I'm asking about a working definition, which is possible to detect in something other than oneself. The way you are defining it, you can't even tell if another human being has it or not, even after conducting laboratory experiments on the said human.

So actually it is implementation specific - about some implementations (humans) you assume they are feeling it, without any scientific test, just because they behave in a certain way while actually possibly not feeling it. But for other implementations (robots) , you don't give any way they can "feel" as per your definition.

BTW does behaving as if they are feeling a sense of accomplishment count? That is all you can detect anyway. Robots could do that one day.

No one can stop him from ordering. If all else fails, he can create a website of his own from which to order.

Where the story stops making sense is the lack of motivation of any one to deliver. Or to make (and maintain) a machine to deliver. Or to make (and maintain) a machine to make (and maintain) a machine to deliver.

It is like asking show me a person above 80 kgs of weight who is simultaneously below 30 kgs of weight.

Communistic society and free market don't go together. Same as being lighter than 30 kg and heavier than 80 kgs don't go together.

Democratic government, with current human tendency, almost doesn't go with either of these, but that depends on what the particular set of voters vote for among other factors. So it is like saying show me a person which blood sugar level of above 400 mg/dL for 40 years and still has perfectly functioning kidneys, heart, brain and eyes. Possible, but highly unlikely.

"Feel a sense of accomplishment" is defined by some chemicals flowing through some parts of human body. One could make robots that are human shaped and make that chemical flow in analogous parts of their "body". Nothing special about that.

If "Feel a sense of accomplishment" is not defined like that, how else is it defined ?

Bruce Lee summed it up - "Before I started martial arts, a punch was a punch and a kick was a kick. When I started martial arts, a punch was no longer a punch and a kick was no longer a kick. When I understood martial arts, a punch was a punch and a kick was a kick."

Most people are stuck at the second level - stuck in technicalities. Few people ever reach the third level - where a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick, not because of ignorance of technicalities. But because they have transcended the technicalities.

Ok, that is interesting. I read a lot of "economists" and I don't get the impression that they are doing what I would call science. My impressions, compressed in a sentence, amount to the lack of consensus among premier economists about non-trivial, falsifiable and reproducible hypotheses.

Physicists have that consensus about of lots of such hypotheses, "economists" that I read don't. Would I not get such an impression if I were reading "real" economists as defined by you? Or do you disagree that this lack of consensus is a serious obstacle in economics becoming a "science" ?

If they didn't understand "islands of causality", why do you think they "understand" the expression multiverse? Or, rather, what do you think they understand from the expression ?

Vegetarian (microbial "rennet") cheese has been developed to quite a perfection. Yes all the million kinds of cheese cannot be made vegetarian, but enough variety can be, and it is the sole variety sold in Muslim (and even Hindu) majority markets.

While Muslims don't mind eating meat, a mix of dairy and meat is prohibited in Islam so they can't eat the calf rennet cheese. Of course cow is sacred for Hindus, so any food remotely associated with cow slaughter is no go.

In short, not eating cheese for this reason is not justified any more.

We have outsourced a lot of our digestion to gut flora. So a lot of evolution has been of those rather than human anatomy itself. Digesting this way makes us more flexible, by using the gut flora as pluggable modules.

Though I wouldn't disagree much if you say gut flora ARE part of human anatomy.

Feel free to reply to my specific arguments here.

It was obviously in the future tense. So was your post to which I replied, and the thread context came from the reference to pure future - no present tense involved ("about what's coming next").

Yep, extrapolation trumps all logic. Nobody ever went wrong following Alan Greenspan right, the infinite extrapolation guy ?

Proof? Justification? Proof by confident assertion? New jobs requiring old people that have worked 30 years in other industries that will not die for 30 more years ?

Your story so far did have justification. But when it lead to the very thing you said is to be afraid of, you need to venture into pure dreamland to make your point.

Ok, some products can be used tenfold. Many goods/services don't have infinitely scalable demand - how many cars can you drive at once? How many restaurants you can eat in at once?

Your error is making assertions without any justification or proof.

Yes, I've seen multiple times when inconsistency in one's own country's policies is admired. They call it patriotism in many places.

Then you don't understand the tactics developing countries used to levy import duties, and the exhortations US made to them to remove them when it suited the US.