to a certain point, we would see a boom in self-employment and most people would be able to sustain themselves without any welfare programs. And tort reform would also help.
So if I get inquired in a small business, I'm out of luck or limited in amount? What if my injury will never heal and now I cannot work? Too bad? That's tort reform.
That's what private insurance is for. Instead of relying on lawsuits, individuals who want protection against accidents should secure their own insurance, just as they do for cars, homes, or health. This approach would benefit society by reducing the costly culture of litigation. Unlike other Western nations, the U.S. has a pervasive tendency to blame others for personal injuries rather than acknowledging individual responsibility. This suing culture imposes significant economic and social costs. Encouraging personal accident insurance would foster accountability and alleviate the burden on individuals and businesses.
So businesses would have no need for protecting the consumer from hazards. Water on the floor? Who cares? The consumer's private insurance will pay for any injuries. I guess all injuries in businesses are the individual's responsibility. Insurance for cars, homes, and health benefit the consumer. For insurance you propose, it would primarily benefit business, not the consumer. Needless to say, I am not talking about frivolous lawsuits. Judges should do their jobs and punish those who are clearly gaming the system.
Streamlining regulations and reducing costs for businesses would not only support entrepreneurs but also benefit consumers through lower prices. Personally, I see no difference between slipping on a wet floor at home, in a store, or at the office—individuals bear ultimate responsibility for their actions. However, the current U.S. litigation system fuels a surge of frivolous lawsuits, driving up costs for everyone. For instance, a roofer in California, with just three employees, told me that nearly half his income goes toward insurance for worker injuries and lawsuits. Doctors face similar burdens. By encouraging personal accident insurance, as we do for cars and health, we could significantly reduce claims and litigation expenses. This shift would lower costs across society, benefiting businesses and consumers alike.
..."On the home front, it's all good: They'll mow the lawn, walk the dog, fix the leaky faucet. And, yes, fold the laundry."...and just about anything that a person can do, robots and A/i will be able to do. Thus the reason for the existence of mankind to continue will be steadily approaching the nil. Arrogants like Musk never look beyond their money making schemes.
AI is as hyped as the robots. AI is still taking real authors and making up book titles. Garbage in, Garbage out. I will never trust AI with anything meaningful. Unlike people, AI has no true discernment. Furthermore, I am not shopping in a store to be waited on by a robot.
I do not have the expertise to figure the possible economic result of industrial robots or of commercial robots. But, I predict a new epidemic of human laziness when robots hit the personal market. It is not a development I look forward to.
The laziness is already at pandemic levels in America. Everyone wants the government to fix everything. The rugged American individual is a thing of the past. We have panhandlers everywhere and people who should know better hand cash out the window. My bishop knows a man, who when he wants some extra cash, goes a good distance away and panhandles.
What puzzles me in that context is that while the amount of manpower going into the food production has dwindled by a factor of 50, the neither the income of the farmer per hour, even inflation adjusted, has increased accordingly, nor has the cost to the consumer. So which parasite has inserted itself into that exchange and feeds on it without contributing anything to the value of that exchange?
This is thanks to FDR and all those Administrations/Congresses who have followed him. Prior to FDR, farming was a true free market. The farmer bought the seeds, planted them, hoped and prayed for rain/sun, and reaped a harvest. Now we have the Federal government with price levels, paying farmers not to farm, and other assorted market distortions.
The only way Elon can talk about this stuff is because it’s already seen a long development. Just like anything else anyone has unveiled for our eyes as the “latest and greatest” upgrade in whatever. It’s only now that certain voices are saying that the “new” blockchain” system was actually designed back in the 60s, and has only been able to get the fine-tuning and applicability on our current threshold of activation. Whatever they’ve got has always been much more advanced than they’re willing or able to tell us. So the old question is still the right one to keep bringing up: cui bono?
Elon Musk claimed Teslas could drive themselves too. This was obviously a lie, as numerous Teslas have self-destructed into fire engines, lane dividers, and anything else it doesn't know what to do with. Musk is big on promotion and promises, not so great at follow through.
You merely pointed to something that went public and hasn't worked out — for all to see, more or less. What I'm referring to is all the stuff that exists, that they've created already, some of it perhaps long ago, that we don't know about, and that they don't want us to know about... unless, or until, or — never.
You are not Peter St Onge. Any upstanding owner of any social media account would communicate AS the person claerly identified with the account.
I suspect the Robot hype is right up there with the AI hype. Consumers are smarter than the promoters as so-called AI laptops and computers are not selling.
When has Musk sold anything without the Federal Government forking over money, one way or the other? Tesla survived a long time on carbon credits. SpaceX is entirely dependent on government contracts. Let's see how well Musk does robots without any subsidies.
Robots for war
Until the enemy figures out how to hack them and then turns them around on you.
Also, robots would make war even more likely, because less soldiers to die. No one cares so much if a robot is "killed".