D
US Pulling Out of Paris Climate Accord
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
1:30
[video=youtube_share;ZxO83ne8Sic]https://youtu.be/ZxO83ne8Sic
I'm not really seeing that happening any time soon. Even something as simple as an EKG requires human eyes. You can make a lot of arguments based on things such as radiology but even that will require human eyes and a clinical correlation that isn't really something you can algorithmize. Of course, there will continue to be pushes for this as many continue to view medicine as something that can be achieved through guidelines and algorithms which is why you see huge pushes for expanded practice of mid-level (non-physician) providers to be "prescribers." The push on these things comes from a mindset that science is like a magic 8 ball and each question has a specific accompanying answer, so that if a patient has a, b and c, then you're going to do x, y and z -- it's science! Unfortunately, even AI can't scrutinize the primary literature of the treatments and interventions to really question how we know what we know, or if what we know is correct or how it will apply to a given situation.
I don't fully disagree. I think many opportunities of collaboration between advanced AI and highly-skilled humans will open up. However, these jobs are limited in number, and cannot support the population at large.
I always recommend this, but everyone should read The Second Machine age, as it goes deeply into what's expected to happen over the next couple of decades. It's a very accessible business/economics focused book.
https://www.amazon.com/Second-Machi...351982&sr=8-1&keywords=the+second+machine+age
I will check them out, thanks. I also wanted to say that no country has instated UBI as of today. Finland has/is experimenting with the idea, on a limited basis. Remember, UBI must be unconditional, universal, and equivalent to income from a full-time low-skill job.
Interestingly, that quote you're referencing demonstrates fairly well why I do not believe that any amount of money you give anyone will solve any problems society currently faces from any long-term perspective. These themes are common for everyone. Currently we're all talking about how if we were any of our FAs that we'd realize having $10M would set us for life and we wouldn't be stingy about another $3-4M. The only way I could see UBI being beneficial is by getting rid of the massive cost of bureaucracy of all the agencies currently handling entitlements and benefits, in a sense just funneling all that money into one source. But, eventually, and sooner rather than later, we will see people still being homeless, still in debt, still not able to afford food, etc., and we will call for the reinstatement of social safety nets in addition to UBI.
Miggs
Well-Known Member
People will. Not the people who lost their jobs to robots. There will be a (major?) downturn in the economy and then an uptick as new industries form and those trained and skilled in such fields, find employment. It may take a decade or two. But I think it would happen.
DutchJazzer
Banned
[MENTION=54]Beantown[/MENTION]!
yeah negrepping me with that! on this post
so what who the **** cares about subsidies and tax breaks!
i am a libertarian! i am against most forms of taxation! and against any and all government subsidies
taxbreaks who cares! it is not the governments money!
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Let's say 18K times every adult 245 million that equals a little more than 4.4 trillion. SSI is nearly a trillion let's say we save 800 billion there. We're down to 3.6 trillion. We can more than make our NATO commitment of 2% of GDP while cutting 200 billion from the military(let's stop subsidizing European social services). We are down to 3.4 trillion. Now let's say we set the even Steven level at the top 40%. That is the top 40% have a new tax liability that is equal to or greater than the 18K. We can now remove 40% of our original 4.4 trillion off the top. That's 1.7 trillion dollars. We now have a funding need of 1.7 trillion dollars but even all of that won't be the sole responsibility of the top 40%. People making less will have some tax liability it will just be less than the full 18K. I can't tell you an exact number but I can tell you that it would be much less than 1.7 trillion. Further there are alternative funding sources such as a vat tax or consumption tax extraction tax increase in capital gains tax etcetera that could be used in concert with our progressive income tax to fund it. This is all assuming that there are no other savings in Social spending which seems kind of ridiculous. I can't imagine that you could give everyone $18,000 and that as many people would still need the vast array of programs that we currently offer.
In short when you do an overly simple calculation the new tax burden seems much much much larger than it actually would need to be.
DutchJazzer
Banned
lol unlike past prediction who have not come trough they learned form it, and did not put a date on it this time!
wasnt new york supposed to be underwater by now(prediction form the 90's
i lov ehow they say science consequences(we should ban science now)
hahahaha CNN VERY FAKE NEWS!
Red
Well-Known Member
French President Macron's address to the American people and American scientists:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=toAaFKvzum0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=toAaFKvzum0