From You
One Hundred Robots
originally published June 6, 2007
To integrate robotics and capitalism, one would have to allay any fears the reader might have about robotics (or the fall of capitalism due to robotics). This might prove to be an impossible task for me. I am a techno-socialist at heart.
In order for us to realize any benefits with robotics, it may be necessary for us to begin with some uncertainty about the outcome of this endeavor. We can all ponder this for a while, but I think the main point is that we expect rapid change (evolution) of our robots without having them reach human levels of consciousness. We perceive that control over our own lives will be lost at this point, and we fear cultural evolution in general. I may be uneducated in robotics. Gullible is the correct word; however, I remain optimistic that the synergy of simple, useful robotic programs will improve the quality of our lives if we use appropriate methods and review each other’s work.
Now I can return to the topic of integrating robotics and capitalism. Ten to 15 years from now we will see self-replicating (and self-repairing) robots. How does one ensure that everyone gets a robot or system of robots and that it is profitable to make them (and to use them)? Integration of software programming systems and hardware operating systems will be very important, but I’m not certain what method to use to reward each individual programmer his or her fair share of the profits. Perhaps capitalism and robotics don’t mix well, but I will try to explain how capitalism might moderately stimulate cultural evolution when robotics is put into the mix. Few of us want a world where everything is the same no matter which way you look, and none of us wants a world that doesn’t function cohesively. In my mind, these extremes can be rejected and a middle ground can be found.
Housing, food and medical needs of humans can be met by robots. Programs to meet all of these needs should evolve simultaneously. Approximately 20 percent of 2.5 acres available per person should be utilized to meet all basic human needs. Some law of this sort should be implemented worldwide. There should also be laws in the books for maximum power consumption per person (regardless of the person’s income level). Utilizing solar power panels at 20 percent efficiency, 15.75 kilowatts of continuous power can be generated on one eighth of an acre per person, but perhaps we should make 10 kilowatts of carbon-free power the maximum allowed per person. The growth rates of self-reproducing robots should be regulated as well. Doubling times of between six and 12 weeks (or about nine weeks) seems reasonable to me. This would mean it could take less than four years to reach 300 million robots from a starting population of 100 robots. My idea is that we could slow down reproduction and favor more diverse programming by selling robots by the hundred with a hundred-fold growth potential. The growth potential is what would make the housing (printed by the robots) more affordable. Ten thousand units of 2,500 square feet per person could be purchased for the price of 100 robots (especially if the robots manufactured their own solar power systems). 100 robots at $300,000 each ($30 million) divided by 10,000 units equals $3,000. If the developer would buy only the land that was actually to be used (half an acre per person of rural land), this would add about $200 to the cost of each unit. Concrete and reinforcing bars would be the final cost (if they were not made by the robots). Therefore, substantial units with two-foot thick walls and one-foot thick ceilings could be constructed for as little as $53,200 manufacturing cost, and the robots would remain assigned to owners of those units. If those same robots made the rebars and utilized locally acquired aggregates and cement to make concrete, then I suppose we could skip the developer and sell directly to any group of landowners which collectively owned about 5,000 acres of land. This amounts to about $2 million of rural land. Making housing affordable for everyone at about $3,200 per unit (and no profit margin mentioned), we could retire everyone who wants to retire. Capitalism could then slowly come to a halt (or not). If it did, it would perhaps give way to other forms of (perceived) growth as available land is used up, other structures are recycled and human needs are met.
I would like to hear a rebuttal covering hacking, missing robots, lack of (mostly human) control and other such matters by someone who knows more than I about robotics and human nature.
Jim What-Head?
originally published June 6, 2007
I have heard stories of a malicious prank played by opponents of Jim Whitehead, who is running for Congress. According to the rumors, some immature individuals have printed up large signs reading DICK and they have pasted them over the letters WHITE in Jim Whitehead’s roadside signs.
I cannot imagine many political pranks much worse than this and I’d like to ask that no one engage in this sort of behavior, even though it would be pretty easy to accomplish.
RE: Memorial Day
originally published June 6, 2007
This isn’t the first administration to abuse its powers, and it won’t be the last ["On Memorial Day," Letters, May 23]. In fact, throughout the history of this country, practically every successive president has abused more than the last. The Anti-Federalists warned against this prior to the Constitution being ratified, as they thought a president resembled a king too much. One wonders if they were much wiser than we were taught in history class.
RE: Memorial Day.2
originally published June 6, 2007
The problem isn’t with the presidency as laid out in the Constitution. If we were actually still operating under the Constitution, we would be fine. The problem is that it’s been changed so much that the president is starting to resemble a much different sort of power.
Used to be that the president had to contend with the elected House of Representatives AND a Senate appointed by state legislatures. That meant that Congress was always divided between state and federal interests, greatly hampering the ability of the executive to behave like a dictator.
Now the president and his party’s Congressional candidates all campaign more or less together on a general platform, and the result is situations like ours for the past six years - a president and Congress that act like one branch of government most of the time.
Just A Puppet Show
originally published June 6, 2007
In response to the editorial last issue [Pub Notes, May 30], I’d have to point out a fundamental flaw in Mr. McCommons’ approach. I think the crucial point in the column is this:
“A vote for Marlow is a rebuke to the Bush administration and the whole selfish, corrupt Republican Party. Marlow in a runoff election could possibly draw enough money and support to do the unthinkable and send the unmistakable message that even in Northeast Georgia, people want a change from the disastrous Republican policies that have so grievously weakened us at home and abroad.”
This would be a great idea, but I think Mr. McCommons has missed something that has been all over the news. The Democrats have made it perfectly clear that they will continue to fund the Iraq War with no timetable for Iraqi government takeover, no deadlines for troop withdrawal, no realistic impeachment plans (though kudos to Kucinich for trying), no further demands for evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and no emphasis on finding Osama bin Laden. We (America at large) already sent that ”unmistakable message“ in the last Congressional election, remember? Looks like we still have that ”rubber stamp Congress“ that we all thought we just got rid of. The odd thing is, you’re proposing that one of THESE Democrats are going to REALLY throw a monkey wrench in Dubya’s machinations. When the house speaker and a “left wing” majority instantly turned away from their beliefs, promises, and constituents to become Bush’s minions, why would things magically change with this one special election? I’m betting Mr. Bush isn’t trembling in his cowboy boots at the thought of one more little blue Congressional seat when all the others fell right into line. Hmm, why was that anyway?
Did you vote for Democrats in this past Congressional election because you were unsatisfied with this war/ administration? Sure, and a huge number of us did the same for good reason: We want an end to this insanity. Now however, we’ve seen that the late Bill Hicks was right when he said, “I’ll show you what politics in America is like: Two guys are watching a puppet show. One guy says ’I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs!’ Another guy says ’Well, I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking!’ But if you pull off the puppets, the hands belong to the same guy.”
The Democratic Congress has not only failed us gloriously, they’ve shown themselves to be either every bit the limp-wristed “girlymen” that the elephants call them (and therefore unworthy of our support), or that they’re puppets of the same control matrix as the neo-conservative monsters currently occupying the White House (and therefore unworthy of our support). Either way the “blue team” apparently isn’t sticking in anyone’s craw, Mr. McCommons, and it’s high time that we as Americans start paying attention to candidates who are outside of the red vs. blue puppet show.
PS: Thanks for the one line about the Libertarian candidate.
If you are having problems with the site, or have questions or suggestions, please contact us here. Thanks!
Care to comment on this article? Click here!
4 people have commented so far.