Discussion:
Morality is more important than religion - Dalai Lama
Add Reply
a***@gmail.com
2018-12-02 11:51:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.

In India there are cow vigilantes who hurt people suspected of smuggling cows for slaughter. You are innocent until found guilty. Human life is much more valuable than the life of a cow.

Islamic terrorists kill innocent civilians for their cause. There is gross violation of human rights in many Islamic countries.

We must value the quantity and quality of human lives above everything, even a “God”. Morality is more important than religion.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“I am the breaker of rules”
default
2018-12-02 12:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
In India there are cow vigilantes who hurt people suspected of smuggling cows for slaughter. You are innocent until found guilty. Human life is much more valuable than the life of a cow.
Islamic terrorists kill innocent civilians for their cause. There is gross violation of human rights in many Islamic countries.
We must value the quantity and quality of human lives above everything, even a “God”. Morality is more important than religi
Religion has no use at all, so saying that morality is more important
than religion isn't saying much in favor of morality.

Religion is only a point of contention among the religious and that
makes it immoral.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-12-02 12:33:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@gmail.com wrote:
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to be a
religious leader.
Mitchell Holman
2018-12-02 14:32:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-12-02 18:13:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
I'm not so sure about that. He was brought up as a monk. Monks do work.
Mitchell Holman
2018-12-02 18:37:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
I'm not so sure about that. He was brought up as a monk. Monks do work.
At the death of a Dalai a newborn is
deemed to be his reincarnation is so raised,
from what I remember.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-12-03 09:53:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
I'm not so sure about that. He was brought up as a monk. Monks do work.
At the death of a Dalai a newborn is
deemed to be his reincarnation is so raised,
from what I remember.
Yup, but that doesn't mean he doesn't need to be "reminded" of his duties.
a***@gmail.com
2018-12-03 11:36:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter what you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work. Working with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“The pen is mightier than the sword”
Robert Carnegie
2018-12-04 00:12:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter what you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work. Working with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
a***@gmail.com
2018-12-04 07:39:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter what you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work. Working with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
What about the CEO or other managers/leaders of a food company? Somebody has to make the tough decisions: how to allocate resources, which products to market and sell etc. Man cannot live on bread alone. The market decides value for services people provide, and knowledge workers are among the most highly paid, like those in technology or finance.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“The Free market”
JWS
2018-12-04 16:43:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter what you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work. Working with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
What about the CEO or other managers/leaders of a food company? Somebody has to make the tough decisions: how to allocate resources, which products to market and sell etc. Man cannot live on bread alone. The market decides value for services people provide, and knowledge workers are among the most highly paid, like those in technology or finance.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“The Free market”

Robert Carnegie
2018-12-05 11:09:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter what you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work. Working with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
What about the CEO or other managers/leaders of a food company? Somebody has to make the tough decisions: how to allocate resources, which products to market and sell etc. Man cannot live on bread alone. The market decides value for services people provide, and knowledge workers are among the most highly paid, like those in technology or finance.
The decisions about pay are not made by manual workers.
(Except when a manual worker quits to get a better job.
That's a decision.)

Unless you believe the book of Genesis (Joseph) -
before there were big food company CEOs, there were
still farmers, bakers, butchers, etc, and a lot of
the people who revere big CEOs also claim that
"the market" runs well without conscious direction
anyway. So how much value does the CEO add, really?
a***@gmail.com
2018-12-05 11:32:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter what you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work. Working with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
What about the CEO or other managers/leaders of a food company? Somebody has to make the tough decisions: how to allocate resources, which products to market and sell etc. Man cannot live on bread alone. The market decides value for services people provide, and knowledge workers are among the most highly paid, like those in technology or finance.
The decisions about pay are not made by manual workers.
(Except when a manual worker quits to get a better job.
That's a decision.)
Unless you believe the book of Genesis (Joseph) -
before there were big food company CEOs, there were
still farmers, bakers, butchers, etc, and a lot of
the people who revere big CEOs also claim that
"the market" runs well without conscious direction
anyway. So how much value does the CEO add, really?
With machines and robotics, manual work by humans, continues to become less important. If you believe in the market, you should believe that the market fairly sets salaries, valuing the contribution by the worker. In India, and in many other countries, the industry sectors that pay the best include technology and finance. The more responsibility you have as a leader, for stakeholders like employees, customers, investors, suppliers etc., generally the better you are paid.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“Who benefits”
default
2018-12-05 14:26:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter what you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work. Working with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
What about the CEO or other managers/leaders of a food company? Somebody has to make the tough decisions: how to allocate resources, which products to market and sell etc. Man cannot live on bread alone. The market decides value for services people provide, and knowledge workers are among the most highly paid, like those in technology or finance.
The decisions about pay are not made by manual workers.
(Except when a manual worker quits to get a better job.
That's a decision.)
Unless you believe the book of Genesis (Joseph) -
before there were big food company CEOs, there were
still farmers, bakers, butchers, etc, and a lot of
the people who revere big CEOs also claim that
"the market" runs well without conscious direction
anyway. So how much value does the CEO add, really?
With machines and robotics, manual work by humans, continues to become less important. If you believe in the market, you should believe that the market fairly sets salaries, valuing the contribution by the worker. In India, and in many other countries, the industry sectors that pay the best include technology and finance. The more responsibility you have as a leader, for stakeholders like employees, customers, investors, suppliers etc., generally the better you are paid.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“Who benefits”
Where do we go when machines do almost all labor. The only people
that can buy the goods will be investors, and the few people it takes
to repair the machines. The repair people can also be designed out of
the equation - repair to the modular level with robots. It is already
far more expensive to repair a lot of stuff that can more cheaply be
replaced.

People will still be needed to design the machines? Not if can't put
the machines to use.

Right now there are electrical engineers who don't know the first
thing about the laws of physics. All they do know how to do is use
software. If the software can't simulate it, they can't design it.

One or two fat cats and the rest of humanity in prisons in "developed"
countries? The people won't just die out quietly...
Malcolm McMahon
2018-12-05 15:57:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by default
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter what you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work. Working with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
What about the CEO or other managers/leaders of a food company? Somebody has to make the tough decisions: how to allocate resources, which products to market and sell etc. Man cannot live on bread alone. The market decides value for services people provide, and knowledge workers are among the most highly paid, like those in technology or finance.
The decisions about pay are not made by manual workers.
(Except when a manual worker quits to get a better job.
That's a decision.)
Unless you believe the book of Genesis (Joseph) -
before there were big food company CEOs, there were
still farmers, bakers, butchers, etc, and a lot of
the people who revere big CEOs also claim that
"the market" runs well without conscious direction
anyway. So how much value does the CEO add, really?
With machines and robotics, manual work by humans, continues to become less important. If you believe in the market, you should believe that the market fairly sets salaries, valuing the contribution by the worker. In India, and in many other countries, the industry sectors that pay the best include technology and finance. The more responsibility you have as a leader, for stakeholders like employees, customers, investors, suppliers etc., generally the better you are paid.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“Who benefits”
Where do we go when machines do almost all labor. The only people
that can buy the goods will be investors, and the
That's something we ought to be working out right now. Ideally we're headed for some kind of post-economic post-shortage society. A starting point would be the Citizen's Income, but nobody really knows how such a society would work.
default
2018-12-05 17:25:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 07:57:54 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by default
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter what you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work. Working with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
What about the CEO or other managers/leaders of a food company? Somebody has to make the tough decisions: how to allocate resources, which products to market and sell etc. Man cannot live on bread alone. The market decides value for services people provide, and knowledge workers are among the most highly paid, like those in technology or finance.
The decisions about pay are not made by manual workers.
(Except when a manual worker quits to get a better job.
That's a decision.)
Unless you believe the book of Genesis (Joseph) -
before there were big food company CEOs, there were
still farmers, bakers, butchers, etc, and a lot of
the people who revere big CEOs also claim that
"the market" runs well without conscious direction
anyway. So how much value does the CEO add, really?
With machines and robotics, manual work by humans, continues to become less important. If you believe in the market, you should believe that the market fairly sets salaries, valuing the contribution by the worker. In India, and in many other countries, the industry sectors that pay the best include technology and finance. The more responsibility you have as a leader, for stakeholders like employees, customers, investors, suppliers etc., generally the better you are paid.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“Who benefits”
Where do we go when machines do almost all labor. The only people
that can buy the goods will be investors, and the
That's something we ought to be working out right now. Ideally we're headed for some kind of post-economic post-shortage society. A starting point would be the Citizen's Income, but nobody really knows how such a society would work.
I'm sure we'll respond to it just like climate change: Make a lot of
noise in government and the media, then do nothing, or worse, use this
new "threat" as justification for some incredibly stupid solution that
will exacerbate the problem.

It is easy to see what should be done - but no one wants to be the one
to take the hit. Human greed is the ultimate arbiter.
a***@gmail.com
2018-12-05 17:41:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by default
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter what you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work. Working with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
What about the CEO or other managers/leaders of a food company? Somebody has to make the tough decisions: how to allocate resources, which products to market and sell etc. Man cannot live on bread alone. The market decides value for services people provide, and knowledge workers are among the most highly paid, like those in technology or finance.
The decisions about pay are not made by manual workers.
(Except when a manual worker quits to get a better job.
That's a decision.)
Unless you believe the book of Genesis (Joseph) -
before there were big food company CEOs, there were
still farmers, bakers, butchers, etc, and a lot of
the people who revere big CEOs also claim that
"the market" runs well without conscious direction
anyway. So how much value does the CEO add, really?
With machines and robotics, manual work by humans, continues to become less important. If you believe in the market, you should believe that the market fairly sets salaries, valuing the contribution by the worker. In India, and in many other countries, the industry sectors that pay the best include technology and finance. The more responsibility you have as a leader, for stakeholders like employees, customers, investors, suppliers etc., generally the better you are paid.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“Who benefits”
Where do we go when machines do almost all labor. The only people
that can buy the goods will be investors, and the
That's something we ought to be working out right now. Ideally we're headed for some kind of post-economic post-shortage society. A starting point would be the Citizen's Income, but nobody really knows how such a society would work.
Quality and quantity of life continue to grow rapidly in developing nations, although growth may have stalled in many developed nations. People should invest in robotics and AI, to take advantage of the intelligent machine revolution.

Corporate tax collection and personal tax collection from rich entities, should be improved by raising tax rates for the rich, closing loopholes, and changing accounting regulations.

Taxes collected from the rich corporations and individuals, including robotics and AI companies, can be used to fund a limited and variable income for all those living below the poverty line. I don’t think a universal basic income for all citizens is necessary, and it will be more difficult to fund, as compared to a more targeted periodic cash transfer.

Also, a large inheritance tax can be used to redistribute wealth when a rich person dies.

But intelligent people will be able to find more creative work that pays better, as machines take over repetitive or dangerous or boring work. If you are willing and able to learn new skills, you should be able to find work.


Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“Machines have no rights”
Malcolm McMahon
2018-12-05 22:43:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by default
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 8:02:59 PM UTC+5:30, Mitchell
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't
_ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter what
you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work. Working
with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
What about the CEO or other managers/leaders of a food company?
Somebody has to make the tough decisions: how to allocate resources, which
products to market and sell etc. Man cannot live on bread alone. The market
decides value for services people provide, and knowledge workers are among the
most highly paid, like those in technology or finance.
The decisions about pay are not made by manual workers.
(Except when a manual worker quits to get a better job.
That's a decision.)
Unless you believe the book of Genesis (Joseph) -
before there were big food company CEOs, there were
still farmers, bakers, butchers, etc, and a lot of
the people who revere big CEOs also claim that
"the market" runs well without conscious direction
anyway. So how much value does the CEO add, really?
With machines and robotics, manual work by humans, continues to become
less important. If you believe in the market, you should believe that the
market fairly sets salaries, valuing the contribution by the worker. In India,
and in many other countries, the industry sectors that pay the best include
technology and finance. The more responsibility you have as a leader, for
stakeholders like employees, customers, investors, suppliers etc., generally
the better you are paid.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“Who benefits”
Where do we go when machines do almost all labor. The only people
that can buy the goods will be investors, and the
That's something we ought to be working out right now. Ideally we're headed
for some kind of post-economic post-shortage society. A starting point would be
the Citizen's Income, but nobody really knows how such a society would work.
Quality and quantity of life continue to grow rapidly in developing nations,
although growth may have stalled in many developed nations. People should
invest in robotics and AI, to take advantage of the intelligent machine
revolution.
Actually its close to the opposite. Its the poor of rich countries who are
seeing stagnation. Real poverty is decreasing in the poor countries. While
inequality within countries continues to grow, inequality befween countries is
decreasing.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Corporate tax collection and personal tax collection from rich entities,
should be improved by raising tax rates for the rich, closing loopholes, and
changing accounting regulations.
Taxes collected from the rich corporations and individuals, including robotics
and AI companies, can be used to fund a limited and variable income for all
those living below the poverty line. I don’t think a universal basic income
for all citizens is necessary, and it will be more difficult to fund, as
compared to a more targeted periodic cash transfer.
Also, a large inheritance tax can be used to redistribute wealth when a rich person dies.
Maybe we need to tax the earnings of AIs, rather then focusing on soaking the
rich.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But intelligent people will be able to find more creative work that pays
better, as machines take over repetitive or dangerous or boring work. If you
are willing and able to learn new skills, you should be able to find work.
That's the issue though. The previous industrial revolution automated a lot of
low-skill tasks. IT has now automated a lot of white collar work. AI is likely
to cut into the creative professional. Medical doctors and lawyers are probably
under threat. Twenty years from now your toilet will probably tell you what's
wrong with you. Scientific reasearh next? Maybe AIs, having no mind to boggle,
will be better at particle physics than people. Art? who knows.

If you go after a skill that takes ten years to learn, it may have disappeared
by the time you learn it. We may hit a point where the technology encompasses
new skills faster than a human can.

One thought encourages me. Did you know there are more horses now in the UK
that there were when they were the most important system of transport? And they
probably have better quality of life. Maybe we don't need to justify our
existence with work. Maybe we can live for fun.
default
2018-12-06 12:56:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 22:43:33 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by default
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 5:42:44 AM UTC+5:30, Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 8:02:59 PM UTC+5:30, Mitchell
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't
_ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter what
you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work. Working
with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
What about the CEO or other managers/leaders of a food company?
Somebody has to make the tough decisions: how to allocate resources, which
products to market and sell etc. Man cannot live on bread alone. The market
decides value for services people provide, and knowledge workers are among the
most highly paid, like those in technology or finance.
The decisions about pay are not made by manual workers.
(Except when a manual worker quits to get a better job.
That's a decision.)
Unless you believe the book of Genesis (Joseph) -
before there were big food company CEOs, there were
still farmers, bakers, butchers, etc, and a lot of
the people who revere big CEOs also claim that
"the market" runs well without conscious direction
anyway. So how much value does the CEO add, really?
With machines and robotics, manual work by humans, continues to become
less important. If you believe in the market, you should believe that the
market fairly sets salaries, valuing the contribution by the worker. In India,
and in many other countries, the industry sectors that pay the best include
technology and finance. The more responsibility you have as a leader, for
stakeholders like employees, customers, investors, suppliers etc., generally
the better you are paid.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“Who benefitsâ€?
Where do we go when machines do almost all labor. The only people
that can buy the goods will be investors, and the
That's something we ought to be working out right now. Ideally we're headed
for some kind of post-economic post-shortage society. A starting point would be
the Citizen's Income, but nobody really knows how such a society would work.
Quality and quantity of life continue to grow rapidly in developing nations,
although growth may have stalled in many developed nations. People should
invest in robotics and AI, to take advantage of the intelligent machine
revolution.
Actually its close to the opposite. Its the poor of rich countries who are
seeing stagnation. Real poverty is decreasing in the poor countries. While
inequality within countries continues to grow, inequality befween countries is
decreasing.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Corporate tax collection and personal tax collection from rich entities,
should be improved by raising tax rates for the rich, closing loopholes, and
changing accounting regulations.
Taxes collected from the rich corporations and individuals, including robotics
and AI companies, can be used to fund a limited and variable income for all
those living below the poverty line. I don’t think a universal basic income
for all citizens is necessary, and it will be more difficult to fund, as
compared to a more targeted periodic cash transfer.
Also, a large inheritance tax can be used to redistribute wealth when a rich person dies.
Maybe we need to tax the earnings of AIs, rather then focusing on soaking the
rich.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But intelligent people will be able to find more creative work that pays
better, as machines take over repetitive or dangerous or boring work. If you
are willing and able to learn new skills, you should be able to find work.
That's the issue though. The previous industrial revolution automated a lot of
low-skill tasks. IT has now automated a lot of white collar work. AI is likely
to cut into the creative professional. Medical doctors and lawyers are probably
under threat. Twenty years from now your toilet will probably tell you what's
wrong with you. Scientific reasearh next? Maybe AIs, having no mind to boggle,
will be better at particle physics than people. Art? who knows.
If you go after a skill that takes ten years to learn, it may have disappeared
by the time you learn it. We may hit a point where the technology encompasses
new skills faster than a human can.
One thought encourages me. Did you know there are more horses now in the UK
that there were when they were the most important system of transport? And they
probably have better quality of life. Maybe we don't need to justify our
existence with work. Maybe we can live for fun.
hear! hear!
default
2018-12-06 11:35:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by default
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter what you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work. Working with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
What about the CEO or other managers/leaders of a food company? Somebody has to make the tough decisions: how to allocate resources, which products to market and sell etc. Man cannot live on bread alone. The market decides value for services people provide, and knowledge workers are among the most highly paid, like those in technology or finance.
The decisions about pay are not made by manual workers.
(Except when a manual worker quits to get a better job.
That's a decision.)
Unless you believe the book of Genesis (Joseph) -
before there were big food company CEOs, there were
still farmers, bakers, butchers, etc, and a lot of
the people who revere big CEOs also claim that
"the market" runs well without conscious direction
anyway. So how much value does the CEO add, really?
With machines and robotics, manual work by humans, continues to become less important. If you believe in the market, you should believe that the market fairly sets salaries, valuing the contribution by the worker. In India, and in many other countries, the industry sectors that pay the best include technology and finance. The more responsibility you have as a leader, for stakeholders like employees, customers, investors, suppliers etc., generally the better you are paid.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“Who benefits”
Where do we go when machines do almost all labor. The only people
that can buy the goods will be investors, and the
That's something we ought to be working out right now. Ideally we're headed for some kind of post-economic post-shortage society. A starting point would be the Citizen's Income, but nobody really knows how such a society would work.
Quality and quantity of life continue to grow rapidly in developing nations, although growth may have stalled in many developed nations. People should invest in robotics and AI, to take advantage of the intelligent machine revolution.
Corporate tax collection and personal tax collection from rich entities, should be improved by raising tax rates for the rich, closing loopholes, and changing accounting regulations.
Taxes collected from the rich corporations and individuals, including robotics and AI companies, can be used to fund a limited and variable income for all those living below the poverty line. I don’t think a universal basic income for all citizens is necessary, and it will be more difficult to fund, as compared to a more targeted periodic cash transfer.
Also, a large inheritance tax can be used to redistribute wealth when a rich person dies.
But intelligent people will be able to find more creative work that pays better, as machines take over repetitive or dangerous or boring work. If you are willing and able to learn new skills, you should be able to find work.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“Machines have no rights”
default
2018-12-06 12:55:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by default
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter what you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work. Working with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
What about the CEO or other managers/leaders of a food company? Somebody has to make the tough decisions: how to allocate resources, which products to market and sell etc. Man cannot live on bread alone. The market decides value for services people provide, and knowledge workers are among the most highly paid, like those in technology or finance.
The decisions about pay are not made by manual workers.
(Except when a manual worker quits to get a better job.
That's a decision.)
Unless you believe the book of Genesis (Joseph) -
before there were big food company CEOs, there were
still farmers, bakers, butchers, etc, and a lot of
the people who revere big CEOs also claim that
"the market" runs well without conscious direction
anyway. So how much value does the CEO add, really?
With machines and robotics, manual work by humans, continues to become less important. If you believe in the market, you should believe that the market fairly sets salaries, valuing the contribution by the worker. In India, and in many other countries, the industry sectors that pay the best include technology and finance. The more responsibility you have as a leader, for stakeholders like employees, customers, investors, suppliers etc., generally the better you are paid.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“Who benefits”
Where do we go when machines do almost all labor. The only people
that can buy the goods will be investors, and the
That's something we ought to be working out right now. Ideally we're headed for some kind of post-economic post-shortage society. A starting point would be the Citizen's Income, but nobody really knows how such a society would work.
Quality and quantity of life continue to grow rapidly in developing nations, although growth may have stalled in many developed nations. People should invest in robotics and AI, to take advantage of the intelligent machine revolution.
The key word there is "developing" nations. Those of us in developed
nations have already seen areas where the quality of life has been
decreasing. Quantity? You mean like population numbers?

People should invest in themselves. Happiness is a more worthy goal
than material wealth, especially when the wealth means joining some
rat race. I'm comfortably well-off but discovered a long time ago
that more "things" does not correlate to greater satisfaction.

You only have time. You can sell it to someone else or use it
yourself; them's the choices.

My garden tiller has engine problems. I can pay someone to fix it,
pay to replace it, or I can repair it myself. If the work I do at a
job isn't satisfying, the satisfaction of repairing it myself can
easily outweigh choices one and two.

Having a lot of toys, but no time to play is not a good way to live.

There has to be a balance. There are no hard and fast rules for what
will work for everyone. Everyone is different. Some folks value
security, others adventure. There is no right or wrong way.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Corporate tax collection and personal tax collection from rich entities, should be improved by raising tax rates for the rich, closing loopholes, and changing accounting regulations.
Taxes collected from the rich corporations and individuals, including robotics and AI companies, can be used to fund a limited and variable income for all those living below the poverty line. I don’t think a universal basic income for all citizens is necessary, and it will be more difficult to fund, as compared to a more targeted periodic cash transfer.
Also, a large inheritance tax can be used to redistribute wealth when a rich person dies.
I agree with most of that but the term "targeted periodic cash
transfer" scares me. I imagine schemes used to control what people
do.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But intelligent people will be able to find more creative work that pays better, as machines take over repetitive or dangerous or boring work. If you are willing and able to learn new skills, you should be able to find work.
If the goal in life is "finding work," that's right. Bumming around
the country I found work. It is all around. Some of it was pretty
menial. I worked as a cook at Yellowstone park, the work didn't pay
much and I wouldn't call what I was doing cooking but the location was
spectacular and the women wonderful. I worked fixing rails for the
Milwaukee Road in Montana. The work was dirty, back breaking, and
dangerous at times, and the pay was spectacular, the other perks were
the location (again) and physical fitness. I worked in electronics
made a lot of money, but didn't have a lot of satisfaction and lived
in an apartment, chased women and raced motorcycles. I worked as a
handyman on an Outer Banks lodge, great location, lot of wonderful
people, caught some amazing fish, the pay wasn't all that good but I
was in an excellent state of health and fitness.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“Machines have no rights”
Better a satisfying life well-lived, than the mindless pursuit of
material wealth. The acquisition of wealth can become an addiction in
itself. A game, where it is easy to keep score with dollars, but
that's no life.

I left out building your own business as an option for support,
because from what I've seen the people that do don't seem to have a
lot of free time. It takes a lot of dedication and while they may say
they own their own business, the business owns them.

Another option is to scam people out of money, become a preacher, con
artist, etc.. Start a business, rope in investors, pay yourself a
hefty salary, declare bankruptcy, start a business, etc.. Launder
money for Russian oligarchs? That's OK if you can rationalize,
justify, and fool yourself.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-12-08 12:12:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by default
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by default
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 5:42:44 AM UTC+5:30, Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 8:02:59 PM UTC+5:30, Mitchell
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he
didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter
what you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work.
Working with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
What about the CEO or other managers/leaders of a food company?
Somebody has to make the tough decisions: how to allocate resources, which
products to market and sell etc. Man cannot live on bread alone. The market
decides value for services people provide, and knowledge workers are among the
most highly paid, like those in technology or finance.
The decisions about pay are not made by manual workers.
(Except when a manual worker quits to get a better job.
That's a decision.)
Unless you believe the book of Genesis (Joseph) -
before there were big food company CEOs, there were
still farmers, bakers, butchers, etc, and a lot of
the people who revere big CEOs also claim that
"the market" runs well without conscious direction
anyway. So how much value does the CEO add, really?
With machines and robotics, manual work by humans, continues to become
less important. If you believe in the market, you should believe that the
market fairly sets salaries, valuing the contribution by the worker. In India,
and in many other countries, the industry sectors that pay the best include
technology and finance. The more responsibility you have as a leader, for
stakeholders like employees, customers, investors, suppliers etc., generally
the better you are paid.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“Who benefits”
Where do we go when machines do almost all labor. The only people
that can buy the goods will be investors, and the
That's something we ought to be working out right now. Ideally we're headed
for some kind of post-economic post-shortage society. A starting point would be
the Citizen's Income, but nobody really knows how such a society would work.
Quality and quantity of life continue to grow rapidly in developing nations,
although growth may have stalled in many developed nations. People should
invest in robotics and AI, to take advantage of the intelligent machine
revolution.
The key word there is "developing" nations. Those of us in developed
nations have already seen areas where the quality of life has been
decreasing. Quantity? You mean like population numbers?
People should invest in themselves. Happiness is a more worthy goal
than material wealth, especially when the wealth means joining some
rat race. I'm comfortably well-off but discovered a long time ago
that more "things" does not correlate to greater satisfaction.
You only have time. You can sell it to someone else or use it
yourself; them's the choices.
My garden tiller has engine problems. I can pay someone to fix it,
pay to replace it, or I can repair it myself. If the work I do at a
job isn't satisfying, the satisfaction of repairing it myself can
easily outweigh choices one and two.
Having a lot of toys, but no time to play is not a good way to live.
There has to be a balance. There are no hard and fast rules for what
will work for everyone. Everyone is different. Some folks value
security, others adventure. There is no right or wrong way.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Corporate tax collection and personal tax collection from rich entities,
should be improved by raising tax rates for the rich, closing loopholes, and
changing accounting regulations.
Taxes collected from the rich corporations and individuals, including
robotics and AI companies, can be used to fund a limited and variable income
for all those living below the poverty line. I don’t think a universal basic
income for all citizens is necessary, and it will be more difficult to fund, as
compared to a more targeted periodic cash transfer.
Also, a large inheritance tax can be used to redistribute wealth when a rich person dies.
I agree with most of that but the term "targeted periodic cash
transfer" scares me. I imagine schemes used to control what people
do.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But intelligent people will be able to find more creative work that pays
better, as machines take over repetitive or dangerous or boring work. If you
are willing and able to learn new skills, you should be able to find work.
If the goal in life is "finding work," that's right. Bumming around
the country I found work. It is all around. Some of it was pretty
menial. I worked as a cook at Yellowstone park, the work didn't pay
much and I wouldn't call what I was doing cooking but the location was
spectacular and the women wonderful. I worked fixing rails for the
Milwaukee Road in Montana. The work was dirty, back breaking, and
dangerous at times, and the pay was spectacular, the other perks were
the location (again) and physical fitness. I worked in electronics
made a lot of money, but didn't have a lot of satisfaction and lived
in an apartment, chased women and raced motorcycles. I worked as a
handyman on an Outer Banks lodge, great location, lot of wonderful
people, caught some amazing fish, the pay wasn't all that good but I
was in an excellent state of health and fitness.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“Machines have no rights”
Better a satisfying life well-lived, than the mindless pursuit of
material wealth. The acquisition of wealth can become an addiction in
itself. A game, where it is easy to keep score with dollars, but
that's no life.
But what _makes_ a satisfying life. Nothing so validates the competence of our
work as having people pay us for it. Wages are the ultimate cure for imposter
syndrome, something I suspect most people suffer from.
default
2018-12-08 15:56:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 12:12:38 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by default
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by default
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Carnegie
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 5:42:44 AM UTC+5:30, Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 8:02:59 PM UTC+5:30, Mitchell
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by a***@gmail.com
People hurt people due to their theistic religious beliefs.
I was always a fan of the Dalai Lama. Maybe because he
didn't _ask_ to
be a religious leader.
I have issues accepting advice from people
who have never worked a day in their whole
pampered lives.
Being a leader, can sometimes be a thankless job. No matter
what you say or do, someone might disagree. Leadership can be hard work.
Working with your mind, can be more important than working with your body.
Not to slam a Lama, but only one of those things literally
puts food on the table.
What about the CEO or other managers/leaders of a food company?
Somebody has to make the tough decisions: how to allocate resources, which
products to market and sell etc. Man cannot live on bread alone. The market
decides value for services people provide, and knowledge workers are among the
most highly paid, like those in technology or finance.
The decisions about pay are not made by manual workers.
(Except when a manual worker quits to get a better job.
That's a decision.)
Unless you believe the book of Genesis (Joseph) -
before there were big food company CEOs, there were
still farmers, bakers, butchers, etc, and a lot of
the people who revere big CEOs also claim that
"the market" runs well without conscious direction
anyway. So how much value does the CEO add, really?
With machines and robotics, manual work by humans, continues to become
less important. If you believe in the market, you should believe that the
market fairly sets salaries, valuing the contribution by the worker. In India,
and in many other countries, the industry sectors that pay the best include
technology and finance. The more responsibility you have as a leader, for
stakeholders like employees, customers, investors, suppliers etc., generally
the better you are paid.
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“Who benefits”
Where do we go when machines do almost all labor. The only people
that can buy the goods will be investors, and the
That's something we ought to be working out right now. Ideally we're headed
for some kind of post-economic post-shortage society. A starting point would be
the Citizen's Income, but nobody really knows how such a society would work.
Quality and quantity of life continue to grow rapidly in developing nations,
although growth may have stalled in many developed nations. People should
invest in robotics and AI, to take advantage of the intelligent machine
revolution.
The key word there is "developing" nations. Those of us in developed
nations have already seen areas where the quality of life has been
decreasing. Quantity? You mean like population numbers?
People should invest in themselves. Happiness is a more worthy goal
than material wealth, especially when the wealth means joining some
rat race. I'm comfortably well-off but discovered a long time ago
that more "things" does not correlate to greater satisfaction.
You only have time. You can sell it to someone else or use it
yourself; them's the choices.
My garden tiller has engine problems. I can pay someone to fix it,
pay to replace it, or I can repair it myself. If the work I do at a
job isn't satisfying, the satisfaction of repairing it myself can
easily outweigh choices one and two.
Having a lot of toys, but no time to play is not a good way to live.
There has to be a balance. There are no hard and fast rules for what
will work for everyone. Everyone is different. Some folks value
security, others adventure. There is no right or wrong way.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Corporate tax collection and personal tax collection from rich entities,
should be improved by raising tax rates for the rich, closing loopholes, and
changing accounting regulations.
Taxes collected from the rich corporations and individuals, including
robotics and AI companies, can be used to fund a limited and variable income
for all those living below the poverty line. I don’t think a universal basic
income for all citizens is necessary, and it will be more difficult to fund, as
compared to a more targeted periodic cash transfer.
Also, a large inheritance tax can be used to redistribute wealth when a rich person dies.
I agree with most of that but the term "targeted periodic cash
transfer" scares me. I imagine schemes used to control what people
do.
Post by a***@gmail.com
But intelligent people will be able to find more creative work that pays
better, as machines take over repetitive or dangerous or boring work. If you
are willing and able to learn new skills, you should be able to find work.
If the goal in life is "finding work," that's right. Bumming around
the country I found work. It is all around. Some of it was pretty
menial. I worked as a cook at Yellowstone park, the work didn't pay
much and I wouldn't call what I was doing cooking but the location was
spectacular and the women wonderful. I worked fixing rails for the
Milwaukee Road in Montana. The work was dirty, back breaking, and
dangerous at times, and the pay was spectacular, the other perks were
the location (again) and physical fitness. I worked in electronics
made a lot of money, but didn't have a lot of satisfaction and lived
in an apartment, chased women and raced motorcycles. I worked as a
handyman on an Outer Banks lodge, great location, lot of wonderful
people, caught some amazing fish, the pay wasn't all that good but I
was in an excellent state of health and fitness.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
“Machines have no rights”
Better a satisfying life well-lived, than the mindless pursuit of
material wealth. The acquisition of wealth can become an addiction in
itself. A game, where it is easy to keep score with dollars, but
that's no life.
But what _makes_ a satisfying life. Nothing so validates the competence of our
work as having people pay us for it. Wages are the ultimate cure for imposter
syndrome, something I suspect most people suffer from.
We are used to identifying with a job. If you meet someone new at a
gathering if the talk lasts for more then 10 minutes or so it will get
around to "what is it you do?" And they mean what work do you do.

I like "whatever I damn well feel like doing."

Loading...