Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Who are these people? (Score 2) 394

by BoberFett (#49137827) Attached to: Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

You're referring of course to the billions of people around the world who drive cars, use electricity, burn trees for heat, or any other activity which contributes to climate change, yes?

Convince the world to go back to a pre-industrial standard of living, and all the industry funded "science" in the world won't make a difference. There won't BE a fossil fuel industry.

Comment: Re:Aggression (Score 1) 532

by BoberFett (#49103095) Attached to: Stephen Hawking: Biggest Human Failing Is Aggression

What? Why would anyone voluntarily report to jail for tax avoidance. Come and get me assholes!

Now what are you going to do in your aggression-free world?

And aren't garnishment and liens aggression? What would you call it today if the US just took things from other countries? Wouldn't that be aggression? Aren't taxes themselves aggression? Taking something from someone - in this case the fruit if their labor - without their permission?

Life is aggression.

Comment: Re: Technology can NOT eliminate work. (Score 1) 389

by BoberFett (#49083613) Attached to: What To Do After Robots Take Your Job

Ah, you must be coming from the ridiculous view that consumption is contributing, therefore merely being a consumer and producing nothing is admirable, because being a consumer gives the producers something to do. There are people who do not contribute; they do not produce anything. They only consume. A guaranteed income will increase that segment of people who wish to do nothing but consume. Hell, if I didn't have to actually earn the right to consume food, clothing and shelter I might be tempted to spend my days doing nothing too. Get up when I want, go where I want whenever I want, and let some other poor sap spending his time producing so that I can consume. Until all jobs are eliminated and robots and computers produce everything, there's always somebody required to produce.

Further, your characterization of money as somebody being able to interfere is completely unfounded, and another symptom of your faulty thinking. There's an inherent requirement to produce which is universal and unavoidable, caused by existence as we know it. People need to eat and have shelter from the elements. Needs aren't imposed by people with money, it's biology. Beyond needs, people also have wants. To meet those needs and wants, a person has two choices: produce their own goods, or provide a service to other people who will then provide those goods to you. Money merely abstracts the services you've provided to others. Government interference comes in the form of telling me how I'm allowed to meet my needs and wants (you must purchase product X, but are not allowed to purchase product Y), and then taking an ever larger piece of every exchange of value (when you purchase product X, we get a cut of your labor), so don't blame people with money for that. If people have money, it's because they produced something that others wanted, and have contributed. People without money do not produce. It's that simple. You can argue that the wealthy are disproportionately rewarded for what they produce, but the basic fact remains.

It's perfectly logical for a person to wish for minimal interference and be against consumption without corresponding production. If you can't understand that, it's not my fault.

When you go out to buy, don't show your silver.

Working...