The Terminator Prophecy

The future is coming. Iaman sent us this video which sparked an email discussion amongst my far flung correspondents.

Presumably some small set of humans will want to continue to exist. I mean, what's  the point of deliberately marginalizing yourself?  I guess that will be those few humans who control the bots and benefit from their labor.

So is this an argument in favor of controlling human reproduction, to avoid a world of disenfranchised losers?  (Although that describes our current world. ). Or an argument in favor of continuing to bolster the underclasses, so they will ultimately revolt in violent anarchy?

I imagine the future equilibrium will look much as it does today: a minuscule ruling ownership class; a subsidized middle class kept just happy enough to prevent them from revolting, and a vast disenfranchised  underclass clinging against all good judgement to existence. 

On the plus side we'll probably cure cancer, get rid of cars, and be able to fly to Japan for $3.

- California Bob

That's a provocative thought:

"clinging against all good judgement to existence".

I remember some jackass Congressman claiming that if you gave people welfare the first thing they did was have more babies. It is kind of the right-wing mantra.

I would like to prove scientifically that that is horseshit.

Worldwide, and presumably species-wide, the wealthiest have the lowest birthrates. The poorest have the highest. Why is that?

Hypothesis: It's because each individual of the species will do what it takes to ensure the continuation of it's genetic code. Without the economic means to assure survival of a limited number of offspring, they produce more.

Fat, happy educated people understand that the genetics mean next to nothing, and manage to suppress or re-direct the code drive toward economic continuity.

To correlative of this hypothesis is that reducing the share of economic wealth to the poor will result in no less a percentage of the population being impoverished. In the age of information, it's a matter of time when even the poorest realize all they have to do is organize, rise up and chop off the right heads.

- Irba

Yep it's a matter of time. Time thus far has been 10,000 years of modern human history.

I do agree though that communication has undergone radical change even in the past 10 years. So maybe the time is nigh.

I'm betting even with communication the poor wont be able to get their act together.

I would like to prove scientifically that if you provide people with welfare / launch a "war on poverty" if you will -- that we would still have poor people. Hmmm, how could one do that?

- California Bob

I should have said it differently "Can any given population segment of a physically segmented species be shown to have increase birth rates dues to privation, and if so, at what point will that birthrate fall off, and point eventually to extinction of that population segment?"

I mean, that's what the policies seem to be now. Cutbacks in taxation, education, food assistance and infrastructure may correlate to increased birth rates of the poorest and consequent growth of welfare
programs.

Internet communication is partly how we elected a black man to Presidency.

And you know all the right-wing nuts claim that those welfare moms just buy fancy smartphones for their 19 kids. That, and that Pres. Obama is the harbinger of the Apocalypse

They took a stab at it with the FCC regulations regarding net neutrality.

As the world moves more toward people voting who look at the Internet, versus those who watch TV commericals from the Barcalounger, other things will change also.

Sorry, I'm feeling pretty good lately.

- Irba