Automation – The Savior – Not The Destroyer

There is a lot of doom and gloom about the future, technology, automation and employment.

Previously, I have written about sweat shops and the coming automation in the making of clothing. Automation faces many hurdles.

One of those hurdles is that the costs have to offer a return on investment compared to traditional manufacturing technologies.

Even if that technology is centuries old. Using people to manufacture clothing – in the present era (starting at least 100 years ago) is the sweat shop. In this recent article it is reported that workers earned £3 an hour to manufacture clothing for high end retailers.

That dress you are wearing – and paid $200 for? The person making it took less than an hour and was paid like $4 for their entire hour.

So, who is making the money? Well, the retailers are making the money – and they apply pressure to the manufacturers to provide the lowest prices.

So, automation. It is going to take jobs. Some jobs need to go away. The sweat shop needs to go away. Ironically, since they pay so little it will take longer before automation penetrates in to this market.

People will not have health care to make that dress.

People will not have enough money to survive to make those jeans.

People will work in dangerous environments with high risk of fire – to make those undies.

It needs to stop.

Oh, and just a side note. There is a reason we have regulations and laws. It is because businesses cannot be trusted to behave in an ethical manner. You can complain about the costs to businesses because of all these regulations, but the fact of the matter is that businesses as a whole will reduce costs to the lowest they can regardless of industry and will break rules, behave unethically and endanger the lives of their customers and employees simply to maximize profits.

So, the ship where we have low number of regulations and laws and people are treated well – that ship has sailed. The ship we are on now, where you have to document workers hours, how much you paid them, and are forced to treat them properly – because you have to (not because you choose to – that is the ship we are on now.

Business – Doing Business in the Bathroom

In recent times people have been talking about bathrooms in public places. People with specific equipment belong in specific bathrooms or people with different thoughts of self belong in specific bathrooms.

All of it is crazy – and I will tell you why.

Way back…. In the dawn of business – businesses got bigger. Having 1 bathroom for each sex wasn’t enough. Some businesses might have just added more individual bathrooms – but other businesses – the ones that the businesses of the present have modeled their bathrooms after choose to have multiple stalls and sinks in a single bathroom.

Obviously, under this model it was unacceptable to have unisex bathrooms anymore. So, to make multiple stalls in a bathroom acceptable only 1 sex could be in each bathroom. This way, no men would be shocked by powerful gas emerging from women and no women would have a chance of being caught naked by a male.

And all was well, or was it.

Businesses (office businesses and commercial/retail businesses) got to save money. How did they save money – let me count the ways

  1. Lower construction costs of building facilities.
  2. Lower costs of maintenance – for example, you will almost always see more stalls/urinals than there are sinks. This is money saving and accounting in action.
  3. Lower costs of real estate – by consolidating multiple bathrooms in a single bathroom, less space is used. This in turn results in lower costs on space that doesn’t earn money (in commercial/retail businesses) or reduces non-production space in office buildings.

So – this issue that has developed – has nothing to do with morality, what sex you physically possess, what sex you identify with – and everything to do with money.

What would be the recommendation to defuse this entire situation? Individual bathrooms in all businesses that currently have multiple stall bathrooms. Yes, it will cost money. Businesses can stand to lose a little money and they will in turn get money back on their taxes for making capital changes to their facilities.

It is wrong to force moral choices just because you as a business of any type, want to save money.

Redesigning Secular Government

I’m going to start a series of articles exploring the primary documents of secular government in the United States of America.

Starting with the Constitution of the United States of America – and then working my way through laws – pointing out problems that lead to our current society, why they are problems and what the solutions are to those problems.

At some point there will be new countries, new governments, new places – they may even be virtual in nature or they may simply be geographically not on this planet (Earth). We need to understand the major problems of our current governments and do our best to provide a helping hand for them to do better than we have done here on Earth.

In addition, I intend to go through practices that have been allowed under our present government, indicated why they are wrong, and perhaps codify what needs to be said at the highest level of government in order to prevent these things from happening again.

In addition, there will be other articles probing the nature of government. After all, if government exists to care for its people – then welfare is not a point for argument. If the nature of government is only to protect the people from external threats, but if they starve, die of exposure, or kill each other – then welfare should not happen, gun restrictions should not happen, and a whole slew of other impacts are the logical path.

Spoiler – the power of any government is determined by the power and safety of that government’s people. Therefore, the government exists to care for people – at least to the point of assuring that people have a safe place to live, plenty of food, and education to become something better for the future.

Series : Everyday Inhuman Humans – Day 10 7/14/2016

The robots are here.

Not only do we have to worry about the humans being inhuman to other humans, but we have robots to deal with now.

In this case – a robot accidentally knocks over a toddler and runs the toddler over.

It appears this robot was actually fully autonomous, if still very primitive. The fact that it didn’t detect the child, even after running the child over and would have proceeded to run over it with another wheel is worrisome.

This whole scenario reminds me of the traffic light sensors installed in many states that ensure traffic lights change when there are vehicles waiting. Except that they don’t work for all vehicles. I ride a motorcycle and I know for a fact that there have been lights that I’ve sat at until a car has pulled up behind me, or some that I’ve had to make a right turn and make a u-turn and then another right turn to continue through the light.

We are on weak ground at the moment for automation, AI, and it seems automated traffic signals.

Testing in crucial for any piece of software. If you automate file transformation you test it.

However; there are no standards of what an automated robot should be able to do. Companies are testing these robots, closing one eye, spitting on them and saying , “yeah, it is ready.” Who knows what they have tested properly?

The problem with the toddler getting run over by a autonomous robot and the traffic light not working for motorcycles is the same problem. The companies tested for the common case, adults in the case of the autonomous robot that ran over a toddler, cars and trucks in the case of the automatic traffic light, and the exceptional but normal cases they did not test for, smaller humans and small vehicles such as motorcycles in the case of the automated traffic lights.

Not only that, but it is unclear who is responsible if say this robot killed some toddler. Or if the traffic light caused a biker to be killed for that matter.

Is the coder responsible? Is it the company that made the device? The company that owns and operates the device? Is it the device itself? A combination of all of them (that seems to be the tactic of the lawyers these days)?

The lack of government standards or laws controlling the creation of automation technology is a huge problem just as it will be a huge problem when AI or the codops (Computerized Doppelgangers) come in to existence.

The time to write intelligent, coherent, and effective legislation that will prevent fatalities in these cases of simple automation is already passed. Now, we need legislation to prevent future injuries or fatalities.

The major problem is who can create such legislation? Certainly not the sitting congress that are in many cases barely literate, corporate controlled, and unable to create functional laws unless motivated by self-protection of their interests.