>We've been asking ourselves "wtf are the Russian oligarchs doing"
No, we have not. There is no oligarchs in Russia, money has no political subjectivity in Russia, and they are owned by those whom Putin put in charge for this.
>You should make proportional to the work you put in.
Throughout the 20th century we have seen what such a social structure leads to: millions of deaths from hunger. And always, without exception: the transition to work-based economy - and in the next decade the population becomes many times poorer and a huge percentage of the population dies of starvation.
So no thanks. Between shareholders and investors, and starvation, I choose shareholders and investors.
>to be prepared to suffer and fight for principles rather than immediate personal gain, to band together with others even at personal cost is an enormous strength.
The more I think about it, the more I come to realization that all of this just fairy tales for children.
Of course! Fairy tales for children are how we communicate some of our best understandings of what it means to live a good life.
Many important things in life are fictions or rely on fictions - money, nations, property, family, art, justice, legitimacy, banks. All of them are fairytales. And like a fairy in Peter Pan, belief can make them real, powerful facts of our world while lack of belief can destroy them.
It works too - I know lots of real people who make the world a better place because of the fairy tales they choose to believe.
>Here in the US we seem to be on some kind of precipice.
Aren't working class people in the US just recently choose the most anti-elite candidate possible just because (and fuck the consequences, let it all burn in hell)?
Working class people are understanding that the elite are just a few bad decisions away from their total destruction. And now they WILL make THE OTHERS to understand this.
Let's be realistic: how many doctors have ever been held accountable for performing abortions to avoid complications? How do you even imagine a trial against such a doctor? Women are bleeding out in Texas parking lots because doctors wants them to bleed out to make a political stunt.
it's very recent law but the cases are already racking up. And it's just basic game theory. Help and you might be arrested, don't help and leave it to the state to battle between negligence vs. upholding the law.
>How do you even imagine a trial against such a doctor?
As seen in the DOJ, I expect a kangaroo court, of course.
That's exactly my point: all three articles says nothing about any doctor's responsibility for abortion with the goal to prevent harm to pregnant woman. No arrests, no charges, no fines, nothing, not even single case (as far as I know; your links also describes zero such cases).
And still women are bleeding out. What else could it be other than doctors' political stunts at the cost of women's lives?
I think it's disgusting hypocrisy. We're talking about the USA, aren't we? A country that has started many, many wars, a country that massacred innocent Vietnamese, Afghans, Iraqis. Even at this very moment, the US is participating in the killing of honest, decent, innocent Palestinians and Russians. But that's okay, not worth mentioning.
But deporting lawful residents? How dare you, America? This is definitely the beginning of the end.
THE GOVERNMENT doesn't want elections in wartime. Most people want.
>not least because polling stations become targets.
I think this is pure gaslighting. If we are talking about Ukraine, Putin is one of the main supporters of holding elections there. And almost certainly not because he wants to bomb some polling stations, but because he is confident that people will vote for a candidate who will de-facto offer to surrender, and not for Zelensky with his busifications.
The only likely candidate close to Zelenskyy in popularity is Zaluzhnyi, the former commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. That's not a person who sees surrender as an option.
All major political factions oppose holding elections now, because they expect Zelenskyy's popularity to fade after the war ends and believe their candidates will have better chances then.
> All major political factions oppose holding elections now, because they expect Zelenskyy's popularity to fade after the war ends and believe their candidates will have better chances then.
Well, that, and also the constitution doesn't allow election during wartime.
>Today we have the BRICS trade block representing more than half of the world's population.
As far as I understand, the BRICS block does not actually exist. I mean, being member of it does not mean anything serious. There are no obligations, no agreements, no roadmaps. We might as well talk about a alliance of countries whose names begin with the letter "S"
Where is the existing work these people would take up? If it doesn't exist yet, then how do you suppose people will support themselves in the meantime?
What if the new work that is created pays less? Do you think people should just accept being made obsolete to take up lower paying jobs?
>Where is the existing work these people would take up? If it doesn't exist yet, then how do you suppose people will support themselves in the meantime?
Everywhere in human society. "Jobs" is literally when you do something that someone needs, so that in exchange they do something that you need. And in human society, because of AI, neither people’s needs, nor the ability to satisfy them, nor the possibility of exchanging them will suddenly disappear. So the jobs will be everywhere.
>Do you think people should just accept being made obsolete to take up lower paying jobs?
Let's start with the fact that on average all jobs will become higher paying because the amount of goods produced (and distributed) will increase. So the more correct answer to this question is "What choice will they have?".
AI will make the masses richer, so society will not abandon it. Subsidize their obsolete well-paid jobs to make society poorer? Why would anyone do that? So the people replaced by AI will go to work in other jobs. Sometimes higher paying, sometimes lower.
If we are talking about real solutions, the best alternative they will have is to form a cult like the Amish did (God bless America and capitalism), in which they can pretend that AI does not exist and live as before. The only question in this case is whether they will find willing participants, because for most, participation in such a cult will mean losing the increase in income provided by the introduction of AI.
No, that's just logic. AI doesn't thwart the ability of people to satisfy their needs (getting richer).
>Inequality is worse now than it was 20 years ago despite technology progressing.
And people are still richer than ever before (if we take into account the policies that are thwarting society's ability to satisfy each other's needs and that have nothing to do with technologies)
Huh? If AI can do any job cheaper and better than a person can, why would anyone hire a person? What "useful" skill could a person exchange for resources in an era when computers write code, drive cars, fight wars, and cook food?
But you answer your own question: the only situation in which it makes no sense to hire another person to satisfy a need is when that need has already been satisfied in another way.
And if all needs are already satisfied... Why worry about work? The purpose of work is to satisfy needs. If needs are satisfied, there is no need for work.
You assume the everyone's needs are solved together. More likely is that the property owning class acquire AI robots to provide cheap labor; and everyone else doesn't.
>You assume the everyone's needs are solved together.
No, I am not assuming that. "Together" are not required. It's just combination of needs, ability to satisfy them and ability to exchange - creates jobs. And nothing of this will be thwarted by AI.
>More likely is that the property owning class acquire AI robots to provide cheap labor
Doesn't matter. Your everyday person either will be able to afford this cheap AI labor for themselves (no problem that required solving) or if AI labor for them are unaffordable - will create jobs for other people (there will be jobs on market everywhere)
>Why on Earth would taxpayers give their hard earned money to other people to work on their "projects of interest"?
I don't know, but if suddenly someone really has a problem with the fact that the government is still not taking enough money from them to finance various unpromising projects, I am happy to take on the government's work and free of charge get any amount of money from them to implement the widest range of interesting projects.
No, we have not. There is no oligarchs in Russia, money has no political subjectivity in Russia, and they are owned by those whom Putin put in charge for this.
reply