but I don't want robots to be a thing. And I don't want autistic people to be viewed as some kind of tool for the billionaires to get richer
A lot of shitty video game companies and other billion dollar corpos are looking for autistic people to hire because they're less likely to complain about not getting a good wage or about working extortionary long hours under threat of being fired.
I don't care what your race, gender, disability or whatever is. the minimum wage should be higher than the cost of living and everyone deserves an equal piece of the profits of a company they work for on top of getting a living wage and benefits. For the executives that contribute nothing, that means a lot less money, for the people who actually work at the company, that means a lot more.
If you devote your time to the operation of a business, you deserve to be paid and to be paid well.
Any company that wants to take advantage of autistic people not being informed about their rights as a worker should be broken up and the executives should be put in stockades in a public square.
As a theoretical religious communist, I have a counterpoint. An independent livable wage would be too high for many jobs and would ultimately lead to the elimination of those jobs. While that might sound good, I've had autistic people tell me that retail is the only thing they can do.
I feel like a lot of people should be getting paid and treated better then they are, but then there are redditors who think that fast food employees should be getting paid $30 per hour.
Hypothetically, if fast food employees had to be paid $30 per hour, the first thing that would happen is prices would go up. Then large numbers of employees would be fired. The employees who remain would be the absolute minimum necessary to do the job and they would end up extremely overworked. They would also be expected to be on call to come in at any moment during their time off and they'd likely be on an extremely strict attendance policy since not showing up could mean the restaurant has to close down.
I think it is more like robotic overloads since tech can overload you will too much information at once, but what about new autistic overlords instead?
I don't like this article, it's too negative. It's got the whole "dysfunction rather than difference" attitude. I fear that they just want to pawn us off on robots so they don't have to deal with us, although it does talk about using robots to "cure" us. I prefer the idea of it being two groups of people with different communication styles that both need to learn how to better communicate with each other. Most people are already bad enough with communicating with others, so I think everyone would benefit from this.
I think something important about this is that I sometimes phrase something poorly on a first attempt. With a robot, you can tell it to ignore the original massage and rephrase it until you make your point accurately.
With people, once you say something, they will attach that context no matter what even if you need to retry again a couple times to get the right point across.
I didn’t have this realization until the Edit option in modern chat AIs.
We're also not a fucking monolith, and while I appreciate some autists would find it easier or more comfortable communicating with a robot, I find it anything from frustrating to enraging when I'm forced to (like customer service) and would never choose to communicate with one over a human, ever.
Sure, NT's can be frustrating and enraging to deal with too, but at least when you get frustrated or enraged, they understand what frustration and rage are (even if not why you're feeling them).
This definitely reeks of an attempt to get NT's out of having to make any effort at inclusion.
(E: word)
(Although, to be possibly pedantic, they can judge you, or be unpredictable, if they are programmed that way. Still, I usually prefer to go through the self-checkout at the grocery store.)
Would not mind self-checkout if they accepted cash. Although a cashier is not a big deal either, not like they talk with you aside from "do you have a discount card?" or "do you need a bag?"
I support automation of the service industry, but I worry about the future of everyone when everyone is constantly going about their day with no real interaction.
The reason I support self checkout is because a small number of employees can oversee a large number of machines. It's bad for people who are going to end up with extreme social anxiety because they were allowed to go for long periods of time without real interaction.
Not having any social interaction would be likely to make it a lot harder.
As much as I think automation is progress, a future where people can go get stuff with no human interaction at all will likely end badly for the people who are already on the edge.
WFH is good for a lot of people and has practical advantages, but it will likely be incredibly bad for people who are already struggling.
On the contrary, many analysts reject historical precedents as guides to contemporary policy. Perhaps they should take warning from the aforementioned infamous 1972 Club of Rome/MIT study, Limits to Growth (LTG) [99], which showed that, on a business-as-usual track, global society would face collapse by mid-21st century. As might be expected, many economists and techno-optimists roundly rejected this assessment—economists ignore overshoot and even grossly underestimate the damage from climate change; their concepts and models are divorced from biophysical reality [100]. However, subsequent studies show that the real world is behaving with disturbing fidelity to LTG modelling, particularly the two (of four) scenarios that indicate a halt in growth over the next decade or so, followed by subsequent declines and collapse [101].
[Emphasis mine]
Complete Abstract:
Homo sapiens has evolved to reproduce exponentially, expand geographically, and consume all available resources. For most of humanity’s evolutionary history, such expansionist tendencies have been countered by negative feedback. However, the scientific revolution and the use of fossil fuels reduced many forms of negative feedback, enabling us to realize our full potential for exponential growth. This natural capacity is being reinforced by growth-oriented neoliberal economics—nurture complements nature. Problem: the human enterprise is a ‘dissipative structure’ and sub-system of the ecosphere—it can grow and maintain itself only by consuming and dissipating available energy and resources extracted from its host system, the ecosphere, and discharging waste back into its host. The population increase from one to eight billion, and >100-fold expansion of real GWP in just two centuries on a finite planet, has thus propelled modern techno-industrial society into a state of advanced overshoot. We are consuming and polluting the biophysical basis of our own existence. Climate change is the best-known symptom of overshoot, but mainstream ‘solutions’ will actually accelerate climate disruption and worsen overshoot. Humanity is exhibiting the characteristic dynamics of a one-off population boom–bust cycle. The global economy will inevitably contract and humanity will suffer a major population ‘correction’ in this century.
Ignorance of systems has its way of plowing forward, juggernaut-like. Nordhaus has opined that agriculture is “the part of the economy that is sensitive to climate change,” but because it accounts for just 3 percent of national output, climate disruption of food production cannot produce a “very large effect on the U.S. economy.” It is unfortunate for his calculations that agriculture is the foundation on which the other 97 percent of GDP depends. Without food — strange that one needs to reiterate this — there is no economy, no society, no civilization. Yet Nordhaus treats agriculture as indifferently fungible.
This crude mess of a model is what won him the Nobel. “
the nobel in economics is just a fake award of other pseudoscientists tugging each others dicks.
There are plenty of absolutely damning counterarguments to nordhaus that make it so that nobody serious takes him seriously. hes a shill plain and simple
the nobel in economics is just a fake award of other pseudoscientists tugging each others dicks.
For sure . for those not in thr know the Economics Nobel is set up by a Swedish Bank and uses Noble's name.
There are plenty of absolutely damning counterarguments to nordhaus that make it so that nobody serious takes him seriously. hes a shill plain and simple
I don't agree he's not taken seriously, which is unfortuante. He's the professor of Economics at Yale. Lots of his work was leant on by other confident idiots like Bjorn Lomborg and the likess of Richard Tol when he was involved in working group 3 of the IPCC and that's often what informs policy decisions governmentally.
PS nice to see you here from Reddits collapse group? I don't visit there anymore but did fire over a decade.
Terrible numbers get thrown around. But scientists mean what they say. Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester in the U.K. and Uppsala University in Sweden, asserts that “something like 10 percent of the planet’s population — around half a billion people — will survive if global temperatures rise by 4 C.” He notes, with a modicum of hopefulness, that we “will not make all human beings extinct as a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the right parts of the world and survive. But I think it’s extremely unlikely that we wouldn’t have mass death at 4 C.”
Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and a leading researcher on climate tipping points and “safe boundaries” for humanity, projects that in a 4 C warmer world, “it’s difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that.”
Hans Shellenhuber suggests that if we get to around 2c or thereabouts, 4c is inevitable becase of cascading tipping points we won't be able to stop.
voluntary family planning provision and promotion achieved rapid fertility decline, even in poor, rural and illiterate communities.
I'd assumed that family planning was more quickly adopted in wealthier areas where people had greater expectations that their kids would survive. Interesting to learn that that's not necessarily true.
10 billion is possible but so is 16 billion if we all eat cardboard and roach pellets.
we are already over carrying capacity socialism doesnt prevent people from continuing environmental destruction. A socialist Iphone ..ahem.. WePhone^TM^ destroys the environment just as much. we are already ballls deep into a mass extinction, giving the proles more money just accelerates the ability to be rapacious shitbags.
Projections based on education and income as drivers of fertility decline ignore the reverse causation, that lowering fertility through family planning interventions enabled economic advancement and improved women’s education access
Interesting. I'd noticed that the best-known projections were unreasonably optimistic in some ways when you look at them in detail, but this angle is novel to me.
mdpi.com
Hot