Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Value Collector]

I didn't say that making money is immoral; or that it is immoral to not work for free. Did not say that.

.

I thought that's what you were implying when you said "Corporations are there to make profit, true?"

What I said was that if a person, or a corporation... if their main driver is to make money, then they will be forced into immoral act.

I don't think that is true, offcourse both people and companies can go astray, but its not anymore likely for the average company than it is for the average person.

A person who want to do good, who want to contribute their talent and effort to society... they can decide what field they want to work in; what work they would do and what work would be out of the question - that certain things money just cannot buy.

Companies can decide which fields they want to enter also.

But larger corporations, in having already established their position, having already built that castle... they will do anything to defend it.

There is limits to that, and many of the main things that can be done to defend it are good, eg lower prices, better parking, better service etc etc

If you're the CEO of the major players, owning all those assets and fields and knowhow... would you really, seriously, permit alternative sources? Would you make investment in alternative?

Many of the players are making investments in the alternatives, But I think you are buying to much into the conspiracy theories there.

You might do it for PR purposes but the real money is in doing what you've done best and what you have the most. So if that mean the world may go the heck, that's another opportunity for another day

.

Yeah, because its still profitable and the world still relies on you, it would be immoral to shut down oil production tomorrow, we would all starve, but they aren't stopping companies like tesla, or the solar and wind generators etc.

---

You can get a perfectly decent person, put them in a position where their responsibility is for the "greater good".. .and if that greater good mean cost cutting must be made, older workers could be replaced with machines or younger and cheaper graduates... you'd do it regardless of the consequences to other parties

-

What's immoral about replacing people with machines?

That is probably one of the single biggest factors in the increase of living standards over the last 100years.

If we said that productivity and efficiency should be reduced in favour of more employees on every factory and farm, our living standards would be terrible, that's not good for human wellbeing

Could you imagine the man hours of back breaking labour it would have taken to harvest this corn field by hand??? Here its done in probably a day, by a couple of men sitting in air conditioned cabs earning more money than the guys with sickles.



.

 

[luutzu]

This might be of interest to you and others.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-24/berg-greens'-innovation-plan/7439642

Na, that's just all PR electioneering fluff.

To have any hope of a better society we must learn from the (ancient) Chinese and de-emphasize merchants and corporations. We have to really put the people, the real heroes, on top of the social altar.

Merchants and corporations have no allegiance to any state or any people - they only have to serve themselves and their owners.

To then put these "Captain of industries" and Masters of the universe up as role model... well we get the society we deserve doing that.

If we pay teachers so little, have little respect for them... well who in their right mind would want to be teachers? If we see scientists who dedicate their life to cure disease or map the climate and warn of potential disasters... if we see them being fired and their job and income security cut whenever other people feel like... all kids would grow up wanting to go into business and high finance, and even politics.

 

[cynic]

To be honest I think your use of the word religion is a stretch, and not how most people would use it in common usage.

this is the definition most would like of.

No stretching is required for those knowing the meaning of the latin word "ligare".

 

[luutzu]

I thought that's what you were implying when you said "Corporations are there to make profit, true?"



I don't think that is true, offcourse both people and companies can go astray, but its not anymore likely for the average company than it is for the average person.



Companies can decide which fields they want to enter also.




There is limits to that, and many of the main things that can be done to defend it are good, eg lower prices, better parking, better service etc etc



Many of the players are making investments in the alternatives, But I think you are buying to much into the conspiracy theories there.

.

Yeah, because its still profitable and the world still relies on you, it would be immoral to shut down oil production tomorrow, we would all starve, but they aren't stopping companies like tesla, or the solar and wind generators etc.

---

-

What's immoral about replacing people with machines?

That is probably one of the single biggest factors in the increase of living standards over the last 100years.

If we said that productivity and efficiency should be reduced in favour of more employees on every factory and farm, our living standards would be terrible, that's not good for human wellbeing.

Solar technology has been around soon after the NASA space programme got started. Why hasn't the US been a leader in that clean and renewable energy?

Solar has only really taken off maybe past 15 years?

Tesla wouldn't have gotten off the ground if oil weren't so high, and if state and fed gov't didn't practically finance a big chunk of "his" vision for no equity ownership at all.

And the current oil crash... basically a play to stall investment into alternatives, fracking but also solar and electric vehicles.

----
Yea, profit as the sole motive and driver is the root of evil.

A person who would do anything for money is also not a nice person either. I've met some... not good.

As the Joker said, if you're not at what you do, don't do it for free. So yea, get paid for your good work - that is only fair and is to be expected as it not only rewards but also encourage good, efficient work.

But when a corporation is big and influential enough, they could make profit by means that are not productive or innovative or good. And that's the root of their problem.

Then it becomes the root of all our problems when these corporations and their owners get rich enough they buy political influence and start financing universities and textbooks and media... all to present us with false choices.

Do we really need a new iPhone every year? Does trickle economic really work? Do we really only need electric cars? What about more efficient and more cost effective public transport systems?

Saw a doco where Alfred P. Sloan of GM practically drove the cheap, cleaner, more efficient US Tram system off American streets. All so GM could sell more of their buses - and the parts and service that comes with it. Good business move for GM, bad for America.

 

[Value Collector]

No stretching is required for those knowing the meaning of the latin word "ligare".

That's a stretch in itself.

Words are used to convey meaning and describe something, just as Rumpoles use of the word Murder to describe all killings regardless of the situation confuses the issue, so does you usage of the word religion,

 

[cynic]

That's a stretch in itself.

Words are used to convey meaning and describe something, just as Rumpoles use of the word Murder to describe all killings regardless of the situation confuses the issue, so does you usage of the word religion,

Where do you think the word religion originated?!Again no stretching required, just an english dictionary. The word "ligare" can be found mentioned in many english dictionaries when one actually takes the time to look up the word "religion"

Please do me the courtesy of investigating the actual facts before falsely accusing me of stretching definitions.

 

[Value Collector]

Where do you think the word religion originated?!Again no stretching required, just an english dictionary. The word "ligare" can be found mentioned in many english dictionaries when one actually takes the time to look up the word "religion"

Please do me the courtesy of investigating the actual facts before falsely accusing me of stretching definitions.

As I said, when the vast majority of people are using a word to describe a certain thing, it's confusing to switch it around and inject an alternate meaning into the conversation, it's called bait and switch, or the ambiguity fallacy.

But either way as I mention months ago, I am not to interested in your word games, so I will leave it to you.

 

[cynic]

As I said, when the vast majority of people are using a word to describe a certain thing, it's confusing to switch it around and inject an alternate meaning into the conversation, it's called bait and switch, or the ambiguity fallacy.

But either way as I mention months ago, I am not to interested in your word games, so I will leave it to you.

Thankyou for your perspective on this. I know just how uncomfortable some people become when confronted by the reality that their behaviour is largely indifferentiable from those they hastily accuse of same.

 

[Value Collector]

Thankyou for your perspective on this. I know just how uncomfortable some people become when confronted by the reality that their behaviour is largely indifferentiable from those they hastily accuse of same.

No, I am just not interested in spending to much time discussing things with people that constantly retreat back to the same logical fallacies.

Your Favourite logical fallacy in called "The Ambiguity fallacy", I explain this to you months ago, and ended the dialogue with you, I am doing the same now.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity

why are you being accused of Ambiguity fallacy?

You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.

Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is that it is intrinsically misleading

.


---------------------------------------------

Words often have multiple meanings, and are used to describe different things, if in a conversation you try and accuse a person of something by switching the usage of a word, you are guilty of the ambiguity fallacy.

For example the word faith a couple of meanings, It can mean

1, strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof

2, complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

If we are talking about religious faith, and I say I don't have any, and then you switch the conversation to the second meaning of faith and accuse me of lying because I have trust and confidence in some things based on evidence, you derailing the conversation and I am not interested in pursuing a dialogue as I see it as a dishonest thing, especially when its been explained to you multiple times.

 

[cynic]

No, I am just not interested in spending to much time discussing things with people that constantly retreat back to the same logical fallacies.

Your Favourite logical fallacy in called "The Ambiguity fallacy", I explain this to you months ago, and ended the dialogue with you, I am doing the same now.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity

.


---------------------------------------------

Words often have multiple meanings, and are used to describe different things, if in a conversation you try and accuse a person of something by switching the usage of a word, you are guilty of the ambiguity fallacy.

For example the word faith a couple of meanings, It can mean

1, strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof

2, complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

If we are talking about religious faith, and I say I don't have any, and then you switch the conversation to the second meaning of faith and accuse me of lying because I have trust and confidence in some things based on evidence, you derailing the conversation and I am not interested in pursuing a dialogue as I see it as a dishonest thing, especially when its been explained to you multiple times.

Well, well! Look who's playing word games now!

It seems that some do indeed have strong faith in the doctrine of ambiguity fallacy!

And that's what makes it religious!

 

[SirRumpole]

What's immoral about replacing people with machines?

That's where morality is so malleable. I'm sure no company thinks it's immoral to replace people with machines because obviously it relieves those people of the tedium of doing repetitive work.

So who looks after the displaced people ? Not the company of course. They may never work again, but that's someone else's problem isn't it ?

 

[cynic]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

VC, since you like that particular site, you might want to take a look at the "special pleading" fallacy. In particular note the use of the word "faith" in the accompanying example.

 

[cynic]

That "yourlogicalphallacyis" site is very amusing.

There's a very noticeable ""metaphysics is false" flavour permeating many of the examples it offers.

This leads me to suspect that it may have been constructed to serve as a tool kit for the purpose of disarming those arguing the merits of theism, metaphysics and/or complementary medicine.

Upon stating this, one might choose to counter argue by accusing me of the commission of several "logical" fallacies, such as "ad hominem fallacy", "genetic faĺlacy", "tu quoque fallacy" and the "fallacy fallacy", all easily locatable within that one convenient website.

However, such action is ill advised for the simple reason that, anyone accusing so, will suddenly find themselves guilty of some of those very same "fallacies"!

Edit: I forgot to mention, that site can be easily shown to have committed several of it's very own "logical fallacies"

 

[Value Collector]

That's where morality is so malleable. I'm sure no company thinks it's immoral to replace people with machines because obviously it relieves those people of the tedium of doing repetitive work.

So who looks after the displaced people ? Not the company of course. They may never work again, but that's someone else's problem isn't it ?

machines have been steadily replacing human labour for at least 300 years, and it's created a more productive society, better working conditions and an increase in the standard of living.

It's better for society long term, I mean now 1 farmer is more productive than 100 farmers from 200 years ago, are you saying we should go back to old methods just to keep people employed?

-----------------

Generally the employment level will be maintained by an increase in jobs in other areas, but if we got to the stage where unemployment was really increasing due to automation, and huge areas of production were Completely automated, we could lower the retirement age, lower working hours etc.

I don't think we should resist productivity, I would love it if we got that advanced there was no need for human labour.

 

[SirRumpole]

Generally the employment level will be maintained by an increase in jobs in other areas, but if we got to the stage where unemployment was really increasing due to automation, and huge areas of production were Completely automated, we could lower the retirement age, lower working hours etc.

That sounds like a complete cop out to me, unless you are suggesting that the corporate sector pay higher taxes in order to pay more pensions.

I don't think we should resist productivity, I would love it if we got that advanced there was no need for human labour.

So would I , but it would probably mean no more private companies because the tax rates that they would have to pay in order to compensate for zero employment would be a disincentive to run businesses. They would have to be government owned with all the proceeds going into a general pension scheme.

 

[Value Collector]

That sounds like a complete cop out to me, unless you are suggesting that the corporate sector pay higher taxes in order to pay more pensions.



So would I , but it would probably mean no more private companies because the tax rates that they would have to pay in order to compensate for zero employment would be a disincentive to run businesses. They would have to be government owned with all the proceeds going into a general pension scheme.

High taxes might have to be the case, if we really got to the stage where almost all the work was automated we might have to have almost everybody on the dole and to earn extra you have to invest and own a piece of the system.

No it wouldn't have to be government owned, you would just make the pension a really low based pension with the idea that most of society owns the productive economy, rather than teaching kids to think about what they want to
do for a job, we would teach them to be investors.

 

[Value Collector]

That sounds like a complete cop out to me, unless you are suggesting that the corporate sector pay higher taxes in order to pay more pensions.



So would I , but it would probably mean no more private companies because the tax rates that they would have to pay in order to compensate for zero employment would be a disincentive to run businesses. They would have to be government owned with all the proceeds going into a general pension scheme.

Higher taxes might have to be the case, but companies should have more money to pay taxes because they aren't paying as many staff, if we really got to the stage where almost all the work was automated we might have to have almost everybody on the dole and to earn extra you have to invest and own a piece of the system.

There would be a push from both sides, eg the increased productivity of automation would flow through to other parts of society either through the ability to pay higher taxes to fund pensions while still earning a satisfactory return on investment, or lower prices and decreased cost of living, so pensions could be lower.

No it wouldn't have to be government owned, you would just make the pension a really low based pension with the idea that most of society owns the productive economy, rather than teaching kids to think about what they want to
do for a job, we would teach them to be investors.

 

[luutzu]

machines have been steadily replacing human labour for at least 300 years, and it's created a more productive society, better working conditions and an increase in the standard of living.

It's better for society long term, I mean now 1 farmer is more productive than 100 farmers from 200 years ago, are you saying we should go back to old methods just to keep people employed?

-----------------

Generally the employment level will be maintained by an increase in jobs in other areas, but if we got to the stage where unemployment was really increasing due to automation, and huge areas of production were Completely automated, we could lower the retirement age, lower working hours etc.

I don't think we should resist productivity, I would love it if we got that advanced there was no need for human labour.

I think we're all for innovation and greater productivity. But it would be wrong to assume that greater innovation and productivity comes from the bigger companies - or that greater advances comes from, and thus need, large corporations - that is, economy of scales and argument along that line.

If you look at any period of greatest change and greatest innovation, it's always when there are no established, no dominant player. Once the less funded and less effective and least adopted of the start ups get weeded out and a few giant remains... the pace of competition and innovation also slowed then grind to a halt soon after.

Not saying that large corporations do not innovate or are no good at all... they do innovate, but innovation on their own terms and using the resources they already control. So it's not much of innovative break throughs, but merely incremental changes.

Example... Apple is going to keep adding different shades to their iPhones and sizes to their iPads forever if no other upstart comes along. And so far, maybe SamSung is the only other guy of any match. But changes and greater innovation on these tablets and smart phone seem to be coming from smaller manufacturers or developers. Such as the simple torch app on all smart phones nowadays; the free text messaging and phone app you have to download.

So as great an innovation as the iPhone was, it's not going to allow free and cheap phone calls on its devices through internet connections - this despite the readily available tech. It's obvious why that is.

---

Take the corn harvester and mechanised farming you pointed to...

That kind of innovation are welcomed by all interested and powerful parties - the fact that it is also beneficial to most humans are just a bonus.

How?

For every two guys sitting in an airconditioned cabin harvesting, some 200 labourer are now free. Free to join the military and its Global Liberation Army - now readying for deloying in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Yemen, and soon the South China Sea, East China Sea and Eastern Europe.

Drones now take some of the heavy lifting so some unemployed will use drugs - more excuse to renew that war on drugs and take out a few South American cartel and gov't.

Then with the greater effiency in agriculture, there is greater need for Frankenseeds, non-organic fertilisers from fossil fuel industry, chemical pest controls and etc. etc. Good for business.

Greater efficiency with a lot of gov't financial backing mean American ag. can easily put less productive countries ag. out of business. Thereby weakening their economies with unemployed, drove off the farm farmers who will eventually join the foreign aid lines to get some food.

With that, the US and richer nations can use food as a tool in their foreign policy bag.

So innovation and efficiency... but only when it serve the "national" and major vested interests.

One could argue that it is healthier to eat local. Cheaper and more efficient to eat from produce from your outback. Why must fruits and grain etc. have to be shipped from across the world? A whole bunch of chemicals must be use to keep it "fresh", a great deal of costs goes into transportation and distribution...

If such system are subsidised long enough, the poorer countries with non-thinking leaders will give up their nation's food security and will literally live or die at the will of other people - and a lot of African and other poor countries have suffered from just that. I can point to an old doco.

That's not to mention the loss of farming jobs. And no, people in poor countries do not need robots and machines to replace them - there's farming or there's unemployment. There's very little opportunities in other industry just waiting for their skill - and those opportunities are often taken up by sons and relatives of the ruling elite.

This is not to say that I'm against innovation and productivity... but it ought to come from within a more localised and indigenous population - not having "more productive" goods flood their market and drove them off their land and seek refuge and be exploited in alien land.

There is a place for large corporations, but not in an ideal world.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well it comes down to your moral system.

You are a CEO of a company. You have 10 loyal and productive workers that you can replace with one machine.

Do you have a moral responsibility to them ?

 

[cynic]

Well it comes down to your moral system.

You are a CEO of a company. You have 10 loyal and productive workers that you can replace with one machine.

Do you have a moral responsibility to them ?

Does that same CEO have a moral responsibility to shareholders to ensure the company remains sufficiently competitive to survive?