Redpill

>communism is the logical result of technological development
No, it isn't. There is no such thing as post-scarcity, there is just abundance, which is not the same thing. Resources used to support tens of billions of hedonists in VR sets on earth may as well be used to build interstellar ships, wage wars, etc. There is an opportunity cost to every single decision that can possibly be made. What you're doing is being lazy and refusing to even consider possible flaws in your hypotheses because that could mean having to reconsider yotur worldview.

Communists always think that we're hearing your pre-fab rationalizations for the first time. I used to be a dumb kid like you too, once. If all the smart, savvy people are marxists, it must be correct, no?

>Science doesn't involve creativity, it's all hard numbers and stuff

I fail to see how your argument refutes the fact that communism (or similar economic systems) is a logical conclusion to technology. Your post boils down to the equivalent of

>nuh uh! It doesnt have to be communism

Followed by a strawman about how im following some herd of communists and marxists do the same thing.

My conclusions are my own based on the facts im presented with, im sure others may have come to the same conclusion. Until im presented with facts as to why im wrong, the evidence points to me being right.

>I fail to see how your argument refutes the fact that communism (or similar economic systems) is a logical conclusion to technology.
Then read again, retard. You are skipping lots of steps in your reasoning.

I don't get this. I see a lot of of my professors tell us to be careful of what we call absolute scientific truth and that it's better tp say that it's a model that fits the data. Why pn earth then is a polsci major speaking so secure of himself when they are always wrong. I'm not a Trump supporter, but it really makes ypu question what goes on those universities if most political science major predicted Hillary's victory.

your facts are a NEET pipe dream. especially your timeline estimates. automation is a meme and if you think any differently you have zero understanding of the current state of the manufacturing industry.

>I see a lot of of my professors tell us to be careful of what we call absolute scientific truth and that it's better tp say that it's a model that fits the data.
So they babble it. Doesn't prove they live by it, but better than ones that don't.

>getting into /STEM/ only made me realise how subjective and contradictory Science is
Welcome to Reality.

>I see a lot of of my professors tell us to be careful of what we call absolute scientific truth and that it's better tp say that it's a model that fits the data

Isn't that what science is? Stuff's been disproven in the past, or had a better model to replace what was then known as absolute scientific truth.

Fucking KEK. You couldnt be more wrong. Im a process systems engineer working for a multi billion dollar company. I can tell you, I myself could automate every McJob out there using tech available to me right now. Brick and mortar stores are losing out to online markets. Cars already drive themselves and the first self driving semi truck made a delivery a few months ago. All non-skilled labor could be eliminated tomorrow if we had the funding and legislation to do so. The skilled jobs (see mine) will take a little longer to be automated, but with companies like google and d-wave throwing shit tons of money at the AI problem you would be a fool not to think that skilled labor is on its way out within a couple of decades. All that will be left for humans is the arts but, to be honest, AI will probably learn to kick our asses in that department too.

You're a robocuck

Ok read it again. You still havent provided any points contradicting me. Allow me to elaborate.

>theres no such thing as post scarcity just abundance
And? A communist country with an abundance of resources is exactly how the ideal communist system would exist. Thats honestly most of the reason communism has failed previously is because the countries that adopt it dont have the means to support it.

The next part of your argument goes something like this
>VR headsets and rocket ships require resources. Deciding where to spend resources is hard!
A communist country with an abundance of resources would spend them on necessities first (defense, scientific advancement, etc.) and use any resources available after to keep the population happy with VR headsets. Its not rocket science. This part kind of contradics your first point because you are saying "We will have an abundance of everything" and then saying "we will have to decide where to spend our limited resources". I dont think you understand the word "abundance".

>you are lazy and stupid and dumb and stupid worldview blah blah
This is the part of your argument that is shitposting.

>more namecalling followed by strawmanning the marxist bandwagon as evidence that my own independant conclusions about communism are wrong

You are out of your league here friend. Stop arguing before you embarrass yourself further.

Im just helping our future overlords take over the planet in exchange for large sums of money. No cucking involved.

this is not the redpill. you've only started on the path, to the scientific bogpill

if you stay the path, you'll eventually realize how despite its weaknesses, science is the best way we have for knowing things

if you dedicate your life to science you'll one day learn that the social and collaberative aspects of science are actually its strength, you'll have to abandon immature notions of lone geniuses revolutionizing the field, and come to realize that the scientists with the highest powerlevels are actually highly social and typically very effective managers(management is really a skill that should be taught in STEM graduate programs)

>flight is never possible, shitty execution is intrinsic to all efforts to fly
t. peasant circa 1850

You can't abandon the idea of people assigning value and bartering.

>multi billion dollar company
thanks for confirming you don't know shit about the manufacturing industry.

those big companies with advanced automation equipment are the minority. the average age of a machine tool in the US is 30+ years. shit, i still see CNC machines with paper tape readers on the side.

automation isn't economically feasible for the vast majority of manufacturing applications. you have to have an absolutely rock steady demand and a real justification for "lights out" manufacturing. i can't count on two hands the number of companies i've seen that have gotten suckered by a FANUC salesman into buying a huge piece of expensive machinery just to have the demand drop out from underneath them. also, if you knew anything you'd also know that the talent pool for manufacturing is ankle deep. fist fights between managers have broken out because one was trying to steal away the others CMM operator.

Bahahaha. Sounds like youve been to a lot of mom and pop machine shops. I work for Kohler company, so yes multi billion dollar company. We have probably 25+ FANUC robots including the largest one they make, the M2000iA. Thats just in my department. We are spending $25 million on a new machine thats being installed as we speak. Dont tell me i dont know what im talking about. And yes, at the moment most places cant afford one robot let alone the army of them that i work with. However, its still true that given the funding and legislation, I could eliminate all non skilled jobs tomorrow. If you dont think that its possible and if you dont think that in the future its inevitable, with advancements in robotics, you are sadly mistaken.

intellectuals are the bane of scietific progress, which are everywhere in uni

...

Oh hell, I also knew a political science professor last semester who also went on rants about how Hillary was going to win, and that's pretty much around the time that I realized how useless and dumb political "science" really is.

>ts objectively the most efficient form of government economics for both the government and the governed.

Yeah in the friction-less zero G wind tunnel.

Capitalism doesn't preform as well in the same wind tunnel, but it works fine in a normal wind tunnel and will be working fine until the day the last human is left.

What part of "robots will take literally all of the jobs" do you not understand?

socialists are retards.

Free market capitalism is for smart people (because us smart people know the rest of the world is too dumb for socialism).

>studies real analysis
>real numbers don't exist

life has been a waste

>tfw government/history major
>tfw there are unironic socialists near me

>diamonds can be grown on industrial scales
>people still want the "real" thing

In the post-scarcity robot future, some assholes will still want man-made just because it's somehow more "authentic"

That's right, in your zero-g frictionless wind tunnel, hipsters are gravity.

Shouldn't this be on/k/? looks like /k/ material to me.

WTF? OP is just expressing personal questionable conclusion about Science. Will prolly change tomorrow.

Man Y U so angry?

That's why I graduated in CS. 100k starting and don't have to put up with the bullshit of scientists

See tf above U 2!

political "science"

Communism would only work if the human race where the Borg.

>You're just adding some creativity here and there to make it sufferable

The Borg wouldn't require any form of government.

Humans are very inefficient laborers. In the somewhat distant future their may be hipsters that prefer human made, but that human made shit it going to be 4x more expensive and eventually human labor will just not be a viable alternative. Hipsters or not, robots are just better and more convenient workers.

>robots are better and more convenient laborers

Except they're really not. Robots can't even fold clothes at half the rate a human can without risk of the robot breaking itself and/or the environment; this doesn't even begin to address deficiencies in the learning mechanisms used by these robots.

You are talking out of your ass. The robots i work with very well could fold clothes faster than a human by a significant margin with the right program.
>learning mechanisms
This is how i know your bullshitting. Learning mechanisims? You mean programming? Unless you are referring to BAXTER but if thats the case you are kind of contradicting yourself because BAXTER is arguably easier to teach than a human.

You are seriously arguing that a human made of meat, that can get sick, that requires insurance, and sleep, and food, is a better manual laborer than a robot that runs on a few dollars worth of electricity each day? Son, are you retarded?

You are assuming linear advancement, which has never happened more more than 20-30 years in human history. History repeats in cycles. We will never achieve a point where nobody has to work.

Nice shitpost.
>linear advancement has never happened more more than 20-30 years in human history
First off you worded that terribly, second its complete bullshit. Show me the source. By what metric did they measure "advancement"? If you are going by computation ability that metric of advancement has been growing exponentially (see significantly faster than linear) since the first Turing machine was built in world war II. Lastly, you arent giving any reasons WHY robots wont take over our jobs. You just say stupid cryptic shit that has no value because you have no idea what you are talkinng about.

Read the fourth turning brainlet, you are not even operating on the same dimension as I am. We will have another civil war before everybody's jobs are taken to AI. Rich aren't going to sit around and let their wealth get redistributed it, they are going to move it out of the US.

Ok, now im sure you are either retarded or trolling. I will agree theres a very real possibility of human extinction before strong AI is created, however, barring some nuclear war or race riots, elimination of every human job is inevitable. Robots are faster, and more reliable than human employees. Depending on the humans benefits they are also cheaper. I get paid to program robots to do people jobs every day. We have done things in the past year or sothat would have been considered impossible when i started. Jobs that were paying $30+ per hours and were considered semi skilled labor have been replaced by robots. I have personally eliminated 20+ jobs and employees needed since i got hired. If you still don't believe me, i dont care, 30 years from now you will know im right.

>elimination of every human job is inevitable
Wrong. Like I said, you are for some reason assuming the impossible, that "progress" will continue uninhibited. Funny thing about communism is that theoretically it can only happen in two ways, it's brashly forced upon the populace by an authoritarian mandate (this has been the case through most notable occurences in history, USSR, China etc) and this causes it to fail because there is no way it can be implemented like that in a way that is sustainable. The second way communism can theoretically come about is what the left thinks is happening to America, a society will advance far enough in a capitalist economy that jobs will no longer have to be done by humans, they think, OF COURSE, this means the wealth will have to be redistributed from the rich to everybody else, because by now in such an advanced capitalist economy, the wealth division between the upper and lower classes will be humongous. But in the real world, people don't just sit there and let there money disappear and be redistributed. They will move it out of the US to another country who will be very happy to have all that money move into their economy. There are 10million+ millionaires in the US as of 2015, I would guess most people worth even less than that would move their money off shoes, and themselves move offshores also.

So with most of the wealth leaving the country, the government (who owns the majority of the commoners wealth via taxes) will not be able to distribute enough wealth to the masses because they are not earning anything that can be taxed. This will leave millions of people with nothing to do but destroy the machines that are causing their families to starve. And this is assuming we even get this far, a debilitating civil war that sets us back decades is much more likely.

>thread about how subjective and contradictory science is
>thread full of Veeky Forumsentists posting their subjective and contradictory opinions

P O T T E R Y

A company doesn't have to be privately owned. Say a company has fully automated its production process and doesn't need any more human workers except some management positions and a few engineers. The government could buy up that company. The CEO will be happy because he gets billions of dollars, and the government will be happy because they will make billions of dollars too, and can start redistributing the money to the citizens. Of course 1 billion dollars would only be 3 dollars per American citizens, so the government has to buy like a thousand lucrative companies. But yeah.
And obviously this means that we have to re-think our idea of how a government works. At the moment, the government shouldn't partake in consumerism (except some political goods like alcohol, energy, etc) because of the risk of them becoming money hungry and losing interest in what the people want. But that's just something we'd have to adapt too. Maybe a new form of government is needed. Like one that is split into business and politics. And people could still work voluntarily if the "free money" is too low for them.

>The government could buy up that company
With who's money?

The tax payers'. Duh.
You just have to tell them "we'll use your money to buy this company now, then we'll give you free money for the rest of your life". It will totally work.
I mean, many Europeans have free university. How much money do you think that shit costs the tax payers?

Who are the tax payers? People aren't earning any money, how are they going to get taxed?